If you want to see an example of corrupt umpiring switch to the GC v North game... I've been watching the first qtr and the bias toward North is disgraceful... I can't watch anymore... GC forward takes mark which is displaced by Thompson whacking him over the shoulder, "Play On".... GC backman marks clearly in front of pack... "free kick North for blocking!

Seems Essendon and Collingwood get to choose if they take advantage when a free is awarded. Would have been nice for us last week.

14 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Seems Essendon and Collingwood get to choose if they take advantage when a free is awarded. Would have been nice for us last week.

...and in the second quarter they got to choose what angle to goal they wanted....

7 hours ago, Redleg said:

Didn't notice the umpires at all last night, so they get a tick from me.

That is one of the benchmarks of a game well-umpired: umpires not really noticed. Few calls against decisions, few calls for decisions.

Still haven't worked out the difference between sliding into a soccer like tackle to make contact and take out the legs of an opponent and a player laying on the ground or bending over to pick up the ball who is contacted (note: not makes contact with) by an opponent. Two decisions in the last quarter (one each way) were telling.

Those who make the rules cannot resist expanding the remit of their new rules. What was a simple protective measure to prevent dangerous play is now expanding to cover issues where there is no danger. Without the last second sliding or diving, the rule should have no application.

 

42 minutes ago, tiers said:

Still haven't worked out the difference between sliding into a soccer like tackle to make contact and take out the legs of an opponent and a player laying on the ground or bending over to pick up the ball who is contacted (note: not makes contact with) by an opponent. Two decisions in the last quarter (one each way) were telling.

Those who make the rules cannot resist expanding the remit of their new rules. What was a simple protective measure to prevent dangerous play is now expanding to cover issues where there is no danger. Without the last second sliding or diving, the rule should have no application.

 

all the new rules seem to get expanded and then interpreted too technically in a way that defies common sense and any feel for the game. additionally many players start to exploit new rules in ways never originally intended

so a new rule brought in for possibly a good reason (though sometimes just an over-reaction) ends up impacting in many ways not intended.

umpires need to given more rein to use common sense in order to ignore the inconsequential technical breeches. e.g. the reserved zone, the third man up joke etc

and a simple solution to the 30 sec rule is to not have one and just stop the clock until the kick is taken (no running down the clock). if a player is wasting time (not clock time) then ump has the power to say '5 seconds', 'move it on' or 'play on' if ignored 

I have previously suggested that we collate stats and analysis to demonstrate objectively that, in recent years, the umpiring has tended to favour, by a noticeable margin, opposition teams when playing against the dees.

I suggest the we should also collate examples of over technical and strict liability technical breeches that have had no impact on a fair contest but that deny the traditions of our great game and improperly affect a contest (eg. hand in the back without a push, jumper pulls when two players are contesting a mark) to present to those that write and interpret the rules.

It is also clear that the rules need to be re-written with a focus on safety, promoting a fair contest and enhancing the appeal of our great game. When we were kids we knew only a small number of simple to understand and interpret rules eg push in the back, trip, kicking in danger, round the neck, handball with a closed fist, holding/dropping the ball and bouncing every 10 yards (in those days). All could be written on a single quarto or foolscap page (before A4), folded neatly and carried in a sock. That was enough to umpire a great game of footy.

The wordy, confusing, anachronistic, ambiguous and legalistic rules of today are an appalling example of the failure of the administrators, who we entrust with the solemn duty to protect and preserve our great game, to maintain the great game that we have loved all our lives.

 

I was pleased to see that loveable Scott brother whinge in the press about the 50m rule.  I wish we did too, but I guess it is easier to whinge about 3 penalties when you win by 37 points than when you lose by 2.  His remark below is right on.

"It will frustrate me even more if the umpires say that technically they were correct, because if they were technically correct then technically you missed 20 others.

If you watched the West coke vs GWS game there was clear AFL assistance in play for GWS to get them and keep them in the game. Teams get slaughtered by the umps over there except GWS

17 hours ago, Deemania since 56 said:

That is one of the benchmarks of a game well-umpired: umpires not really noticed. Few calls against decisions, few calls for decisions.

I wrote this in another thread, perhaps the wrong one, but now they've proved themselves to be able to adjudicate fairly, that takes incompetence out of the equation. So what would the other potential reasons be for their poor and biased decisions?

5 minutes ago, FireInTheBelly said:

I wrote this in another thread, perhaps the wrong one, but now they've proved themselves to be able to adjudicate fairly, that takes incompetence out of the equation. So what would the other potential reasons be for their poor and biased decisions?

That is the silent logic that the AFL and the umpires do not credit to spectators/football followers: when the umpires ... proved themselves to be able to adjudicate fairly ... incompetence is not part of the equation. Ergo, it can then only be favouritism for another purpose. Well posited, FiTB.

Fair adjudication does not equate with competence. It just implies an even outcome for both sides.

On 7/6/2018 at 11:03 AM, Redleg said:

This can add to your distress. Against Port we had twice as many F50's than Port did. We did not receive 1 single free kick in our F50 for the whole game. That means that not 1 single infringement by Port was deemed to have happened by the Umpires. That is just unbelievable when we have double the F50's of an opponent.

To make matters worse, a doubtful mark and goal was paid to Wingard and a couple of 50's and goals were handed to Port. None were given to us and a goal was taken off Melksham for a man on man block, as called by the umpire, which doesn't exist and then a mark was taken off Brayshaw 20 out, directly in front, in the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

That is quite incredible considering we were awarded a total of 24 free kicks for the game. If you put that together with the i50 stat, where we had 69 to their 39, it's safe to assume a large portion of the game was played inside our forward 50, yet every single free kick was paid in other parts of the ground. Wow.

May I ask Mr Leg, do you have data on free kick locations, or is that just from watching the game? I'm hoping the data is available for all games.....

1 hour ago, FireInTheBelly said:

That is quite incredible considering we were awarded a total of 24 free kicks for the game. If you put that together with the i50 stat, where we had 69 to their 39, it's safe to assume a large portion of the game was played inside our forward 50, yet every single free kick was paid in other parts of the ground. Wow.

May I ask Mr Leg, do you have data on free kick locations, or is that just from watching the game? I'm hoping the data is available for all games.....

Yes, the Sun prints the frees at the bottom of the player stats and states the location they were paid, D50, Mid, F50.

5 hours ago, tiers said:

Fair adjudication does not equate with competence. It just implies an even outcome for both sides.

Fair and even are not synonymous.

Can someone who reads the Hun please provide an analysis of free kick locations for as many games as possible. How many D50, Mid and F50 game by game over the season and then compare with scores.

Do they also break down the source of the goals especially those from frees and/or 50m penalties.

So much better than anecdotal evidence.

1 hour ago, Chook said:

Fair and even are not synonymous.

Technically and literally correct but one would expect that, if the umpiring is fair to both sides, then the outcomes should be relatively even.

17 minutes ago, tiers said:

Technically and literally correct but one would expect that, if the umpiring is fair to both sides, then the outcomes should be relatively even.

That's assuming the sides play to the rules evenly. They don't. The best team isn't the fairest team, and the worst team isn't the most unfair. It's a crapshoot…which kind of helps explain the umpires' lack of consistency. Not that it excuses it or anything.

Sigh, if only MFC had the numbers:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-07-10/woosha-wants-a-meeting-with-the-umpires

This makes me mad. We get bent over week after week with dubious decisions by the umpiring. Yet here Woosha get up and has a crack. Where is Goodwin or other leaders at the club protesting about the run we get with them. Stand for something! Bloody annoying. 

how come essendrugs can get a special and exclusive review of umpiring

just another "clarko breakfast with gill" occasion

Notice how the outcome of the clarko breakfast cost us a goal against Freo. Hibbert jostling with his opponent for a mark when Fritsch rolls across both and takes the mark.

With Fritsch's late arrival, it was clear that Hibbert was not blocking but jostling for position. The umpire, who clearly lacked the feel for the situation and the game, saw it as a block and penalised Hibbert.

A block is where a player stands in front of, or shepherds, an opponent to prevent the opponent contesting the mark with a team mate who was in position first and waiting for the mark. How hard is it?

Let's build a data base with curiouser and curiouser decisions for the rules committee to respond.

Four umpires working as a team will bring greater consistency! Says Derek Humphrey-hyphen!

Please go back to two umpires, only have to find 18 each weekend who have some idea! 

My God going from 27 blind mice to 36 each weekend, I hate the thought!!!!!!!!!

18 minutes ago, D4Life said:

Four umpires working as a team will bring greater consistency! Says Derek Humphrey-hyphen!

Derek "Iraqi Information Minister" Humphrey-Smith has never seen an umpiring decision that can't be defended. Somehow they are all correct. No wonder he thinks 4 umps is a good thing. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

On 7/9/2018 at 9:02 PM, tiers said:

Can someone who reads the Hun please provide an analysis of free kick locations for as many games as possible. How many D50, Mid and F50 game by game over the season and then compare with scores.

Do they also break down the source of the goals especially those from frees and/or 50m penalties.

So much better than anecdotal evidence.

I did read in breakdown of free kicks given to all teams ....Melb received the most goals from frees in their forward 50...(courtesy ofHerald Sun)