Free Kick Differential 2021

[Sir Why You Little 34,700]

Excellent Twitter Account 

Worth following 

[Macca 16,173]

Winner - I thought the umpiring was good tonight, I didn't notice them

Opposition supporter (Loser) - It's the umpires fault, they are cheats

Winner - Yeah you're right, the umpiring was bad, for both sides (patronising, condescending)

 

Edited September 4, 2021 by Macca

[TheWiz 707]

I'd like to see the number of rules addressed. Make it easier for the umpires, and it aligns to the AFL’s vision of faster footy. Kicking in danger and 360 degree tackles being holding the balls are hardly paid. Get rid of them. Put the focus on the ones that matter. I’d rather see less holding the man and more blocking players from competing in marks. That’s more exciting footy. IMO the AFL did a similar approach to rucks taking possession and it’s been fantastic for fast flowing footy.

Edited September 5, 2021 by TheWiz

[dworship 3,342]

On 8/31/2021 at 9:07 AM, Webber said:

The Bulldogs get a gifted run from the umps, that’s a statistical fact. The other fact is that there will be an overt correction on their free kick differential this weekend because it’s been a big media story. The AFL/Umps are nothing if not reactive to media influence. Not suggesting they lose the free kick count, that would be ridiculous, just an obvious correction, particularly in forward 50. Weightman may not get any.  

Apparently not!

[olisik 4,060]

Touched off the boot is a rule that can go also when kicking for goal. Always makes for painful score reviews. If it goes through just count it. 

[leave it to deever 16,013]

12 hours ago, TheWiz said:

I'd like to see the number of rules addressed. Make it easier for the umpires, and it aligns to the AFL’s vision of faster footy. Kicking in danger and 360 degree tackles being holding the balls are hardly paid. Get rid of them. Put the focus on the ones that matter. I’d rather see less holding the man and more blocking players from competing in marks. That’s more exciting footy. IMO the AFL did a similar approach to rucks taking possession and it’s been fantastic for fast flowing footy.

The insufficient intent has been one the umps have been all over the shop.

 

[Willmoy1947 3,808]

Five Razor Clones

[Little Goffy 12,727]

Did you know (yeah, you probably did but let's make it explicit):

In finals the Western Bulldogs average 50% more free kicks than their opposition.

Under Luke Beveridge, Bulldogs have lost every final where they lost the free kick count, and won every final where they won the free kick count.

[Macca 16,173]

7 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

The insufficient intent has been one the umps have been all over the shop.

It's a bad rule.  Another grey area open to interpretation

Last handpass, kick or directed punch away or tap away is the only rule that can go close to working.  So the Caleb Daniels & Angus Brayshaw kicks would be clear cut if that rule was in operation

Leave it as it is and there will be arguments aplenty (maybe that's what the AFL wants*)

Interesting that the rule that I'm suggesting was in place from around about 1926 through to around 1939

And no, I wasn't around in those days

 

*The conspiracy theorist lurks in all of us

Edited September 6, 2021 by Macca

[WalkingCivilWar 32,829]

9 minutes ago, Macca said:

Interesting that the rule that I'm suggesting was in place from 1926 through to 1939

Why do you think they changed it, Macca?

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

17 hours ago, olisik said:

Touched off the boot is a rule that can go also when kicking for goal. Always makes for painful score reviews. If it goes through just count it. 

I think touched kicks should not be goals. Just remove the score review of them and leave it to the umps "just like in olden days". In this case the score review has not added to the game at all.

 

6 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

The insufficient intent has been one the umps have been all over the shop.

Adopt the SANFL rule, which is roughly what Macca outlined above. Last clear possession. So much simpler, but the AFL have lost control of the refereeing of their sport and don't properly know why they have umpires at all.

[Macca 16,173]

1 minute ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Why do you think they changed it, Macca?

Don't know WCW

As it is, there is very little information available about the ruling at the time.  Quite scarce in fact, but it was a ruling

Google might help a bit more from the last time I searched (3 or 4 years ago)

I'm assuming the rule was brought in back then to stop teams hugging the boundary line (trying to waste time?) but who knows?

[WalkingCivilWar 32,829]

1 minute ago, Macca said:

Don't know WCW

As it is, there is very little information available about the ruling at the time.  Quite scarce in fact, but it was a ruling

Google might help a bit more from the last time I searched (3 or 4 years ago)

I'm assuming the rule was brought in back then to stop teams hugging the boundary line (trying to waste time?) but who knows?

It sounds like it would make sense to re-implement it. It would make things clearer. 

[Macca 16,173]

5 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

It sounds like it would make sense to re-implement it. It would make things clearer. 

Yeah, clearer!

Not sure that works with the narrative though haha

#pardonmycynicism

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

The SANFL out of bounds rule:

"The SANFL has decided to award a free kick against the team that kicks or handballs a ball out of bounds without being touched in a bid to lower the number of throw-ins and total stoppages.

"Players won't be penalised if they spoil or carry the ball over the line unless the umpire deems the action to be deliberate."

https://www.afl.com.au/news/92454/sanfls-bold-new-out-of-bounds-rule-and-50-rotations-per-game#:~:text=The SANFL has decided to award a free,the umpire deems the action to be deliberate.

 

 

Meanwhile, harking back to ye ancient times ...

1911 laws:

7. When the ball goes out of bounds, it shall be brought back to the spot where it crossed the boundary line, and be there thrown in by the umpire towards the centre of the playing space. Immediately the ball leaves the umpire’s hands it shall be in play. Should the ball drop out of bounds from a kick-off, a free kick shall be given to the opposite side at the spot where the ball went out of bounds.

(A kick-off meant after a behind was scored.)

 

1928 laws:

Free Kicks
3 7. The field umpire shall blow his whistle and give a free kick against any player who: —
...
(viii.) Kicks or forces the ball out of bounds without its being touched by another player, or takes the ball out of bounds, the free  to be given to the nearest opponent. If the field umpire is in doubt he shall direct the boundary umpire to immediately bounce the ball five yards inside the boundary line.

 

1944 laws:

FREE KICKS.
37. The field umpire shall blow his whistle and give a free kick against a player who:—
...
(viii) Wilfully kicks or forces the ball out of bounds without its being touched by another player, the free to be given to the nearest opponent. In all other cases of the ball being kicked, forced or taken out of bounds, he shall direct the boundary umpire 
to immediately throw the ball in over his head towards the centre of the field to a distance of between 10 and 15 yards and not less than 10 feet high.

 

After that, the next set of rules I have is from 2015, so not much use in terms of when they next changed out of bounds/out on the full. I think the "out on the full" rules was brought in because of Norm Smith and Brian Dixon. But clearly this has been on lawmakers' minds for a long time.

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

In Association Football (you know, the code of football that has tried to reserve the word "football" as its own exclusive possession), there is no doubt. Last touch = other side gets possession. No ifs or buts. No reading players' minds. All the players know it and accept it.

Of course the AFL loves reading players minds. So no chance of a clear cut rule, even if it's not as draconian as the one in Association Football.

[WalkingCivilWar 32,829]

11 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Meanwhile, harking back to ye ancient times ...

Thou art kind to furnish this wealth of information, for thine knowledge is hitherto unknown to dummies like me. 

Yeah nah thanks for posting that. I find this fascinating. 

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

11 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Thou art kind to furnish this wealth of information, for thine knowledge is hitherto unknown to dummies like me. 

Yeah nah thanks for posting that. I find this fascinating. 

No wuckers mate. Or, as paraphrased by the Duke of Edinburgh: thou hast a desirable lack of fornicating angst, o my brothers.

[Engorged Onion 9,411]

I'll just leave this here.

[sue 8,463]

On 9/6/2021 at 5:28 PM, Mazer Rackham said:

In Association Football (you know, the code of football that has tried to reserve the word "football" as its own exclusive possession), there is no doubt. Last touch = other side gets possession. No ifs or buts. No reading players' minds. All the players know it and accept it.

Of course the AFL loves reading players minds. So no chance of a clear cut rule, even if it's not as draconian as the one in Association Football.

But because it is less obvious who was last to touch it in the more crowded nature of AFL compaed to soccer (there I said it!), the AFL would introduce 'who last touched it' camera reviews. Wouldn't that be nice.

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

They shouldn't bring in the Association Football rule for out of bounds, but if the AFL ever change it again, it's even money that's what they'd do. Because AFL.

[jnrmac 19,205]

On 9/6/2021 at 4:39 PM, Macca said:

It's a bad rule.  Another grey area open to interpretation

Last handpass, kick or directed punch away or tap away is the only rule that can go close to working.  So the Caleb Daniels & Angus Brayshaw kicks would be clear cut if that rule was in operation

Leave it as it is and there will be arguments aplenty (maybe that's what the AFL wants*)

Interesting that the rule that I'm suggesting was in place from around about 1926 through to around 1939

And no, I wasn't around in those days

 

*The conspiracy theorist lurks in all of us

If we had last touch we would have 300 video reviews a game

[Macca 16,173]

1 minute ago, jnrmac said:

If we had last touch we would have 300 video reviews a game

Probably!

So whichever way it's adjudicated, there are issues

It's just that kind of sport ... unique in so many ways.  One grey area creates another grey area

My thinking has always been to be 5 goals better than the rest and if that is so, the law of averages will see the cards fall our way

Otherwise it's Que Sera Sera

However, we may not be 5 goals better than the rest like we were in the Smith days but this year is our best chance since those days (all things considered)

[Kaiser Bill 1]

Just thought I’d increase my anxiety by checking the cats free kick differential for the last few weeks.
24 - 17 v Giants
24 - 19 v Power
23 - 17 v Dees
26 - 23 v Saints
20 - 18 v Giants
14 - 8 v Roos

Always their favour

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,627]

I think the most significant decision in the game was the decision NOT to penalise  Duyrea(spelling?) for deliberate when he and Cameron chased the ball in the last few seconds. Would have been a shot for goal from about 45m out.....probably a crucial point.

So the pure free kick count doesn't reflect completely the good fortune a club receives from the umpires.

Also, another point of inconsistency of the umps is when they call play-on after a free or mark.  Sometimes they call "play on" when the player takes half a step off the line, then decides not to play on. Other times they don't call it.

Other possible benefits of umpiring decisions not reflected in the free count are.... how long they give a player before yelling play on, 10metre kicks marked and paid, throws not called, etc.

  The Dogs do well in all these adjudications, and have done so for decades.