On 9/6/2021 at 4:58 PM, 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?

John Beckwith used to kick it to his mum in the crowd every week. Was an expert at it.

Nearly two-third of the Bulldog's free kick differential is four players:

Liberatore 32-24
McCrae 41-28
Hunter 32-8
Bontempelli 41-33

It's a midfield thing.

2 hours ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

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.

i too wondered about the duryea out of bounds.

but watching replays it looked more like cameron pushed the ball onto his feet. maybe he was lucky and the ump deemed it unavoidable or accidental, but i'm sure a different umpire might have seen it differently

49 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

Nearly two-third of the Bulldog's free kick differential is four players:

Liberatore 32-24
McCrae 41-28
Hunter 32-8
Bontempelli 41-33

It's a midfield thing.

good pickup, maurie......and hunter dominates that group

55 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i too wondered about the duryea out of bounds.

but watching replays it looked more like cameron pushed the ball onto his feet. maybe he was lucky and the ump deemed it unavoidable or accidental, but i'm sure a different umpire might have seen it differently

I think it wasn't paid because the ump was behind Cameron and Duryea, and couldn't see which boot hit the ball.

I can't help but think , if the Dees were in that situation, the Ump would have run in triumphantly signalling deliberate.

But I'm hopelessly one-eyed. ( and will remain so).

3 hours ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

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.

That wasn't a free kick for deliberate and I'm glad as [censored] it wasn't paid. You'd have felt the same way if it was us, not the Dogs.

The worst one of the late decisions was to not penalise Dale for holding the ball when he dragged it in and made no attempt to get rid of it. Blatantly HTB. Led to the Bailey Smith goal.

The deviation from the mark should start from immediate play stoppage, not when the dopey umpire is being side tracked by other peripheral issues.

It's possible that with professional umpires, they would train to know which umps should be watching the ball and which ones watching off the ball, downfield or wherever the situation calls for.

They could pay delisted or retired players who still want to be involved to role play different game day situations, over and over as required.

But no, we can't have that. A couple of current umps have highly paid day jobs, and even though umpiring is their side gig, the AFL wrings its hands and doesn't know how to get around that. The game is being held to ransom.

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

That wasn't a free kick for deliberate and I'm glad as [censored] it wasn't paid. You'd have felt the same way if it was us, not the Dogs.

The worst one of the late decisions was to not penalise Dale for holding the ball when he dragged it in and made no attempt to get rid of it. Blatantly HTB. Led to the Bailey Smith goal.

Hey, Titan  ,I don't  know how you can be so absolutely definite the Duryea soccer kick wasn't deliberate.

I reckon the TV footage shows it was undeniably "deliberate" , under the current interpretation of the law.

Did he make an attempt to keep the ball in play?  No....his soccer kick had the best possible result ...out of bounds.

Did he intend to kick it out?(knowing that would be a great result)  It wouldn't matter,   if a Dee had done it....deliberate!!! Somehow the "Scraggers" have the umps in their pocket.  Their ability to be on the right side of 50:50s has won them another Final.( as in the 2016GF).

Edited September 8, 20213 yr by Jumping Jack Clennett
punctuation

3 hours ago, mauriesy said:

Nearly two-third of the Bulldog's free kick differential is four players:

Liberatore 32-24
McCrae 41-28
Hunter 32-8
Bontempelli 41-33

It's a midfield thing.

That also doesn't take into account the free kicks not given against them for throwing and other indiscretions that are overlooked.

2 hours ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

Hey, Titan  ,I don't  know how you can be so absolutely definite the Duryea soccer kick wasn't deliberate.

I reckon the TV footage shows it was undeniably "deliberate" , under the current interpretation of the law.

Did he make an attempt to keep the ball in play?  No....his soccer kick had the best possible result ...out of bounds.

Did he intend to kick it out?(knowing that would be a great result)  It wouldn't matter,   if a Dee had done it....deliberate!!! Somehow the "Scraggers" have the umps in their pocket.  Their ability to be on the right side of 50:50s has won them another Final.( as in the 2016GF).

I don't think you can reasonably say he kicked it. In the heat of that very difficult moment, if what he did is considered a free kick, a defender has almost no viable opportunity to contest that ball.

16 hours ago, daisycutter said:

good pickup, maurie......and hunter dominates that group

Hunter's a ducker like Selwood

All we can hope for is to be given a fair go v the cats 

5 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

All we can hope for is to be given a fair go v the cats 

Yep, not to notice the umpires too much would be great

19 hours ago, Kaiser Bill said:

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

The Demons/Cats PF is going to be a widespread challenge to Geelong's free kick differential superiority, as indicated above. All of  my AFL-supporting mates (from all teams in the League) reckon the Geelong players get blatant and false frees from the umpires as 'specialist umpiring assistance' - and their opposition teams week in, week out receive very little recognition via frees of Geelong's misapplication of the rules of the game (ie: only a limited number of frees awarded to Geelong's opponents). This is now so endemic, widespread and predicatable that any match played against Geelong by any other team has modified rules and umpiring, and different umpire conduct than any other matches in the fixture. Surely, in something as focussed to the public as a PF, the AFL will do something that is fair on a level playing field with their controls over the umpires, particularly since this unfathomable free kick differential is now the talk of the general footballing public and its widespread consciousness.

This thread will really fire up if it's a Dees/Dogs Grand Final!!!

19 hours ago, mauriesy said:

Nearly two-third of the Bulldog's free kick differential is four players:

Liberatore 32-24
McCrae 41-28
Hunter 32-8
Bontempelli 41-33

It's a midfield thing.

I'd love to compare this with their clearance numbers. How many clearances do they win with no free kick involved.

Be like Charlie Spargo! After going 3-7 last year, this year he's 25-14.

Our free kick differentials this year. With a few exceptions, midfielders get them, backs and bulls give them away.:

Baker 0-0
Bowey 1-6
Brayshaw 10-19
Ben Brown 6-5
Mitch Brown 0-2
Chandler 0-2
Fritsch 15-20
Gawn 31-29
Harmes 20-24
Hibberd 16-10
Hunt 16-19
Jackson 22-11
Jetta 4-2
Jones 3-4
Jordon 18-9
Langdon 14-8
Lever 21-22
May 14-17
McDonald 22-26
Melksham 3-10
Neal-Bullen 30-20
Oliver 41-44
Petracca 21-27
Petty 10-14
Pickett 20-18
Rivers 7-13
Salem 12-18
Smith 1-2
Sparrow 12-14
Spargo 25-14
Tomlinson 2-6
Vandenburg 0-4
Viney 22-15
Weideman 3-1

24 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

Our free kick differentials this year. With a few exceptions, midfielders get them, backs and bulls give them away.:

Baker 0-0
Bowey 1-6
Brayshaw 10-19
Ben Brown 6-5
Mitch Brown 0-2
Chandler 0-2
Fritsch 15-20
Gawn 31-29
Harmes 20-24
Hibberd 16-10
Hunt 16-19
Jackson 22-11
Jetta 4-2
Jones 3-4
Jordon 18-9
Langdon 14-8
Lever 21-22
May 14-17
McDonald 22-26
Melksham 3-10
Neal-Bullen 30-20
Oliver 41-44
Petracca 21-27
Petty 10-14
Pickett 20-18
Rivers 7-13
Salem 12-18
Smith 1-2
Sparrow 12-14
Spargo 25-14
Tomlinson 2-6
Vandenburg 0-4
Viney 22-15
Weideman 3-1

Our free kick stats are more like you would expect.The Dogs are outliers.

 

40 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

Our free kick differentials this year. With a few exceptions, midfielders get them, backs and bulls give them away.:

....

At last an explanation for why the Dogs do so well with frees. Nothing to do with being first at the ball etc. They just don't have any backs or bulls. 🤔

On 9/9/2021 at 11:23 AM, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

This thread will really fire up if it's a Dees/Dogs Grand Final!!!

It hasn't!!!

But I hope we get the same umps in the GF  that we had last Friday!

They were hardly noticeable... but I always feel embarrassed  on the rare occasions we get more frees than the opposition!

We finished above the Dogs, so we should get choice of umps!

On 9/8/2021 at 1:31 PM, Mazer Rackham said:

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.

Never. It would lead to many ugly instances of players shepherding it out or not trying to get the ball.  Very ugly indeed. 
Even worse, if possible, than the “statue on mark” rule: it is totally against every basic instinct to stand still while an opponent runs past. Sure, clamp down on running forward of the mark, but laterally?! SHocking rule. 

1 hour ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

It hasn't!!!

But I hope we get the same umps in the GF  that we had last Friday!

They were hardly noticeable... but I always feel embarrassed  on the rare occasions we get more frees than the opposition!

We got the better of it last Friday...although it wouldn't have made any difference. Don't want to see Stevic out there as he is no good, and he also was one who umpired the 2016 GF which was a performance appalling enough that none of those umpires should do another GF.

As you have stated, hope they choose 3 who just don't want to be noticed. The umps on Friday let the game go a lot, especially early, which I personally would prefer 100% as a player or a spectator. If you're not 100% sure there was an infringement then let it go.

Time to let the players decide who gets to bring the cup home.