Free Kick Differential 2021

[Smokey 4,388]

10 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

Yea your right. 25 to 11 frees on a very wet night had no impact whatsoever on the result.

I don't feel I said that at all. 

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

4 hours ago, Smokey said:

This is what you look like when you claim umpires are somehow conspiring to effect the result of games. It's just rubbish.  

I think the umpiring argument is about integrity of the game.

I am not upset about the Free Kick differential, I can't understand why in the same game you can have different interpretations of the rules. One second it's a free kick next minute no free kick given.

The AFL seriously needs to fix the integrity of the game.

Either make it easier to umpire the game by making the rules simpler or get better umpires because these rule interpretations are killing the game.

 

Edited July 27, 2021 by Unleash Hell

[sue 9,096]

6 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

I think the umpiring argument is about integrity of the game.

I am not upset about the Free Kick differential, I can't understand why in the same game you can have different interpretations of the rules. One second it's a free kick next minute no free kick given.

The AFL seriously needs to fix the integrity of the game.

Either make it easier to umpire the game by making the rules simpler or get better umpires because these rule interpretations are killing the game.

 

Consistency? A million miles away as things currently stand.  I posted elsewhere about in another match (can't recall which one it was)  the SAME umpire called a 20m+ kick 'play on' and when the player kicked it, he paid a mark for a 10m kick backwards.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,687]

What we have here is a Don Bradman problem. In theory, no-one should have a batting average so far from the normal range. But because Bradman did so, it's now not possible to say that the Bulldogs excessive free kick count is somehow not theoretically possible without some form of improper bias.

Nevertheless, there is clearly an issue here. Whether the problem is (1) with the umpires, (2) the rules or (3) the understanding of how best to play the game to take advantage of the rules is less clear. (For what it's worth I think the least likely option - and by a long way - is that it's somehow the umpires' fault.)

[Smokey 4,388]

18 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

What we have here is a Don Bradman problem. In theory, no-one should have a batting average so far from the normal range. But because Bradman did so, it's now not possible to say that the Bulldogs excessive free kick count is somehow not theoretically possible without some form of improper bias.

Nevertheless, there is clearly an issue here. Whether the problem is (1) with the umpires, (2) the rules or (3) the understanding of how best to play the game to take advantage of the rules is less clear. (For what it's worth I think the least likely option - and by a long way - is that it's somehow the umpires' fault.)

The issue is clearly the over-complication of the rules and interpretations. Nothing more. 

My comment was reserved for those who would suggest that umpires affecting the result of the game is a deliberate action. 

Edited July 27, 2021 by Smokey

[old dee 23,773]

16 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

What we have here is a Don Bradman problem. In theory, no-one should have a batting average so far from the normal range. But because Bradman did so, it's now not possible to say that the Bulldogs excessive free kick count is somehow not theoretically possible without some form of improper bias.

Nevertheless, there is clearly an issue here. Whether the problem is (1) with the umpires, (2) the rules or (3) the understanding of how best to play the game to take advantage of the rules is less clear. (For what it's worth I think the least likely option - and by a long way - is that it's somehow the umpires' fault.)

Agree LDC. The free kicks might actually have been there. 

[daisycutter 29,600]

3 hours ago, Youngwilliam said:

This is how Ed Richards got concussion. Ed saw Kozzi coming at him and the coaching Ed has received told him to buckle at the knees so the tackle would go high... except the tackle was a rugby tackle. Point of the shoulder aimed for the sternum. Lights out Richards. 

If these players want an easy free, make them earn it.

not quite right. shoulder tackles are illegal at least in nrl. must be an arm tackle with no turning sideways.    kozzi tackle was head to head.  both had heads lowered 

[old dee 23,773]

1 hour ago, Unleash Hell said:

I think the umpiring argument is about integrity of the game.

I am not upset about the Free Kick differential, I can't understand why in the same game you can have different interpretations of the rules. One second it's a free kick next minute no free kick given.

The AFL seriously needs to fix the integrity of the game.

Either make it easier to umpire the game by making the rules simpler or get better umpires because these rule interpretations are killing the game.

 

Not if you support the Dogs UH. They probably think it is just right. 

[Youngwilliam 381]

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

not quite right. shoulder tackles are illegal at least in nrl. must be an arm tackle with no turning sideways.    kozzi tackle was head to head.  both had heads lowered 

Shoulder tackles are fine. Shoulder charges are different and illegal.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

1 hour ago, old dee said:

Agree LDC. The free kicks might actually have been there. 

No doubt. I'd have been happy as a pig in mud as well. 

But if the AFL were serious (and I know they're not), they need to look at fixing bias and integrity of the rules.

It's a joke how inconsistent the umpiring is. Not only from game to game week to week but in game. I'm not sure any other leagues have the same umpiring integrity issues.

You can say oh it's part of the game but if 11 - 25 is acceptable variance, why even bother watching?

[Demonland 71,285]

Player	Club	Frees For
Joel Selwood	GEE	42
Patrick Cripps	CAR	39
Charlie Dixon	PA	35
Marcus Bontempelli	WB	34
Todd Goldstein	NM	34
Zach Merrett	ESS	33
Jack Macrae	WB	33
Clayton Oliver	MEL	32
Jy Simpkin	NM	32
Oscar McInerney	BRI	32

 

Player	Club	Frees Against
Patrick Cripps	CAR	37
Brodie Grundy	COL	37
Nat Fyfe	FRE	36
Zac Bailey	BRI	36
Marlion Pickett	RIC	34
Sean Darcy	FRE	33
Tom Hickey	SYD	32
Dayne Zorko	BRI	32
Clayton Oliver	MEL	31
Ben Cunnington	NM	31
Sam Walsh	CAR	31

[Willmoy1947 4,081]

I would put forward the hypothesis that Umpires can affect the results of games without there being a deliberate contrived premeditated effort but I hasten to add there may be imperceptible association.

[Star of the 80s 154]

Can’t believe I saw on social media some Bulldogs supporters claiming that they should have got more free kicks.

[Pates 9,659]

8 hours ago, daisycutter said:

not quite right. shoulder tackles are illegal at least in nrl. must be an arm tackle with no turning sideways.    kozzi tackle was head to head.  both had heads lowered 

When Kozzie lined up his tackle Richards was standing upright, when Richards saw Kozzie he ducked initiating the head clash. The head clash then meant that Kozzie couldn’t complete the tackle as normal as it turned it more into a clash of bodies. If Richards braces for that tackle with his body then he takes it in the midriff and is probably all good. 

Edited July 27, 2021 by Pates

[Deemania since 56 6,607]

18 hours ago, sue said:

you will get pinged if you don't jerk about even if it is clearly futile to do so).  If the AFL wants a free flowing game, then favour disposal attempts rather than incentivising a ball-up.

Ridiculous, isn't it? The problem from the umpires' points of view is that '...disposal attempts...' will take the 'showmanship' away from the umpires as 'thrashing about' with nowhere to go - or a totally fake disposal attempt itself - is arbitrated by the umpires as an ultimate theatrical, desperate and feigned honesty of intent in the game by 'players/fakers'. Thus, it is encouraged. It also provides an obvious highway for the umpires to intercede for the purposes of increasing the spectacle of the situation; it is a sign of umpire 'astute judgment' in their opinion; it is a useful tool in awarding frees - one way or the other - to particular football teams for the purposes of evening up or dominating that particular game, itself - achieved as conventional cheating.

These aspects (and several others) of our game push Aussie Rules backwards, towards and into continuous formative stages, across all games. Rules are conventionally manipulated by an actor's deliberated staging for the benefit of umpire powers. No wonder the concept of '...a level playing field...' is now the last consideration by the AFL in its oversight and intercession in the sporting arena.

 

 

[leave it to deever 17,511]

15 hours ago, Smokey said:

I don't feel I said that at all. 

Apologies for misrepresentation. My bad.

[titan_uranus 24,970]

The problem with analysing free kick counts is the erroneous but often held assumption that the free kick count should be even, or close to even, at the end of each game.

An inferior side is going to be caught holding the ball more, or will infringe in marking contests more. When you're more under pressure you'll tend to grab a jumper. So on and so forth.

An overly aggressive side may choose to give away free kicks to help pump up their "aggression" (Richmond may well do this, given they're so far in the negative for frees this year).

So it follows that the free kick count does not need to be even to indicate "fair' umpiring.

I felt on Saturday that the Dogs got the rub of the green - key 50/50 contests that could have gone either way would go the Dogs' way, but not ours. And the holding the ball call against Brayshaw late in the second was a momentum changer IMO. But that doesn't mean I think there is an umpiring conspiracy.

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,751]

12 hours ago, Star of the 80s said:

Can’t believe I saw on social media some Bulldogs supporters claiming that they should have got more free kicks.

Interesting you say that.

I went to the recent Dogs V Sydney game at Marvel where the Dogs won the free kick count 29-16, but the side itself put on a pretty ordinary performance overall in a 3 goal loss.

I couldn't believe my ears when I was in the car park lift post game and I heard a few Doggies supporters directly blaming the umpires rather than their sides performance for the loss.

Their supporters are going to be in for a rude shock when the tables turn and they lose a final via a controversial free kick.

[sue 9,096]

22 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

The problem with analysing free kick counts is the erroneous but often held assumption that the free kick count should be even, or close to even, at the end of each game.

An inferior side is going to be caught holding the ball more, or will infringe in marking contests more. When you're more under pressure you'll tend to grab a jumper. So on and so forth.

An overly aggressive side may choose to give away free kicks to help pump up their "aggression" (Richmond may well do this, given they're so far in the negative for frees this year).

So it follows that the free kick count does not need to be even to indicate "fair' umpiring.

I felt on Saturday that the Dogs got the rub of the green - key 50/50 contests that could have gone either way would go the Dogs' way, but not ours. And the holding the ball call against Brayshaw late in the second was a momentum changer IMO. But that doesn't mean I think there is an umpiring conspiracy.

True, the count in any individual game does not need to be even.  But when you look at those tables of net frees for the bulldogs (good team most of the year) it looks statistically a definite outlier (miles beyond the next most 'favoured' team), whereas the demons (good team most of the year) are close to the mean along with most other clubs.  It seems to me that it is very hard to explain away the dogs situation solely along the lines you suggest.  I expect there are other factors (without resorting to conspiracies).

[Pates 9,659]

24 minutes ago, sue said:

True, the count in any individual game does not need to be even.  But when you look at those tables of net frees for the bulldogs (good team most of the year) it looks statistically a definite outlier (miles beyond the next most 'favoured' team), whereas the demons (good team most of the year) are close to the mean along with most other clubs.  It seems to me that it is very hard to explain away the dogs situation solely along the lines you suggest.  I expect there are other factors (without resorting to conspiracies).

I think that’s it, most people cop the “bad days” with umpiring with the caveat that it swings about where one week you might get done over and the next week you’ll get a decent ride. It appears that the dogs aren’t getting that swing back and that’s where it’s a bit mystifying. Interestingly we were close to the top when we were in form though, so it definitely points that for us we are much more likely to be getting free kicks when we are at the top of our game (first to the ball, high pressure, better kicks creating marking infringements). 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

So, running the free kick differential through the old stats calculator, we find mean -0.1, standard deviation 31.8. All the team numbers fall comfortably with in 2 standard deviations, except for Dogs and Tiges approaching 3 sd (but not outside).

Chance of free kick diff of -74 or less: 1.1%

Chance of free kick diff of 80 or more: 0.6%

So, outliers, but not implausibly so. (If you had a 1% chance of dying tomorrow, you'd be pretty worried.)

[sue 9,096]

3 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

So, running the free kick differential through the old stats calculator, we find mean -0.1, standard deviation 31.8. All the team numbers fall comfortably with in 2 standard deviations, except for Dogs and Tiges approaching 3 sd (but not outside).

Chance of free kick diff of -74 or less: 1.1%

Chance of free kick diff of 80 or more: 0.6%

So, outliers, but not implausibly so. (If you had a 1% chance of dying tomorrow, you'd be pretty worried.)

good work.  Not totally implausible, but I think enough to cause you to investigate other possiblities.  Likewise for chance of dying.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,687]

4 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

So, running the free kick differential through the old stats calculator, we find mean -0.1, standard deviation 31.8. All the team numbers fall comfortably with in 2 standard deviations, except for Dogs and Tiges approaching 3 sd (but not outside).

Chance of free kick diff of -74 or less: 1.1%

Chance of free kick diff of 80 or more: 0.6%

So, outliers, but not implausibly so. (If you had a 1% chance of dying tomorrow, you'd be pretty worried.)

Why on earth would you choose to bring proper mathematical analysis into this debate? 

[FireInTheBennelly 4,072]

6 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

So, running the free kick differential through the old stats calculator, we find mean -0.1, standard deviation 31.8. All the team numbers fall comfortably with in 2 standard deviations, except for Dogs and Tiges approaching 3 sd (but not outside).

Chance of free kick diff of -74 or less: 1.1%

Chance of free kick diff of 80 or more: 0.6%

So, outliers, but not implausibly so. (If you had a 1% chance of dying tomorrow, you'd be pretty worried.)

Nice work. Which teams were already in that 0.6% bracket?

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

On 7/26/2021 at 5:08 PM, Demonland said:

We’re in the negative now 

 

Im ok with -7 or +/- 10 for that matter as its around the mark of being neutral.. But for crying out load +80 is absurd...What about the Tigers at -74 i would be equally livid if i was a Tigers supporter...I dont hear them carrying on about it too much though.

The interesting stat would be the differential trend line from week-to-week transposed with the umpires....now that would tell an interesting story.