Umpire Margetts is a bit of a bad-luck charm for Dees

[Chelly 812]

Umpires for tomorrow night are Simon Meredith (21), Andre Gianfagna (27) and Jacob Mollison (32). 

I expect them to be completely unbiased either way but two have a Melbourne connection. Gianfagna was once on Melbourne’s rookie list and I believe there’s a family connection with the Mollisons. 

[Demonstone 22,646]

On 7/6/2021 at 1:13 PM, Clintosaurus said:

Umps like Margetts seem to me to be following instructions, presumably from the umpires coach, but in reality from AFL HQ.

You still reckon it's all rigged?  Don't go changing Clint, you're always good for a chuckle.

[dworship 3,342]

1 hour ago, demonstone said:

You still reckon it's all rigged?  Don't go changing Clint, you're always good for a chuckle.

I don't know if it's a directive but I said to Mrs DW, you watch Mumford punch Max in the side of the head at least once and there will be no free kick. I had to wait till the 3rd qtr (I think), sure enough Mumford punches him in the side of the head hard enough to send Max to his knees. Margetts looking straight at the contact; "play on". In the last qtr you can clearly see the lump and bruising on the side of Max's head. Max has been wearing a beanie all week, including on the podcast. That could be the "Ruckman Code of Silence" or it could be he didn't want too many looking at it in case concussion was brought up.

[Skuit 10,031]

1 minute ago, dworship said:

I don't know if it's a directive but I said to Mrs DW, you watch Mumford punch Max in the side of the head at least once and there will be no free kick. I had to wait till the 3rd qtr (I think), sure enough Mumford punches him in the side of the head hard enough to send Max to his knees. Margetts looking straight at the contact; "play on". In the last qtr you can clearly see the lump and bruising on the side of Max's head. Max has been wearing a beanie all week, including on the podcast. That could be the "Ruckman Code of Silence" or it could be he didn't want too many looking at it in case concussion was brought up.

You clearly haven't been listening to the commentators for the past few years. Big Mummy would put the willies into anyone who has ever played the game past or present. Looked an absolute specimen on the weekend. Gawn was literally cowing. 

[dworship 3,342]

9 minutes ago, Skuit said:

You clearly haven't been listening to the commentators for the past few years. Big Mummy would put the willies into anyone who has ever played the game past or present. Looked an absolute specimen on the weekend. Gawn was literally cowing. 

What have I missed from the "Commentators".

Not sure what that has to do with umpires not paying frees against Mumford unless you mean the umpires are scared of him.

Gawn was having a Cow?

Edited July 7, 2021 by dworship

[Fanatique Demon 2,650]

On 7/6/2021 at 3:34 AM, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

When Margetts umpires the data suggests we're more likely to win because the law of large numbers (otherwise known as "the law of averages") would indicate that the win rate with games he umpires should move toward the mean (ie, to get from 24% to 36% would require us to win more than we lose).

Yes there is a law of large numbers but I’m not sure your interpretation is correct. It’s like saying that because heads won the last 5 coin tosses, the next is more likely to be tails. The next toss (next game) is independent of the previous tosses (games).

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,816]

11 hours ago, Fanatique Demon said:

Yes there is a law of large numbers but I’m not sure your interpretation is correct. It’s like saying that because heads won the last 5 coin tosses, the next is more likely to be tails. The next toss (next game) is independent of the previous tosses (games).

Where's a maths teacher when you need one? I can't explain it in simple terms, but while 5 heads in a row doesn't impact the next coin toss, over time, the number of heads and tails (assuming an unbiased coin) will eventually revert to the mean, which in this case is 50% heads and 50% tails.

If Margetts is impartial, then his performance in the next game he umpires is independent of the previous games he umpired. As such, games in which he is involved, if he's impartial, should over time have a win rate consistent with our long term win rate. If, however, he is not impartial, forget the law of large numbers. It doesn't apply. 

[In Harmes Way 7,800]

Dean Margetts is the dreaded umpire #6. No way he's impartial. 

[Clintosaurus 7,852]

14 hours ago, demonstone said:

You still reckon it's all rigged?  Don't go changing Clint, you're always good for a chuckle.

Not saying rigged, but in all elite level sports there is at least an element of manipulation by officials, NBA referees betting on the points spread and using free throws to achieve it being a prime example. For years I have said the NRL decides the top 8 before the season and uses the refs to make sure of it, and the AFL in my view is heading down that path.

Like it or not, it is sports entertainment these days and having top 2/4/8 up for grabs until Round 23 is good for ratings.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,816]

28 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Not saying rigged, but in all elite level sports there is at least an element of manipulation by officials, NBA referees betting on the points spread and using free throws to achieve it being a prime example. For years I have said the NRL decides the top 8 before the season and uses the refs to make sure of it, and the AFL in my view is heading down that path.

Like it or not, it is sports entertainment these days and having top 2/4/8 up for grabs until Round 23 is good for ratings.

I think "an element of manipulation" equals "rigged".

And I don't think it happens in AFL or NRL. (However, I note that Peter V'Landy's idea for NRL splitting into two conferences, one with all Sydney teams and one without, would ensure a Sydney team plays in the Grand Final every year. That's structural manipulation.) 

[Demonstone 22,646]

42 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Not saying rigged

I reckon you are if you claim that the AFL instructs umpires to influence the outcome of games.

Incidentally, you only make such claims when we are losing.  Is it also "manipulated" when we win?

You clearly have every right to believe that the competition is rigged/manipulated but in my opinion that is risible and as nonsensical as most other conspiracy theories.

[Ollie fan 3,421]

13 hours ago, dworship said:

I don't know if it's a directive but I said to Mrs DW, you watch Mumford punch Max in the side of the head at least once and there will be no free kick. I had to wait till the 3rd qtr (I think), sure enough Mumford punches him in the side of the head hard enough to send Max to his knees. Margetts looking straight at the contact; "play on". In the last qtr you can clearly see the lump and bruising on the side of Max's head. Max has been wearing a beanie all week, including on the podcast. That could be the "Ruckman Code of Silence" or it could be he didn't want too many looking at it in case concussion was brought up.

Yep, and Gawn had to go off the ground. Because of the “protected zone” we couldn’t get a replacement on and we’re down a player while GWS Kicked it into the forward line, where Himmelburg marked it at exactly the point where Max would normally have dropped into the hole, and they got a goal.

[Clintosaurus 7,852]

11 minutes ago, demonstone said:

I reckon you are if you claim that the AFL instructs umpires to influence the outcome of games.

Incidentally, you only make such claims when we are losing.  Is it also "manipulated" when we win?

I'm not saying the outcome of games directly, but certainly moments within. The 'rule of the week' impacts some teams more than others and has to have an impact on results. Team X might win by 8 points instead of 38. The even-upping of free kick counts late in games is another.

I am pretty sure I have said about the manipulation after we have won, although I would not say we get the help a team like the Bulldogs gets, or the Eagles playing at home. 2016 Grand Final certainly had a smell about it. Umps refused to pay Sydney even obvious frees.

[Doug Reemer 1,197]

On 7/5/2021 at 10:08 PM, waynewussell said:

Umpire Margetts started his illustrious AFL umpiring career in 2002. In the twenty years he has adorned the stage he has umpired 29 MFC games. We have won 8 of them! I think we should pay more attention to his appointments when tipping!

He is also a useless umpire.

[dworship 3,342]

2 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

Not saying rigged, but in all elite level sports there is at least an element of manipulation by officials, NBA referees betting on the points spread and using free throws to achieve it being a prime example. For years I have said the NRL decides the top 8 before the season and uses the refs to make sure of it, and the AFL in my view is heading down that path.

Like it or not, it is sports entertainment these days and having top 2/4/8 up for grabs until Round 23 is good for ratings.

Bias and manipulation definitely  exist in the AFL. Anyone who doesn't believe the AFL influences certain things is naive. Look at the MRO and it's other iterations. What does history tell us? Barry Hall anyone? Other name players; Buddy (Marquee player in Sydney, so he's just clumsy and of course he has an arc when he shoots for goal, but he's good for the game), Dangerfield (isn't he the President of the AFLPA and a Star of the Game). How many weeks should we give ANB? He's a nobody and plays for Melbourne, so let's set an example.

Let's continue this theme to umpiring;

The Umpiring Boss/s meet with the group or an individual the messaging is "whenever Mumford plays Gawn he punches him in the head occasionally, watch out for that"  or,

"Gawn's been complaining about head contact from Mumford, it's only glancing and in the contest, don't get sucked in"

Does that make the game rigged? No but it does push an agenda. Especially in these times, GWS is important to the AFL bottom line, it cannot have another basket case like the Suns. If you are going to manipulate the draft to give the "Love Child" teams an advantage then it's ok to influence other things is it not?

Do you think the Umpires are oblivious to the AFL's agenda? Would you be oblivious to the agenda of your employers at your work place? What would be the consequences?

Unconscious bias is still bias. In Margetts case he is as biased as you can get.

Edited July 8, 2021 by dworship
engwish xspression

[Redleg 40,979]

While many suspect AFL interference, if anyone ever came out with proof of that, people would go to jail, there could be some collateral violence/retribution from fanatics and the game might never recover.

Even a misplaced comment could cost jobs.

It's a zillion to one.

 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,816]

I know we now live in the world of Big Lies and allegedly fake news, but unless people here have facts at their disposal, I suggest they be very careful about claiming specific individuals are biased.

 

[daisycutter 29,626]

maxy meets nichols

 

[Fanatique Demon 2,650]

5 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Where's a maths teacher when you need one? I can't explain it in simple terms, but while 5 heads in a row doesn't impact the next coin toss, over time, the number of heads and tails (assuming an unbiased coin) will eventually revert to the mean, which in this case is 50% heads and 50% tails.

The past is done and nothing changes what has gone before. Probability is about expected future results, so the future expected result is 50:50. 

[Brownie 5,981]

19 hours ago, dworship said:

I don't know if it's a directive but I said to Mrs DW, you watch Mumford punch Max in the side of the head at least once and there will be no free kick. I had to wait till the 3rd qtr (I think), sure enough Mumford punches him in the side of the head hard enough to send Max to his knees. Margetts looking straight at the contact; "play on". In the last qtr you can clearly see the lump and bruising on the side of Max's head. Max has been wearing a beanie all week, including on the podcast. That could be the "Ruckman Code of Silence" or it could be he didn't want too many looking at it in case concussion was brought up.

Yeah I mentioned this in another post. Almost without fail every week our captain gets a cowards punch to the back of his head. Usually hard enough to put him on the ground. Never a free....they're just trying to spoil and obviously it couldn't be chopping the arms because you know, he got punched in the head not the arms.
I do worry about his long term safety and the fact the punches will get harder come finals time.

I could just see a concussion rule him out through a dog act that won't even get a free paid let alone a suspension.
The commentators will just say "He made him earn it hahaha"
 

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,865]

22 hours ago, Chelly said:

Umpires for tomorrow night are Simon Meredith (21), Andre Gianfagna (27) and Jacob Mollison (32). 

I expect them to be completely unbiased either way but two have a Melbourne connection. Gianfagna was once on Melbourne’s rookie list and I believe there’s a family connection with the Mollisons. 

Mollison umpired the Adelaide V Melbourne debacle but unsure whether he was the one that paid the incorrect call. 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

Well, we powered past Port and Umpire Margetts was unable to do anything about it! Get stuffed, Umpire Margetts!

[tiers 2,842]

The failure of the umpires to satisfy supporters desires is not due to malice on the part of the umpires or their coaches.

It is due to the failure of the rules committee and the AFL to institute a clear, credible explanation for the interpretation and application of the far too many inconsistent rules in our great game. Wayne Campbell's article this week explains some of the problem, but not all.

At the moment there seems to be too much discretion allowed the umpires to "overlook" certain breaches (eg Oliver being grabbed and held back while PA kicked a goal) to allow the game to "flow". It's a breach of the rules or it isn't and, if yes, should be paid. However it might cause the number of free kicks to soar and interrupt the game. Where is the balance?

As for the umpire retiring after granting a match winning free kick in the goal square to doggies against Jimmy in the dying moments of the game, he knew that he was stuffed and sensibly retired. One of the few times an egregious umpiring mistake has directly affected a result.

Against weagles we got 1 free to their 21? at half times. Here it wasn't a single mistake that cost us but a full performance by all umpires. Maybe weagles deserved all 21 but surely we deserved far more than 1. So far as I know we never received an apology.

[leave it to deever 17,511]

I wish him all the best. Not really but I dont want to sound too spiteful.