How do Bulldogs do it?

[Engorged Onion 10,224]

7 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Can anyone recall if we got crucified in the round 11 game against them?

The free kick count of 16-15 would suggest not.

Is that the answer? Then what are you alluding to?

[Bring-Back-Powell 15,257]

2 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

Is that the answer? Then what are you alluding to?

The free kick may have been even but perhaps one side got awarded all the marginal calls and the other side missed out. Certainly appeared that way last weekend.

[Engorged Onion 10,224]

Mmmm, how Lachy Hunter got away with a rushed point not been called - post deliver to Jordon to bring it to 3 points astounds me. There were 2 umpires within about 5 metres either side of him.

I'm not typically up for conspiracy theories, but I may just be turning.

[monoccular 17,644]

On 7/12/2021 at 11:38 PM, Fork 'em said:

The reason they let the throws go is cause the AFL want to keep the ball moving.
They hate the congestion and if they have to let the odd throw out into space to allow that to happen .... So be it.

Similar to the old days when there were a series of ball ups and nothing moving.
The umps would pull a free kick out've their backsides to get the ball moving.

Geelong throw in close clinches as much as do Footscray. 

[Gunna’s 2,104]

On 7/24/2021 at 11:21 PM, The heart beats true said:

Yeah, but if Umpire 22 goes down with a hammy their season is in serious jeopardy. He’s their second most influential contributor after Bont.

He was on early……

 

[Hellaintabadplacetobe 4,297]

2 hours ago, dworship said:

I would like someone to explain what happens between the 2 half's. If I have this correct:

First Qtr  frees;  4 to 14,  Second Qtr  frees;  4 to 7.

Entire 2nd half frees; 3 to 4.

I suppose I should be grateful that the first half trend didn't continue but what changed and is this the norm? How do you go from 29 frees payed in the first half to just 7 in the second? Did Melbourne suddenly become more skillful? I would think that fatigue might cause more frees in the second half but that obviously wasn't the case.

To answer your question; in the first half the dogs got an additional 13 free possessions and it was like having an extra player out there. Those extra possessions resulted directly in a number of clearances and forward entries and at least 3 goals. I'm stunned we only went down by 20pts and managed to get it back to 4 at one stage in the last.

Are you sure these figures are correct? Pretty sure it was 4-14 at half time not qtr time.

I’m not disagreeing re the umpiring it was appalling, but I’m not sure those numbers are right.

[John Crow Batty 8,880]

9 hours ago, Gunna’s said:

He was on early……

 

That a ball up play. Looks like a blatant block on Gawn to keep him out of the contest with English. Gawn didn’t get the free I presume.

[old dee 24,003]

They have a very good coach!

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

18 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

That a ball up play. Looks like a blatant block on Gawn to keep him out of the contest with English. Gawn didn’t get the free I presume.

And where's the ump looking? At the ball. Good one, ump. What's happening up there? A seagull dropping a chip having had prior opportunity? (Not that you'd pay it anyway.)

[John Crow Batty 8,880]

50 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

And where's the ump looking? At the ball. Good one, ump. What's happening up there? A seagull dropping a chip having had prior opportunity? (Not that you'd pay it anyway.)

And Libba  blocking Oliver with his back to the ball. 

[Pates 9,678]

11 hours ago, Gunna’s said:

He was on early……

 

I remember that one, beggars belief that no umpire saw that at all even if the dimwit right there was too busy admiring his throw up. 

These are the ones that genuinely get you asking is the favouritism deliberate, it’s so blatant there can’t be any excuse. 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

I'm of the school that says most "conspiracy" is better explained by "incompetence".

I do wonder, given the outrageousness of what the Dogs get away with, the general lacksadaisical attitude of the AFL admin to umpiring overall, and the AFL admin's attitude to "speeding up the game" ... is if the AFL admin may have decreed from on high that the Dogs' style of play is the model for what they want to see out on the ground, in all matches. Fast ball movement, no nasty rugby mauls. Goals!! And the umps have been given the directive to encourage this style of play.

So what if a few latte-sipping purists have a knot in their undies about -- ha ha! -- adherence to rules, integrity of the game, a fair contest/even playing field, and other trivialities.

If the AFL ever re-discovers its integrity department, or hires an umpires director who is not pre-conditioned to the AFL admin's general corrupt attitude, then we might get somewhere. Until then, the Dogs have free reign to degenerate the game of Aussie Rules football.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,820]

Unbelievable!!!

Time and time again crucial 50:50s were paid to the Bulldogs this evening!

The Bont, in particular was caught with the ball dead in front of the Essendrug goal, and was given a dubious in the back.

This happened twice. There were at least two other similar “ aberrations”, but I can’t remember the players involved.

[Northern Summer 292]

34 minutes ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

Unbelievable!!!

Time and time again crucial 50:50s were paid to the Bulldogs this evening!

The Bont, in particular was caught with the ball dead in front of the Essendrug goal, and was given a dubious in the back.

This happened twice. There were at least two other similar “ aberrations”, but I can’t remember the players involved.

Every single bloody week it happens! I'm used to it.

[daisycutter 29,892]

1 minute ago, Northern Summer said:

Every single bloody week it happens! I'm used to it.

one never gets used to it........expect it sure

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,765]

I'm less worried about the quality of the umpiring (although, I too, would like to see them made professional).

I'm more interested in some kind of communication function that provides an update on interpretation each week. I'm sure the players are aware of these weekly shifts. It should be explained to the public.

I understand the need for the rules to be slightly dynamic to avoid allowing coaches the chance to manipulate or strangle the game but it's unfair to the rest of us who get a surprise each week when rule interpretations change.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

Does the lousy umpiring cost the AFL money?

A. Yes

B. No.

The question answers itself.

[JAG001 83]

I would go as far as to say that the umpiring in the Bulldogs games is beyond farcical.

The Bont is a protected species, at this rate the umpires must be awarding him 3 votes every game, they are so besotted by him.

The decisions are so blatant it looks like an AFL directive to the umpires is the Bulldogs must win at all costs.

Its almost as bad as the Nazi athletics officials that were desperate to ensure a [censored] USA athlete called Jesse Owens wouldn't be successful in the 1936 Belin Olympics.

[1964_2 2,357]

I was in genuine shock watching the 2 free kicks to Bont at the end of the game today, as the dogs were coming home strong.

especially the “dangerous tackle” one, that clearly should have been holding the ball against the Bont. 

needs to be investigated. 

even the commentators were too scared to comment, it was that bad! 
 

[Mono 455]

3 minutes ago, 1964_2 said:

I was in genuine shock watching the 2 free kicks to Bont at the end of the game today, as the dogs were coming home strong.

especially the “dangerous tackle” one, that clearly should have been holding the ball against the Bont. 

needs to be investigated. 

even the commentators were too scared to comment, it was that bad! 
 

The 2nd was as bad. Bontompelli ran into a pack with the ball, dropped it then got a free for holding the man. Kicked a goal I believe.

Stunning. Protected species.

[Demon Dynasty 17,132]

12 minutes ago, 1964_2 said:

I was in genuine shock watching the 2 free kicks to Bont at the end of the game today, as the dogs were coming home strong.

especially the “dangerous tackle” one, that clearly should have been holding the ball against the Bont. 

needs to be investigated. 

even the commentators were too scared to comment, it was that bad! 
 

 

7 minutes ago, Mono said:

The 2nd was as bad. Bontompelli ran into a pack with the ball, dropped it then got a free for holding the man. Kicked a goal I believe.

Stunning. Protected species.

Two inexplicable free kicks that nearly turned the game against Essendrug.

He is Def a protected species which is why we need to ensure we get either hibb and / or Harmes into ripping 'lockdown' form coming into finals for when we meet this tin [censored] mob.

[Demonland 73,495]

Bont is a protected species. 

None of our players get this kind of consistent protection. 

[Jjrogan 1,448]

35 minutes ago, JAG001 said:

I would go as far as to say that the umpiring in the Bulldogs games is beyond farcical.

The Bont is a protected species, at this rate the umpires must be awarding him 3 votes every game, they are so besotted by him.

The decisions are so blatant it looks like an AFL directive to the umpires is the Bulldogs must win at all costs.

Its almost as bad as the Nazi athletics officials that were desperate to ensure a [censored] USA athlete called Jesse Owens wouldn't be successful in the 1936 Belin Olympics.

And this takes the gold for the most stupid statement today. Comparing, in any regard, a few dodgy free kicks to the systemic bigotry and racism of the nazis. Perspective is a thing. 

[deanox 10,045]

1 hour ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Does the lousy umpiring cost the AFL money?

A. Yes

B. No.

The question answers itself.

Spot on.

Poor umpiring makes money for their media partners, it creates clicks, sells newspapers, generates video views on social media. It keeps the media cycle going.

[titan_uranus 25,176]

9 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Bont is a protected species. 

None of our players get this kind of consistent protection. 

They're not as blatantly wrong as Twitter is making them out to be.

The first one in that video is clearly at least an arguable dangerous tackle. Redman pins an arm and drives him downwards. It's line ball to me, could have gone either way.

Similarly the second one is a bit 50/50 on whether he had prior opportunity: if he didn't, it's a free for holding, which is what was paid. Personally I reckon he had prior opportunity.