Dogs & Cats both get great treatment from the umpires.

Dogs I’m not sure way, seem to be a ball playing team, but they are allowed to throw the ball at will, might get called once or twice a game. 50/50 calls all go their way! Anyway I think with Weightman out and likely Bont, even beneficial treatment from umps won’t get them over the line.

Cats Selwood, Dangerfield & Hawkins, can hit players in head deliberately, throw the ball, run too far, push in the back and kick out of bounds intentionally and still get everything in their favour from the umps & league! How many times Selwood and Hawkins have get players in head or driven heads into ground and not suspended is beyond a joke. If either ever seriously injured someone, league wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in a court case, as let both get away with it all the time!

Demons have beaten all comers this season and I think will be ready to bring four quarters of pressure next week. The Cats couldn’t stop us in round23 on our 3rd 6 day break, we are now cherry ripe and Cats were ordinary against a weak tired Giants, big chance for the Demons to destroy Geelong, and it would be fantastic!!

11 hours ago, Chook said:

Joe Daniher in a nutshell. With his height he should be Ben Brown-like. Instead he is chaos incarnate.

He’s the froward Frosty.

Umpires clearly influenced result last night with some terrible calls!🧐

Edited September 4, 20213 yr by picket fence

8 hours ago, DubDee said:

Lol. Crazy isn’t it

What’s so crazy about it. Umpires are people and have biases and can be influenced just like the rest of us. Typically home teams are favoured (see the non-calls against us late in the Adelaide game earlier in the year). In the case of the dogs I have no idea why the umpiring favors them so heavily. Might be a statistical quirk, an outlier. But to happen so regularly is very odd. 

Over the course of a season the 50/50 calls even out. You might be shafted in one game but get the benefit in another game (supporters forget the games the umpires favor them). The doggies have consistently got the 50/50 calls in there favor all year. Good luck to them but i know i would be spewing if that was us on the end of those decisions last nigh, particularly the free kicks in the last quarter.

95% of the time people complaining about the umps are just whinging. The game is nigh on impossible to umpire and i think the umpires go ok all things considered. But the doggies armchair ride is a definite thing and is worthy of a closer look.

8 hours ago, radar said:

Reckon AFL would want the flag in “developing market”

Developing market? Do you mean The Footscray Market? 😁

10 hours ago, Half forward flank said:

Bailey Smith, most over hyped player in the game.

This aged well Hff 😉.

What a great game of footy especially compared to the dog [censored] of the previous night. The Ebs and flows were vast, the ability for both teams to bring themselves back into the contest I really enjoyed. 

Footy can be so exciting at times and so brain melting. So many brilliant players on both of those teams and so many less so, lots of highlights and low lights but wowee what a watch. 
 

Weightman is a brilliant player, he doesn’t duck, dive or play for frees and can play. No idea why people dislike his approach. 

2 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

This aged well Hff 😉.

What a great game of footy especially compared to the dog [censored] of the previous night. The Ebs and flows were vast, the ability for both teams to bring themselves back into the contest I really enjoyed. 

Footy can be so exciting at times and so brain melting. So many brilliant players on both of those teams and so many less so, lots of highlights and low lights but wowee what a watch. 
 

Weightman is a brilliant player, he doesn’t duck, dive or play for frees and can play. No idea why people dislike his approach. 

Over hyped Cards. Not over rated. I stand by it, time will tell. Being given licence to run forward as an outside receiver dont make for a great player in my book. 

8 hours ago, DubDee said:

have you considered that the dogs won the contested ball tonight and play a manic game style that is contest heavy and get to the ball first a lot so they might be more likely to win free kicks?

As I made the point, none of this, particularly your ‘get to the ball first’ nonsense is born out statistically. I don’t know why there is such an obviously unbalanced free kick ratio, and nor does anyone else, including the ‘AFL overlord conspiracy theorists’, or the ‘mates with the players’ suggestors. The only other example of objectively egregiously unbalanced umpiring we’ve seen in modern times is the West Coast in Perth situation, which is explainable by unconscious crowd effect…..a bias of screaming affirmation. This seems to be something more intrinsic.

9 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

Bulldogs went +31 in the 2016 finals.

So far in the 2021 finals they are +17 in just 2 games.

It stinks, and unbiased supporters are going ballistic on Twitter. 

Normally I don’t look at the total count too much as long as the umpires pay what’s there and are consistent, but last night there were some dubious decisions. I thought the Dogs got the better end of it, one that went the Lions way was the Caleb Daniel intentional out of bounds when he kicked it mid air in traffic and it came off the side of his boot. My concern is decisions like that over the next two weeks.
 

8 hours ago, Hellish Inferno said:

With the 12 day rest for players with concussion, another reason the week off between the prelim and granny is good news. Can you imagine if one of our stars had to miss the granny with a head knock!

Surely not from a careless accidental stray Hawkins or Selwood elbow or forearm 😮😮😮

8 hours ago, Macca said:

Umpires will nearly always favour the player in front or players who are first in for the ball (as a general rule) ... so the Bulldogs are the best at playing in front, they are very often first in for the ball and they know how to play for free kicks (which is a skill in itself)  

Basically Macca you’re suggesting that the Bulldogs are the best contested team, have the best contested ball players, and play ‘in front’ more than any other team. Above this, they ‘know’ how to play for free kicks, which by implication means they are either ‘coached’ to do it (more than any of the other 17 clubs), or are brought to the club because they have that ‘skill’ inherently. In a game that is made highly transparent by statistics, those statistics plainly defeat your first point. The implication behind your second is plainly silly.

Zorko had a chance late with a shot and kicked it out on the full. Regardless last nights result doesn’t bother me. I honestly believe if we beat the cats the flag is ours.

Neale ran too far when scoring Lions' last goal. Bulldog players repeatedly ran 25 - 30m when kicking out after a behind. 

Dogs players, more than any other team, play to drop like a sack of spuds at first contact to win a ball up rather than holding the ball. (Correction: Geelong also do this.)

Dogs players also seem to be coached to lead their opponent into the protected zone, then quickly peel off to leave him stranded and giving away 50. The oppo seem to know it and are careful, but the Dogs got a 50 last night from this. Ironic, as the Dogs themselves casually strolled through the "protected" zone multiple times.

Dogs are clearly coached to exploit the way the game is umpired. Throwing, dropping, other smartarse tricks like the above one.

Imagine full time, professional umpires who spent their days analysing and learning of trends in the game like that. Who weren't lawyering or grave digging Monday to Friday and then showing up to a big occasion game only to be blindsided by coaches who eat, breathe, sleep, dream football 25x8.

(Not to mention learning how far 15m is, and how to bounce the ball.)

But no, we can't have that, because two or three highly-paid lawyer/umps simply have to retain their highly-paid day gig, otherwise they'd be LOST TO THE GAME. Really, could the standard get any worse than it is? Maybe making umpiring a vocation would mean some good umps would be FOUND TO THE GAME?

Edited September 4, 20213 yr by Mazer Rackham

38 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Neale ran too far when scoring Lions' last goal. Bulldog players repeatedly ran 25 - 30m when kicking out after a behind. 

Dogs players, more than any other team, play to drop like a sack of spuds at first contact to win a ball up rather than holding the ball. (Correction: Geelong also do this.)

Dogs players also seem to be coached to lead their opponent into the protected zone, then quickly peel off to leave him stranded and giving away 50. The oppo seem to know it and are careful, but the Dogs got a 50 last night from this. Ironic, as the Dogs themselves casually strolled through the "protected" zone multiple times.

Dogs are clearly coached to exploit the way the game is umpired. Throwing, dropping, other smartarse tricks like the above one.

Imagine full time, professional umpires who spent their days analysing and learning of trends in the game like that. Who weren't lawyering or grave digging Monday to Friday and then showing up to a big occasion game only to be blindsided by coaches who eat, breathe, sleep, dream football 25x8.

(Not to mention learning how far 15m is, and how to bounce the ball.)

But no, we can't have that, because two or three highly-paid lawyer/umps simply have to retain their highly-paid day gig, otherwise they'd be LOST TO THE GAME. Really, could the standard get any worse than it is? Maybe making umpiring a vocation would mean some good umps would be FOUND TO THE GAME?

Mazer, I actually think there are some very good umpires. I suspect, however, that they are pressured in reviews to umpire to the letter of the law and their selection may be dependent upon this. Don’t forget, Steve Hocking and others before him are forever tinkering and that can’t be easy.

I think the umpires try their best to do a good job. I think undesirable cultural elements have crept in ... Razor Ray chatting up a player before the game? Wrong and stupid. (Same as when he low-fived Angus.) It corrodes the integrity of the game. It goes two ways ... players egregiously mouthing off at umps for instance.

I do not believe it is possible to umpire to the letter of the law when there is no letter of the law. What game apart from ours has "interpretations" of its laws? Where an action can lead to one outcome one week, but a different outcome another week, "correctly", when the wording of the law has not changed, but the "interpretation" has?

"Interpretation" is possibly the biggest blight on our game and successive administrations and umpires departments have bought into it. It's just wrong and reveals the laws to be poorly framed.

I don't blame the umpires for the dire state of the refereeing. I blame the AFL and the umpires department for losing sight of the fact that we want a game that's played fairly and adjudicated fairly. They think it's a reality TV show and BT and his clowns are the celebrity judges. Really, who would be an umpire in an environment where the game's custodians think you're a secondary concern?

12 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

They think it's a reality TV show and BT and his clowns are the celebrity judges. Really, who would be an umpire in an environment where the game's custodians think you're a secondary concern?

You might have nailed it, MR. Until umps are elevated in every respect - full-time professionalism, expectation, on-field treatment (re Toby Greene) - and then given recognition for quality and excellence by consequence, it’s just not going to get any better. The athletic/sporting standards of this game’s playing personnel compared with the standards we accept (by lack of investment) in its adjudication and adjudicators are worlds apart. It’s incredibly frustrating that the AFL persist with such a clearly half-arsed status quo. 

Caleb Daniel being pinged for intentional OOB when he swung his boot at the ball hanging in mid air is ridiculous. 
They should scrap the rule altogether, or change it to a free kick to the opposition every time the ball goes out like in soccer.

decisions like that swinging games, let alone a grand final, will slowly but surely kill the game off.

10 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

That argument holds up a lot more if Richmond also got a lot more free kicks. Their game a style is very similarly built on contested ball, and getting to the ball first.

Interestingly they had a differential 165 free kicks worse off than the Bulldogs at - 86 for the season.

That's what strikes me too.  I may be unobservant but I just don't see that the Dogs getting to the ball first etc when I watch them play.   I expect there are other reasons without invoking conspiracy theories.  Just don't know what the reasons are.

As someone pointed out, the stats are not wildly beyond the realms of possibility to be just randomness.  But certainly are at the 'suspicious' end of probability (suspicious in the sense of some non-random factor involved, not just conspiracy).

Perhaps personal biases, eg. umpires think x,y and z are good/bad blokes, may be sufficient explanation to account for the Dogs (and Tigers) stats not being closer to normal.  Listening to the commentators it's clear they overlook errors by the stars or their 'buddies' - no reason to assume umpires are immune to that as things stand. Maybe professional umpires would go a long way to fixing that.

32 minutes ago, Webber said:

It’s incredibly frustrating that the AFL persist with such a clearly half-arsed status quo. 

It's not costing them any money, so where's the problem?

 

1 minute ago, In Harmes Way said:

Caleb Daniel being pinged for intentional OOB when he swung his boot at the ball hanging in mid air is ridiculous.

Also ridiculous: Caleb Daniel being swung 360 in a tackle while firmly holding on to the pill. Play on. Ball whisks down to the Dogs end for the goal that ties up the match.

2 hours ago, Webber said:

Basically Macca you’re suggesting that the Bulldogs are the best contested team, have the best contested ball players, and play ‘in front’ more than any other team. Above this, they ‘know’ how to play for free kicks, which by implication means they are either ‘coached’ to do it (more than any of the other 17 clubs), or are brought to the club because they have that ‘skill’ inherently. In a game that is made highly transparent by statistics, those statistics plainly defeat your first point. The implication behind your second is plainly silly.

Slow down and stop putting words into my mouth.  And take a few deep breaths and calm down.  The sky isn't falling, Webber

What I've said is that umpires will favour players who are first in for the ball and players who play in front. Always have

So the Bulldogs exploit those rulings.  They are also very adept at winning free kicks in those scenarios as well.  Well coached in those areas (obviously)

Looked at another way, it's very difficult to win a free kick playing from behind. Especially so playing against the Bulldogs

Most free kicks (70% - 85%) will go to the ball player (in disputed situations)  Watch any game of footy and that percentage will be borne out (on average)

So there is nothing at all silly about what I'm saying.  From a technical viewpoint, I'm correct

You and others can disagree all you like but you're not looking past the numbers ... you are just looking at the numbers

Your anger and frustration is misplaced, based on an assumption. There are systems in place that govern outcomes

So taking a deeper dive into the 'highly transparent statistics' (as you put it) outcomes will emerge

There are reasons why from a young age our coaches stress the need to be first in for the ball and to play in front.  They don't say it all the time for fun.  They mean it because there are clear advantages in playing that way.  When I coached, I taught those basics as well

As previously stated, play the rules, play the umpires and play how the umpires arrive at decisions

Footy basics 101

But at the very least, what I've said will cause a number here to re-think how they view umpiring decisions

So lose your anger & frustration and watch the game more closely

Blocking free kick at the last ball up not paid all game just BS. The only reason it looked like a block was because English [censored] himself and didn't jump at the ball. Allowed dogs to get the vital clearance.

A good example of how the Bulldogs 'play the rules' is the relatively new ruling on incorrect disposal (or the throw)

Players who win the ball now are often (but not always) given the benefit of the doubt if the ball spills free, is dislodged, or dribbles away

Why not always?  It's a grey area and in grey areas you won't get consistency

An obvious AFL directive to 'keep the ball moving' so what do the Bulldogs do?  They exploit the loophole.  Fair play to them. Classic cause & effect

Supporter Joe sees it all and comes to the conclusion that the Bulldogs are being favoured.  That the umpires are cheats

But all the Bulldogs are doing is exploiting the new ruling.  In turn, they often don't get penalised which in turn, can contribute to the lopsided free kick count

Other teams are often more clumsy about it in those scenarios and get pinged.  And other players from other teams will give away free kicks in that type of scenario where the Bulldog player is in first (high tackle, in the back, holding the man, chopped arms etc etc)

The Tigers are at the other end of the scale but they have an unsociable element to the way they go about it which has served them well (until this season when they ran out of gas) But at their best they would let the ball dribble free when tackled

2nd to the ball this season were the Tigers ... tired minds & tired bodies.  1 or 2 steps off.  Result - free kicks given away

Of course the Bulldogs play for the free kicks but that's the game.  Through the decades numerous players have done that.  What the Bulldogs are doing has been done before.  

Clarkson said it after a game against the Bulldogs during the 2016 finals and indicated that he might have to change the way he coaches because of what was happening

Edited September 5, 20213 yr by Macca

On 9/3/2021 at 10:07 PM, Rusty Nails said:

The Cats are a very favoured bunch that's for sure

That instance of tishbull still amazes me; reality says it cannot possibly happen; blatant Geelong-nourishment.

3 hours ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

Normally I don’t look at the total count too much as long as the umpires pay what’s there and are consistent, but last night there were some dubious decisions. I thought the Dogs got the better end of it, one that went the Lions way was the Caleb Daniel intentional out of bounds when he kicked it mid air in traffic and it came off the side of his boot. My concern is decisions like that over the next two weeks.
 

Bulldogs slightly ahead to half-time but made every attempt to fake and drop to win frees or to achieve ball-ups. For quite some time, they were challenged, too busy looking for their weekly quota of frees and 'unobserved' rule violations, in general. Whilst this was occuring, the Lions came back up in some encouraging displays of good football but lo & behold, the umpires had to stop them challenging the Doggies - and so did - through the free kick differential and an imbalance of 'who done wrong, where the ball was, what could be the outcome' interference at the whistle-face. Some of these decisions/non-decisions were atrocious, blatant and game-affective to benefit on nearly all occasions, the Bulldogs. 

 

1 hour ago, Macca said:

And take a few deep breaths and calm down

 

1 hour ago, Macca said:

So lose your anger & frustration and watch the game more closely

I would suggest you lose the patronising condescension, but that would be [censored]-for-tatting. You’ve just reiterated the obvious points without addressing the statistically anomalous nature of the free-kick disparity. 

 

1 hour ago, Macca said:

There are reasons why from a young age our coaches stress the need to be first in for the ball and to play in front.  They don't say it all the time for fun.  They mean it because there are clear advantages in playing that way.  When I coached, I taught those basics as well

No kidding. By this reasoning, the Bulldogs apparently do this multiply better and for more amplified significance better than any other team in the AFL. I’ve watched the game, and very closely (thanks again for the advice), and this is plainly fanciful. I suspect you’re convincing very few otherwise.