39 minutes ago, Webber said:

By this reasoning, the Bulldogs do this multiply better and more amplified

They do, and you've just said it yourself

My argument stands up

The Bulldogs will continue to be favoured in the free kick count because of the way they play the rules & the way they play the umpires

Edited September 5, 20213 yr by Macca

29 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

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. 

 

Disappointing thing is come finals we’re meant to have the best umpires umpiring and the softer / weaker frees are normally let go.

Edited September 5, 20213 yr by Bombay Airconditioning

Just watched the replay of the last quarter of last nights game. It was like “wow”. Brought back bad memories of our Adelaide game. I’m now convinced the umpiring fraternity is throughly corrupt. Dodgy decisions for the dogs, non decisions for the lions aplenty make a inequitable 10-2 free count at the death. The worst and most blatant decisions at critical moments. I’m starting to fear the umpires as our biggest challenge going ahead. 

Edited September 5, 20213 yr by John Crow Batty

1 hour ago, loges said:

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.

It was SUCH a big moment wasn’t it . scores level a minute to go. Plus it was Such a nothing action, an action that prob happens 50 times in a game, that basically decided  a final. couldn’t believe my eyes. 

8 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

It was SUCH a big moment wasn’t it . scores level a minute to go. Plus it was Such a nothing action, an action that prob happens 50 times in a game, that basically decided  a final. couldn’t believe my eyes. 

His problem was how obvious he made it.  Stood there and stuck his knee out waiting for the clean take away.  Should have kept his eyes on the ball and moved toward it more.  Had less problem with this call than about 1/2 a dozen others…

I don’t  pay much attention to free kick counts or umpiring in general but I think what most people are pointing out on this thread is the higher than usual disparity between free kick counts and over a number of games. Ie. the critical mass of data is becoming overwhelming. Not to mention the kinds of frees paid/not paid. Even someone like myself who usually fobs off any ideas that umpiring makes a massive difference is starting to take notice. 

There are a few ways of looking at the lopsided free kick count that is in the Bulldogs favour

That the umpires favour the Dogs deliberately with the AFL's approval but for what reason?  Money?  Are the games fixed?  Does this hair-brained conspiracy theory go even higher?  The Government?  Dictator Dan?  Slo-Mo?

Or perhaps there is a more simple explanation other than the explanation which I've explained? 

Which is the more sensible option? 

Or is there another reason that doesn't involve grassy knolls, the CIA, the Mob and the 2nd shooter?

Edited September 5, 20213 yr by Macca

On 9/1/2021 at 11:22 AM, DubDee said:

The Cats are a proud group. I expect them to beat GWS convincingly. 

Without McStay and Hipwood the Lions have little HF connection or marking power going forward.  Tag Cameron and they are struggling

I think the dogs have regained some form and will beat the Lions in a thriller.  Don't forget the Dogs were favourites for the flag a fair chunk of the year and are only really missing Bruce

Got this cheers!

16 minutes ago, layzie said:

I don’t  pay much attention to free kick counts or umpiring in general but I think what most people are pointing out on this thread is the higher than usual disparity between free kick counts and over a number of games. Ie. the critical mass of data is becoming overwhelming. Not to mention the kinds of frees paid/not paid. Even someone like myself who usually fobs off any ideas that umpiring makes a massive difference is starting to take notice. 

Your observation is correct with regards to the lop-sided free kick count in the Bulldogs favour.  Everyone can see it

So if we rule out the conspiracy theory that the games are 'fixed' (that involve the Doggies) what is the reason?

And there has to be a reason, layzie

It's not an accident because it's been going on for quite some time

The umpires are cheats is (pardon the pun) lazy analysis. AFL directive to the umpires?  Can't see it.  Bookies involved? Doubt it

Why would the umpires cheat without benefit?

By the way, the overwhelming thinking on this thread is that the umpires are on the take 

2 minutes ago, Macca said:

Your observation is correct with regards to the lop-sided free kick count in the Bulldogs favour.  Everyone can see it

So if we rule out the conspiracy theory that the games are 'fixed' (that involve the Doggies) what is the reason?

And there has to be a reason, layzie

It's not an accident because it's been going on for quite some time

The umpires are cheats is (pardon the pun) lazy analysis. AFL directive to the umpires?  Can't see it.  Bookies involved? Doubt it

Why would the umpires cheat without benefit?

By the way, the overwhelming thinking on this thread is that the umpires are on the take 

Some would say it’s silly to suggest conspiracy but it would be equally silly to ignore it and turn the blind eye. 

I think deep down no one argues with free kicks that are there and nothing will ever be perfectly level but there’s a tipping point. 

Daniher has arguably been the most disappointing player of the finals series.

Naughton hasn't done much either so far.

4 hours ago, Return to Glory said:

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.

But the letter of the law requires correct disposal and forbids throws - yet Footscray and Geelong in particular get away with this “cheat” many times each week, and continue to do so.  Please explain. 

1 minute ago, layzie said:

Some would say it’s silly to suggest conspiracy but it would be equally silly to ignore it and turn the blind eye.

I'd like to see some sort of proof then ... by the way, umpires being called cheats in a blatant manner has been going on forever

So if they are on the take and the accusers are right, it's been going on for decades.  But we've never seen any sort of proof to back those accusations up

Here's how I've always seen it ...

Terribly difficult game to umpire and players play for free kicks

Numerous mistakes are made by the umpires because of the nature of the sport and the circumstances (and the flopping)

Many spectators alike see those errors against their team (or for the team they dislike) and come to the conclusion that the umpires are 'deliberately cheating'

Rinse & Repeat

But if you don't buy into the cheating then logic and common sense rules.  But logic and common sense is boring for most

It's an emotional game and emotions rule

 

10 minutes ago, monoccular said:

But the letter of the law requires correct disposal and forbids throws - yet Footscray and Geelong in particular get away with this “cheat” many times each week, and continue to do so.  Please explain. 

Pauline, I can't.

22 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Daniher has arguably been the most disappointing player of the finals series.

Naughton hasn't done much either so far.

Both have been poor, however Trealor was worst on ground last night.
I had to check if he was a late out halfway through the game haha

In the clear light of day, a non-match day, I don't think that the umpires are on the take. What I do think is that they are:

1. poorly supported in terms of training development,
2. given unclear and/or confusing directions on how to adjudicate the game, and
3. Have conscious or sub-conscious biases towards certain players and teams.

That being said, I am delighted that Margetts is retiring.

9 minutes ago, monoccular said:

But the letter of the law requires correct disposal and forbids throws - yet Footscray and Geelong in particular get away with this “cheat” many times each week, and continue to do so.  Please explain. 

They (the AFL) need to fix up the rules and then the angst will die down

But my fix starts off with a more open game with less players on the ground (15 or 16 a side) with drastically reduced rotations.  Not to the point where we're watching AFLX but a game that is easier to watch with less congestion and therefore, easier to umpire

And get rid of no prior ... grab the ball and dispose of the ball correctly or get pinged (as it was back in the day)

If the ball dribbles from the players hands or is thrown (in any way) they should get pinged

Do that and teams like the Bulldogs will have to find another way to exploit the rules.  Do nothing and the problem remains

The grounds are too small for 36 players in terms of the sport being able to be correctly umpired.  And every year it gets harder for the umpires.  Full time umps would help but that's not the main problem

24 minutes ago, Macca said:

...

By the way, the overwhelming thinking on this thread is that the umpires are on the take 

Really?  I haven't seen much sign of that.  Very few people criticising the umpires have made that claim.    

Far more likely to be rational are theories based on the AFL doing what it can to boost the game.  That bias is clear when you look at Tribunal and MR decisions - eg don't rub out star players compared to others. But not so clear when it comes to free kick differentials - why would it be in the AFL's interest to boost the Dogs when they could boost the Demons to the PR scoop that at long last a MFC flag could offer.   Heres hoping....

Personally in the absense of a convincing analysis about first to the ball etc. (sorry I don't buy that  much), I am becoming more convinced that the apparent favourtism is linked to some umpires liking the style/personality/whatever of some players and maybe reacting (+ly or -ly) to team styles (eg Geelong's endless whinging, Dog's 'sexy' play).  It's very human to be so influenced and despite rumours to the contrary, umpires are human.

 

1 hour ago, John Crow Batty said:

Just watched the replay of the last quarter of last nights game. It was like “wow”. Brought back bad memories of our Adelaide game. I’m now convinced the umpiring fraternity is throughly corrupt. Dodgy decisions for the dogs, non decisions for the lions aplenty make a inequitable 10-2 free count at the death. The worst and most blatant decisions at critical moments. I’m starting to fear the umpires as our biggest challenge going ahead. 

The angst grows in this regard; we are not the only team to suffer. It is the umpires and their credibility is rapidly waning in a now-consistent fashion. There seems to be an incestuous onfield weakness between the 'governors' of the AFL, the personnel selected to be umpires, the implementation inconsistency of the AFL rules and the overly apparent inequity of many clubs for the benefit of the few.

Gillon, clean up our game!

7 minutes ago, sue said:

Really?  I haven't seen much sign of that.  Very few people criticising the umpires have made that claim.   

The outright claim of match-fixing or being 'on the take' is related to umpires being labelled cheats

And there are numerous people here making that claim (that the umpires are cheats) Every game-day thread is full of the same accusations

Cheat for no benefit? Sorry, that doesn't make any sense.  As for the subconscious implications, I don't buy it

As for the rest of your post, you are overthinking it all.  My fix and view on it all is directly above your post. 

I'm into solutions, not complaining.  You want things fixed, simplify the game

 

20 minutes ago, Macca said:

 

And get rid of no prior ... grab the ball and dispose of the ball correctly or get pinged (as it was back in the day)

 

not true.  this was never the case in my life time. they certainly played around with the interpretation of prior and also the time allowed to dispose when there was prior, but the concept of prior opportunity was always there

getting rid of any prior rule would be bad and just encourage the hunters over the gatherers

1 hour ago, Macca said:

They do, and you've just said it yourself

No, I didn’t. To say they are way out front in free kicks by their own clever, umpire manipulating actions, particularly compared to other teams who would all be trying to do the same (to a greater or lesser degree as described by a natural bell-curve) is just as conspiratorial as saying most on here are convinced the umpires are ‘on the take’. Neither are true, obviously. Most of us on here are looking at the facts, that the Bulldogs, and good luck to them, have a statistically anomalous advantage in free kicks that can’t be explained by being ‘first to the ball’ and ‘playing for free kicks’ according to some kind of team design. Of course they play to optimise free kicks and want to contest hardest and be first to the ball. So does every team. None of us actually know why they are the outlier. We can theorise, which is a bit if fun, and emotion is always a factor, but a simple Occam’s razor explanation such as you propose just doesn’t fit the objective anomaly. 

Just now, daisycutter said:

not true.  this was never the case in my life time. they certainly played around with the interpretation of prior and also the time allowed to dispose when there was prior, but the concept of prior opportunity was always there

getting rid of any prior rule would be bad and just encourage the hunters over the gatherers

Well when I played there was no prior rule ... not in the way it is ruled now.  The phrase didn't exist.  Late 70's, 80's and early 90's

There was the odd ball up if the ball was trapped but the onus was on the player to dispose of the ball correctly

No prior is such a part of the landscape that many believe it was always the case.  It wasn't

I actually reckon the would-be tackler has more of an advantage with no-prior.  The ball player used to be able to time his acquisition of the ball

15 minutes ago, Webber said:

No, I didn’t

You do realise that some teams are stronger in some areas than others yeah?

Like our defense is better than the others (at least in terms of scores against) The Bulldogs are more adept at winning free kicks than others.  Smart team, well coached

And if you call an umpire a cheat you are intimating that the umpire in question is cheating for a reason

What reason?  Money?  Just for the hell of it?

Why would they do it without some sort of profit motive?

And can you actually prove that umpires really cheat without pointing at the free kick count?  (all the free kick count does is show us a set of numbers - it doesn't point to cheating)

Edited September 5, 20213 yr by Macca