15 minutes ago, Macca said:

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

 

While I agree with much of what you said in that post above mine about how to fix things, I think you are overthinking what many people mean when they emotively say the umpires are cheating.   

For example, my observation that there may be biases that lead to anomalous decisions could be described by some as cheating.  It would be so called if you were umpiring a tennis match and gave line ball decisions to your wife/whatever. Even if you didn't believe you were playing  favourities, your wife's opponents and supporters may well say otherwise. 

22 minutes ago, sue said:

For example, my observation that there may be biases that lead to anomalous decisions could be described by some as cheating

I reckon it's demeaning to call an umpire a cheat no matter what the reasons might be

It's unnecessary and inappropriate

In the same week where a footballer has walked through an umpire (said player also received levels of support)

If we continue to disrespect umpires, what's the end result?

What wins games of football are high levels of talent, a solid game plan and top level coaching

Have all those attributes on an ongoing basis and you'll be dreadfully unlucky not to win big

In other words, be 5 goals better than all the other teams and you're in control.  Thus, the uncontrollables are minimised

 

Edited September 5, 20213 yr by Macca

16 minutes ago, Macca said:

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)

You’ve clearly not read that I’ve written, consistently and unequivocally, that the idea that the umpires are cheating is ridiculous. By that you’ve ignored our agreement on this point. This part of your reply is thus meaningless to me.
 

The Dogs ‘strength’ at winning free kicks would be explicable by that alone were it not inexplicably 2.4 times better than the next best, Geelong, and exponentially multiple times better than all other teams. 

32 minutes ago, Webber said:

The Dogs ‘strength’ at winning free kicks would be explicable by that alone were it not inexplicably 2.4 times better than the next best, Geelong, and exponentially multiple times better than all other teams. 

If you accept that the Doggies are quite adept at winning free kicks as well as putting themselves in the right position (in front) to win those free kicks then we'll be in agreement

So apart from pointing at the numbers and the discrepancy in the Bulldogs favour with regards to the free kick count, as well as ruling out any sort of bias (cheating) what's your reasoning on why the discrepancy is there?

I've taken the time to explain my position yet you're just there scratching your head and wondering why

You got any sort of believable explanation?

 

Edited September 5, 20213 yr by Macca

56 minutes ago, Macca said:

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)

As I said, there are other motives than loot - eg. factors which could cause bias and been interpreted as unfair/cheating. 

It's clear that any sport where team A gains an advantage by playing the system rather than the game, that team is likely to be considered to be cheating.  Consider ducking to get a free - in your analysis that is fine - smart player, well coached.  But everyone hates it (except when their team does it).  Supposedly the rules/interpretation was changed to not award the free. It was even considered it should be a free against the ducker - to discourage unsafe play.

And it rubs off on the umpires. If the umpires appear to play along with team A's wicked scheme (or skill) to earn frees and not resist it, many observers will claim the umpires are effectively cheating - even if they are honestly applying the rules as best they can.  Cheating or not, the effect is the same - disgruntled supporters, confused players and loathed umpires.  

The AFL should change the rules to minimise all this as you have argued.  

But I think you exaggerate the Dog's prowess and underestimate the effect of missed frees against which I'd guess form a large part of the statistical differential.   As I argued earlier, I suspect a  personality/style favourtism factor is more likely to be the cause than any special skills the Dogs have.  Such favouritism, even if unconcious,  appears as cheating to the observer.

edit: runs to rubs

Edited September 5, 20213 yr by sue

5 minutes ago, sue said:

 Consider ducking to get a free - in your analysis that is fine - smart player, well coached.  But everyone hates it (except when their team does it)

The AFL allow players to duck into tackles and whilst like most others, I dislike the practice, if it's allowed then you play to the rules

However,  I would have dragged Selwood up to the tribunal years ago in a retrospective way and given him a strong warning (or weeks) for his ducking.

But they've let it go and Selwood has therefore spent his entire career winning free kicks for ducking.  Many other players have followed suit as a result (including Spargo) 

There are a lot of other areas of the sport I dislike but it's up to the AFL to frame the rules correctly

Otherwise teams and coaches will take advantage.  But I'm a great believer in cause & effect and there are too many players on the arena for starters

I watch the Doggies really carefully and they are well ahead of the rest with regards to milking frees. 

Tighter parameters and they wouldn't be able to do it

AFL issue not an umpiring issue

 

1 hour ago, Macca said:

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

it may not have been called "prior" but iirc it was just called opportunity or no opportunity, still had to display an "attempt" to dispose when no opportunity.

i do recall they were red hot if you had opportunity before being tackled. none of this drag it out stuff. the only leeway when you had opportunity is if you were in the process of breaking the tackle i.e. when the tackle has not yet really stuck

 

The Doggies don't often get pinged for holding the ball where as other teams do get pinged for holding it

Since 2016 the Bulldog players have become adept at letting the ball dribble free when tackled or the ball often appears to be knocked free once tackled.  And as we know, many 'little' throws are let go in the same scenario.  Once the ball hits the deck another Doggies player is often there to pick the ball up to go through the same process (unless they can release the ball)

So that can explain 4 - 6 free kicks 'not paid' to the opposition per game as I see it

But again, isn't that a rules of the game issue? 

If the umpires are instructed to 'keep the ball moving' in those scenarios then they are doing what the AFL asks of them

 

Edited September 5, 20213 yr by Macca

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

it may not have been called "prior" but iirc it was just called opportunity or no opportunity, still had to display an "attempt" to dispose when no opportunity.

i do recall they were red hot if you had opportunity before being tackled. none of this drag it out stuff. the only leeway when you had opportunity is if you were in the process of breaking the tackle i.e. when the tackle has not yet really stuck

Fair enough

I'm still not convinced that no prior has been good for the game.  Interesting that Buckley & Wayne Campbell have led the charge for no prior to be removed.  Other coaches as well I believe (?)

Most of the current issues centre around what happens around congested situations (of which there are many)

So it's either clean things up around the congestion (very difficult assignment) or reduce the congestion (easier solution)  I'm in the latter category

1 hour ago, Macca said:

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

 

Tim Costello has called for an inquiry into the Lions v West coast game. Where 41 seconds were added to the game and where the Lions made the Top 4 and pushed the Bulldogs into 5th. The suggestion that gambling may have played a role and that the AFL needs to ensure integrity of the game if they are to accept money from bookmakers and gambling companies.

Its the 5th time there has been a 'timekeeping error' but none as significant.

The AFL as expected has remained silent - lest it hurts its own commercial interests.

It would be a foolish person to say that games could not be affected by gambling interests or that umpires are beyond the reach of organised crime syndicates.

 

20 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Tim Costello has called for an inquiry into the Lions v West coast game. Where 41 seconds were added to the game and where the Lions made the Top 4 and pushed the Bulldogs into 5th. The suggestion that gambling may have played a role and that the AFL needs to ensure integrity of the game if they are to accept money from bookmakers and gambling companies.

Its the 5th time there has been a 'timekeeping error' but none as significant.

The AFL as expected has remained silent - lest it hurts its own commercial interests.

It would be a foolish person to say that games could not be affected by gambling interests or that umpires are beyond the reach of organised crime syndicates.

 

Well match fixing can't ever be ruled out but if we took into account the amount of times that the cheat label gets thrown about by footy fans about umpires, then nearly all the games could be called into question

And that's a stretch (to say the least) ... I'm happy to accept a match fixing scenario if it can be proven

And let's not forget than any form of tanking is by default, match fixing.  Football dept led under the eyes and ears of a compliant Board

Little known fact that no market was ever framed for the 'Kruezer Cup'  You couldn't lay a bet on the game

 

6 hours 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. 
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.

yes shocking call.   But a really hard code to umpire    I am sure they do their best .  I have a mate who is  is umpiring at VFL level and trying to get to AFL.  The work and devotion they do is amazing not to mention the constant answering and criticism they cop off their superiors.   Yes money is OK  but a hard job.       threats on social media  no thanks !!       .    

I don’t think the umpires are biased or corrupt but I do think they are whistle happy and pay far too many tiggy touchwood free kicks instead of just paying the obvious ones. I reckon they do guess at times with out being 100% certain of what may have occurred and have way too much of an influence on games.

Part of the problem is there is too much great area in the rules and it’s a very hard game to officiate 

Edited September 5, 20213 yr by DeeZee

4 hours ago, sue said:

While I agree with much of what you said in that post above mine about how to fix things, I think you are overthinking what many people mean when they emotively say the umpires are cheating.   

For example, my observation that there may be biases that lead to anomalous decisions could be described by some as cheating.  It would be so called if you were umpiring a tennis match and gave line ball decisions to your wife/whatever. Even if you didn't believe you were playing  favourities, your wife's opponents and supporters may well say otherwise. 

While I don’t think umpires cheat, as in life, people have people they like/dislike or know well vs not knowing.

Whether umpires like the way the Dogs play, they are generally a ball playing highly skilled team, they do seem to get rub on 50/50 calls and throwing the ball. If I was a Lions supporter, would have been pretty [censored] with the last 5 mins of umpiring that seemed the Dogs way!

As for Danger, Selwood and Hawkins, all great players, but they do get favoured treatment from umpires and tribunal!

Compare their treatment to Max, Clarry and Kossie re frees, Max hit in head and arms, plus blocked nearly every marking contest, Clarry held most centre bounces, Kossie gets held, hit and buried in tackles for very few frees, if he was treated like Weightman, he’d have another two shots at goal each week!

Unfortunately I think umpires influence too many games and over season fortunately it generally levels out, but Dogs & the Cat trio get favoured treatment from what I see!

6 hours ago, Macca said:

If you accept that the Doggies are quite adept at winning free kicks as well as putting themselves in the right position (in front) to win those free kicks then we'll be in agreement

So apart from pointing at the numbers and the discrepancy in the Bulldogs favour with regards to the free kick count, as well as ruling out any sort of bias (cheating) what's your reasoning on why the discrepancy is there?

I've taken the time to explain my position yet you're just there scratching your head and wondering why

You got any sort of believable explanation?

 

You cannot convince me that the dogs consistently put themselves in positions that win free kicks far above over all other clubs.
For example we've sat on top of the ladder all year.
You don't do that by being second to the ball yet we're down the list on the free kick count.
Someone posted recently that the bulldogs have won the free kick count in their last dozen finals.
And no I don't have an explanation.
The umpiring as a whole has been a disgrace all year.

As for the ducking into tackles thing.
Whatever happened to ... "He ducked into it .... Play on."
The players know they ducked, everyone watching knows they've ducked, but the umpires pay it anyway.
No different from throwing yourself forward in a marking contest as far as I'm concerned.

Edited September 5, 20213 yr by Fork 'em

I think someone looked at the numbers and noticed that the Dogs aren't 1st for free kicks for, they're mid-table, but the reason their differential is so high is that they have a seriously low number of free kicks against.

So the whole "ducking for frees" thing isn't the issue. They're not sucking umpires in to pay frees to them.

If you're playing in front, you can't push your opponent in the back or get them high in a marking contest. The Dogs play in front a lot. 

If you're first to the ball, you can only be penalised for HTB, but the player second to the ball can be penalised for a whole host of things. The Dogs are regularly first to the ball.

These are, I think, the two principal reasons they give away fewer free kicks than their opponents. I don't have any data to back it up, but then again no one has any proof of conspiracies, bias or corruption.

1 minute ago, titan_uranus said:

I think someone looked at the numbers and noticed that the Dogs aren't 1st for free kicks for, they're mid-table, but the reason their differential is so high is that they have a seriously low number of free kicks against.

So the whole "ducking for frees" thing isn't the issue. They're not sucking umpires in to pay frees to them.

If you're playing in front, you can't push your opponent in the back or get them high in a marking contest. The Dogs play in front a lot. 

If you're first to the ball, you can only be penalised for HTB, but the player second to the ball can be penalised for a whole host of things. The Dogs are regularly first to the ball.

These are, I think, the two principal reasons they give away fewer free kicks than their opponents. I don't have any data to back it up, but then again no one has any proof of conspiracies, bias or corruption.

As I explained in a previous post, the Dogs don't get pinged for holding the ball very often (the AFL allows a player to let the ball dribble out or be knocked free in a tackle as well as small throws being allowed when tackled)

So that somewhat explains the low free kick count for the Bulldogs opponents.  And they've been playing that style for at least 6 years now

And you are right with your observation that the Dogs are regularly first to the ball.  Again, the player 2nd to the ball has a hard time of it winning a free kick especially when adding in that the Doggies rarely get pinged for holding the ball

Beveridge worked it all out years ago and I'm surprised that more teams haven't followed suit.  It's of absolute no surprise to me that the Dogs have a large free kick differential

22 hours ago, DubDee said:

That certainly is curious. So the umpires are not deliberately favouring the dogs but they get more free kicks so we should investigate it?

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?

or what other explanation do you think there is?

If that were the case, how do you explain our negative differential? As the team who finishes top of the ladder, who plays a manic contested game style, you'd think we'd have to get to the ball first too, wouldn't you?

The occasional game ruined due to umpiring, sure, it's a game adjudicated by humans, where there are many grey areas in the rules. But the Bulldogs differential is so out of whack with the rest of the competition, it needs a conversation.

And because there currently isn't one, umpires may not be aware of it. Bring their attention to it and we might get a little more evenness in the free kick counts.

 

15 minutes ago, A F said:

If that were the case, how do you explain our negative differential?

We were a total of 16 free kicks down for the home & away season.  That's about 0.7 of a free kick per game

And when considering the professional free kicks that are given away from time to time, 0.7 of a free kick per game is a negligible amount

Edited September 5, 20213 yr by Macca

I love footy. We all presume to be rational observers and science grounded people but then totally ignore the fact there is absolutely no significant statistical correlation over HUNDREDS of years and THOUSANDS of games of winning more free kicks (or differential) and ladder performance. 

Hawks and Sydney were severally negative during their premiership years. Same for Richmond recently. Are they a second to the ball club? What does that even mean. Does someone collect that evidence?

I definitely do think some players milk them incessantly, just like some players give them away like candy (Buddy). That might tip the skew in certain periods or eras. 

But overall, as a team some years you're the bug, some years you're the windshield.  

Ps. Except if you're eagles playing at home. You're always the windshield. 

3 minutes ago, Jjrogan said:

I love footy. We all presume to be rational observers and science grounded people but then totally ignore the fact there is absolutely no significant statistical correlation over HUNDREDS of years and THOUSANDS of games of winning more free kicks (or differential) and ladder performance. 

Hawks and Sydney were severally negative during their premiership years. Same for Richmond recently. Are they a second to the ball club? What does that even mean. Does someone collect that evidence?

I definitely do think some players milk them incessantly, just like some players give them away like candy (Buddy). That might tip the skew in certain periods or eras. 

But overall, as a team some years you're the bug, some years you're the windshield.  

Ps. Except if you're eagles playing at home. You're always the windshield. 

Personally I don't think either side wins in the windshield/bug equation.

2 minutes ago, Jjrogan said:

Ps. Except if you're eagles playing at home. You're always the windshield. 

Ah yes, the home town decisions

Back in the day you couldn't buy a free kick at Windy Hill, Vic Park or Princes Park.  The oldies have told me that it goes all the way back

Happens in a myriad of other sports too ... especially in the NFL & Baseball.  Used to happen in soccer before the advent of VAR

Cricket as well and even neutral umpires seemed to get influenced.  Reviews have changed things to a point where the umpires are now more like orderly's

But in Aussie Rules with all the grey areas and no reviews apart from goal line technology (which is dodgy anyway) we are pushing the proverbial uphill.  The game is harder to umpire than it ever was

I get the passion and emotion but the lack of understanding is baffling.  Do people really believe that the game can be umpired correctly with all the stuff that is going on and all the grey areas? 

Honestly, I've been hearing the same argument since the 60's.  Nothing changes from year to year and the raging arguments just go on forever

 

8 minutes ago, Macca said:

 

Honestly, I've been hearing the same argument since the 60's.  Nothing changes from year to year and the raging arguments just go on forever

 

And yet you've spent more time arguing than anyone here.

I know from experience umpires have biases. After 10 years of senior footy (VFA and suburban) I took up umpiring to keep fit for cricket. I knew if I umpired my old team I found it almost impossible not to favour them, especially with 50/50 calls. It's no doubt an unconscious bias thing.

You also tend to judge harshly players you don't like. Ego, pride and to a certain extent authority are major things for umpires.

I think the older an umpire gets the more he is inclined to want to influence the outcome. Younger umpires are keen to show off their objectivity and fairness. The fact that an umpire has no real scrutiny other than their peers, the players and social media, which they avoid, is a powerful thing as well.

This is where I see blokes like Matt Stevic at the moment.

In my opinion the secret to being a good umpire is paying the first free kick you see. This eliminates inconsistency and players quickly learn what the standard is. Don't guess and try and keep the game flowing. Try and be invisible.

And one last thing. Bouncing the ball really ain't that hard. I have no idea why AFL umpires can't regularly do it. I peeves me off!

 

Edited September 5, 20213 yr by dee-tox

On 9/5/2021 at 2:06 PM, FritschyBusiness said:

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

Daniher?

On 9/5/2021 at 4:36 PM, jnrmac said:

Tim Costello has called for an inquiry into the Lions v West coast game. Where 41 seconds were added to the game and where the Lions made the Top 4 and pushed the Bulldogs into 5th. The suggestion that gambling may have played a role and that the AFL needs to ensure integrity of the game if they are to accept money from bookmakers and gambling companies.

Its the 5th time there has been a 'timekeeping error' but none as significant.

The AFL as expected has remained silent - lest it hurts its own commercial interests.

It would be a foolish person to say that games could not be affected by gambling interests or that umpires are beyond the reach of organised crime syndicates.

 

Gambling, including in game things like first goal, most kicks etc are invitations for “outside influences” to have their finger in the pie.   
A sad fact of modern sport  - tennis, cricket especially IPL where big money can be involved. 
Good on Tim Costello calling for an enquiry but good luck in getting anywhere.  Far too many monied up interested parties.