Otherwise known as The Free Kick Bulldogs Thread.

Kicking this thread off early after only one game has been played. The Bulldogs started 22 off where they left off in 21.

Bulldogs +13

Demons -13

Full list at the end of the Round.

3 hours ago, Demonland said:

Otherwise known as The Free Kick Bulldogs Thread.

Kicking this thread off early after only one game has been played. The Bulldogs started 22 off where they left off in 21.

Bulldogs +13

Demons -13

Full list at the end of the Round.

I reckon at least 5 of them were against gawn to English in really minor strange decisions. I don’t know what the dogs do to get consistently get the rub of the green but it’s something! 

That "front on contact" on the quarter time siren was jut plain cheating / incompetence.   No contact was made.

And the HTB interpretations were polar opposites dependent on who had the ball.

I hope official questions are at least asked privately.

 

 

There was one play where a Bulldog had the ball and was spun 360degs without making any attempt to get rid of the ball legally. 
I thought there was a new rule specifically bought in to police that. 
Absolute Rubbish!!!

Irrespective of the disparity in number, I was more concerned about the inconsistency. I thought, overall, the umpires had a poor night. To be fair, the quality of the football was inferior to last year's Grand Final, too, with a lot more fumbling and poor disposals. Hopefully, both the quality of umpiring and football will improve next week.

I felt that most of the free kicks against Gawn to English were there (albeit a little soft) - Max didn't have a great game.

Some of the other decisions, particularly the Langdon deliberate, the Smith block and the non-HTB in the last quarter, were really poor.

 

3 minutes ago, poita said:

I felt that most of the free kicks against Gawn to English were there (albeit a little soft) - Max didn't have a great game.

Some of the other decisions, particularly the Langdon deliberate, the Smith block and the non-HTB in the last quarter, were really poor.

 

I agree entirely about the Langdon and Smith fiascos. A Bulldog player carried the ball over the boundary line in the first quarter and got away with it. The Smith decision is probably the worst I can recall...

And wasn’t there a block paid against TMAC for a pack ball, where he managed to get both hands on the ball? – hardly blocking for the sake of blocking!

1 minute ago, Ollie fan said:

And wasn’t there a block paid against TMAC for a pack ball, where he managed to get both hands on the ball? – hardly blocking for the sake of blocking!

and free kick htb against tracc which led to their first goal....no prior

Let's not forget the deliberate against langdon. Absolutely shocking call. 

The Bulldogs 30 free kicks compared to the Demons 17 free kicks is absolutely ridiculous.

Incredibly biased umpiring. It was like the Demons were playing against two teams! But the Bulldogs are well-known for being the umpires favourites.

 

Edited March 17, 20223 yr by Supreme_Demon

10 minutes ago, dieter said:

I agree entirely about the Langdon and Smith fiascos. A Bulldog player carried the ball over the boundary line in the first quarter and got away with it. The Smith decision is probably the worst I can recall...

The Langdon deliberate one was totally wrong. As was the facile TV commentator who said to ensure he wasn't pinged he should have turned towards the dog player rather than running outside the line.  But it seemed to me Langdon ran outside the line with the intention of taking the ball past the Dog player.  Pinged for trying to make a play rather than taking the easy option.  Terrible decision.

 

43 minutes ago, monoccular said:

That "front on contact" on the quarter time siren was jut plain cheating / incompetence.   No contact was made.

And the HTB interpretations were polar opposites dependent on who had the ball.

I hope official questions are at least asked privately.

 

 

I can understand why that one was given from a rules perspective (given Smith had no eyes on the ball ) - very unlucky for Smith but think Weightman did initiate some minimum contact to get the free - simultaneously milked and conned the umpire.

Found it funny Clarry/Gawn responsible for 13 of the 30 frees.

 

The Bulldogs get an insanely favourable ride from the umpires, with a lot of it being unjust. It's staggering it hasn't received a formal inquiry as it's borderline match fixing at this point. They finished last season with a +79 differential, which was 46 more than the next closest team in the league! There's nothing to say free kick counts need to be even - they obviously don't - but the free kicks the Bulldogs often receive are absurd.

Off the top of my head:
- Langdon deliberate out of bounds was incorrect decision and handed them a goal.
- Petracca holding the ball where he was mobbed by three opponents immediately and had no prior opportunity to dispose of it. Incorrect decision and an umpire trying to flex the new holding the ball interpretation. From memory also lead to a goal a few moments later.
- Tim English individually received 8 (!) free kicks, which is an AFL record for most free kicks to one individual ever in a match. 6 frees were from ruck contests where neither ruckman even knew what happened as they were both grappling with their eyes on the ball. Trash umpiring that was incorrect and slowed the game down, when the intent is to speed the game up.
- Weightman free kick at quarter time for... nearly being touched? Getting scared by possible physical contact that never eventuated? One of the worst free kicks ever given and handed them a goal. After scoring four goals directly from dodgy frees against the Lions in finals, Weightman is my most hated player in the league. Petulant little spud who flops around for frees and pulls out of contests. P

 

The Dogs start 2022 with a +13. Good thread to keep track of it OP. If it continues this season I'd love to see it get lots of media attention and force a please explain from the AFL.

I don't know that the Bulldogs get much advantage from their free kicks anyway, or from playing for them. While you get a metreage advantage, a free kick generally holds up the play for a short time, which helps the opposition get in position to defend. Especially when a team has a strong defensive focus like Melbourne.

Did we lose? 😄

I think we should also be keeping track on goals from 50 metre penalties 

CFC seem to be the big beneficiaries of this latest trend - umpires should not be heavily influencing momentum within games and even outcomes of games - there is a risk that they are doing both atm

I've been playing/watching football for a very long time - if I was asked to explain some of the rules now to someone who'd never watched a game before I honestly think I'd struggle 

Seems like a step in the wrong direction to me 

40 minutes ago, Sydee said:

I think we should also be keeping track on goals from 50 metre penalties 

CFC seem to be the big beneficiaries of this latest trend - umpires should not be heavily influencing momentum within games and even outcomes of games - there is a risk that they are doing both atm

I've been playing/watching football for a very long time - if I was asked to explain some of the rules now to someone who'd never watched a game before I honestly think I'd struggle 

Seems like a step in the wrong direction to me 

If the umpires are paying free kicks that should be paid and not paying the ones they shouldn't, they are not influencing momentum within games. The players giving away the free kicks are. 

How would you like to be carlton. In the last 2 games they have be awarded 16 50 mtr penalties including two 100 mtr ones. 

It will be interesting when they play footscray the umpires will be totally confused in who to support. 

41 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

If the umpires are paying free kicks that should be paid and not paying the ones they shouldn't, they are not influencing momentum within games. The players giving away the free kicks are. 

That is a very big IF right there

I've watched both games this round and have been completely mystified by some decisions and non-decisions by the umpires. Your point is valid if they are getting it right the majority of the time - atm I'm not convinced they are 

Devil's advocate but also a genuine question (the official rules are consistently vague): does there need to be actual contact for an action to be considered blocking?

A common test applied seems to be whether a player had eyes for the ball. Smith clearly didn't. He had one intention and that was to block Weightman's run at it. Weightman altered his run and jump to avoid what would have been illegal contact, and so was impeded by a player not contesting the ball.

Smith's approach was actually quite dangerous. Had he crouched rather than jumped out of the way at the last moment - a scenario Weightman would have to assess - there was a serious risk of high-impact tunnelling. Why should the onus be on the competing player to take the risk of such a hit to prove they were impeded? 

Another howler of a decision was the one with about 2 minutes to go where Clarry was called for holding Macrae.  They just had the usual side by side joust that you see 50 times a game in the middle bounce and Macrae broke away in front of Clarry to attempt to get to the ball drop.  The whistle in that decision was one of the quickest calls ive ever witnessed....as if pre-determined.

The other issue is the constant calling against Max at least once or twice in almost every game he plays for "blocking".

Yet i witnessed something similar from English or at the least "front on contact" or simlar with no eyes on the bounce of the ball.....just looking straight at Maxy and jumping into him with both hands pushing into his shoulders ....yet zero free kicks for Max.

Max appears to be being targeted in a biased manner by certain umps and this discrepancy needs to be raised by the FD with the AFL immediately and hit on the head before further damage is done in the coming weeks.

Having said that, sometimes Max is often caught coming from behind which sees his arms draping over shoulders or hands in the back etc and the frees are there.  So Max also needs to work on getting to the front a little more often to reduce the likelihood of being pinged so often and improve his own chances of receiving a few more himself imho.

Edited March 18, 20223 yr by Demon Dynasty

21 hours ago, Skuit said:

does there need to be actual contact for an action to be considered blocking?

Yes. Dancing around a player, waving your arms, shouting “BOO!”, making faces, intimating contact, all allowed if you don’t physically contact them. The umpire simply jumped the gun, assuming contact had or would have been made. It was a mistake, but it’s easy to see why he was anticipating contact. 

2 hours ago, Webber said:

Yes. Dancing around a player, waving your arms, shouting “BOO!”, making faces, intimating contact, all allowed if you don’t physically contact them. The umpire simply jumped the gun, assuming contact had or would have been made. It was a mistake, but it’s easy to see why he was anticipating contact. 

Are you saying this from a rules-based interpretation or from your own perspective Webber? A brief thought experiment and it's easy to come up with scenarios where non-contact blocking could apply, say if multiple defenders set up a backward-facing 'wall' to block an opponent's run at the ball - which opens up a lot of grey area about what should be permissible or not. You're a doctor mate: should it be incumbent on a player to make contact and risk an injury to prove they were impeded? 

5 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Are you saying this from a rules-based interpretation or from your own perspective Webber? A brief thought experiment and it's easy to come up with scenarios where non-contact blocking could apply, say if multiple defenders set up a backward-facing 'wall' to block an opponent's run at the ball - which opens up a lot of grey area about what should be permissible or not. You're a doctor mate: should it be incumbent on a player to make contact and risk an injury to prove they were impeded? 

In this scenario, all the player going for the ball needs to do is to initiate contact with the blocking players and he would receive the free kick? Or am I visualising poorly?

On 3/18/2022 at 10:42 AM, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

If the umpires are paying free kicks that should be paid and not paying the ones they shouldn't, they are not influencing momentum within games. The players giving away the free kicks are. 

I think most people's beef (and not just MFC fans) with the Footscray differential is the fact that there seems  consistently / repeatedly to be different interpretations for them and their opponents within games.  

Edited March 19, 20223 yr by monoccular