16 hours ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

How the f*&k do Footscray get away with it? They've been throwing the ball for six years.

Very weak knees at the Kennel.   They just keep collapsing beneath them. 

Still it won them a Premiership, but hasn't got them any further in the subsequent 5 years.

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

While the concept of full-time professional umpires has some attraction, I struggle to see what umpires would do every day during the week and during the off-season. There's only a certain amount of fitness required (and they already seem to have that). Perhaps if being full-time involved a secondary role, such as mentoring junior umpires or working with clubs so everyone fully understands the rules, might help. There might not be enough work for all the field umpires to become full-time, but perhaps we can end up with a mix of full- and part-time umpires with every match having at least one full-time field umpire.   

I still think, by the way, that the low hanging fruit which would improve umpiring more than making them full-time, is an overhaul of the rules to eliminate as much as possible the subjective assessments wherever possible.  

well for one thing they could umpire 2 games every week......there's 2 days work out of 5

then there is obviously fitness training, rule and interpretation training and last and importantly extensive reviews of the previous weeks games

additionally running training clinics for junior umpires

plenty to do......at least as much as current players  

4 hours ago, daisycutter said:

well for one thing they could umpire 2 games every week......there's 2 days work out of 5

then there is obviously fitness training, rule and interpretation training and last and importantly extensive reviews of the previous weeks games

additionally running training clinics for junior umpires

plenty to do......at least as much as current players  

I'm slowly starting to come round to the idea. I'm still not sure, though, that there's enough to do in the off-season.

There's also another potential short-term problem if field umpires go full-time. The current crop of field umpires might quit if they prefer their current day job. Nevertheless, that's not a reason not to proceed to go full-time. It could always be a staged transition. (Mind you, I'm still not sure going full-time is the right answer. Wavering, yes. But not entirely convinced, either.) 

21 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

There's also another potential short-term problem if field umpires go full-time. The current crop of field umpires might quit if they prefer their current day job. Nevertheless, that's not a reason not to proceed to go full-time. It could always be a staged transition. (Mind you, I'm still not sure going full-time is the right answer. Wavering, yes. But not entirely convinced, either.) 

Will these umpires par excellence be missed?

40 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Will these umpires par excellence be missed?

Hmmmmm………nuh! 

15 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Will these umpires par excellence be missed?

I know (at least I hope) you are being flippant, but we should assume that the current bunch are the best available right now. So, would we miss them? Absolutely. Just imagine how much worse it would be if they were replaced with those not considered to be as good? 

24 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I know (at least I hope) you are being flippant, but we should assume that the current bunch are the best available right now. So, would we miss them? Absolutely. Just imagine how much worse it would be if they were replaced with those not considered to be as good? 

I am being flippant more than somewhat. But the professionalism of umpires is not going to be a switch thrown overnight. "We're going professional, so youse can all [censored] off." It will be phased in, much as the days of players having a day job were phased out.

dogs don't get more free kicks

dogs lose

bevo deserted by establishment

that'll teach him a lesson for wrecking a press conference

Yes ok, but I hate the mob who beat them who were favoured by more frees. This could be worse.

11 hours ago, willmoy said:

Yes ok, but I hate the mob who beat them who were favoured by more frees. This could be worse.

actually frees were equal. 19 each

of course that doesn't take into account missed frees and wrong frees

The more interesting point is the allocation of Brownlow votes, do the favoured ones get more votes and the lippy ones, like Max or Clarry, get less votes, or none at all. Let's face it Max has been known to query any free against him, sometimes he's right, sometimes not, it's probably 50/50. English had 8 frees given to him the other night so it will be interesting to see if he polls in the game.

If you go back over the votes last year and check the votes given/not given to players who had a lot of free kicks given against them,.or given to them (do the umpires have favourites?)

If a player has a really good game but has, say 6 frees against them, does that stop them from polling a vote.

Doggies streaking ahead tonight.

On 3/25/2022 at 3:49 AM, Dante said:

The more interesting point is the allocation of Brownlow votes, do the favoured ones get more votes and the lippy ones, like Max or Clarry, get less votes, or none at all. Let's face it Max has been known to query any free against him, sometimes he's right, sometimes not, it's probably 50/50. English had 8 frees given to him the other night so it will be interesting to see if he polls in the game.

If you go back over the votes last year and check the votes given/not given to players who had a lot of free kicks given against them,.or given to them (do the umpires have favourites?)

If a player has a really good game but has, say 6 frees against them, does that stop them from polling a vote.

We anxiously await the results of your research.

It’s astounding the Bulldogs can continue to get such a favorable ride from the umpires. 31 to 14 tonight, similar to most weeks. There needs to be an inquiry as it costs teams matches.

6 hours ago, Lord Travis said:

It’s astounding the Bulldogs can continue to get such a favorable ride from the umpires. 31 to 14 tonight, similar to most weeks. There needs to be an inquiry as it costs teams matches.

Doggies' frees are prolific - common sense says this is intended. I keep harping about the umpires (which is not actually my intent, nor particularly flattering about my love for the game) but free-kick circumstances and differentials get worse for some clubs at the expense of the fans and players, for the benefit of emergingly obvious AFL/umpire preferences - nothing more. When game differentials for free kicks are more evenly distributed, closer recount ushers in the three 'w's; it thus affects when the free was given, where the free was given and why the free was given. After analysis, it appears, for example, that the Doggies get a free kick tally mounting when they are falling behind or their oponents are surging towards goal; the Doggies get frees within goal range or are compensated for their opponents' good plays in their backline; the Doggies frees aim to even-up the scoreline, put them ahead on the scoreboard, and keep them ahead or enable them to ameliorate a lapse in scoring capacity relative to their opponents' endeavours (up to that point of the game).

For the AFL, this makes for their interpretation a 'keener' contest, a more 'knife-edge' game, producing higher levels of anxiety in spectators and thus a supposed increase in the entertainment valuation that is provided; and, assists to assure a game result that is consistent with desired turnstile turn-over in the longer term. It is selectively applied and discriminatory, so who cares? 

Edited March 31, 20223 yr by Deemania since 56

The media hesitate to discuss the WB frees as it will be seen as criticising the umpires.  A no-no for the AFL

It wouldn't be so bad if umpires were consistent.  Last night WB got all the 50/50's some 80/20's while the Swans got zip of those.  The number of blocks of Swans fwds not paid was horrendous. 

 

Talking of umpires we have #2 tonight.  He tends to treat us like the Swans were treated last night.

Edited March 31, 20223 yr by Lucifers Hero

32 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

The media hesitate to discuss the WB frees as it will be seen as criticising the umpires.  A no-no for the AFL

It wouldn't be so bad if umpires were consistent.  Last night WB got all the 50/50's some 80/20's while the Swans got zip of those.  The number of blocks of Swans fwds not paid was horrendous. 

 

Talking of umpires we have #2 tonight.  He tends to treat us like the Swans were treated last night.

That’s true. However what’s happening here isn’t a single badly umpired game. This is a multi year , game affecting trend that NEEDS to be discussed. 

It seems clear now that somehow the dogs are playing the system. If we want to at least aspire to non partiality from our umpires we need to understand how this has happened. It’s SO obvious now that not talking about it is harming the game. 

It's like the Fawlty Towers skit. Don't mention the umpires (war )

31 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

That’s true. However what’s happening here isn’t a single badly umpired game. This is a multi year , game affecting trend that NEEDS to be discussed. 

It seems clear now that somehow the dogs are playing the system. If we want to at least aspire to non partiality from our umpires we need to understand how this has happened. It’s SO obvious now that not talking about it is harming the game. 

I don't hold hope for AFL action.

They didn't do anything after the 2016 Prelim and worse the 2016 GF.  They and Beveridge even acknowledged the one side umpiring in the GF.  There has been plenty of time to 're-train' the umpires.

Crickets!

Is it costing the AFL money? Yes/no? There's your answer.

 

WHY it happens is a bit of a mystery, but there's no doubt the Dogs are coached to exploit some particular weakness(es) of the umpires' department.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/livid-afl-fans-fume-at-mindboggling-umpiring-in-dogs-vs-swans/news-story/7d6f06c269f737b9c9f1a60a5d3d9d85

The AFL is right to back the umpires in most circumstances but as stated above that does not mean some sober reflection on trends in Umpiring shouldn't be discussed. It doesn't mean the Umpires are actually biased merely there is an issue that needs to be addressed. Most workplaces these days discuss the issue of unconscious bias. 

It has been plain as a pikestaff over the years there is a bias in Perth caused by something (possibly the crowds influence) but little has been done about it. The dogs free kick advantage should be discussed and addressed. 

Ps: Which brave journo will ask Bevo about it at a press conference?

Edited March 31, 20223 yr by Robbie57

11 hours ago, Lord Travis said:

It’s astounding the Bulldogs can continue to get such a favorable ride from the umpires. 31 to 14 tonight, similar to most weeks. There needs to be an inquiry as it costs teams matches.

The AFL seems to have an intermittent policy of commenting on contentious decisions. That suggests to me that they review the umpiring in all matches (although I concede that is not necessarily the case - they could just look at the contentious ones). Clearly what you are referring to, though, is a more transparent process and I think that would be a good idea. I'm in favour of a holistic review being the "rules of the game and how they are umpired", not just the umpires per se. 

However, I don't buy the argument that it costs teams matches. Or, rather, it doesn't cost teams matches any more than the mistakes the losing teams make.

A 31 to 14 free kick count should be ringing alarm bells and flashing red lights for the AFL.

If the game is being adjudicated correctly in accordance with the latest iteration of the rules then lopsided free kick counts should be neither possible nor acceptable. It is a blot on our great game.

Unless the swannies are suffering such a lopsided count most weeks, and there is some technical issue with how they play, then the only inference that can be drawn is that the game is not being adjudicated correctly in accordance with the latest iteration of the rules.

We need to know why and how this situation can be fixed. Now.

Edited April 1, 20223 yr by tiers
Syntax, grammar, just sounds better

Us vs the Dogs 17- 30 free kicks

Swans vs the Dogs 14-31 free kicks.

No mention of the lop sided count in the media re us, but against the Swans it's grounds for a Royal Commission according to the Sydney Press.  At least it's now getting attention.  

Any inquiry into umpiring is met with big resistance and any coach daring to mention will get reprimanded as well 

At the very least there needs to be discussion of the exploitability of some rules, especially throwing and high frees imo. Doggies get away with throwing all game, every week.