20 minutes ago, Action Jackson said:

I've got a feeling out on the full is a free kick for but not against...

Doesn't matter. If team A gets 26 frees and team B gets 22, then team A's differential is +4 and team B's is -4. Add them up and you get 0. What the free kicks were for doesn't come in to it.

These numbers are out. Richmond should have one more ‘free kick’ courtesy of Cotchin.

In all seriousness had there been better vision of that incident, and had it been Alex Neal Bullen kicking Joel Selwood, ANB would have been rubbed out for 6 weeks.

Do the media do anything any more? Clearly not report on incidence in the actual games.

1 hour ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Doesn't matter. If team A gets 26 frees and team B gets 22, then team A's differential is +4 and team B's is -4. Add them up and you get 0. What the free kicks were for doesn't come in to it.

Yeah so that's what I was explaining.

If a team gets a free for for out of bounds that are +1, however the player that kicked it out doesn't get a free against, so they are 0.

17 minutes ago, Action Jackson said:

Yeah so that's what I was explaining.

If a team gets a free for for out of bounds that are +1, however the player that kicked it out doesn't get a free against, so they are 0.

I think what you are saying, in effect, is that the free kick totals have been calculated by adding up each players' frees for and against rather than just taking the simpler option of each team's frees for and against. That would account for the disparity, with frees for the 6-6-6 misdemeanour being a good example of a team free kick rather than one against an individual.

The real stat relating to frees, which isn't measured as far as i know are scores as a result of a free. 3/7 GWS goals on the weekend came from frees/50m penalties. Also the Carlton practice game had about 4-5 Carlton goals as a result of dissent alone.

Add in the winning margin and i reckon there will be a game every 2-3 rounds where you would have a story to tell about umpires influence on a game. Its a bigger problem than the media and the AFL let on.

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Dunno who puts them together but it's sloppy work, so probably someone at the AFL.

🥴

On 4/10/2022 at 10:21 AM, Mazer Rackham said:

The severe problem with interpretation is that there is interpretation. The umpires department lacks the courage of its convictions to referee the game according to the written rules.

The umpires remind me of a junior, novice new employee sitting in an executive business meeting by default, attempting to establish an alleged opinion and identity, and constantly spruiking BS about all of the topics of the day.

The new AFL umpiring rules and protocols replicate this niggling inaccuracy and represent a grossly annoying WAFTAM ( waste of F time and money) for their own credibility, not that of the game - the latter changing tack week to week. 

Edited April 20, 20223 yr by Deemania since 56

Cody Weightman on SEN this morning

"I'm very comfortable to continue doing what I'm doing, and I don't think it's going to affect my game. "I think I do have the ability to draw free kicks, and I think that's a skill set rather than a flop or whatever you call that."

Wonder how that's going to work out for him

13 minutes ago, roy11 said:

Cody Weightman on SEN this morning

"I'm very comfortable to continue doing what I'm doing, and I don't think it's going to affect my game. "I think I do have the ability to draw free kicks, and I think that's a skill set rather than a flop or whatever you call that."

Wonder how that's going to work out for him

It’s working for him and his team. He’s consistently getting free kicks, and due to where he plays those free kicks often lead to goals. 

For supporters and spectators, he’s a flopping little [censored] who goes against the spirit of the game. He’ll get his head taken off some day and it won’t be a surprise or garner any sympathy as he will have put himself into that situation with knee dropping/going head first.

On 4/20/2022 at 10:23 AM, The heart beats true said:

These numbers are out. Richmond should have one more ‘free kick’ courtesy of Cotchin.

In all seriousness had there been better vision of that incident, and had it been Alex Neal Bullen kicking Joel Selwood, ANB would have been rubbed out for 6 weeks.

Do the media do anything any more? Clearly not report on incidence in the actual games.

The footy media are in on the illusion. Go against City Hall and you are out of the game for life.

6 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

The footy media are in on the illusion. Go against City Hall and you are out of the game for life.

Accreditation cancelled real quick.

20 hours ago, roy11 said:

Cody Weightman on SEN this morning

"I'm very comfortable to continue doing what I'm doing, and I don't think it's going to affect my game. "I think I do have the ability to draw free kicks, and I think that's a skill set rather than a flop or whatever you call that."

Wonder how that's going to work out for him

Unbelievable that a  player openly admits he 'creates' the free..  Surely the AFL and umpires should take note.  It is not a skill!  It is cheating.  It is staging or exaggeration and not in the spirit of the game..

The amount of staging for frees is out of control.  Coaches are openly talking about training players on how to draw free kicks.  Now we have Hardwick saying they will go to umpires to learn how to draw free kicks!!  hardwick-says-tigers-must-learn-how-to-win-frees

The playing for frees is spoiling the game as a spectator.  Surely, the AFL realise all this is making a mockery of the rules. 

18 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

.

The amount of staging for frees is out of control.  Coaches are openly talking about training players on how to draw free kicks.  Now we have Hardwick saying they will go to umpires to learn how to draw free kicks!!  hardwick-says-tigers-must-learn-how-to-win-frees

The playing for frees is spoiling the game as a spectator.  Surely, the AFL realise all this is making a mockery of the rules. 

I think this is quite clever from Hardwick, it's a way to have a go at the umpires without attracting the usual fines. The media will go nuts about the state of the game and Hardwick will have subtly made his point.

3 minutes ago, Demon_spurs said:

I think this is quite clever from Hardwick, it's a way to have a go at the umpires without attracting the usual fines. The media will go nuts about the state of the game and Hardwick will have subtly made his point.

Hardwick:  Clever?  Subtle? 

Can't see it, tbh.

20 hours ago, roy11 said:

Cody Weightman on SEN this morning

"I'm very comfortable to continue doing what I'm doing, and I don't think it's going to affect my game. "I think I do have the ability to draw free kicks, and I think that's a skill set rather than a flop or whatever you call that."

Wonder how that's going to work out for him

He’s a FLOP

TO “fall, move, or hang in a loose and ungainly way” 

Cotchin kicks Selwood - nothing 

Hawkins clearly fakes a push in the back - nothing 

Hawkins clearly pushes Harris Andrew’s in the back - nothing 

and Brad Scott wants people to understand the dissent rule. Get the other clear cut  rules sorted imv. 

22 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Hardwick:  Clever?  Subtle? 

Can't see it, tbh.

I admit, I was surprised myself

We've created a monster with the head being sacrosanct along with the concussion issues & protocols

The exploitation of the head high contact can only get worse in my view.  As time goes on all the teams (not just Selwood & the Doggies) are going to become adept and coached to win the high tackle free kick

We can't fix it even if we had the motivation to fix it ... unless we retrospectively ping up to 100 players per round for staging & cheating

So the ducking, shrugging up of the arms and knees dropping will continue and get worse

And everyone will complain but the problem will rage on

Anyone got a solution?  Apart from expecting the umpires to sort it all out (which is an impossible mission)

Agree.   I'm guessing about 3 in 4 such frees are for minor touches of the shoulder or head, not grasps around the neck.

Just how dangerous to players health would it be to abolish over the shoulder completely and just pay dangerous ones as dangerous tackles/contact?   

19 hours ago, jnrmac said:

The footy media are in on the illusion. Go against City Hall and you are out of the game for life.

 

19 hours ago, MT64 said:

Accreditation cancelled real quick.

Makes for nice hyperbole. But, seriously, are there any examples of this having happened?

1 hour ago, sue said:

Agree.   I'm guessing about 3 in 4 such frees are for minor touches of the shoulder or head, not grasps around the neck.

Just how dangerous to players health would it be to abolish over the shoulder completely and just pay dangerous ones as dangerous tackles/contact?   

In some games it's way more than 3-4 (actual attempts at staging, not all paid)

In the Cats/Hawks game there might have been 15-20 instances

Not that I let it bother me ... it is what it is and the better team usually wins and it evens itself out anyway

Except if you are the Western Bulldogs ... they have a clear advantage because they are coached really well to exploit the high contact ruling

And it's no good for the punters to point at the Western Bulldogs either.  They are just "Playing' the rules

It's an AFL issue and only drastic measures will fix it, Sue

Also, this particular type of free kick leads to player frustration ... which leads to umpire disrespect

It's a blight on the game

Edited April 22, 20223 yr by Macca

17 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

 

Makes for nice hyperbole. But, seriously, are there any examples of this having happened?

Dale Lewis

And you don't need a lot of examples, It is common knowledge that if you speak out against the AFL you lose gigs, endorsements, plum jobs etc. So people don't do it - or at least the vast majority.

Its not rocket science that a monopoly code driven by fierce control of its narrative would use coersion and the lure of financial penalties to maintain their narrative.

 

Edited April 21, 20223 yr by jnrmac

31 minutes ago, sue said:

Just how dangerous to players health would it be to abolish over the shoulder completely and just pay dangerous ones as dangerous tackles/contact?   

In schoolyard footy the free kick was paid for "around the neck" ie. a (coat)hanger style tackle. It was not for nominal "high tackle" or for "over the shoulder" or for any other euphemism for a tackle that might be above the waist but not dangerous at all.

How many times have we seen players, especially ruckmen, in a contest where, as a result of the pushing and shoving,  one hand slips on to the top of the shoulder and a free kick is paid. Why and what for? It is neither "around the neck" or a high "tackle". Just a stray hand without any impact on the contest.

Time to do away with such technical style and strict liability free kicks and revert to the intent and spirit of our great game. I descending order of priority, free kicks should be paid to maintain the safety of the players; to encourage an even contest; and finally to enhance the spectacle of the game.

If the roos' current position is any reflection on B Scott's efforts then please Gill make him return to coaching so he can't make a mess of the rules and our great game.

21 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Dale Lewis

And you don't need a lot of examples, It is common knowledge that if you speak out against the AFL you lose gigs, endorsements, plum jobs etc. So people don't do it - or at least the vast majority.

Its not rocket science that a monopoly code driven by fierce control of its narrative would use coersion and the lure of financial penalties to maintain their narrative.

 

Dale Lewis is a good example, thanks. However, I'm completely out of the loop when it comes to the "common knowledge" you refer to.

19 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Dale Lewis

And you don't need a lot of examples, It is common knowledge that if you speak out against the AFL you lose gigs, endorsements, plum jobs etc. So people don't do it - or at least the vast majority.

Its not rocket science that a monopoly code driven by fierce control of its narrative would use coersion and the lure of financial penalties to maintain their narrative.

 

And of course Libba when talking about Carlton tanking

That was one of the quickest about-face's of all time ... he went from one extreme to the other in a couple of days

Journo's would know the line they can't cross too ... oddly enough, if the controversy has a knock on effect of having the sport front & centre in the media, that seems to be ok

Take the H/S with the attack on Goodwin.  Got everyone talking about footy and the AFL would have loved that