Jump to content

Featured Replies

On 8/1/2022 at 7:40 AM, Demonstone said:

It's not so much the frees they receive, but all the ones that aren't paid against them for holding the ball and throwing.

And where on the ground they were paid.

 

Do they have statistics  on which team asks/appeals/ yells/demands of the umpire for a free kick the most, wait, no I know the answer.If you didn't  pick a team with white or blue on their jumper you're in the naughty corner.

Dogs are 150 ahead of the Tigers on the differential. 

madness

 
10 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Do they have statistics  on which team asks/appeals/ yells/demands of the umpire for a free kick the most, wait, no I know the answer.If you didn't  pick a team with white or blue on their jumper you're in the naughty corner.

G_____g?

Bonts non 50 meter penalty on the weekend, was…. Wow! 
Umpires are biased to players as much as teams. 


  • Author
2 hours ago, willmoy said:

Do they have statistics  on which team asks/appeals/ yells/demands of the umpire for a free kick the most, wait, no I know the answer.If you didn't  pick a team with white or blue on their jumper you're in the naughty corner.

The benefit of stadiums like Marvel and Optus Stadium is that you get a good vantage point and are close to the action. In the past two weeks I have witnesses 3 teams play quite close up; the Dees, Dogs and Dockers. Only one team had players constantly (and I mean constantly, verbally, throwing their arms up, gesticulating etc) appealing for frees whether they were there or not.

I'm sure you can guess which team is the guilty party.

The other team in the AFL that use this tactic are the Cats.

4 hours ago, DubDee said:

Dogs are 150 ahead of the Tigers on the differential. 

madness

Which makes 7.8 frees differential per game on average over the 19 rounds.

That is absolutely criminal.. 

Tell me that is not biased? Surely the tigers don’t play that carelessly, this is why we need a professional umpiring review and ranking system. 

It’d be great if someone with a lot of time and the technology to do so, to develop an Unofficial umpiring decision and review website to hold them to account.

Wouldnt be hard to technically judge, we all watch other team games and realise what is BS and what is fair.

Edited by DeezNuts

13 hours ago, mauriesy said:

It's a slightly different perspective when you take the differential out of it.

Club Free kicks for Club Free kicks against
Crows 433 Tigers 436
Blues 424 Swans 422
Lions 419 Kangaroos 420
Bulldogs 409 Saints 420
Swans 409 Crows 412
Magpies 405 Lions 407
Cats 399 Hawks 404
Bombers 394 Suns 402
Hawks 392 Dockers 393
Dockers 390 Power 391
Suns 389 Cats 387
Kangaroos 391 Eagles 387
Giants 378 Magpies 382
Saints 378 Bombers 382
Eagles 376 Giants 373
Tigers 367 Blues 367
Power 364 Demons 359
Demons 361 Bulldogs 324

How the mighty have fallen. Wetcoke 4th bottom receives. Can that be right????

 
  • 4 weeks later...

Just now, leave it to deever said:

Ps they had 10 more than us in our last game/ losses Against them.

The fact that it keeps happening with such a big difference is puzzling to say the least.

Libba out of finals. Doubt they beat Freo

The doggies may win the freekick count but won't make a difference as their defence is terrible. 

And of course we all know that the Dogs get away with 100 throws a game as well....


10 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Zero Hanger stopped doing the Free Kick Differential Ladder after Round 20 but here is the ladder after Round 23.

Image

Mental to see the Dogs with nearly double the next closest team. They have had the most insanely biased run I can remember, and that includes a lot of throws not paid in the spirit of the AFL wanting to “make the game faster”!

  • Author
30 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Mental to see the Dogs with nearly double the next closest team. They have had the most insanely biased run I can remember, and that includes a lot of throws not paid in the spirit of the AFL wanting to “make the game faster”!

The post above yours shows that they are now in the positive 9 years running. The last 2 years at least have been almost double the next team. Then when you add all the not paid frees something really smells fishy.

This actually a pretty decent normal distribution. It's weird in that it has occurred in such a small population.

Calculations: mean 0, standard deviation 35.8. Dogs are getting out to near 3 standard deviations from the mean.

Chance of "scoring" 91: 0.04% (this is about the same chance that someone is 6'4" in a human population)

Chance of "scoring" -81: 1.1%

It looks extreme but it's not unreasonable, from a purely statistical sense.

The problem with the "Bulldogs favouritism" theory is that it also has to explain why Richmond gets such a rough trot. I think the latter is because the Tiges try to play "unsociable football" and either get it wrong (too far over the line), or are playing "unsociable football" according to a bygone era (ten years ago) and umpiring standards have changed. Players like Riewoldt continually moaning and groaning may also get the umps offside; they are only human after all.

Now for the Dogs. Pure favouritism (in the sense of Margetts/WCE) doesn't seem to be what's going on. I think it is that Dogs have found a chink in the armour. They are coached to play in a way that the current umpiring fashion is prepared to overlook. Throwing, dropping ... the blatancy with which they do this is inexplicable, unless the explanation is that the umps are directed to overlook it. We now see players from other teams (even our own) trying it on. Cripps in round 23 tried it in the last few minutes of the game ... "oh, I'm in trouble .. I'll just let go of the ball and cause a stoppage". He'd done it all game, but the umps chose that moment to pay holding the ball for the first time! And C'wood scored a goal.

There seems to be a direct line through a "champion of the game" (Selwood) getting away with it, the Dogs' industrialisation of that exploit, and the current blight of players from all teams trying it on. All in the name of making more entertaining a game that through dint of its crowd sizes manifestly does not need that.


2 hours ago, DubDee said:

Libba out of finals. Doubt they beat Freo

This is indeed a blow. Who else do the Dogs have who can dive on the ball while simultaneously scooping it with two hands to a nearby teammate? I hope they have been training this "skill of the game".

On 8/2/2022 at 10:10 PM, DeezNuts said:

Which makes 7.8 frees differential per game on average over the 19 rounds.

That is absolutely criminal.. 

Tell me that is not biased? Surely the tigers don’t play that carelessly, this is why we need a professional umpiring review and ranking system. 

It’d be great if someone with a lot of time and the technology to do so, to develop an Unofficial umpiring decision and review website to hold them to account.

Wouldnt be hard to technically judge, we all watch other team games and realise what is BS and what is fair.

Agree with point 1.

However Tigers are incredibly careless, late & dirty, that’s why they sit bottom of the heap!

To all the theorists out there who think the umpires/AFL blatantly favour the Dogs or even cheat, how do you explain us winning the free kick count 19-13 over the Dogs in the most important game of the 2021 season?

Edited by Bring-Back-Powell

 
1 hour ago, Mazer Rackham said:

This actually a pretty decent normal distribution. It's weird in that it has occurred in such a small population.

Calculations: mean 0, standard deviation 35.8. Dogs are getting out to near 3 standard deviations from the mean.

Chance of "scoring" 91: 0.04% (this is about the same chance that someone is 6'4" in a human population)

Chance of "scoring" -81: 1.1%

It looks extreme but it's not unreasonable, from a purely statistical sense.

The problem with the "Bulldogs favouritism" theory is that it also has to explain why Richmond gets such a rough trot. I think the latter is because the Tiges try to play "unsociable football" and either get it wrong (too far over the line), or are playing "unsociable football" according to a bygone era (ten years ago) and umpiring standards have changed. Players like Riewoldt continually moaning and groaning may also get the umps offside; they are only human after all.

Now for the Dogs. Pure favouritism (in the sense of Margetts/WCE) doesn't seem to be what's going on. I think it is that Dogs have found a chink in the armour. They are coached to play in a way that the current umpiring fashion is prepared to overlook. Throwing, dropping ... the blatancy with which they do this is inexplicable, unless the explanation is that the umps are directed to overlook it. We now see players from other teams (even our own) trying it on. Cripps in round 23 tried it in the last few minutes of the game ... "oh, I'm in trouble .. I'll just let go of the ball and cause a stoppage". He'd done it all game, but the umps chose that moment to pay holding the ball for the first time! And C'wood scored a goal.

There seems to be a direct line through a "champion of the game" (Selwood) getting away with it, the Dogs' industrialisation of that exploit, and the current blight of players from all teams trying it on. All in the name of making more entertaining a game that through dint of its crowd sizes manifestly does not need that.

You’ve nailed it.

Dogs get tackled and just drop ball without penalty, and are let throw more than anyone.

In GF they weren’t given their normal treatment, with best umpires in attendance!

Selwood/Hawkins/Dangerfield/Bont protected species!

Thanks Mods for merging my thread into the correct one. 

Sorry bout that it was on the layzie side of doing things.

He he.

Nonetheless it really gets me angry how it's happening constantly.

Oh well at least they won't win a flag  this year. AGAIN.

 


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • NON-MFC: Round 15

    As the Demons head into their Bye Round, it's time to turn our attention to the other matches being played. Which teams are you tipping this week? And which results would be most favourable for the Demons if we can manage to turn our season around? Follow all the non-Melbourne games here and join the conversation as the ladder continues to take shape.

      • Like
    • 45 replies
  • REPORT: Port Adelaide

    Of course, it’s not the backline, you might argue and you would probably be right. It’s the boot studder (do they still have them?), the midfield, the recruiting staff, the forward line, the kicking coach, the Board, the interchange bench, the supporters, the folk at Casey, the head coach and the club psychologist  It’s all of them and all of us for having expectations that were sufficiently high to have believed three weeks ago that a restoration of the Melbourne team to a position where we might still be in contention for a finals berth when the time for the midseason bye arrived. Now let’s look at what happened over the period of time since Melbourne overwhelmed the Sydney Swans at the MCG in late May when it kicked 8.2 to 5.3 in the final quarter (and that was after scoring 3.8 to two straight goals in the second term). 

      • Clap
      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 2 replies
  • CASEY: Essendon

    Casey’s unbeaten run was extended for at least another fortnight after the Demons overran a persistent Essendon line up by 29 points at ETU Stadium in Port Melbourne last night. After conceding the first goal of the evening, Casey went on a scoring spree from about ten minutes in, with five unanswered majors with its fleet of midsized runners headed by the much improved Paddy Cross who kicked two in quick succession and livewire Ricky Mentha who also kicked an early goal. Leading the charge was recruit of the year, Riley Bonner while Bailey Laurie continued his impressive vein of form. With Tom Campbell missing from the lineup, Will Verrall stepped up to the plate demonstrating his improvement under the veteran ruckman’s tutelage. The Demons were looking comfortable for much of the second quarter and held a 25-point lead until the Bombers struck back with two goals in the shadows of half time. On the other side of the main break their revival continued with first three goals of the half. Harry Sharp, who had been quiet scrambled in the Demons’ first score of the third term to bring the margin back to a single point at the 17 minute mark and the game became an arm-wrestle for the remainder of the quarter and into the final moments of the last.

      • Clap
    • 0 replies
  • PREGAME: Gold Coast

    The Demons have the Bye next week but then are on the road once again when they come up against the Gold Coast Suns on the Gold Coast in what could be a last ditch effort to salvage their season. Who comes in and who comes out?

      • Thanks
    • 110 replies
  • PODCAST: Port Adelaide

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 16th June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we dissect the Dees disappointing loss to the Power.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Thanks
    • 32 replies
  • POSTGAME: Port Adelaide

    The Demons simply did not take their opportunities when they presented themselves and ultimately when down by 25 points effectively ending their finals chances. Goal kicking practice during the Bye?

      • Haha
      • Thanks
    • 252 replies