binman

Ta. In that sense those three stats are better as indicators of things are teams are doing well, or symptoms of things they are doing poorly. So the crow's high score from turnover is an indicator their pressure was good and symptom of our not being as good and our poor defensive running (an other things no doubt too eg good skills). I reckon it might also point to a backline that was a bit out of kilter. They didn't replace Salem with a like for like (ie a distributor replaced by a lockdown small defender) and they played Petty in a different role (ie up the ground as opposed to the goal keeper role). So when they won the ball back from us, our zones and defensive structures were not as well organized as they usually are.

That is super high. Our average opposition score was something like 61 points prior to this game. And we conceded 76 points from turnovers alone. I'm not sure how they define a turnover (frustration #6543 with how the game us covered) but I'm assuming it is any time where we have clear possession and they win it back. So not just clangers. There must be heaps of turnovers in any given game. No doubt speaks to how fierce at the contest they were, their ability to transition the ball and getting clean entries. The first speaks to our pressure the latter two things our average defensive running and spread.

Exactly. Which is why they were able to transition so much more easily than other opponents - particularly though the corridor Add pressure levels that were not up to the required level until part way through the last quarter and you get clean entries. And the highest score kicked in against us this season. Add some accurate kicking from them, some poor defensive efforts (why was none in Walker's leading lanes x 2), some costly fumbles (eg tracc on the wing in the last) and some dubious decision that cost goals (non deliberate, deliberate against us x 2, soft in the back against lever, rubbish 50 and the non htb against keays). Ans most of all add a young team who played with spirit and fire and took risks. Put it all together and you get a one point loss. Not to mention a cracking game. At least for neutrals. When it is all said and done nothing to die in a ditch over. We should have played tempo one we got the 16 point lead. And the quick goal from the centre to walker was poor defensively. Of course you want the 4 points, but I do wonder if squeezing home in that game might have allowed some players to think the pressure and defensive running was OK. A loss takes that off the table and none one needs to tell them if the crows can beat them by applying more pressure (which accross the game they did - i reckon we only ever matched them at best and then only for 15 mins in rhe last) the dogs will destroy them.

I thought they way they set up was really strange to be honest. And made life more difficult for Petty as a result. The structure we have run with for well over two years has been Omac, then Tomo as the deep full back/goal keeper, with May and Lever playing higher. Petty replaced Tomlinson and took over that role, which is how he played against the swans and the blues. But against the crows they put Petty on Walker when he left the forward line and May played deep. It is too early for them to be playing around with roles in terms of Petty bedding down his role. May should have been on Walker the whole match and followed him whenever he left the 50 metre arc leaving Petty deep as the sweeper. Sure the crows would have tried to engineer Petty on Walker deep in that scenario. And i get that they probably were happy enough to have Walker on the wing against Petty, even if he was out marking him, as he is not kicking goals from there and they would have thought May and Gawn would then be more of weapon. But in doing so they disrupted the systems and defensive synergy and exposed Petty to being out marked to boot. And to make matters worse may had his worst game for the season, and was not an offensive threat at all, and max wasn't taking his marks. They should have just keep things simple and stuck with their go to structure.

Has to be bowey. If fit enough I can only assume they didn't think bowey was ready after his injury break. Otherwsie, surely he was the logical replacement for Salem Assuming that to be the case i understand, sort of, why they went with Nev's, becuase he is experience and is pretty accurate and reliable kick, which with Hunt and Rivers is important as both are hit and miss coming out of defence. But unfortunate Jetts look a liability when dragged out of the back 50 and is not a ditibutor like Salem. So not a like for like. I would have preferred them putting Jordon in Salem's position and bringing Captain Jack Sparrow in to play Vice Captain Jack's inside mid role. JJ is looking a bit weary and struggled to hit targets again playing an inside mid. Playing him at half back would not be as taxing, and if you look at his heat maps round 1 -8 that's essentially where he played. He is an excellent kick, makes good decisions, is good defensively, is a good tackler and can get up the ground - all key elements of Salem's game. And a fresh Captain Jack would have brought a ferocity and willingness to apply pressure we lacked.

How we are playing is completely different discussion. This thread is about the umpires getting it blatantly wrong. It is not about whether the blatant error cost us the game. Which by the by, is by no means certain it did. Lets say Spargo got the free for deliberate. He might have tried a banana and hit the wrong side of the ball and missed everything. Unlikely, but possible.

As you note Webber, that an egregious error like the one made in at least three games his season has had direct bearing on the result of a gem at the very elite level of a fully professional sport - Australia's biggest sport by some magnitude. It is important Ii think to differentiate between a basic error, that might be open to interpretation, of the sort that happened 20 times game and an egregious error like the one that cost the MFC a minimum of 2, and potentially 4 premiership points. Those points could be, say the difference between the MFC playing the Lions at the MCG in the qualifying final or playing that game at the Gabba (which would be ironic, as the Lions may miss top four, or a home QF, becuase of egregious error at Kardinia Park). So the implications for such an error are huge. I don't blame the umpires for these sort egregious errors. The blame lies with the AFL Of course the umpires don't cheat. And deliberate home town bias is baloney. But the umpires have to have the ability to make the correct calls under the most extreme pressure, like a manic finish with 50, 000 home fans going ballistic. And it is up to the AFL to ensure they have that ability. And to so the only meaningful option is to have professional umpires. Failure to do so basically is an admission the game will accept x number of such season shaping errors every year. And on sheer probability, one such egregious error will happen in the Grand Final at some point and result in an underserving winner. Is that what the AFL want? Is that what the fans want? History is clear on this question. And the answer is no. On the back of the goals that was awarded to hawkins after the ball hit the post in the 2009 Grand Final, and arguably changed the result of the game (though wasn't in the last minute) the score review system was brought in. Leaving aside that 12 years later it is still a mess, no one really argues we should not continue using the technology to prevent howlers. Because as they said at the time - do we really want a grand final decided by an error from a goal umpire? Why is the scenario in the dees and cat v lions games any different. Blatant errors determined the result. Which actually suggests a short term fix. In the last say 60 or 90 seconds of the game (becuase ieven though all really bad errors might impact a result, we can only be certain they will in the last 60 or 90 seconds of a game - and it would take too long if applied throughout a match,) , where possible, any such gregarious errors should be reversed by the video umpire. We have the system in place already. Realistically it could only happen when there is there is stoppage immediately or soon after the contentious decision - or non decision. (as when the ball is motion it would not be fair to stop the play). So wouldn't happen that often. Bu in the two examples this season there has been a stoppage. The video umpire tells the field umpires to stop play and that a piece of play will be reviewed. They review the play and if they believe an obvious error has been made, reverse, or apply the free. As would have occurred in the dees game. Such an approach is wholly consistent wit the use of technology to review goals to make sure the game is as fair as possible. In an ideal world we would have a panel of full time professional umpiring our game, who receive the under the right training (eg making correct decision under extreme pressure - training that no doubt exists) supported by judicious use of video technology.

For me it is not about accountability. It is about being a full time professional. Training all week. Doing mutiple matches. Coaching young umpires at lowe level. Practising decision making under pressure. Going to the clubs and umpiring at training sessions. Full bloody time.

As I say the afl love all the hysteria the rubbish umpiring creates. Any news is good news

Of course it does. If only for blatant throws that happen all game because the umpires operate in the corridor and can't see what happens boundary side And the players take full advantage.

This times a million. If say umpires were paid 120k a year, with performance bonuses you don't think young men and women who want to be involved in elite sport might make it a career? Create a bloody pathway to the professional level and it will help all levels, both in terms of numbers but also talent. I'm not sure if this is urban myth but I have been a number of times that key metric used for selecting afl umpires is fitness.

All good. Apologies for over reacting. The standard of umpiring has long been a major frustration of mine. A billion dollar competition and an error like that can be made. And I don't blame the umpires. I blame the AFL

Perhaps. But my response is to you dismissing peoples reasonable frustration with an appalling decision. One that just happened to cost us at least 2 points. In doing so you introduced the argument that in fact it couldn't have been deliberate because it was touched, making a definitive statement that if the ball makes contact with an opp player it can’t be deliberate. And based on this, you implied there was enough grey, or doubt to make the non decision understandable

Ta. Mel Bourne, perhaps you have a different rule book?

Is that right? I doubt it, but you seem definitive so i guess you are correct. So it wasn't an error by the umpire after all

I meant that I doubt the rule us if an opposition plsyer touches it voids a deliberate call. For clarity sake I AM IN ZERO DOUBT THST WAS DELIBERATE OUT OF BOUNDS. The rule was brought in exactly for that scenario. As was rhe insufficient attempt change. And i don't understand the need to conflate the loss and the free. It is possible to discuss them separately. It was an appalling error. And its not good enough

Spargo touched it so it should not have been deliberate? Please. The fact that was apparently not evident to a single person watching the game last night shows how ridiculous that is. Besides I doubt that does in fact mean a deliberate cant be paid. I mean he deliberately tried to handball it over the boundary. And succeeded. And obviously showed no intent to keep it in sy, let alone insufficient intent. What does an imperceptible deflection change?

You do struggle with nuance, don't you.

Agree Webber. Given tge stakes it is completely assured the umpires are not full time professionals. Or at the very least one, who has authority to over ride or change any call. At the risk of being accused a conspiracy theorist, as I wrote last year, I think the AFL deliberately create interpretation related controversies. There is at least two per year. Currently it is holding the man and I'll bet the next one is how quickly the umpires call play. Ridiculous. Why? Just look at all the thousands of hours of free coverage and click baits the game gets as a result. Maybe not have professional umpires is part of that strategy.

Yes x4

No. They all should appealed like crazy very poor

I sort of agree. Harmes, melksham and langdon all come to mind trying stuff that was to smart by half

They applied more pressure than us all game. Even in the last, when we finally shot our pressure to our benchmark their pressure was better. Which is why we got no advantage from our clearances. Most were under real pressure. And we didn't spread and gut run. Meaning we couldn't keep the ball in our half. Or stop their transition. And players like jordon were off with their kicking and hunt and rivers could not get any run. And we fumbled more than we have all season and dropped marks we haven't been. Better in the last, but they deserved to win.

Delilah?

Thanks for that. Cornes is spot on. And hiw pathetic is it hearing a bunch of ex footballers and an overweight sad sack journalist who who woule faint with a single bump all defend them. Footy teams have long memories and a fit and firing Max might decide to remind some crows players of their sniping tactics