Macca

Replays going back a couple of weeks (as well as the 4 features from Saturday)

I reckon our defence can match their forward line and our midfield shades their midfield. Our precision out of defence can also be a factor If that happens our forward line can do quite well or even better especially if the ball is moved into our forward line quickly with decent disposal However, we also need our forwards to display defensive pressure from the word go. Not just the small forwards either, all of our forwards Couple all that with our all over defence and we should come away with the win So it's not so much what Geelong are capable of, we're well aware of their capabilities. It's more about can we be at our best. Our best beats their best as their weakness is a lack of forward line defensive pressure and they're all over defence isn't strong either. They like to play keepings-off in their own backline but I reckon that stifles their offensive capabilities Need to nail those gettable shots at goal too as the opposition are capable of being accurate in front of goal So you break it all down and we're advantaged as long as we bring our best Demons by 20 - 30

Ah yes, the home town decisions Back in the day you couldn't buy a free kick at Windy Hill, Vic Park or Princes Park. The oldies have told me that it goes all the way back Happens in a myriad of other sports too ... especially in the NFL & Baseball. Used to happen in soccer before the advent of VAR Cricket as well and even neutral umpires seemed to get influenced. Reviews have changed things to a point where the umpires are now more like orderly's But in Aussie Rules with all the grey areas and no reviews apart from goal line technology (which is dodgy anyway) we are pushing the proverbial uphill. The game is harder to umpire than it ever was I get the passion and emotion but the lack of understanding is baffling. Do people really believe that the game can be umpired correctly with all the stuff that is going on and all the grey areas? Honestly, I've been hearing the same argument since the 60's. Nothing changes from year to year and the raging arguments just go on forever

We were a total of 16 free kicks down for the home & away season. That's about 0.7 of a free kick per game And when considering the professional free kicks that are given away from time to time, 0.7 of a free kick per game is a negligible amount

As I explained in a previous post, the Dogs don't get pinged for holding the ball very often (the AFL allows a player to let the ball dribble out or be knocked free in a tackle as well as small throws being allowed when tackled) So that somewhat explains the low free kick count for the Bulldogs opponents. And they've been playing that style for at least 6 years now And you are right with your observation that the Dogs are regularly first to the ball. Again, the player 2nd to the ball has a hard time of it winning a free kick especially when adding in that the Doggies rarely get pinged for holding the ball Beveridge worked it all out years ago and I'm surprised that more teams haven't followed suit. It's of absolute no surprise to me that the Dogs have a large free kick differential

Well match fixing can't ever be ruled out but if we took into account the amount of times that the cheat label gets thrown about by footy fans about umpires, then nearly all the games could be called into question And that's a stretch (to say the least) ... I'm happy to accept a match fixing scenario if it can be proven And let's not forget than any form of tanking is by default, match fixing. Football dept led under the eyes and ears of a compliant Board Little known fact that no market was ever framed for the 'Kruezer Cup' You couldn't lay a bet on the game

Fair enough I'm still not convinced that no prior has been good for the game. Interesting that Buckley & Wayne Campbell have led the charge for no prior to be removed. Other coaches as well I believe (?) Most of the current issues centre around what happens around congested situations (of which there are many) So it's either clean things up around the congestion (very difficult assignment) or reduce the congestion (easier solution) I'm in the latter category

The Doggies don't often get pinged for holding the ball where as other teams do get pinged for holding it Since 2016 the Bulldog players have become adept at letting the ball dribble free when tackled or the ball often appears to be knocked free once tackled. And as we know, many 'little' throws are let go in the same scenario. Once the ball hits the deck another Doggies player is often there to pick the ball up to go through the same process (unless they can release the ball) So that can explain 4 - 6 free kicks 'not paid' to the opposition per game as I see it But again, isn't that a rules of the game issue? If the umpires are instructed to 'keep the ball moving' in those scenarios then they are doing what the AFL asks of them

The AFL allow players to duck into tackles and whilst like most others, I dislike the practice, if it's allowed then you play to the rules However, I would have dragged Selwood up to the tribunal years ago in a retrospective way and given him a strong warning (or weeks) for his ducking. But they've let it go and Selwood has therefore spent his entire career winning free kicks for ducking. Many other players have followed suit as a result (including Spargo) There are a lot of other areas of the sport I dislike but it's up to the AFL to frame the rules correctly Otherwise teams and coaches will take advantage. But I'm a great believer in cause & effect and there are too many players on the arena for starters I watch the Doggies really carefully and they are well ahead of the rest with regards to milking frees. Tighter parameters and they wouldn't be able to do it AFL issue not an umpiring issue

If you accept that the Doggies are quite adept at winning free kicks as well as putting themselves in the right position (in front) to win those free kicks then we'll be in agreement So apart from pointing at the numbers and the discrepancy in the Bulldogs favour with regards to the free kick count, as well as ruling out any sort of bias (cheating) what's your reasoning on why the discrepancy is there? I've taken the time to explain my position yet you're just there scratching your head and wondering why You got any sort of believable explanation?

I reckon it's demeaning to call an umpire a cheat no matter what the reasons might be It's unnecessary and inappropriate In the same week where a footballer has walked through an umpire (said player also received levels of support) If we continue to disrespect umpires, what's the end result? What wins games of football are high levels of talent, a solid game plan and top level coaching Have all those attributes on an ongoing basis and you'll be dreadfully unlucky not to win big In other words, be 5 goals better than all the other teams and you're in control. Thus, the uncontrollables are minimised

You do realise that some teams are stronger in some areas than others yeah? Like our defense is better than the others (at least in terms of scores against) The Bulldogs are more adept at winning free kicks than others. Smart team, well coached And if you call an umpire a cheat you are intimating that the umpire in question is cheating for a reason What reason? Money? Just for the hell of it? Why would they do it without some sort of profit motive? And can you actually prove that umpires really cheat without pointing at the free kick count? (all the free kick count does is show us a set of numbers - it doesn't point to cheating)

Well when I played there was no prior rule ... not in the way it is ruled now. The phrase didn't exist. Late 70's, 80's and early 90's There was the odd ball up if the ball was trapped but the onus was on the player to dispose of the ball correctly No prior is such a part of the landscape that many believe it was always the case. It wasn't I actually reckon the would-be tackler has more of an advantage with no-prior. The ball player used to be able to time his acquisition of the ball

The outright claim of match-fixing or being 'on the take' is related to umpires being labelled cheats And there are numerous people here making that claim (that the umpires are cheats) Every game-day thread is full of the same accusations Cheat for no benefit? Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. As for the subconscious implications, I don't buy it As for the rest of your post, you are overthinking it all. My fix and view on it all is directly above your post. I'm into solutions, not complaining. You want things fixed, simplify the game

They (the AFL) need to fix up the rules and then the angst will die down But my fix starts off with a more open game with less players on the ground (15 or 16 a side) with drastically reduced rotations. Not to the point where we're watching AFLX but a game that is easier to watch with less congestion and therefore, easier to umpire And get rid of no prior ... grab the ball and dispose of the ball correctly or get pinged (as it was back in the day) If the ball dribbles from the players hands or is thrown (in any way) they should get pinged Do that and teams like the Bulldogs will have to find another way to exploit the rules. Do nothing and the problem remains The grounds are too small for 36 players in terms of the sport being able to be correctly umpired. And every year it gets harder for the umpires. Full time umps would help but that's not the main problem

I'd like to see some sort of proof then ... by the way, umpires being called cheats in a blatant manner has been going on forever So if they are on the take and the accusers are right, it's been going on for decades. But we've never seen any sort of proof to back those accusations up Here's how I've always seen it ... Terribly difficult game to umpire and players play for free kicks Numerous mistakes are made by the umpires because of the nature of the sport and the circumstances (and the flopping) Many spectators alike see those errors against their team (or for the team they dislike) and come to the conclusion that the umpires are 'deliberately cheating' Rinse & Repeat But if you don't buy into the cheating then logic and common sense rules. But logic and common sense is boring for most It's an emotional game and emotions rule

Your observation is correct with regards to the lop-sided free kick count in the Bulldogs favour. Everyone can see it So if we rule out the conspiracy theory that the games are 'fixed' (that involve the Doggies) what is the reason? And there has to be a reason, layzie It's not an accident because it's been going on for quite some time The umpires are cheats is (pardon the pun) lazy analysis. AFL directive to the umpires? Can't see it. Bookies involved? Doubt it Why would the umpires cheat without benefit? By the way, the overwhelming thinking on this thread is that the umpires are on the take

There are a few ways of looking at the lopsided free kick count that is in the Bulldogs favour That the umpires favour the Dogs deliberately with the AFL's approval but for what reason? Money? Are the games fixed? Does this hair-brained conspiracy theory go even higher? The Government? Dictator Dan? Slo-Mo? Or perhaps there is a more simple explanation other than the explanation which I've explained? Which is the more sensible option? Or is there another reason that doesn't involve grassy knolls, the CIA, the Mob and the 2nd shooter?

They do, and you've just said it yourself My argument stands up The Bulldogs will continue to be favoured in the free kick count because of the way they play the rules & the way they play the umpires

A good example of how the Bulldogs 'play the rules' is the relatively new ruling on incorrect disposal (or the throw) Players who win the ball now are often (but not always) given the benefit of the doubt if the ball spills free, is dislodged, or dribbles away Why not always? It's a grey area and in grey areas you won't get consistency An obvious AFL directive to 'keep the ball moving' so what do the Bulldogs do? They exploit the loophole. Fair play to them. Classic cause & effect Supporter Joe sees it all and comes to the conclusion that the Bulldogs are being favoured. That the umpires are cheats But all the Bulldogs are doing is exploiting the new ruling. In turn, they often don't get penalised which in turn, can contribute to the lopsided free kick count Other teams are often more clumsy about it in those scenarios and get pinged. And other players from other teams will give away free kicks in that type of scenario where the Bulldog player is in first (high tackle, in the back, holding the man, chopped arms etc etc) The Tigers are at the other end of the scale but they have an unsociable element to the way they go about it which has served them well (until this season when they ran out of gas) But at their best they would let the ball dribble free when tackled 2nd to the ball this season were the Tigers ... tired minds & tired bodies. 1 or 2 steps off. Result - free kicks given away Of course the Bulldogs play for the free kicks but that's the game. Through the decades numerous players have done that. What the Bulldogs are doing has been done before. Clarkson said it after a game against the Bulldogs during the 2016 finals and indicated that he might have to change the way he coaches because of what was happening

Slow down and stop putting words into my mouth. And take a few deep breaths and calm down. The sky isn't falling, Webber What I've said is that umpires will favour players who are first in for the ball and players who play in front. Always have So the Bulldogs exploit those rulings. They are also very adept at winning free kicks in those scenarios as well. Well coached in those areas (obviously) Looked at another way, it's very difficult to win a free kick playing from behind. Especially so playing against the Bulldogs Most free kicks (70% - 85%) will go to the ball player (in disputed situations) Watch any game of footy and that percentage will be borne out (on average) So there is nothing at all silly about what I'm saying. From a technical viewpoint, I'm correct You and others can disagree all you like but you're not looking past the numbers ... you are just looking at the numbers Your anger and frustration is misplaced, based on an assumption. There are systems in place that govern outcomes So taking a deeper dive into the 'highly transparent statistics' (as you put it) outcomes will emerge There are reasons why from a young age our coaches stress the need to be first in for the ball and to play in front. They don't say it all the time for fun. They mean it because there are clear advantages in playing that way. When I coached, I taught those basics as well As previously stated, play the rules, play the umpires and play how the umpires arrive at decisions Footy basics 101 But at the very least, what I've said will cause a number here to re-think how they view umpiring decisions So lose your anger & frustration and watch the game more closely

Sierra Sue dreadfully unlucky in the Feehan St. I didn't have it included in my multiples but I reckon if it gets through it goes close Superstorm wins and now gets a run in the Cox Plate but McAvaney reckons it's more suited to the mile Underwood Stakes (1800m) on GF day is next up for Superstorm according to the trainer. 'Elephant' ran well and looks a group horse of the future Up in Sydney 'Nature Strip' & Zaaki did as they pleased to both win impressively. The Everest & Cox Plate long term targets ... both installed as favourites

Winner - I thought the umpiring was good tonight, I didn't notice them Opposition supporter (Loser) - It's the umpires fault, they are cheats Winner - Yeah you're right, the umpiring was bad, for both sides (patronising, condescending)

They (Richmond) have been caught flat-footed all season, often caught out playing from behind and they are happy to play an aggressive style and give away professional free kicks. They tackle with such intent that often leads to transgressions. Unsociable footy from a team that had run out of steam So they are at the other end of the spectrum to the bulldogs. There is a lot more to it that the numbers. In fact, the numbers don't tell the true story. They are just numbers

Umpires will nearly always favour the player in front or players who are first in for the ball (as a general rule) ... so the Bulldogs are the best at playing in front, they are very often first in for the ball and they know how to play for free kicks (which is a skill in itself) They are just smarter than the other teams. A well coached and well drilled outfit. The way they play, they are nearly always likely to win the free kick count Play the rules and play to the umpires and the decisions that they are likely to make. Play smart. Beveridge exploits the rules to the max - as he should. See's the loopholes and seizes the opportunity And if supporters want the rules cleaned up, take it up with the AFL, not the umpires. The umpires are just the people in between They just make decisions in a sport with more grey areas than a bleak Melbourne day