AFLW Richmond v Collingwood at Vic Park no less

[DavidSSS]

I would say that a free kick count which has a 10 to 1 ratio needs to be seriously looked at and the game reviewed for consistency. The free kick count is not definitive, but it is an indicator. As you say, a 10 to 1 ratio on free kicks is unlikely, but it was the case when I looked while at the game (second quarter from memory), and an unlikely event such as that surely would suggest that we take a look? It may well be justified when you look at the whole game and not just individual incidents, but such a ratio justifies a second look.

So a free kick ratio of 10 to 1 tells you nothing? I suppose the free kick ratio of 116% favouring West Coast over a 35 year period at home tells us nothing too?

Now, this game in particular, and where this discussion started, was the other way around. I observed that I thought the umpiring was inconsistent, the observation also included an observation that Collingwood were getting free kicks when Richmond weren't, so I looked at the stats. The stats backed up what I observed. If I observed that I thought one team were getting free kicks more easily than the other and then looked at the stats and saw that the free kick count was maybe 7-4, I would have figured my observations were not thorough enough, but when I saw 10-1 it reinforced my observations.

DS

 

[AngryAnt]

Well, rather unsurprisingly, I disagree!

Free kick stats are not definitive, but they are an indicator. What you are effectively saying is that, up to that point in the game, Richmond were violating the rules of Australian Football at a rate of 10 to 1.

Didn't say that at all - all I said was you need to look at each individual decision to work out whether it was right or wrong. For all I know all 11 decisions were completely wrong.

 

[Tigers of Old]

I'm stunned Casey was suspended for this. Got punished for having a better technique!

Casey's crunching high bump lands her in the book

Sophie Casey is reported for a high bump on Tayla Stahl as they attacked a loose ball

www.womens.afl

 

[DavidSSS]

Didn't say that at all - all I said was you need to look at each individual decision to work out whether it was right or wrong. For all I know all 11 decisions were completely wrong.

And, as I am saying, you need to look at all the decisions together because picking out each free kick individually tells you nothing about consistency of umpiring. I reckon I could separately look at all the frees up to that point in the game and provide a justification, but when you look at them in comparison you often find a lot of inconsistency.

ToO, that really is a lineball one, Stahl put her head down to pick up the ball so there is a bit of mitigating factor there, on the other hand the head (except for N Vlastuin) is sacrosanct so there is a case both ways.

DS

 

[AngryAnt]

And, as I am saying, you need to look at all the decisions together because picking out each free kick individually tells you nothing about consistency of umpiring. I reckon I could separately look at all the frees up to that point in the game and provide a justification, but when you look at them in comparison you often find a lot of inconsistency.

You then still have to look at every decision then to work out if it was justified or not, and then compare every decision that fits into that category and make an assessment as to "consistency".

So, you still haven't looked at every single decision. You've just made a gut feel assessment based on some random application of "consistency".

 

[AngryAnt]

Add on to TBR's comment... as always I usually maintain that over Richmond's period of dominance we were very happy to lose the free kick count. We'd bend the rules to pressure the oppo, they'd cough it up and we would score. If we gave up a free kick, so what - it gave the ball to the oppo, it slowed the game down, we could win the ball on the next phase of play and run it up for a score. We usually won the game. I don't think the coaches gave a flying eff that we lost the free kick count, it was a consequence of our game style.

Fans focus on it because to them it symbolises the injustice of life and an instictive dislike of authority

It also feeds into the desire of some of us to see conspiracy theories everywhere.

 

[tora]

First Qtr. Free kick against watch: #1. In the back. TICK Darcy in a new role in the middle.
#2 OOF TICK
#3 High tackle TICK Darcy again
#4 HTB Yassir Just no attempt to move the ball on. TICK
#5 ITB advantage lead to a late goal. TICK


Missed FOR us.
throw by Pies/Molloy a 2nd 50
Frederick incorrect disposal.

In summary we sh/could have had 1 goal in that qtr.
Like our AFL team aflw team play a bit sloppy and give away a lot of frees.
I recall Gale complaining about the stand rule in the off season. I can't remember him mentioning free kick stats.
Is it strategy? I haven't played in a loooong time. Maybe more recent players of the game can explain

 

[DavidSSS]

So when you say a free kick count effectively set off alarm bells about the umpiring in the game, it is because you are starting from that mindset.

Can you please put your glasses on and actually read what I post:

Now, this game in particular, and where this discussion started, was the other way around. I observed that I thought the umpiring was inconsistent, the observation also included an observation that Collingwood were getting free kicks when Richmond weren't, so I looked at the stats. The stats backed up what I observed. If I observed that I thought one team were getting free kicks more easily than the other and then looked at the stats and saw that the free kick count was maybe 7-4, I would have figured my observations were not thorough enough, but when I saw 10-1 it reinforced my observations.

DS

I have never said that I see the free kick count as totally a function of the umpires' performance, you really should stop misrepresenting what I say, coming up with spurious straw men or whatever you think you are doing.

It is you who constantly defend sub-standard umpiring, in this case without even seeing the game, absolutely pathetic. You are the one who is assuming they were umpiring the game well, without any evidence because you even admit that you haven't seen the game. What a joke.

As I said earlier, if your view is that assumption is better evidence than observation then so be it, your choice.

DS

 

[AngryAnt]

Can you please put your glasses on and actually read what I post:



I have never said that I see the free kick count as totally a function of the umpires' performance, you really should stop misrepresenting what I say, coming up with spurious straw men or whatever you think you are doing.

It is you who constantly defend sub-standard umpiring, in this case without even seeing the game, absolutely pathetic. You are the one who is assuming they were umpiring the game well, without any evidence because you even admit that you haven't seen the game. What a joke.

As I said earlier, if your view is that assumption is better evidence than observation then so be it, your choice.

DS

Do a decision by decision analysis like we suggest, then point out the inconsistencies across the game between those decisions. That's your claim, prove it.

There's no other way to make your case. Should be easy right?

 

[DavidSSS]

Do a decision by decision analysis like we suggest, then point out the inconsistencies across the game between those decisions. That's your claim, prove it.

There's no other way to make your case. Should be easy right?

Are you serious?

I came on this forum, made some comments on the game I went to see, observing that Collingwood clearly outclassed our team. Also made some comments on the umpiring which I maintain was sub-standard (I'm not the only one saying this either, a few others, who also saw the game, say the same).

The I get attacked for commenting on my observations, which led me to look at the free kick stats while watching the game, by someone who makes assumptions and did not even see the game.

FFS, did you see the game?

Personally I will take observation over assumption any day of the week, but clearly some disagree with this at least when it comes to the infallible umpires who get 90% of everything right. Apparently my observations about a game I have been watching for 50 odd years counts for nothing against the assumptions of those who did not even watch the game.

This is frankly absurd.

If some want to value assumption over observation that is their choice. If some want to misrepresent what I say and argue with obvious straw men, that is their choice. I will not sit back and just accept that the views of those who did not even see the game are somehow more valid than those who did, and the overwhelming number of posters here, who actually saw the game, commented unfavourably on the standard of umpiring.

I saw the game, I don't need to see it again.

DS

 

[AngryAnt]

I've not made any assumption about anything in this game, feel free to point out where

Are you serious?

I came on this forum, made some comments on the game I went to see, observing that Collingwood clearly outclassed our team. Also made some comments on the umpiring which I maintain was sub-standard (I'm not the only one saying this either, a few others, who also saw the game, say the same).

The I get attacked for commenting on my observations, which led me to look at the free kick stats while watching the game, by someone who makes assumptions and did not even see the game.

FFS, did you see the game?

Personally I will take observation over assumption any day of the week, but clearly some disagree with this at least when it comes to the infallible umpires who get 90% of everything right. Apparently my observations about a game I have been watching for 50 odd years counts for nothing against the assumptions of those who did not even watch the game.

This is frankly absurd.

If some want to value assumption over observation that is their choice. If some want to misrepresent what I say and argue with obvious straw men, that is their choice. I will not sit back and just accept that the views of those who did not even see the game are somehow more valid than those who did, and the overwhelming number of posters here, who actually saw the game, commented unfavourably on the standard of umpiring.

I saw the game, I don't need to see it again.

I can see you've backpedalled from "inconsistent umpiring favouring the other team" to "substandard umpiring", but that won't wash here. Next you say it's around "assumptions" vs "observations" - nope. You've taken a position, so we've said OK, maybe, what's the evidence for that position. No assumptions there.

Tora actually did an analysis of the first quarter - umpires got every decision right barring two non-decisions. There's a data point at least.

Being morally outraged is not an argument.

 

[DavidSSS]

I've not made any assumption about anything in this game, feel free to point out where



I can see you've backpedalled from "inconsistent umpiring favouring the other team" to "substandard umpiring", but that won't wash here. Next you say it's around "assumptions" vs "observations" - nope. You've taken a position, so we've said OK, maybe, what's the evidence for that position. No assumptions there.

Tora actually did an analysis of the first quarter - umpires got every decision right barring two non-decisions. There's a data point at least.

Being morally outraged is not an argument.

Not back pedalling at all, the free kick count verified what my eyes saw.

By the way, did you watch the game or are you just defending the umpires on the basis of assuming they are right and the many people in this thread who saw the game are wrong?

I'm looking forward to you and TBR writing reviews on books you haven't read, movies you haven't seen and concerts you did not attend.

DS

 

[AngryAnt]

Not back pedalling at all, the free kick count verified what my eyes saw.

By the way, did you watch the game or are you just defending the umpires on the basis of assuming they are right and the many people in this thread who saw the game are wrong?

I'm looking forward to you and TBR writing reviews on books you haven't read, movies you haven't seen and concerts you did not attend.

DS

And If I'd given you a review of the game, or even the umpiring in the game you'd be right, but sadly for you I didn't, so cut out the "you claim this but you weren't there", it's nonsense. That's an absolute misrepresentation of what TBR wrote, and what I wrote, and I think you know it.

Dude, I said all along I wasn't there, so for all I know the umpiring might have been great or terrible. The only way to know if it really was unfair to the Richmond AFLW team is to look at each decision, and because you say "oh they might be technically correct but on balance they were unfair to us", you have to then look at each decision and then contrast them. That's the point I made, no assumptions, no claiming I know what happened, however much you want to misrepresent my position.

TBR can speak for himself, but he's generally spot on that as soon as people see an unbalanced free kick count, they decide the umps were against us. In your case it validates your gut-feel that the umpiring disadvantaged us. Well, maybe. But the only way to know for sure is to look at the actual decisions.

 

[taztiger4]

mmmm.

Has anyone ever seen TBR & Anty together in the same room ?

 

[AngryAnt]

mmmm.

Has anyone ever seen TBR & Anty together in the same room ?

If we were seen in a room together you can rest assured we'd be telling each other how correct and infallible we are

 

[AngryAnt]

I'd argue that point, just to be a contrarian of course.

"You are more infallible than I am" - "Sir, I must disagree. It is you who are the more infallible""

 

[DavidSSS]

So, on what basis do you attack my observations of the umpiring?

On what basis do you make assumptions about my judgement of what I observed?

I'll answer it for you - on no basis at all.

It seems I can't even comment on the umpiring in a game without getting mobbed by those who did not even see the game. Meanwhile those who did see the game made similar judgements.

If you think it is reasonable to attack someone's observations, don't then go scurrying off with comments about how you have no opinion on the umpiring in the game I commented on, then why do you attack what I wrote? Was it just trolling?

DS

 

[AngryAnt]

So, on what basis do you attack my observations of the umpiring?

On what basis do you make assumptions about my judgement of what I observed?

I'll answer it for you - on no basis at all.

It seems I can't even comment on the umpiring in a game without getting mobbed by those who did not even see the game. Meanwhile those who did see the game made similar judgements.

If you think it is reasonable to attack someone's observations, don't then go scurrying off with comments about how you have no opinion on the umpiring in the game I commented on, then why do you attack what I wrote? Was it just trolling?

DS

Don't really remember anyone attacking anyone. Anyway, appreciate your posts on other topics so will leave this issue here. I'm sure we'll clash again as we discuss umpiring further this season.

 

[DavidSSS]

Don't really remember anyone attacking anyone. Anyway, appreciate your posts on other topics so will leave this issue here. I'm sure we'll clash again as we discuss umpiring further this season.

Indeed, I just wonder why I criticise the umpiring and suddenly I'm getting attacked. Now, its fair game, although I get attacked, I'm going to dish it back.

DS

 

[AngryAnt]

Indeed, I just wonder why I criticise the umpiring and suddenly I'm getting attacked. Now, its fair game, although I get attacked, I'm going to dish it back.

DS

All good DS.