Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!

[kyuss]

It would need a fairly in depth statistical analysis but as a basic theory we have the second least disposals in the competition on average, the second least marks and the least kicks.

Lower disposals in a game mean less opportunities to give away free kicks, less kicks and marks means less chance for frees in marking contests.

Not a bad theory. The only thing is, the team with less disposals and marks than us, have the highest free kick for average in the league. The team with the third least disposals, North, have the third highest free kicks for in the comp. Don't think on that evidence you can use that as a reason.

 

[spook]

It would need a fairly in depth statistical analysis but as a basic theory we have the second least disposals in the competition on average, the second least marks and the least kicks.

Lower disposals in a game mean less opportunities to give away free kicks, less kicks and marks means less chance for frees in marking contests.

We'd have more disposals if we got more frees.

 

[kyuss]

Be interesting to see the total game disposal average of each side. Just a guess, but I'd think that while North don't get it, their opponents probably get it a lot so the total disposal count might still be up.

For us I'd say we are lower and so is our opponent. Be an interesting study.

L2R2R?

 

[Baloo]

As a team we must be high on the clanger count if a free against is counted as a clanger. And we have Castagna

 

[DavidSSS]

TBR, the way I read your interpretation, if a player runs head first into an opponent they get a free for high contact.

Fair enough I suppose, the umpires see it the same way.

DS

 

[MD Jazz]

TBR, the way I read your interpretation, if a player runs head first into an opponent they get a free for high contact.

Fair enough I suppose, the umpires see it the same way.

DS

Unless your Mansell

 

[DavidSSS]

The interesting thing with the Baker one is that you can see him slow down as the Brisbane player is running towards him with his head down. He probably couldn't get lower as he was pulling up so as to try and avoid the Brisbane player running straight into him with his head.

Bit different to the tackling technique on Mansell by Danger but, hey, adjudication of all rules is entirely consistent.

DS

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

L2R2R?

Free kicks are compiled from individual player stats and in total they are often slightly under the total frees awarded to the team. I'm not sure why.

There was an error in the opposition figures the first time; revised numbers below. We have the most disposals per free awarded, and our opponents have the third-least. On the latter point it seems the umpires are onto Brisbane, but when they play us, we become the thugs in their eyes.

Club	Disp	FF	Disp / F		Opp Disp	Opp FF	Opp Fisp / F
Adel	349.2	22.4	15.6		365.8	20.4	17.9
Bris	353.6	19.7	17.9		353.5	21.5	16.4
Carl	359.7	22.3	16.1		364.6	20.0	18.2
Coll	371.8	18.8	19.8		391.4	19.2	20.4
Ess	376.4	20.2	18.6		374.1	18.1	20.7
Frem	363.4	17.0	21.4		384.3	18.3	21.0
Geel	401.4	19.9	20.2		315.9	18.6	17.0
G.C.	362.7	16.5	22.0		393.4	17.4	22.6
GWS	375.0	20.2	18.6		362.2	17.9	20.2
Haw	386.2	17.5	22.1		375.9	20.7	18.2
Melb	378.1	20.6	18.4		358.1	19.6	18.3
N.M.	355.6	21.0	16.9		403.1	19.0	21.2
P.A.	386.1	19.4	19.9		359.4	20.3	17.7
Rich	353.3	15.7	22.5		387.2	22.6	17.1
St.K	362.8	16.5	22.0		394.2	18.3	21.5
Syd	369.5	20.0	18.5		357.8	19.1	18.7
W.C.	359.6	17.7	20.3		382.8	17.4	22.0
W.B.	396.8	20.2	19.6		337.5	17.2	19.6

 

[Harry]

Geez these umpires are *smile* morons.

Front on contact paid to hawkins against mayne where there was absolutely no contact.

 

[TigerForce]

Geez these umpires are *smile* morons.

Front on contact paid to hawkins against mayne where there was absolutely no contact.

Yep. Whistle was blown .000005 seconds before the ball was kicked.

 

[Ridley]

Brad Hill tries to fend off a tackle, fails and gets caught. Throws the ball up in the air right in front of the umpire. Play on!

Have I missed something? Did SHocking make another rule change and you are now allowed to throw the ball? FFS this game is a real joke with that moron in charge.

 

[DavidSSS]

I don't know what you do for a living David, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest it doesn't involve any sort of qualification in biomechanics.

He is pulling up, buy some glasses.

I sincerely hope your job doesn't involve biomechanics given the farce that is your convoluted explanation of how Martin was somehow not tackled high.

DS

 

[Willo]

He is pulling up, buy some glasses.

I sincerely hope your job doesn't involve biomechanics given the farce that is your convoluted explanation of how Martin was somehow not tackled high.

DS

Maybe they was all optical illusions.
Any optometrists posting? We need your input. Otherwise we’ll have to settle for someone with a white cane and/or a seeing eye dog.

 

[frickenel]

I can't get it to post but I am looking at a screenshot here of the clip paused at impact and McIntosh's hip and lower body is literally crashing into the Swan's shin, who is standing with the ball in his hands.

Google McIntosh knocked out and you will see the video from the AFL site, and have a look at about the 32 second mark at the side-on footage.

It is absolutely inarguable that McIntosh going to ground causes him to make forceful contact with the Swan below the knee. He should have stayed on his feet and contested the ball via a bump or tackle.

Check it out for yourself and then you can come back and apologise for the unfounded slur you just made on my character.

I do appologize.

I appologize for not having the time until now to highlight your efforts to distort reality so you can swim against thr tide in this thread.

The footage isn't too hard to find, if you do actually want people to assess this for themselves.

Here's a link:

Tiger utility knocked out in heavy collision

Kamdyn McIntosh is helped off the field after this clash with Dane Rampe

www.afl.com.au

I'd suggest you take a good look at the footage. If you stand by your suggestion that McIntosh's lower body crashes into his opponent's shin, then really it explains your stance on a lot of interpretations on this thread.

Impact is clearly hip to McIntosh's head. McIntosh's hip is in the vicinity of his opponent's ankles, but there is no real contact made from that part of his body. You need to look at the footage at the 24 second mark, which shows the angle you need to view, the angle you've ignored. At impact, there is a clear gap between McIntosh's body and the lower leg / ankle of his opponent. Freeze the footage and move it frame by frame.

Firstly @MD Jazz sincerely well done for taking the time. It takes a lot of time and effort to do that sort of analysis and it is so much more valuable to the discussion than just blanket statements without justification.

FWIW here is my take on the ones you've raised:

The long tackle on Dustin and Rioli's tackle look very similar in those photos but you haven't shown that Rioli throws the Lions player to the ground after your last photo. That's why it was a free kick. Zorko is being held while trying to get the ball which is very different and again correct.

The first Riewoldt one is hard to argue as a free. I can't see how the second one can be definitively called holding based on that vision.

I had the RCD hold and high in my count, both clearly missed. The one where they are both holding, when it goes on RCD grabs his arm which is where the free comes from I think.

The Baker tackles are a result of his poor technique. In the first one he should be going low and behind the player to tackle him, or sitting off the corridor side to chop off the handball or tackle if he turns inside. Every coach in the competition would tell him to never go towards the head of the player over the ball.

Ditto the second one. Your photo shows perfectly that a metre out the Brisbane player is set and his level doesn't change, his head is level with Baker's shoulder then and it is level when they collide. Baker didn't go low enough in the tackle.

As for Baker's holding the ball, that's a clear fend of the tackler to me. As holding the ball as holding the ball can ever be.

I think you've shown the frees against Ralphsmith and Aarts pretty clearly, I still don't know what Aarts was doing with the 50.

The Daniher one depends on your definition of an unreasonable attempt, I'm in the it was reasonable camp.

I'm curious as to why there's nothing Brisbane's way in your analysis, were you not looking for them or didn't see any?

For example, after I did mine I had it pointed out to me via PM that Riewoldt's first goal should have been a free to Brisbane for holding as he grabs a handful of jumper in the contest, so there must be a few missed their way as well.

I could point to a number of issues with your interpretation of the frees / non frees in the above.

But just to highlight how your interpretation changes to justify the Tigers getting reamded, you only have to look at your opinions on the Zorko hold, which was more a touch than a hold, not impeding his progess towards the ball at all (Free kick apparently), yet your interpretation on the Martin hold is that it's not a free kick because he wasn't thrown to the ground. It doesn't matter a zack wheter Rioli threw his opponent to the ground when it comes to assessing Martin's situation. He was held and clearly *smile* from re-entering the play and he was held for siginificant time, regardless of nott being thrown to the ground. But i guess if it's Richmond, it's different standards. I can see why you see it the way of the umpires, who seem to move all the grey against Richmond and to the favour of our opponents, hence the skewered stat anomaly we have. you're basically doing the same thing.

To suggest Baker had poor tackle technique beause he was standing in the wrong spot.........

This is a continuing motion of play. Baker is where he happened to be, manning an opponent wen the play came through him. To suggest he should have been corridor side, is to suggest he should know 8 or 10 seconds in advance who is going to have possession and what piece of ground exactly, that they are making their play through. The fact is that this free kick is nothing short of a joke, and there were to like this against Baker. One he didn't even tackle, simply put his hands in the air as the opponent barrels his head into Baker's chest.

We couldn't buy a high contact free kick, yet incidental contact was being paid against us with regularity. But i guess your interpretation changes accordingly.

For example, using your argument, Mitch Robinson should have stood corridor side of Dustin Martin to chop the handball off, and gone low. But no, he went high and came down like a blanket over Martin's head.

I could go on but i simply don't have the time!

t's just tiring!

 

[tigertim]

I do appologize.

I appologize for not having the time until now to highlight your efforts to distort reality so you can swim against thr tide in this thread.

The footage isn't too hard to find, if you do actually want people to assess this for themselves.

Here's a link:

Tiger utility knocked out in heavy collision

Kamdyn McIntosh is helped off the field after this clash with Dane Rampe

www.afl.com.au

I'd suggest you take a good look at the footage. If you stand by your suggestion that McIntosh's lower body crashes into his opponent's shin, then really it explains your stance on a lot of interpretations on this thread.

Impact is clearly hip to McIntosh's head. McIntosh's hip is in the vicinity of his opponent's ankles, but there is no real contact made from that part of his body. You need to look at the footage at the 24 second mark, which shows the angle you need to view, the angle you've ignored. At impact, there is a clear gap between McIntosh's body and the lower leg / ankle of his opponent. Freeze the footage and move it frame by frame.

I could point to a number of issues with your interpretation of the frees / non frees in the above.

But just to highlight how your interpretation changes to justify the Tigers getting reamded, you only have to look at your opinions on the Zorko hold, which was more a touch than a hold, not impeding his progess towards the ball at all (Free kick apparently), yet your interpretation on the Martin hold is that it's not a free kick because he wasn't thrown to the ground. It doesn't matter a zack wheter Rioli threw his opponent to the ground when it comes to assessing Martin's situation. He was held and clearly *smile* from re-entering the play and he was held for siginificant time, regardless of nott being thrown to the ground. But i guess if it's Richmond, it's different standards. I can see why you see it the way of the umpires, who seem to move all the grey against Richmond and to the favour of our opponents, hence the skewered stat anomaly we have. you're basically doing the same thing.

To suggest Baker had poor tackle technique beause he was standing in the wrong spot.........

This is a continuing motion of play. Baker is where he happened to be, manning an opponent wen the play came through him. To suggest he should have been corridor side, is to suggest he should know 8 or 10 seconds in advance who is going to have possession and what piece of ground exactly, that they are making their play through. The fact is that this free kick is nothing short of a joke, and there were to like this against Baker. One he didn't even tackle, simply put his hands in the air as the opponent barrels his head into Baker's chest.

We couldn't buy a high contact free kick, yet incidental contact was being paid against us with regularity. But i guess your interpretation changes accordingly.

For example, using your argument, Mitch Robinson should have stood corridor side of Dustin Martin to chop the handball off, and gone low. But no, he went high and came down like a blanket over Martin's head.

I could go on but i simply don't have the time!

t's just tiring!

Yeah, Richos comments on umpiring reminds me of Bill Shorten:

"I haven't seen what she's said, but let me say I support what it is she said. I support what she said ... My view is what the prime minister's view is."

 

[backpocketplumber]

It does definitely sound like something you would say

 

[Brodders17]

I can't believe we are seriously discussing this one.

Forget the marking contest rules, that's high contact. Even if you want to apply the incidental contact claus, that's for something that has no impact on the contest or the player, contact that forceful to the side of the head can never be incidental contact by definition.

But you said Daniher kicking Vlastuin in the head, pushing him out of the contest, was incidental?

 

[DavidSSS]

TBR, lovely to have you piling on me again, it is tiring having to argue with someone who is never wrong.

Have you ever seen someone slow down by pulling their chest backwards? No? Buy some glasses. As frickenel points out, the Brisbane player runs into Baker, but I'm forgetting you are never wrong.

But let's consider the tackle on Dustin Martin (not suggesting you are not infallible TBR, I know I am not worthy of questioning your infallibility).

Firstly, why don't we make sure what we are talking about here, the Laws of the Game as published by the AFL, provide that the umpire shall award a free kick for prohibited contact and the relevant clause has the following as one of the definitions of prohibited contact:

makes high contact to an opposition Player (including the top of the shoulders) with any part of their body;

Ok, so let's look at the tackle by Robinson on Martin



Martin has the ball, Robinson is clearly anticipating that a handball is a possibility and wants to block any handball.




Robinson jumps up into the air.



No handball by Martin so Robinson starts the tackle. Gee where is Robinson's arm there, would that be on Martin's shoulder?



Yep, that would be arm on shoulder.



Hmm, arm still on shoulder.

High tackle, no doubt about it according to the Rules of the Game.

Don't admit you are wrong, it would be out of character.

DS

 

[MD Jazz]

How else can you take a high mark if your legs touching the player underneath high isn't considered incidental?

Except when you don’t take the high mark. Or touch the ball even. Because you jumped way too early. 99% paid against the infringer but you claim it was ok this time?
Yet a defender can execute a perfect spoil and not chop the arms or push him and make contact after the contest over the shoulder (basically continuing his spoiling action and having no impact on the contest which had already occurred) and you say it’s a clear free and its lunacy to think otherwise?

 

[HR]

It is absolutely a free to Dusty.

Always was always will be.

Alternative Interpretation of the fundamentals is just the muppets showing their ignorance.

This is more about the sycophants and the crackheads that are influencing the game by suggesting the tackle was legit, and worse suggesting its the way to beat him. Promoting illegal strategies to stop the best.

A high attempt at a tackle is illegal and needs to be adjudicated as such. Dusty doesn't, duck, lower his hips, he simply,y expects to be awarded the same adjudication as other players tackled.