Don’t bother posting hard data TOO.
I posted this chart earlier but TBR reckons we’re biased supporters, sloppy tacklers and are imagining hearing the whistle!
Don’t bother posting hard data TOO.
I wouldn’t bother if it was close but the discrepancy is significantDon’t bother posting hard data TOO.
I posted this chart earlier but TBR reckons we’re biased supporters, sloppy tacklers and are imagining hearing the whistle!
Worst at what TBR?There's merit in the first two points, not sure where the whistle theory comes from though!
What exactly is this 'hard data' supposed to be proving? All that data shows is like every single statistical measure in the competition, there are teams who are better and teams that are worse at it. It says absolutely nothing about the level of umpiring whatsoever.
Going by these stat's ToO we might lose the free kicks by 11 you would think.
We are fked on Friday night.
I know Zips has put some mayo on this, but the sentiment is correctWe are fked on Friday night.
Footscary kick 8 metres
They throw the ball
And they hold the ball.
We might go 23-Nil
They will ream us
Thanks for that, if this is true it means even when an umpire is not officially the "man" he can influence the other "umps". If this is true. It is a blight on the ga,e. Biggus dickus rules.What you are hearing are the other umpires on the ground. They are all connected via the mic system and wear earpieces so they can communicate with each other. Often for a deliberate the out of zone umpire will confirm it because they can see the angles.
You will often here them in the background saying things like yours on the kick etc so they know when they are passing control of the ball.
As for the odds, is it really surprising that the same core group of players would show the same statistical pattern over a few seasons? Pretty logical I'd say.
Yeah the umps were biased for Melbourne, the pickett free and subsequent free for 2 goals were a testament to that. King the only media to call it out that I have seen, elbow to the head, no funking drama for Melbourne. Absolutely clear as day, but we all agree it didn't cost us the game. So, I reckon it means the AFL want Melbourne and the Chuckers to play in a gf. Good funking luck, its a long season. Go tigersWhich decisions? Not including all the throws and "Holding the Man" frees not paid the 3 that stand out were the, well, one was a HTM.
1. McIntosh was mauled inside the 50 in the 1st quarter. Grabbed without it, pulled to the ground and the held down. Plain as day. Not a hard free to pay. "Play on" was the call.
2. The *smile* free paid against Pickett. Seeing as he literally didn't infringe that means the umpire "guessed". Never guess. Pay only what you see.
3. It was Pickett (Melb) who infringed on Baker. He elbowed him in the head. Twice.
Other than that the one that always bugs me is the off-the-ball holding inside our forward 50. The "third umpire" was instituted specifically to stop it. He was supposed to be not watching the play as much watching for infringements against forwards. I know it has "evolved" but that was why the 3rd ump was brought in.
And I would agree that the free kick differential doesn't tell the whole story. 5 years, or there abouts, of being consistently and sometimes wildly on the wrong end of that, does need to be addressed.
Worth every cent.Jason McCartney charged $20K just to vent frustration over the flogs. Pathetic.
Maybe this is to small a sample to be conclusive. Perhaps we need the numbers from the previous four years as well to see if any genuine pattern of bias can be established. Like who's always at or near the top of the free kick count n who's always hiding under the compost at the bottom of the veggie patch.
Never bothers me as to how many frees either side gets.
And there is what should be the key question that is almost never asked. The true measure of umpiring is which decisions were right and wrong, not how many did each side give and get.
Watched first quarter again.Which decisions in the Melbourne game do we think the umpires got wrong?
Imagine if you had a rich backer like Roman Abamavoich.Jason McCartney charged $20K just to vent frustration over the flogs. Pathetic.
That should be one of the easiest rules to adjudicate shouldn’t it. If a player has possession of the ball and has had an opportunity to dispose of it ( played on, tried to break/evade a tackle etc), and hasn’t handballed or kicked it then is tackled, it’s holding the ball or incorrect disposal. None of this knocked out in the tackle *smile*Makes a lot of sense to me although what I'm really struggling with this year is the complete turnaround in the interpretation of holding the ball/dropping the ball/incorrect disposal ruling across the board not just Richmond games. Frustrating to watch and almost seems like a trade off with the stand/man on the mark rule.
Saw a couple of what looked like throws from our blokes. One or two other frees that could've been paid their way.It would be interesting to undertake the same exercise from the Melbourne point of view.
How is this OK? How does the AFL have any integrity at all? Why can't we enter a game thinking that we will be umpired to the same standards as our opposition?
Yeah the umps were biased for Melbourne, the pickett free and subsequent free for 2 goals were a testament to that. King the only media to call it out that I have seen, elbow to the head, no funking drama for Melbourne. Absolutely clear as day, but we all agree it didn't cost us the game. So, I reckon it means the AFL want Melbourne and the Chuckers to play in a gf. Good funking luck, its a long season. Go tigers
It would be interesting to undertake the same exercise from the Melbourne point of view.