I just can't see how the huge difference can be justified. You can maintain that one team plays a little closer to the edge of the rules than another team, but the difference is just too big to be explained.
Are Richmond players really that much worse than all the other players? I think not. This is a professional sport, all teams play close to the edge of conceding free kicks. In any case, why don't they concede them to Richmond?
But even more, the number of frees we receive is far lower than other teams, and this is mainly determined by how other teams play. Yet, for some reason we receive less free kicks playing the very same teams with the very same players. Week after week you see teams concede frees, then they play us and suddenly concede less frees. It makes no sense, what is the cause? Do we stage less? Although I would like to think so, I doubt it, so why do we consistently get less frees?
It looks like this:
That's not the way we play, that's how other teams play - they are angels whenever we play them.
So what about frees against?
Oh, crap, we are devils whenever we play.
I have highlighted the lowest frees for and highest frees against in each graph, lo and behold, it's Richmond both times.
Lowest number of frees for per game, highest number of frees against per game.
Coincidence? Who knows.
If we conceded more frees per game you could understand it if we play a particularly rough style of football, but I don't think there is such a great difference between the way clubs play.
But the fact we get less frees per game than any other side, which is largely determined by the way our opponents play, means there is something going on.
DS