Conspiracy theory: umpire collusion

Remove this Banner Ad

T

T-Pain

Team Captain
Feb 28, 2008
535
1
Shepparton
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Not just in the rooms after 1 particular match (ie hird v west coast 04) but a concerted effort week to week by the umpires to ensure players do not receive their brownlow votes. is luke hodge that derelict in the quality of fairness, that his performances in 08 meant he only picked up two umpires' best-and-fairest votes for the season? this isn't a complaint about hodge only getting 2 votes, i'd take a norm smith over a brownlow any day - but i think it does raise the question that umpires collude to decide that a player is not in the best and fairest 3 on the ground BEFORE the match even takes place, due to preconceived notions about certain players.

entertain me with your responses rather than empty trolls please.
 
Hird v WC was blatant, only because he 'attacked one of their own' However the Hodge complaint sounds like sour grapes.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

snrub said:
Where did Hodge finish in Hawthorn's best and fairest count?
Click to expand...

I'd be more concerned about the free kicks they give and don't give than Brownlow votes. I remember hearing a big name player being interviewed on MMM a few years after his career ended, and he said that he was actually told by an umpire (who he didn't name), the he would never receive a free kick from him.

On the flip side of the coin, you have players like Judd, who used to be able to hold the ball for 15 mins while at WCE, and the umps would say he didn't have prior opportunity. Seriously, I remember seeing him break a tackle, step around a second play, get tackled by a third, only for the ump to claim he didn't have prior opportunity.

Then there's that stupid "hands in the back" rule. What a joke that is. It should have been called "Hands in the forward's back", because the umps never seem to pay it to back line players.
 
They must have access to stats because whenever one team is leading the free kick count by a lot at half time the 50/50's then ALWAYS swing toward the team with less free kicks.
 
It's clear that umpires have their favourites (eg Goodes) and non-favourites (eg Cornes, or any other gun that slags off at them).

Don't think they collude though.
 
Winner said:
They must have access to stats because whenever one team is leading the free kick count by a lot at half time the 50/50's then ALWAYS swing toward the team with less free kicks.
Click to expand...

Qualifying Final 2003. Bris v Coll. At half time the free kick count was about 15 to 1 in favour of Brisbane. In the second half, Bris only got 1 free kick, and at the end it was all but even.

Did the umpires collude at half time? We'll never know. But it sure seemed to be the case.
 
I remember a miked umpire telling Chad Cornes that the free kick against him was "Because it's you, Chad".

That didn't get anywhere near the media beat up that it deserved at the time.

Edit: you regularly see the late nothing free kicks paid to the team who has the poorer free kick count as well, to even up the number.
 
Bone Crusher said:
Qualifying Final 2003. Bris v Coll. At half time the free kick count was about 15 to 1 in favour of Brisbane. In the second half, Bris only got 1 free kick, and at the end it was all but even.

Did the umpires collude at half time? We'll never know. But it sure seemed to be the case.
Click to expand...
I remember back in about 2003, Richmond were playing, and flogging, Carlton. At half time, the free count was ridiculously one-sided in favour of them. After half time, it swung our way ridiculously, and we ended up with about 8 more frees, despite having been down by about 10 at half time. We won by 88, but would have only won by about 60 had it not been for leniant umps in the 2nd half...
 
Sydney-Carlton was an example last year, and it surprised the shit out of me, because usually the opposition has a hell of a lot more frees than Sydney and nothings done. But this time, at half time the commentators made a big deal of it, I think the Swans made a big deal of it, and decisions swung our way.

It's a bit soft in my opinion, but yes an example:

Hall rarely gets a free kick for high contact - unless his head is visibly being ripped off - but gives away frees for very minor things.'

Goodes doesn't (or didn't) get reported/suspended for anything, and would get numerous frees that didn't seem to be there.

The Swans overall though, are the Barry Hall of the proverbial team, as we're seen as one of the tough nut teams that don't need the Umps looking after them, as a team like Carlton or West Coast might (no offence meant at all, merely meaning they are more quick footed run and carry types, nut nuggety hard at its like Kirk/Bolton/Goodes).
 
I've got no doubt that it probably happens..it's just not spoken about.

Best example is how Greg Williams got 44 possessions in a game and couldn't get enough votes to win the '93 Brownlow. I suppose if you concede 2 50m penalties on the same day, you might be looked at differently.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

pazza said:
I've got no doubt that it probably happens..it's just not spoken about.

Best example is how Greg Williams got 44 possessions in a game and couldn't get enough votes to win the '93 Brownlow. I suppose if you concede 2 50m penalties on the same day, you might be looked at differently.
Click to expand...
sounds a bit like when mcleod got 39 touches and not a single vote for the game. you would think a player that gets the ball that much would have to stand out
 
You do have to wonder at times. Look at how long it took Buckley to win a brownlow and nobody could say that he didn't deserve one.

Some players wear their hearts on their sleeves and let umpires know exactly how they feel, doesn't exactly endear you to them does it.
 
I see it this way.

We dont give a crap about the umpires throughout the year, so why should we care on the last monday before the last Saturday in September.

I dont.

AFLPA MVP (leigh matthews trophy) is the one a player should aim for. Its voted by your peers, not by some idiotic bald #11 and his subordonintes
 
Yeah but the collusion in last year's MVP by players was a bit ridiculous. Ablett was an absolute worthy winner, but when you saw Collingwood's votes, and none of them voted for Franklin even though he ripped them apart twice that year, it was a bit suss. Especially considering their deformed head forward John Anthony's missus had to drink Buddy's beer off her shirt
 
Neville Bartos said:
Yeah but the collusion in last year's MVP by players was a bit ridiculous. Ablett was an absolute worthy winner, but when you saw Collingwood's votes, and none of them voted for Franklin even though he ripped them apart twice that year, it was a bit suss. Especially considering their deformed head forward John Anthony's missus had to drink Buddy's beer off her shirt
Click to expand...

yeah the players can vote for whoever they want

like adam selwood, 3 votes. J.Selwood, 2 votes. S.Selwood, 1 vote. T. Selwood
 
onyacoxy said:
yeah the players can vote for whoever they want

like adam selwood, 3 votes. J.Selwood, 2 votes. S.Selwood, 1 vote. T. Selwood
Click to expand...
I thaught each club had to nominate a few players from there own team.

And then the players had to chose 1-3 of any player from the selected players of the other 15 teams.
 
There are two constants in footy:

1) Umpires are all maggots and not to be trusted

2) All Hawthorn supporters are sooks

This thread has just brought the two together.
 
pazza said:
I've got no doubt that it probably happens..it's just not spoken about.

Best example is how Greg Williams got 44 possessions in a game and couldn't get enough votes to win the '93 Brownlow. I suppose if you concede 2 50m penalties on the same day, you might be looked at differently.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I think one of the umps officiating in that game later publicly admitted that the umpires colluded not to give Williams votes as he hadn't "made their job any easier" or something to that effect.

Brownlow voting really needs to be changed to a panel system.
 
ThunderPower_14 said:
I remember a miked umpire telling Chad Cornes that the free kick against him was "Because it's you, Chad".

That didn't get anywhere near the media beat up that it deserved at the time.

Edit: you regularly see the late nothing free kicks paid to the team who has the poorer free kick count as well, to even up the number.
Click to expand...

It is usually Port who get those junk time free kicks as we usually trail by about 15 free kicks in the last quarter.

I did a study of free kicks in 2005, because I was certain Port were getting screwed on the back of a Grand Final win and all Non-Vic GF. What I uncovered didn't surprise me. Against Victorian opponents we had overall 72 fewer free kicks that our opponents. Against Non Victorian opponents the difference was ZERO. We were especially crucified away from home in Victoria. I am not sure if umpires collude, but that is pretty strong evidence that bias existed in 2005, given that the majority of umpires are from Victoria.

To make sure this wasn't just a bad season for Port, I also looked at the Swans stats. Their numbers were strangely similar. It is little wonder the AFL do not release detailed umpiring statistics anymore. Now there is a conspiracy theory. If anyone has the time or inclination i'd love to see the stats broken down over a number of seasons for all clubs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top