thylacine60
Premium Platinum
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #176
yes, yes there is
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Didn't you get your access removed from this thread........stop drinking - or guessing - or presuming - I never suggested any such thing
Though, as i presume you very well know, protection of tenure is critical to ensuring freedom of pressure capable of diminishing non-bias. If going to have umpires as custodians of the game, an idea which I like, then umpires should be protected and supported in that pursuit. Besides, activism is not a bad thing, provided it's applied equally in a given scenario/game.That's the leash on activism for mine; it is within the terms of the employment contract to adjudicate the rules as written, and to pay everything you see. If you do not adhere to this measure, you will not possess a job for very long.
there is no presumption in what I have written or guess work.
You are absolutely correct - I am guessing that a 3X free differential is problematic- whilst you are?Of course there is. You're presuming that if the umpires were more competent - ie. made all the "correct" calls - that the differential would be smaller. You're guessing that we had more missed calls than Collingwood.
To the contrary, you have raised an issue that is fairly and squarely very much open to discussion. Continue.clearly your point along with the other recalcitrant is that my concern regarding the differential in free kicks is not warranted - fair enough.
With respect, I have very little idea what your position is on the issue; other than, that you disapprove of the sufficiency of reasoning put forward for being concerned at the 3 to 1 differential.You're not doing a great job of it though, because you're yet to address the main point I'm trying to convey - why is a 3:1 differential so vast as to be purely the fault of the umpires?
I agree that a 3:1 ratio of frees, at face value, is alarming. I'm curious as to how you've arrived at the conclusion that it's because the umpires were incompetent, without putting the time into determining whether or not Collingwood actually earned ~3x as many free kicks as we did. I understand that some were missed that could have been paid our way. But I'm also asserting that if one wants to pick out those examples, that one should do the same for the other team to determine what the "correct" number of free kicks for each side should have been.
You keep claiming that three times as many free kicks constitutes incompetency from the umpires. I cannot fathom how you can back that up without leaving the emotional overtures at the door and conducting a thorough review of all free kicks that "should" have been paid for each side. If you're not willing to do that, then I can't see any way you can reasonably claim that we were hard done by.
With respect, I have very little idea what your position is on the issue; other than, that you disapprove of the sufficiency of reasoning put forward for being concerned at the 3 to 1 differential.
Regardless of whether one thinks its a valid concern, he has at least discharged whatever discussion based burden he had to promote his concern; by citing that the differential is unique to the extent that such difference hasn't previously occurred. He's then left the question open for further discussion.
I'd be interested to read more of your supported reasoning on the areas you think that the players need, or should, work on to get better reward for their efforts from umpires; given that you have suggested that this should be the key area of focus in response to the umpiring concerns under discussion.
My inference, although not personally concerned at the differential, is that there must nonetheless be an underlying reason; especially if it be true that the magnitude is such as has never previously been seen. Various suggestions have been been put forward as to how umpiring could be improved; which by implication supports the notion that the umpiring was, at least to some extent, wanting.That's what you've taken from this?
I clearly stated that a 3:1 free kick ratio is concerning.
I disagree with a poster vehemently claiming that it came about because of umpire incompetence. Particularly given that the justification for that claim is that the umpires missed some free kicks that should have been paid to Carlton, whilst refusing to acknowledge that there may have been Collingwood free kicks that were missed too.
I'm the one trying to open up discussion about what we can do better to gain more free kicks and concede less (tackling, communication, composure), whilst JaB is adamant that the blame lies solely with the umpires.
My inference, although not personally concerned at the differential, is that there must nonetheless be an underlying reason; especially if it be true that the magnitude is such as has never previously been seen. Various suggestions have been been put forward as to how umpiring could be improved; which by implication supports the notion that the umpiring was, at least to some extent, somewhat wanting.
Your suggestion that the focus should be on improving the players skills and approach provides another take on the discussion; a fresh one. Were there any specific instances that you noted, in this game, which stand in your mind that helped you reach that conclusion?
Though, as i presume you very well know, protection of tenure is critical to ensuring freedom of pressure capable of diminishing impartiality and non-bias. If going to have umpires as custodians of the game, an idea which I like, then umpires should be protected and supported in that pursuit. Besides, activism is not a bad thing, provided it's applied equally in a given scenario/game.
OK, does the poster i responded to also resemble Stig v1? or just me for responding in the same context as original post? Besides, whats wrong with Stig v1?Seriously Opine you are turning into Stig version 2.
OK, does the poster i responded to also resemble Stig v1? or just me for responding in the same context as original post? Besides, whats wrong with Stig v1?
Righto, then you should drink more, more oftenAbsolutely nothing when I have 30 doubles under my belt!
world's not ready........Seriously Opine you are turning into Stig version 2.