The Bulldogs and Umpires: Time for a Royal Commission?

Remove this Banner Ad

conrad_437 said:
At the risk of lowering myself to your level...

Your comments genuinely puzzle me. You're either stupid, deluded, obsessed or a troll. Or a mix of the four. Seeing as your posting tendencies have been consistent for a while now, we can probably rule out troll. Which leaves us with stupid, deluded or obsessed. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just call you obsessed.

Why are you so obsessed? It's to the point where you're envisioning a crusade against the Bulldogs and the ghastly umpiring they benefit from, one which Danny boy is the leader of the agenda. It's hilarious, but also sad to read.
Click to expand...

I believe that the last point is the most accurate. I do believe that the umpiring bias for the bulldogs has been legitimate corruption so the more noise on that issue the better because I want an even competition. I firmly believe there has been an agenda to favour the bulldogs this season. This was proven correct in the 3 games melbourne played the dogs as well as the finals series.

For some reason the dogs fans chose to overlook the horrendous umpiring in the game where you beat us. It was a 6-8 goal advantage. This lulled the dogs fans into a strange sense of security heading into the GF. And it was very odd that the dogs fans refused to look at the impact of the umpires in that game.
 
danster168 said:
I believe that the last point is the most accurate. I do believe that the umpiring bias for the bulldogs has been legitimate corruption so the more noise on that issue the better because I want an even competition. I firmly believe there has been an agenda to favour the bulldogs this season. This was proven correct in the 3 games melbourne played the dogs as well as the finals series.

For some reason the dogs fans chose to overlook the horrendous umpiring in the game where you beat us. It was a 6-8 goal advantage. This lulled the dogs fans into a strange sense of security heading into the GF. And it was very odd that the dogs fans refused to look at the impact of the umpires in that game.
Click to expand...
Clearly I was being too generous towards you. Stupid, deluded and obsessed were right.
 
Last edited:
danster168 said:
Yet you thought you were a chance in the granny? You could've just asked me and I would've told you how the game would eventuate. May was apparently going to have trouble with Naughton, Weightman was going to create havoc, your midfield was going to have too much depth and Alex Keath is back Yeah no.
Click to expand...
Heaven forbid a team and its supporters go into a game thinking they were a chance to win it.

(And when they don’t, that’s proof of some massive ill-defined umpiring conspiracy? Man have you any idea how unhinged you sound?)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

SBD Gonzalez said:
Heaven forbid a team and its supporters go into a game thinking they were a chance to win it.

(And when they don’t, that’s proof of some massive ill-defined umpiring conspiracy? Man have you any idea how unhinged you sound?)
Click to expand...

You do realise that someone else started the thread right? I'm clearly not the only people that recognise it.
 
danster168 said:
You do realise that someone else started the thread right? I'm clearly not the only people that recognise it.
Click to expand...
So there's two of you??!!

Anyway, let's not let that distract from my actual point, which is that you're reduced to saying the Bulldogs thought they might win the GF, and because they didn't, that's proof the umpires didn't help them this time.

Turn off your device and go for a long walk. It's a beautiful day.
 
SBD Gonzalez said:
So there's two of you??!!

Anyway, let's not let that distract from my actual point, which is that you're reduced to saying the Bulldogs thought they might win the GF, and because they didn't, that's proof the umpires didn't help them this time.

Turn off your device and go for a long walk. It's a beautiful day.
Click to expand...

proof? please, there's 25 rounds of proof, not just 1 game. i've been raving on about the corruption since round 10 onwards. so it's not in reaction to 1 game.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

danster168 said:
Huh? We're on page 70 of this thread and you can't even find examples? Clearly you haven't even read anything. There's hundreds of examples and time stamped break downs of certain decisions, screen grabs, etc. Come back when you're educated on the issue.
Click to expand...
I’m plenty educated. If you look through I’ve given opinion backed up by statistics on countless occasions, as evidenced by having contributed 55 times to this thread.

Who’s the one that hasn’t read anything?
 
conrad_437 said:
I’m plenty educated. If you look through I’ve given opinion backed up by statistics on countless occasions, as evidenced by having contributed 55 times to this thread.

Who’s the one that hasn’t read anything?
Click to expand...

If we start off by acknowledging that Weightman, Macrae and Hunter are probably all in the top 5 for staging and that Bevo has done nothing to correct the behaviour then it's a starting point.

I still believe that the dogs would've lost to Essendon and been out of the finals if it wasn't for the Weightman shenanigans. I don't care what the final margin was, 4 goals in the wet equates to 8 goals in the dry. All of which occurred when the game was in the balance. One of the free kicks to Weightman where got pushed in the chest was a clear example of corruption. There's not even a rule in the rulebook for that to even considered a free.

And then he kicks an easy snap goal and he smiles like he deserves it. Does my head in that bloke.
 
Last edited:
danster168 said:
If we start off by acknowledging that Weightman, Macrae and Hunter are probably all in the top 5 for staging and that Bevo has done nothing to correct the behaviour then it's a starting point.

I still believe that the dogs would've lost to Essendon and been out of the finals if it wasn't for the Weightman shenanigans. I don't care what the final margin was, 4 goals in the wet equates to 8 goals in the dry. All of which occurred when the game was in the balance. One of the free kicks to Weightman where got pushed in the chest was a clear example of corruption. There's not even a rule in the rulebook for that to even considered a free.

And then he kicks an easy snap goal and he smiles like he deserves it. Does my head in that bloke.
Click to expand...
Because umpires are going to be perfect all the time, aren't they? Always going to be a couple of WTF decisions per game. Every other Weightman free kick was there.

And then he kicks an easy snap goal and he smiles like he deserves it. Does my head in that bloke.
Click to expand...

It seems that you start off by not liking certain Dogs players, then you allow your biases to corrupt further opinions on the club, which initiates suggestions of corruption that clearly are compounded by the Bulldogs threatening to impede Melbourne's quest for future premierships. Does that sound right?


You also haven't elaborated on your suggestion that there are "hundreds of examples throughout the season that suggest that there's more to the bulldogs umpiring then just a coincidence" (sic). Neither have you pointed me toward these "hundreds of examples and time-stamped break downs of certain decisions, screen grabs, etc", of which I have most likely seen or are nowhere near as sophisticated as what you believe them to be.

Yep, stupid, deluded and obsessed were the correct adjectives.
 
conrad_437 said:
Because umpires are going to be perfect all the time, aren't they? Always going to be a couple of WTF decisions per game. Every other Weightman free kick was there.



It seems that you start off by not liking certain Dogs players, then you allow your biases to corrupt further opinions on the club, which initiates suggestions of corruption that clearly are compounded by the Bulldogs threatening to impede Melbourne's quest for future premierships. Does that sound right?


You also haven't elaborated on your suggestion that there are "hundreds of examples throughout the season that suggest that there's more to the bulldogs umpiring then just a coincidence" (sic). Neither have you pointed me toward these "hundreds of examples and time-stamped break downs of certain decisions, screen grabs, etc", of which I have most likely seen or are nowhere near as sophisticated as what you believe them to be.

Yep, stupid, deluded and obsessed were the correct adjectives.
Click to expand...

That's where we disagree. I would say one of weightmans frees was maybe there. The rest definitely not. Especially not in a final. There's not even a rule in the rule book that comes close to even remotely be seen as a free kick in that horrendous Weightman decision. And that's where I think it's highly suspicious of corruption. Anyway, let's park the weightman decisions because that's been done to death.

My opinion of the dogs has nothing to do with Melbourne. Can't you see that? Why would it have anything to do with who I go for?

And what do you mean I haven't elaborated on my opinions of the corruption? I've done nothing but elaborate on this thread for 70 pages. I provided a time stamped break down of the melbourne v dogs game during the year in this thread.

The Redman decision for a dangerous tackle on Bontempelli was one of the worst for the year. Every other player in the comp would've been paid holding the ball but the ump decided to wait and give the golden child as long as possible to find ways to give him a free. This was corruption and special treatment.

Fast forward to the finals. We touched on the weightman frees that gifted you a finals win (that's just my opinion) but let's look at the GF. Every time Melbourne went on a run on the umps made incorrect calls to give the dogs the free centre clearance. One was on Macrae which is pictured in my display pic, the other one was a liberatore holding free which wasn't there.

I also noticed Weightman begging for a high free kick in the first 30 seconds of the game (not a good look for a kid in a GF) and then lunging forward trying to get a 'in the back' call against Pickett in the 3rd. But the ump didn't fall for it and it lead directly to Brayshaw's goal.

When I say corruption I believe that the umpires deliberately go out of their way to pay free kicks for staging. Whether that's Bevo having a close rship with the umpire department or they're getting privately coached on how to draw high(or holding the man) frees behind closed doors with umpires sitting in privately on these sessions it wouldn't surprise me. I say these because of the tactics of not 1, but 4-6 players who repeatedly stage, at most contests. I've named the serial offenders. And Bevo not correcting these actions is a sign that he knows he is going to get looked after because what senior coach would be proud of his players for playing in this way.

I have no reason to hate the dogs. But hand on heart, leading into the GF when friends asked me stuff like 'how are you going to manage naughton and Bont and Treloar and Dunkley etc.' my response was always the same. The hardest thing about playing the dogs isn't the personnel in jumpers, it's knowing that you're going to have to beat most likely horrendous one sided umpiring and they will most likely get 4-6 goals given to them with forward 50 staging frees.

The grand final margin may have surprised many. But not me. I was on record, on Bigfooty, saying that if the umps don't favour the dogs, we'll win by 50 plus. I was right, bottom line. And I refuse to rate the dogs until they win unassisted. The win against port was good. one of their rare wins without the umps and I respect them for that win. But those wins are what most teams have to do every week.
 
danster168 said:
And what do you mean I haven't elaborated on my opinions of the corruption? I've done nothing but elaborate on this thread for 70 pages. I provided a time stamped break down of the melbourne v dogs game during the year in this thread.
Click to expand...
Please provide this, as I haven't seen it and your posting trends suggest that this 'elaboration' could be extremely unsophisticated.
You've done very little other than incessantly spout bullshit and opinions that are clearly borne by bias and a "hope" that they are true, rather than knowledge-based fact.

You put forward two completely different themes. First, that the Bulldogs are divers, floppers, play to get free kicks, whatever way you want to put it. Second, that the Bulldogs are assisted by an AFL orchestrated program designed to increase our chances of success through free kicks.

Which one is it mate?

You continually but forward no evidence of this so-called 'corruption'. You can't put forward conclusions based on no evidence. That's called being disingenuous. Which is supported by your continuous blind hate of the Bulldogs for months.
 
danster168 said:
That's where we disagree. I would say one of weightmans frees was maybe there. The rest definitely not. Especially not in a final. There's not even a rule in the rule book that comes close to even remotely be seen as a free kick in that horrendous Weightman decision. And that's where I think it's highly suspicious of corruption. Anyway, let's park the weightman decisions because that's been done to death.

My opinion of the dogs has nothing to do with Melbourne. Can't you see that? Why would it have anything to do with who I go for?

And what do you mean I haven't elaborated on my opinions of the corruption? I've done nothing but elaborate on this thread for 70 pages. I provided a time stamped break down of the melbourne v dogs game during the year in this thread.

The Redman decision for a dangerous tackle on Bontempelli was one of the worst for the year. Every other player in the comp would've been paid holding the ball but the ump decided to wait and give the golden child as long as possible to find ways to give him a free. This was corruption and special treatment.

Fast forward to the finals. We touched on the weightman frees that gifted you a finals win (that's just my opinion) but let's look at the GF. Every time Melbourne went on a run on the umps made incorrect calls to give the dogs the free centre clearance. One was on Macrae which is pictured in my display pic, the other one was a liberatore holding free which wasn't there.

I also noticed Weightman begging for a high free kick in the first 30 seconds of the game (not a good look for a kid in a GF) and then lunging forward trying to get a 'in the back' call against Pickett in the 3rd. But the ump didn't fall for it and it lead directly to Brayshaw's goal.

When I say corruption I believe that the umpires deliberately go out of their way to pay free kicks for staging. Whether that's Bevo having a close rship with the umpire department or they're getting privately coached on how to draw high(or holding the man) frees behind closed doors with umpires sitting in privately on these sessions it wouldn't surprise me. I say these because of the tactics of not 1, but 4-6 players who repeatedly stage, at most contests. I've named the serial offenders. And Bevo not correcting these actions is a sign that he knows he is going to get looked after because what senior coach would be proud of his players for playing in this way.

I have no reason to hate the dogs. But hand on heart, leading into the GF when friends asked me stuff like 'how are you going to manage naughton and Bont and Treloar and Dunkley etc.' my response was always the same. The hardest thing about playing the dogs isn't the personnel in jumpers, it's knowing that you're going to have to beat most likely horrendous one sided umpiring and they will most likely get 4-6 goals given to them with forward 50 staging frees.

The grand final margin may have surprised many. But not me. I was on record, on Bigfooty, saying that if the umps don't favour the dogs, we'll win by 50 plus. I was right, bottom line. And I refuse to rate the dogs until they win unassisted. The win against port was good. one of their rare wins without the umps and I respect them for that win. But those wins are what most teams have to do every week.
Click to expand...
Again, part of the “proof” you furnish is that you say you said that if the second best team all year lost the GF by fifty points or more, that means that, um, the umpires usually favour the Dogs but, um, on the biggest stage of all, for reasons unexplained, um, they suddenly decided not to favour the Dogs after all.

I mean as clinchers go it’s pretty lame, but just out of interest, did you write this soothsaying down and send it to yourself in a registered letter?
 
conrad_437 said:
Please provide this, as I haven't seen it and your posting trends suggest that this 'elaboration' could be extremely unsophisticated.
You've done very little other than incessantly spout bullshit and opinions that are clearly borne by bias and a "hope" that they are true, rather than knowledge-based fact.

You put forward two completely different themes. First, that the Bulldogs are divers, floppers, play to get free kicks, whatever way you want to put it. Second, that the Bulldogs are assisted by an AFL orchestrated program designed to increase our chances of success through free kicks.

Which one is it mate?

You continually but forward no evidence of this so-called 'corruption'. You can't put forward conclusions based on no evidence. That's called being disingenuous. Which is supported by your continuous blind hate of the Bulldogs for months.
Click to expand...

Why can't it be both? Why can't both be true. Bevo has a chummy rship with the umpiring department, he runs pre-season training where he continues to coach his players to play for free kicks. At this stage it can't even be denied such is the performances by some of the players. This is definitely taught and encouraged. Umpires into a closed session where Bevo and umpires go over the said techniques of ducking, flopping and staging to ascertain any loopholes. This can happen behind closed doors. Then when a game comes along, the umpires are privy to all of the ducking, flopping and staging that occurs and thus reward such behaviour. Hence, both statement can be true.

I would usually say this is outlandish but the umpiring performances were
Like I said, there's plenty of evidence in this thread alone. Page 63 I've got some pics of the grand finals staging and rewarded frees.
conrad_437 said:
Please provide this, as I haven't seen it and your posting trends suggest that this 'elaboration' could be extremely unsophisticated.
You've done very little other than incessantly spout bullshit and opinions that are clearly borne by bias and a "hope" that they are true, rather than knowledge-based fact.

You put forward two completely different themes. First, that the Bulldogs are divers, floppers, play to get free kicks, whatever way you want to put it. Second, that the Bulldogs are assisted by an AFL orchestrated program designed to increase our chances of success through free kicks.

Which one is it mate?

You continually but forward no evidence of this so-called 'corruption'. You can't put forward conclusions based on no evidence. That's called being disingenuous. Which is supported by your continuous blind hate of the Bulldogs for months.
Click to expand...


Why can't it be both? Why can't both be true? Bevo has a chummy rship with the umpiring department, he runs pre-season training where he continues to coach his players to play for free kicks. At this stage it can't even be denied that he does this such are the performances by some of his players. This is definitely taught and encouraged. Umpires come a closed session where Bevo and umpires go over the said techniques of ducking, flopping and staging to ascertain any loopholes. This can happen behind closed doors. Then when a game comes along, the umpires are privy to all of the ducking, flopping and staging that occurs and thus reward such behaviour. Hence, both statements can be true.

I would usually say this is outlandish but the umpiring performances in dogs games were more outlandish than the idea of corruption in the AFL.

Like I said, there's plenty of evidence in this thread alone. Page 63 I've got some pics of the grand finals staging and rewarded frees. But we all know of staging by dogs players as being their 1 wood.

If you need more evidence, watch the round 19 game of the dees vs dogs. You can’t watch that with a straight face.

The bontempelli holding the ball, the bailey smith throw, Bailey dale running 40m without a bounce. Neale-Bullen holding the ball despite having no prior. Harmes being throw to the ground in the melee right in front of the umps, not paid. All of these blatant in front of the umpires.

The free kick count I usually do not pay too much attention to but at some point you have to. It was 14-3 free kicks at one stage. And ended up at 25-11. I’m sorry but to suggest that an in and under contested side like Melbourne (on a wet night!), only got 11 free kicks in 2 hours of football is corrupt.

You have a full season of the dogs getting favoured and you still have the audacity to ask for proof. That’s on you mate. The onus is on you to look at the evidence. Not me. It’s been staring at you in the face for 6 months.
 
SBD Gonzalez said:
Again, part of the “proof” you furnish is that you say you said that if the second best team all year lost the GF by fifty points or more, that means that, um, the umpires usually favour the Dogs but, um, on the biggest stage of all, for reasons unexplained, um, they suddenly decided not to favour the Dogs after all.

I mean as clinchers go it’s pretty lame, but just out of interest, did you write this soothsaying down and send it to yourself in a registered letter?
Click to expand...

I never said the dogs were the 2nd best team all year. In fact, I'm on the record for rating them about 5th and if it wasn't for the Cody Flopman diving, Essendon would've had the momentum and run over them in my opinion.
 
Additional evidence is Ugle-Hagan being gifted to the dogs. It's an incredibly unfair and compromised system already but the AFL knew a year in advance that Ugle-Hagan would be a top 5 pick yet they conveniently decide to allow the dogs (a good team at the time) a pick 1 gift that will provide them an unfair advantage for 10-15 years if he plays out. And then what do they do after? They change the rules the following year during a time when the dogs don't have an NGA prospect further disadvantaging other clubs like Stkilda and Melbourne who had prospects.

Conrad_437, I would like to hear valid reasoning that the AFL couldn't change the rules before gifting the dogs Ugle-Hagan? Why wait for the injustice to happen?

This is why I put a massive asterisk on all future success by the dogs because they've been gifted more than any other club when it comes to father son and NGA prospects.
 
SBD Gonzalez said:
So there's two of you??!!

Anyway, let's not let that distract from my actual point, which is that you're reduced to saying the Bulldogs thought they might win the GF, and because they didn't, that's proof the umpires didn't help them this time.

Turn off your device and go for a long walk. It's a beautiful day.
Click to expand...
22 umpires ouldnt have got them over the line this time!
Although a couple certainly tried!

stats don’t lie, the dogs continually rank right up there For free kicks.
never thought the day would come id feel sorry for the dons, but gees!
 
danster168 said:
I never said the dogs were the 2nd best team all year. In fact, I'm on the record for rating them about 5th and if it wasn't for the Cody Flopman diving, Essendon would've had the momentum and run over them in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Yeah well unfortunately for your argument nearly everyone else considered them the 2nd best team by the time of the GF so again you're basically saying "my proof that the Bulldogs get help from the umps is that although almost everyone else, including the experts, thinks they're a very good team, I don't".

Compelling stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Obeanie1
Umpiring Whats with umpires not knowing or forgetting the rules of the game?
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Hoops
Hoops
G
Umpire Integrity and Game Outcomes.
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
RedV3x
RedV3x
Mr Meeseeks
Umpiring Easter Monday 2024 Cats v Hawks Umpire Chat
2
Replies
25
Views
718
Footy_Fan2007
Footy_Fan2007
MYOB
Grand Final Umpires
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
5K
Chronz
Chronz
PieLebo87
Can umpires force specific defenders to go on the mark?
Replies
1
Views
427
Simche
S
Cleric
Time to change the tackling rules
Replies
12
Views
1K
RedV3x
RedV3x
G
Umpiring
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Mitchell Madness
Mitchell Madness

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top