Review Port vs 31 free kicks to 19

[Poo Eckert]

Yeah 15 v 0 means the 3 other umpires went 19 - 16 our way. That seems implausible.
Major questions if true.

One one umpire was busted fudging the Brownlow, so anything is possible

 

[PAFC66]

Reminds me of when Troy Pannell paid 17 free kicks to the Bulldogs but only 1 to the Crows and was seen patting a Dogs player on the arse in the same match.

Right in front of moi

 

[PAFC66]

Honestly people have been whinging about Ken being a soft**** for years. He calls it out and people are whiny about it lol.

Because he's in his final year of his contract and wants to throw out as many excuses into the air for his failures as he can?
Nice deflection if nothing else.

 

[Jack_1870]

We've offered Esava a 4 year deal right?

Does he also come with the ability to get away with the most blatants push in the back?

Can he also play on after taking a mark, and once tackled, instead of being pinged for HTB he can take his kick again.

 

[Capital Power]

He did last year's GF and he's already umpired 22 games this season, so he's obviously one of the AFL's most trusted.

Hmmmm....

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Can he also play on after taking a mark, and once tackled, instead of being pinged for HTB he can take his kick again.

It was interesting seeing rugby's interpretation of advantage applied to Geelong.

 

[SC_Power]

You guys call it hinkleyball? Kenball runs of the tongue way better

"Do it for Ken" sounds even better, esp with a southern European accent.

 

[SC_Power]

Does any of the clubs have the power to veto umpires for their matches? Should they have that opportunity to veto?

History lesson. The year, 1902. Courtesy Wikipedia.

Second Semi-final​

Monday, 1 September	Port Adelaide (Forfeit)​	def. by	South Adelaide	Adelaide Oval

The second semi-final was forfeited by Port Adelaide owing to its objection to the appointment of umpire Phil Kneebone to the match.South Adelaide played a hastily arranged exhibition match against North Adelaide to entertain the spectators who had turned up.

 

[Waspy79]

History lesson. The year, 1902. Courtesy Wikipedia.

Second Semi-final​

Monday, 1 September	Port Adelaide (Forfeit)​	def. by	South Adelaide	Adelaide Oval

The second semi-final was forfeited by Port Adelaide owing to its objection to the appointment of umpire Phil Kneebone to the match.South Adelaide played a hastily arranged exhibition match against North Adelaide to entertain the spectators who had turned up.

Safe to assume Koch not in charge back then

 

[Port 2004]

Not true. I don't enjoy us losing that's rubbish. I want the best for the club and if that means losing to move people on for the greater good and long-term success than so be it. The people pulling the strings at this club right now will never see success

I want change as well. I want Hinckley and ******** Koch GONE. But I don’t get off on when we lose. But yes, we agree on something that is for sure, we need to get rid of these pricks.

 

[silverfingers]

Played well considering the outs, but a few missed chances cost us again.

The umpiring in the last Q was a disgrace.

 

[Poo Eckert]

Played well considering the outs, but a few missed chances cost us again.

The umpiring in the last Q was a disgrace.

I watched the last quarter again today. A lot of calls were there. Depends on the ump calling them or not

Rozee, Wines missing gettable goals hurt the most, probably would have iced the game

 

[Steve Dore]

Yeah I'm definitely gonna need confirmation of the 'zero frees to PAFC' bit. I very much doubt that's true. If it is, it should be grounds for instant dismissal.

Dismissal by his employer, the AFL?

The fact that umpires putting in obviously biased performances never appear to be subject to any form of consequences by the AFL to me indicates that they are following instructions to engineer the results the AFL requires.

The Victorian government is pouring millions into Kardina Park, $142M for the latest stage, and they would expect their mates at the AFL to give them value for money.

 

[PAFC66]

I want change as well. I want Hinckley and ******** Koch GONE. But I don’t get off on when we lose. But yes, we agree on something that is for sure, we need to get rid of these pricks.

Of course we do.
You read my posts too literally. Chill out.

 

[agmsy]

Yeah 15 v 0 means the 3 other umpires went 19 - 16 our way. That seems implausible.
Major questions if true.

If this claim is true, we can get a back-of-the-envelope guess of just how (un)likely it is to occur by random chance.

Let's look at the free kick stats for Port and Geelong prior to Saturday's game:

• Port: 349 frees for, 399 frees against.
• Geelong: 324 frees for, 337 frees against.

Per game, that's:

• Port: 18.37 frees for, 21.00 frees against.
• Geelong: 17.05 frees for, 17.74 frees against.

With four field umpires, per umpire per game, we have:

• Port: 4.59 frees for, 5.25 frees against.
• Geelong: 4.26 frees for, 4.43 frees against.

For simplicity's sake, let's assume that the free kicks awarded to each team are well modelled by a Poisson distribution.

To make things as favourable as possible for Hoskings, let's assume that:

• Geelong's rate of 4.43 frees against per umpire per game is the correct rate at which Port should have accumulated frees in Saturday's game (this is, on average, fewer frees per umpire per game than Port had been awarded through the end of Round 20).
• Port's rate of 5.25 frees against per umpire per game is the correct rate at which Geelong should have accumulated frees in Saturday's game (this is, on average, more frees per umpire per game than Geelong had been awarded through the end of Round 20).

The events of interest are:

• Port being awarded 0 frees by an umpire given they are normally awarded frees at a rate of 4.43 free kicks per umpire per game.
• Geelong being awarded 15 frees by an umpire given they are normally awarded frees at a rate 5.25 free kicks per umpire per game.

Again, for simplicity's sake, let's assume that these events are independent.

Then, we can ask: What is the probability that an umpire would produce a performance at least this unbalanced by random chance. By "at least this unbalanced", we mean, 15 or more free kicks to Geelong and 0 free kicks to Port.

I calculated that probability as 0.00000444. If you played Saturday's game a million times, you'd expect only 4.5 games where we get 0 frees and Geelong get 15+ from Hoskings.

The assumptions I've made (some unstated here) may be unreasonable, but it's difficult to imagine that the true probability is orders of magnitude greater than my estimate.

Now, that doesn't mean Hoskings has done anything dodgy (and, while the AFL is not far removed from an umpire integrity scandal, it would take more than an unsubstantiated claim and some quick maths to prove wilful misconduct or corruption), but it warrants a proper, forensic investigation.

 

[longdonkey]

McGuire was churning out the s**t with Bartel on his podcast. The game is in a good state if the Big 4 Victorian clubs are at the top , one SA Club , maybe one WA club. One of the biggest heavy hitters and massive codpiece saying it as it is. AFL looks after the big Vic clubs.

 

[longdonkey]

If this claim is true, we can get a back-of-the-envelope guess of just how (un)likely it is to occur by random chance.

Let's look at the free kick stats for Port and Geelong prior to Saturday's game:

• Port: 349 frees for, 399 frees against.
• Geelong: 324 frees for, 337 frees against.

Per game, that's:

• Port: 18.37 frees for, 21.00 frees against.
• Geelong: 17.05 frees for, 17.74 frees against.

With four field umpires, per umpire per game, we have:

• Port: 4.59 frees for, 5.25 frees against.
• Geelong: 4.26 frees for, 4.43 frees against.

For simplicity's sake, let's assume that the free kicks awarded to each team are well modelled by a Poisson distribution.

To make things as favourable as possible for Hoskings, let's assume that:

• Geelong's rate of 4.43 frees against per umpire per game is the correct rate at which Port should have accumulated frees in Saturday's game (this is, on average, fewer frees per umpire per game than Port had been awarded through the end of Round 20).
• Port's rate of 5.25 frees against per umpire per game is the correct rate at which Geelong should have accumulated frees in Saturday's game (this is, on average, more frees per umpire per game than Geelong had been awarded through the end of Round 20).

The events of interest are:

• Port being awarded 0 frees by an umpire given they are normally awarded frees at a rate of 4.43 free kicks per umpire per game.
• Geelong being awarded 15 frees by an umpire given they are normally awarded frees at a rate 5.25 free kicks per umpire per game.

Again, for simplicity's sake, let's assume that these events are independent.

Then, we can ask: What is the probability that an umpire would produce a performance at least this unbalanced by random chance. By "at least this unbalanced", we mean, 15 or more free kicks to Geelong and 0 free kicks to Port.

I calculated that probability as 0.00000444. If you played Saturday's game a million times, you'd expect only 4.5 games where we get 0 frees and Geelong get 15+ from Hoskings.

The assumptions I've made (some unstated here) may be unreasonable, but it's difficult to imagine that the true probability is orders of magnitude greater than my estimate.

Now, that doesn't mean Hoskings has done anything dodgy (and, while the AFL is not far removed from an umpire integrity scandal, it would take more than an unsubstantiated claim and some quick maths to prove wilful misconduct or corruption), but it warrants a proper, forensic investigation.

The logic looks good to me but I haven't checked it.

 

[SC_Power]

Just going to post some random numbers on here. Make of them what you will.
No suggestion of any pattern or inference of corruption intended or to be inferred.


2023
Rd 21 v Geelong, 19-31
Rd 16 v Essendon, 13-21
Rd 7 v St Kilda, 14-28

2022
Rd 21 v Richmond, 19-20
Rd 18 v Melbourne, 13-15
Rd 10 v Geelong, 20-24
Rd 9 v Nth Melb, 18-25

Total
116-164 (41%-59%) (avg 16.6-23.4)

All other games
667-711 (48.5%-51.5%) (avg 19.1-20.3)

 

[Dutchy5150]

It's all starting to make sense now....

 

[K rock Football]

I heard it, it may not be an official Radio station competition, but the female commentator named her best three players.
Tony Shaw asked her what about Butters (where she replied he was close).

3AW

 

[Weez]

As stated previously, after the Cameron free kick, we had a similar free kick that wasn't given a few minutes later.

Yep know exactly the contest you are talking about..

 

[Janus]

Duncan, Cameron and Rohan combined for 11 free kicks while conceding just 1.

On the flip side, Houston, Powell-Pepper and Lord conceded 8 free kicks while receiving just 1.

The only Port players on the ground to have a positive free kick count (more frees received than conceded) were Horne-Francis and Burgoyne. Geelong had 8 players in this category.

Now if Duncan, Cameron and Rohan had been playing on Houston, Powell-Pepper and Lord, it would kind of make sense. I think Houston and Duncan might have at some stages, but Lord vs Cameron and Powell-Pepper vs Rohan shows that an umpire down one end was paying frees to Geelong forwards while paying frees against Port Adelaide forwards. 7 frees to Geelong (Rohan and Cameron) + 5 frees against Port (Lord and Powell-Pepper) = 12 free kicks going Geelong’s way…the exact difference in the free kick count (19-31).

 

[Windy Cindy]

Duncan, Cameron and Rohan combined for 11 free kicks while conceding just 1.

On the flip side, Houston, Powell-Pepper and Lord conceded 8 free kicks while receiving just 1.

The only Port players on the ground to have a positive free kick count (more frees received than conceded) were Horne-Francis and Burgoyne. Geelong had 8 players in this category.

Now if Duncan, Cameron and Rohan had been playing on Houston, Powell-Pepper and Lord, it would kind of make sense. I think Houston and Duncan might have at some stages, but Lord vs Cameron and Powell-Pepper vs Rohan shows that an umpire down one end was paying frees to Geelong forwards while paying frees against Port Adelaide forwards. 7 frees to Geelong (Rohan and Cameron) + 5 frees against Port (Lord and Powell-Pepper) = 12 free kicks going Geelong’s way…the exact difference in the free kick count (19-31).

Duncan approaches every contest with one of his shoulders in a downwards position ready to flick it up, hes taken over from selwood. Should be absolutely buried in every tackle to teach him a lesson and never be paid a freekick ever again..

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

It's all starting to make sense now....

Amazing look for the game
#integrity

 

[Waspy79]

Just going to post some random numbers on here. Make of them what you will.
No suggestion of any pattern or inference of corruption intended or to be inferred.


2023
Rd 21 v Geelong, 19-31
Rd 16 v Essendon, 13-21
Rd 7 v St Kilda, 14-28

2022
Rd 21 v Richmond, 19-20
Rd 18 v Melbourne, 13-15
Rd 10 v Geelong, 20-24
Rd 9 v Nth Melb, 18-25

Total
116-164 (41%-59%) (avg 16.6-23.4)

All other games
667-711 (48.5%-51.5%) (avg 19.1-20.3)

Why leave out Collingwood from Round 2?