precieved favouritism of umpiring Bulldogs games

[Golden_6]

BF dogs are quick to respond to issues relating this thread as trolling and reply accordingly.

From the HS.
LET’S clear this up straight away — the Western Bulldogs aren’t back, they’re just extremely lucky.

The premier got the four points against North Melbourne, but also got the rub of the green from the umpires in a drama-packed night under the lid.



We don’t often talk about free kick counts or the officials, but such was the influence it — and they — had on this game it would be ridiculous to ignore it.



The Bulldogs led by 18 points at quarter-time, 21 at halftime and 26 at the 11-minute mark of the last quarter. Yet how they escaped with a one-point victory might keep Brad Scott awake at night for some time.

The final free kick count was 26-13 in the Dogs’ favour. At one stage it was 15-2 and the Bronx cheers echoed around Etihad Stadium on the rare occasion the Roos got one.

No one is saying the Dogs didn’t play some solid football and even briefly rekindled memories of last year’s run to glory with some passages of play.

But there will be no hangover from this win.




Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

So I'll try and ask you for the 3rd time now, considering you seem to ignore it. You continually quote the free kick count and articles discussing the free kick count without any discussions regarding actual decisions. Can you please provide specific examples of when North were unfairly treated?

 

[Topkent]

Bulldogs were Port of 14. They played a brilliant little patch, difference was they beat GWS by 2 kicks and Port lost by 1 to the Hawks. Port would have won the flag if they played the swans that year IMO

 

[Royal Flush]

So I'll try and ask you for the 3rd time now, considering you seem to ignore it. You continually quote the free kick count and articles discussing the free kick count without any discussions regarding actual decisions. Can you please provide specific examples of when North were unfairly treated?

I don't think anyone is claiming North were unfairly treated. I think the claim is that it appears to be some very favorable umpiring toward the Bulldogs, and not this game in isolation. Posters have referenced other games against other teams.

1st quarter
7-1

2nd quarter
9-3 (16-4)

3rd quarter
7-4 (21-8)

4th quarter
5-6 (26-14)

At the 16 minute mark of the second quarter it was 15-2.

apparently only infringed TWICE in 46 minutes of football? The Tackle count 83-79 dogs favor.

Is it really worth dissecting every decision?
Here's a couple
How did Ben Brown not get a 50m penalty when he was dragged down by Wood after taking the mark?
Luke McDonald taking his shot after the 50m penalty - umpire didn't call play on yet Bulldogs player approached the protected space
Only two throws paid all night. Both against Cunnington
Early in last Brown on lead, Roughead puts arm clearly over shoulder and then chops arm. Two Frees, neither paid.
The deliberate out of bounds in the last Q, would have been paid 100% between rounds 1-6.
Yes the Brown goal being over turned, and consequent 50 against him, for rightly assuming his mark was paid. The so called infringement against Mason Wood for blocking was at best a 50/50 call.
...........
lts get one thing straight, from a North perspective the win or loss is meaningless in the scheme of things. Not playing finals, so finishing lower suits me.

 

[Darkyprotector]

I'm puzzled as to why we aren't winning more games or by bigger margins if the umps are being so helpful.

lets get a little serious
no ruckman
no fullback
no fullforward
small centre half back
theres a start
it ALL comes back to Zurich,skeletons in closets

 

[Darkyprotector]

Does anyone honestly believe there is an umpiring conspiracy favouring the Dogs?

yes i do
pretty simple join the dots pal

 

[Darkyprotector]

ive seen it all weekend, there is an umpiring issue.
theres so many frees not paid and some are.

its up to the ump to guess... they pick and choose when to give
i hate watching the game today and always thinking every contest there will be a free kick

some common sense
cheers
blind freddy can see whats going on

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

some common sense
cheers
blind freddy can see whats going on

He means in every game, not just the Dogs

 

[_Mike_]

This sub forum is subject to parent board rules (MB). Cut out the Norf/#brave trolling rubbish.

 

[Ischenko]

Nuh.

Even with that paragraph in, you contradict yourself.

See?

Nuh.

Let's leave it there. I'm over it, move on to next week eh.

 

[Darkyprotector]

He means in every game, not just the Dogs

its not hard to work out
Final 8
geelong new stadium , fickle fans wont go unless they win,proven in the year they didnt make finals
westcoast new stadium Packer connections,gotta pay for that lots and lots of pull from the Squatocracy
Melbourne the basket case in the AFL capital city ,proped up with AFL money and admin and coaching simply cannot fail,supported by MR FOOTBALL Rupert
dogs recent surge in memebers shows no wins,go backwards ,something to do with what? i wonder if this recent surge is due to the desire to build footy in the western subs ,the afl drug appeal or simply pure genius i would suggest they will miss and Richmond with their dorment horde will take that spot.
a credible ninth will do
Port their time in the sun building , see adelaide,see that great new oval,notice a full house and an event it has become
gws no brainer
sydney again no brainer
adelaide hoping for a derby final and refer port reasons
its a totally fabricated season ,full of inconsistenties,tribunal, fixturing,umpiring,commentry and has been that way ever since they got away with the hand outs to the interstate clubs.the COLA and of course the blase attitude the AFL has to all complaints or queries.
Its a damn shame they failed to secure the Hawks 4 flags in a row though they tried their arse off for that and notice how that whole POSSE has now moved on.
Its not a level playing field
collingwood carlton,essendon have no chance as they are heavily supported through the history of the league and really dont need success to have support.
freo no chance as the new Afl Boss has connections there and it would be too obvious
gold coast will be taken over by the league very soon cue Evans.
the rest well deep down you all know you have no chance.
the umpiring this season has proven this and the fixture.

 

[Skoob]

Forget free kick counts. The differential is where it's at, and for the second year running, the Dogs are way in front.
It isn't that their opponents shouldn't get paid frees against them, it is the bazillion frees that umpires don't pay against the Doggies.
These are the average differential of frees paid for and against. The Bulldogs once again are getting much fewer frees paid against them than their opponent.
As someone else mentioned, it is unrealistic to believe that the Bulldogs are so proficient or fair, that they at times are infringinging only a couple of times in a quarter and a half of footy.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

Forget free kick counts. The differential is where it's at, and for the second year running, the Dogs are way in front.
It isn't that their opponents shouldn't get paid frees against them, it is the bazillion frees that umpires don't pay against the Doggies.
These are the average differential of frees paid for and against. The Bulldogs once again are getting much fewer frees paid against them than their opponent.
As someone else mentioned, it is unrealistic to believe that the Bulldogs are so proficient or fair, that they at times are infringinging only a couple of times in a quarter and a half of footy.
View attachment 386617

Perhaps...just perhaps the Doggies play a game style designed to avoid giving away frees.

More coaches should look at that.

As has been said many times, please show the evidence that supports any view that the Dogs are infringing and not being penalised in any way differently to other teams.

Note every team has some howlers paid for and against, but show me where North/ any team missed more genuine frees. Time and quarter and we can all look at the real evidence.

 

[Senor Ed]

Perhaps...just perhaps the Doggies play a game style designed to avoid giving away frees.

More coaches should look at that.

As has been said many times, please show the evidence that supports any view that the Dogs are infringing and not being penalised in any way differently to other teams.

Note every team has some howlers paid for and against, but show me where North/ any team missed more genuine frees. Time and quarter and we can all look at the real evidence.

Agree. Bring on the empirical evidence.

 

[Skoob]

Perhaps...just perhaps the Doggies play a game style designed to avoid giving away frees.

More coaches should look at that.

As has been said many times, please show the evidence that supports any view that the Dogs are infringing and not being penalised in any way differently to other teams.

Note every team has some howlers paid for and against, but show me where North/ any team missed more genuine frees. Time and quarter and we can all look at the real evidence.

2 infringements to the rules, in a quarter and a half to 15 by their opponent. That is a possible anomaly, but it is a clear trend with ridiculous frequency.
Do you honestly think that it is realistic that they only infringed twice in a quarter and a half and that they are able to perform so cleanly week after week?
Okay.

 

[Dazb86]

2 infringements to the rules, in a quarter and a half to 15 by their opponent. That is a possible anomaly, but it is a clear trend with ridiculous frequency.
Do you honestly think that it is realistic that they only infringed twice in a quarter and a half and that they are able to perform so cleanly week after week?
Okay.

That's a more realistic scenario than an umpiring/AFL led conspiracy to favour us.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Like the one where Naismith jumped into Johannisen with his studs up and received the free.

Show the footage of that one, if you could. I was thinking more like Jack being hit front on, late after a mark and not getting the 50 that would have taken him to the line, but having one paid minutes later to the dogs.

 

[Skoob]

That's a more realistic scenario than an umpiring/AFL led conspiracy to favour us.

I don't think it is at all realistic, but I also wouldn't go as far as to use the the word "conspiracy".

 

[GetDimmaBack]

I don't think it is at all realistic, but I also wouldn't go as far as to use the the word "conspiracy".

Which word would you use instead?

 

[Whiskers]

I like how an umpire 40 metres away whispers how long is left when Higgins has a shot on goal and the umpire near him says nothing until the 30 seconds is up.
That is some dodgy stuff right there!

Forget everything else but that is truly remarkable. The most dodgy thing I've seen.
Sure free kick stats look suss but combine it with this incident and no wonder people question the umpires.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

2 infringements to the rules, in a quarter and a half to 15 by their opponent. That is a possible anomaly, but it is a clear trend with ridiculous frequency.
Do you honestly think that it is realistic that they only infringed twice in a quarter and a half and that they are able to perform so cleanly week after week?
Okay.

As I said, show me the genuine frees to North that they missed.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

Show the footage of that one, if you could. I was thinking more like Jack being hit front on, late after a mark and not getting the 50 that would have taken him to the line, but having one paid minutes later to the dogs.

The Johannisen one has been shown plenty of times and I don't have time to find it at today.

I have previously conceded that the Jack one was marginal and could have been paid, but the minutes later to the dogs doesn't exist.

From memory, I am aware of 2 later in the game, both in the 3rd qtr. 1 to Kennedy for a goal to Sydney and 1 to Macrae who kicked a point. Both were more blatant than the 1st qtr incident.

 

[Golden_6]

2 infringements to the rules, in a quarter and a half to 15 by their opponent. That is a possible anomaly, but it is a clear trend with ridiculous frequency.
Do you honestly think that it is realistic that they only infringed twice in a quarter and a half and that they are able to perform so cleanly week after week?
Okay.

The fact that the free kick trends are almost identical 2 years in a row shows that their is a clear trend. A clear trend that the way we play football is advantageous towards the free kick count. The fact that it is consistent proves that it is something we are doing right. What's your alternative answer? That umpires go into games with a preconceived notion to favour the Bulldogs in consecutive years?

 

[Bulldog Joe]

I like how an umpire 40 metres away whispers how long is left when Higgins has a shot on goal and the umpire near him says nothing until the 30 seconds is up.
That is some dodgy stuff right there!

Forget everything else but that is truly remarkable. The most dodgy thing I've seen.
Sure free kick stats look suss but combine it with this incident and no wonder people question the umpires.

If you followed what happens, the umpire nearest the player is required to watch the mark, so that is not infringed. The umpire further away call the play on and then the umpire near calls it as he is alerted by the other umpire.

It would be seen as an issue if it happened more frequently, but most players don't take 38 seconds to get moving.

 

[Skoob]

Which word would you use instead?

They are certainly favoured, or seen in a favourable light, by the umpires. Forget the North game, this has been going on since last season. Their walk into the Grand Final was a free ride, as was the Premiership itself.

 

[Whiskers]

If you followed what happens, the umpire nearest the player is required to watch the mark, so that is not infringed. The umpire further away call the play on and then the umpire near calls it as he is alerted by the other umpire.

It would be seen as an issue if it happened more frequently, but most players don't take 38 seconds to get moving.

1st of all yes he took too long.
However the dodgy part comes from the sneaky way the umpire goes about it.
He clearly isn't talking loud enough and KNOWS it.
It's as if he is thinking "I can get away with this by saying it just for the microphones only, he can't hear me, what a perfect outcome"
So dodgy, he took too long yes but the umpire made sure he could take advantage of the situation.
Wouldn't want to make him aware or anything.