precieved favouritism of umpiring Bulldogs games

[compact72]

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.

Lucky it's not up to the umpire to monitor the clock.

Higgins should've kept an eye on the time. Tough love, move on

 

[Plugger35]

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?

Why is it so hard for Bulldogs supporters to accept that their team has been getting a great run from the umpires for the 2nd year running?

You're currently 9th on the ladder so trying to make out that your team is playing this awesome style of football where you infringe less than every other team and get more free kicks than other teams doesn't make sense, it makes even less sense than there being some umpire conspiracy to favour the Dogs.

I'd say the real reason for your great run from the umpires is that last year you were the media darlings and the fairytale story while this year you're the reigning premiers so the umpires are favouring you like they did with Hawthorn the last few years.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

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.

So you are suggesting the umpire deliberately made sure Higgins didn't know.

Why would he do that?
Was he concerned that Higgins should not have had the free at all?

 

[Bulldog Joe]

Why is it so hard for Bulldogs supporters to accept that their team has been getting a great run from the umpires for the 2nd year running?

You're currently 9th on the ladder so trying to make out that your team is playing this awesome style of football where you infringe less than every other team and get more free kicks than other teams doesn't make sense, it makes even less sense than there being some umpire conspiracy to favour the Dogs.

How is Nic Riewoldt going on the free kick count. Is he still the most favoured player on free kick differential.

He has been doing that for years. Can you explain the Nic Riewoldt conspiracy?

Or is that because he plays a style than sees him infringe less than other players?

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Why is it so hard for Bulldogs supporters to accept that their team has been getting a great run from the umpires for the 2nd year running?

You're currently 9th on the ladder so trying to make out that your team is playing this awesome style of football where you infringe less than every other team and get more free kicks than other teams doesn't make sense, it makes even less sense than there being some umpire conspiracy to favour the Dogs.

On the contrary, it makes complete sense. We are coached to NOT give away frees, it's pretty simple. Most if not all other teams are told to put on physical pressure so they are more likely to infringe - the nonsense about JJ for example. You will notice the Dogs don't put on the faux tough guy act that North, GWS and others seem to specialise in.

 

[Skoob]

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?

They don't get more frees than everyone else. Brisbane do, this year (Bulldogs second).
They don't have the least paid against, either. Eagles have the least FA so far. (Bulldogs 3rd)
So in terms of playing an honest, clean brand of footy, Weagles and Pies are better than the Bulldogs. (Like that's realistic).

What does happen though, is when teams play the Bulldogs, they can't seem to buy a free kick. So the number of frees paid in a game does fluctuate, but the constant is the Bulldogs being paid less than their opponent on the day, whether they give away 5 or 20, it is almost always less than the team they are playing, and by a fair margin. Then take into account for games where (like the game against North) the difference is huge early and the umpires play catch up later in the game (they never catch up though).
From 2 FA in the first qtr & a half, Dogs had 6 paid against in the last to North's 4. As with other games where umpires play catch up, the last quarter is too late.
The 'catch up' thing isn't just Bulldogs' games either, it is a blight on the game that umpires adjust how they pay frees, mid-game to avoid the appearance of bias.
I, and I suspect many others, don't blame the Bulldogs, but do blame the umpires. So don't take it as a personal attack on your club, but yeah, the favouritism exists.

 

[Plugger35]

How is Nic Riewoldt going on the free kick count. Is he still the most favoured player on free kick differential.

He has been doing that for years. Can you explain the Nic Riewoldt conspiracy?

Or is that because he plays a style than sees him infringe less than other players?

Why do Bulldogs supporters always try and deflect with Nick Riewoldt? If you look at the stats from the last couple of years he isn't even close to getting the most free kicks with a number of Bulldogs players receiving more free kicks than him.

On the contrary, it makes complete sense. We are coached to NOT give away frees, it's pretty simple. Most if not all other teams are told to put on physical pressure so they are more likely to infringe - the nonsense about JJ for example. You will notice the Dogs don't put on the faux tough guy act that North, GWS and others seem to specialise in.

I'm sure other teams are coached to not give away frees and free kicks are such a raffle these days that all the coaching in the world won't prevent them.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

Why do Bulldogs supporters always try and deflect with Nick Riewoldt? If you look at the stats from the last couple of years he isn't even close to getting the most free kicks with a number of Bulldogs players receiving more free kicks than him.

It is not a deflection, but an attempt to highlight your hypocrisy.

The Bulldogs couldn't possibly play in a way that sees them infringe less, but somehow Nic Riewoldt can.

Tell me how that is logical?

I'm sure other teams are coached to not give away frees and free kicks are such a raffle these days that all the coaching in the world won't prevent them.

Well clearly other teams are not coached in the same way.
GWS as an example play a much more physical attack on the man and Sydney also play that way.

Beveridge just understands things that the BF mortals cannot comprehend.

 

[Golden_6]

They don't get more frees than everyone else. Brisbane do, this year (Bulldogs second).
They don't have the least paid against, either. Eagles have the least FA so far. (Bulldogs 3rd)
So in terms of playing an honest, clean brand of footy, Weagles and Pies are better than the Bulldogs. (Like that's realistic).

What does happen though, is when teams play the Bulldogs, they can't seem to buy a free kick. So the number of frees paid in a game does fluctuate, but the constant is the Bulldogs being paid less than their opponent on the day, whether they give away 5 or 20, it is almost always less than the team they are playing, and by a fair margin. Then take into account for games where (like the game against North) the difference is huge early and the umpires play catch up later in the game (they never catch up though).
From 2 FA in the first qtr & a half, Dogs had 6 paid against in the last to North's 4. As with other games where umpires play catch up, the last quarter is too late.
The 'catch up' thing isn't just Bulldogs' games either, it is a blight on the game that umpires adjust how they pay frees, mid-game to avoid the appearance of bias.
I, and I suspect many others, don't blame the Bulldogs, but do blame the umpires. So don't take it as a personal attack on your club, but yeah, the favouritism exists.

Tin foils galore with this one. Bulldogs give away 4.2 free kicks per quarter. The WORST infringing team gives away 5.3 per quarter. Clearly that one extra free kick per quarter classifies into 'they can't seem to buy a free kick'.

So you're trying to claim that the Bulldogs are being umpired against unfairly in last quarters of contests such as the North contest when the game is on the line, as they must try to even up the count?

 

[Struggle]

They don't get more frees than everyone else. Brisbane do, this year (Bulldogs second).
They don't have the least paid against, either. Eagles have the least FA so far. (Bulldogs 3rd)
So in terms of playing an honest, clean brand of footy, Weagles and Pies are better than the Bulldogs. (Like that's realistic).

What does happen though, is when teams play the Bulldogs, they can't seem to buy a free kick. So the number of frees paid in a game does fluctuate, but the constant is the Bulldogs being paid less than their opponent on the day, whether they give away 5 or 20, it is almost always less than the team they are playing, and by a fair margin. Then take into account for games where (like the game against North) the difference is huge early and the umpires play catch up later in the game (they never catch up though).
From 2 FA in the first qtr & a half, Dogs had 6 paid against in the last to North's 4. As with other games where umpires play catch up, the last quarter is too late.
The 'catch up' thing isn't just Bulldogs' games either, it is a blight on the game that umpires adjust how they pay frees, mid-game to avoid the appearance of bias.
I, and I suspect many others, don't blame the Bulldogs, but do blame the umpires. So don't take it as a personal attack on your club, but yeah, the favouritism exists.

How about when we played the eagles, 27 free kicks for the entire game. Seems that both teams are well disciplined to not give away frees, just like most other weeks

Credit the coaches for the gamestyle and the players for having the necessary skills to not infringe (or disguise infringements well).

We play to the current interpretations better than other sides, the question should be on the other coaches and undisciplined players, not us

 

[Royal Flush]

Like flys to s**t, no shame in derailing a thread .

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Plugger35]

It is not a deflection, but an attempt to highlight your hypocrisy.

The Bulldogs couldn't possibly play in a way that sees them infringe less, but somehow Nic Riewoldt can.

Tell me how that is logical?

It's not hypocrisy as you're just making up stuff, as I said before Riewoldt isn't even close to getting the most number of frees for an individual player over the last few years and he may infringe less than most players but he is a key forward that generally plays in front so won't give away as many free kicks as defenders or contested ball midfielders/taggers.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

It's not hypocrisy as you're just making up stuff, as I said before Riewoldt isn't even close to getting the most number of frees for an individual player over the last few years and he may infringe less than most players but he is a key forward that generally plays in front so won't give away as many free kicks as defenders or contested ball midfielders/taggers.

I am not making it up.

Riewoldt has a free kick differential of +247 over his career of 17 years. Basically an annual +15, which is about 4 times what the Bulldogs (per player) as a collective achieved in 2016.

If it is ok that Riewoldt has such a differential, why isn't it ok for the Bulldogs, coached to minimise infringement, also to have a positive differential.

Just looking for logic!!

 

[evo]

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

Richmond and GWs seem to be getting a bit of a rough trot.

 

[Darkyprotector]

Tin foils galore with this one. Bulldogs give away 4.2 free kicks per quarter. The WORST infringing team gives away 5.3 per quarter. Clearly that one extra free kick per quarter classifies into 'they can't seem to buy a free kick'.

So you're trying to claim that the Bulldogs are being umpired against unfairly in last quarters of contests such as the North contest when the game is on the line, as they must try to even up the count?

did your presidents son represent the essendon players in the WADA appeal

 

[Darkyprotector]

and did the incumbant and the afl chairman both leave sort of straight after

 

[Darkyprotector]

and hasnt that gone all quiet

 

[GetDimmaBack]

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.

Oh?

Didn't they have to play?

 

[Darkyprotector]

human guinee pigs
approval from head office perhaps for new drug approved by AFL and tested by players
wow wow wow
gee knowing the truth , well wouldnt that be worth something
common guys join the dots

 

[GetDimmaBack]

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.

That is the sookiest post I've ever read.

Kudos to you, Wimpy Boy.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

It's not hypocrisy as you're just making up stuff, as I said before Riewoldt isn't even close to getting the most number of frees for an individual player over the last few years and he may infringe less than most players but he is a key forward that generally plays in front so won't give away as many free kicks as defenders or contested ball midfielders/taggers.

I love irony.

Well done Plugger.

You're sense of the ironic is priceless!

 

[Golden_6]

human guinee pigs
approval from head office perhaps for new drug approved by AFL and tested by players
wow wow wow
gee knowing the truth , well wouldnt that be worth something
common guys join the dots

I'm sure you could've condensed those 4 posts into one.

This isn't an ASADA thread, take that rubbish out of this thread.

 

[Darkyprotector]

I'm sure you could've condensed those 4 posts into one.

This isn't an ASADA thread, take that rubbish out of this thread.

you cant see the connection even though i made it easier for you,
cant join the dots does it lead to Zurich
not rubbish all fact
directly connected to last years flag ?
or coincidence

 

[Skoob]

Tin foils galore with this one. Bulldogs give away 4.2 free kicks per quarter. The WORST infringing team gives away 5.3 per quarter. Clearly that one extra free kick per quarter classifies into 'they can't seem to buy a free kick'.

So you're trying to claim that the Bulldogs are being umpired against unfairly in last quarters of contests such as the North contest when the game is on the line, as they must try to even up the count?

Struggling with this, aren't you?
It doesn't matter if the Bulldogs concede 5 free kicks and the WORST concedes 5.000000001. They aren't taken from the same game. BUT, in Bulldogs games, the Bulldogs concede far, far fewer against other teams.
You're looking at totals and averages across the league. Look at Bulldogs games. If West Coast only give away 1 free kick against the Pies, who give away 10 in the same game, it is still not as favourable as the Dogs conceding 10 to a team who concedes 25 in the same game.
Look at the table I posted with the average differentials. Dogs are way ahead of the pack.

 

[Plugger35]

I am not making it up.

Riewoldt has a free kick differential of +247 over his career of 17 years. Basically an annual +15, which is about 4 times what the Bulldogs (per player) as a collective achieved in 2016.

If it is ok that Riewoldt has such a differential, why isn't it ok for the Bulldogs, coached to minimise infringement, also to have a positive differential.

Just looking for logic!!

For a start this isn't a thread about Riewoldt, it's a thread about the umpiring in Bulldogs games so bringing Riewoldt into it is just a deflection tactic.

Also it's pointless comparing individual free kick stats with team free kick stats.

Joel Selwood has by far the most free kicks of any player the last couple of years but Geelong as a team has had a negative free kick differential last year and so far this year while the Bulldogs have had the biggest positive free kick differential last year and so far this year.

That's why other clubs are querying the umpiring in Bulldogs games and not Geelong games.