The Farce that is the free kick differential number

[Lsta062]

I only watched the second half of your game on Sunday. (The Lions pumping Hawthorn proved to be too compelling to turn away from.) But at no stage in that second half did I get the impression, as a neutral supporter, that one team was being unduly favoured by the umpiring. Sometimes it is apparent that a team is getting a slightly raw deal, though it is rarely by as much as supporters of that team reckon in their post game commentaries. It is rare that I get the feeling that the umpiring might have influenced the result.

It's very hard to assess the fairness of umpiring in games involving your own side. It's human nature for most fans to think they've been hard done by because the human brain is selective in what it notices, processes and remembers. When you read a match day thread and find lots of neutral supporters suggesting your team has been hard done by, or favoured, you know it is probably the case.

But I also return to my original point. Raw free kick numbers mean nothing without some analysis of the differential. It's very possible to come ahead on the free kick count, or be about even, and still have been hard done by if there have been bloopers missed or incorrect frees given, especially close to goal.

I understand. Free kick differential isn't necessarily the sole measurement of umpire unfairness. We play on the edge so it isn't a surprise that we concede so much free kicks. I don't even think many Richmond supporters have an issue with this either. It is more with the ones we don't get that I have seen other teams get.

I just find it strange how a team went a full half or so only conceding 1 free kick with the other conceding 14 free kicks. It is a very lopsided statistic and I think that it may be easy for the viewer to miss this when it is the team with the momentum getting the free kicks. I personally find that free kicks generally stand out when it is halting momentum rather than positively enforcing momentum, so that could be a reason why it didn't stand out.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Irrelevant. Did he have prior? No. Then its not holding the ball.

I guess you are correct, it's not "holding the ball". It's "incorrect disposal". Regardless of prior, you cannot just "drop" the ball.

With prior, you MUST dispose legally.
Without prior, you must ATTEMPT to dispose legally.

With prior, if the ball is knocked free in the tackle it is "Holding the Ball"
Without prior, if the ball is knocked free in the tackle is it "Play On"


The umpires get lots wrong (frankly even with slow motion replays from multiple angles there is never 100% agreement on frees anyway so they are placed in an impossible position).

In this case the question of prior is irrelevant, if in the eyes of the umpire, the Richmond player did not attempt to dispose legally, and the ball was NOT knocked free in the tackle.

 

[nut]

Yep,
Richmond gives away the most frees.
They need to be taught more discipline if they want to go back to back
They'll struggle to win the granny if they keep playing so loose with the rules


View attachment 500848

It was the same last year....

 

[nut]

It's almost as if Richmond's strategy is to push the limits of the rules because the advantage they derive from it is greater than the disadvantage they incur from a negative free kick differential.

Nah, too logical.

Wow... now we are cheating because we get less free kicks? Lmao

 

[blaisee]

Show me how the free kick differential correlates with goals kicked differential.

well it would not help would it?

 

[blaisee]

Amazing isn't it?

What CD (they do do it, but don't publish it) and the media don't do yet, is actually categorize free kicks into: OOB, HTB, Push, Hold etc


What the OP doesn't understand is, 3 or 4 of those free kick differentials could of simply been Richmond kicking the ball out on the full kicking for goal or with a bad skill error.

Every single week?

I doubt it

 

[blaisee]

Being a Richmond supporter I would have thought you would have the answers to your questions or have you just thrown this up for the rest of us to do the home work for you.........
Did you go through the replay and seek out the answers???????

This is not about 1 week.

It is something that happens every single week, and is something that I predicted, and it happened as predicted

 

[blaisee]

My issue is more to do with what we get paid that other teams don't get pinged for. I feel like we are held to the rules more often than others.

In this case though, the free kick differential was 9-7 our way at a stage on Sunday. From thst point though, the free kicks were 14-1 West Coast's way.

My question is, were West Coast really that disciplined to our undiscipline that they only conceded 1 free kick to our 14? Not sure about that. I believe we were leading 9-7 when the scores were level.

The point is, that free kicks equal on average equal more goals. A negative free kick differential has to correlate to a handicap score wise, both score for, and score against.

3 free kicks = 1 goals, 10 free kicks differential means on average the umpires have handicapped the team with the negative free kick differential by about 3 goals. This is because it is about 3 kicks to score, even from full back, on average.

So conservatively 3 free kicks against differential per 1 goal against, or 1 goal less for. Same thing

 

[blaisee]

You think that’s bad. Two weeks ago v Port, it was 31-13 in favour of West Coast.

on my measure a -18 free kick differential is equal to a 6 goal advantage for West Coast, or a 6 goal disadvantage for Port

Either or

 

[blaisee]

View attachment 500870

would love to see this graph for 2017-2018.

It would be completely different for Richmond, and West Coasts advantage would be even bigger

 

[smasha]

1 free kick in a half of football.

ONE,ONE!!!


Something smells like the Sydney fish Markets at AFL headquarters.

 

[CheapCharlie]

It was the same last year....

2017 Richmond ranked 3rd for Frees For
2018 ranking 14th

 

[wowlace]

well it would not help would it?

It could help your arguement.

 

[smasha]

Dimma and our playing group have been exemplary in praising the umpires and I expect them too.

 

[TiggerMan22]

2017 Richmond ranked 3rd for Frees For
2018 ranking 14th

2017 - Richmond ranked 18th in free kick differential.
2018 - Richmond ranked 18th in free kick differential.

 

[TiggerMan22]

His chance to dispose of it was when he dropped it. If you don’t get your foot to it then bad luck. I reckon if he holds that in it’s a ball up. Dropping the ball in plain sight while being tackled has been and always should be a free kick against.

Footy hasnt been umpired like that for a looooong time.

 

[TiggerMan22]

I guess you are correct, it's not "holding the ball". It's "incorrect disposal". Regardless of prior, you cannot just "drop" the ball.

With prior, you MUST dispose legally.
Without prior, you must ATTEMPT to dispose legally.

With prior, if the ball is knocked free in the tackle it is "Holding the Ball"
Without prior, if the ball is knocked free in the tackle is it "Play On"


The umpires get lots wrong (frankly even with slow motion replays from multiple angles there is never 100% agreement on frees anyway so they are placed in an impossible position).

In this case the question of prior is irrelevant, if in the eyes of the umpire, the Richmond player did not attempt to dispose legally, and the ball was NOT knocked free in the tackle.

Thats true. Technically those should be free kicks, but thats not how its umpired. Seems like AFL just wants the game to keep moving so if a players is tacked pretty quickly after getting the bal they wont call a free if it spills out or is dropped.

 

[Lsta062]

Free kicks are definitely a part of how West Coast plays and wins this season in my opinion. Have a look at their results vs their free kicks for and against at home:

vs Sydney - 20-28 Sydney's way. Sydney won by 29 points

vs Geelong - 26-18 West Coast's way. West Coast won by 15 points.

vs Gold Coast - 28-19 West Coast's way. West Coast won by 80 points.

vs Fremantle - 22-20 West Coast's way. West Coast won by 8 points.

vs Port Adelaide - 30-13 West Coast's way. West Coast won by 42 points.

vs Richmond - 21-10 West Coast's way. West Coast won by 47 points.


Of course, this does not mean that West Coast are not a good side. It also does not mean that West Coast get free kicks that they shouldn't according to the AFL rules, or that the opposition do not get the free kicks that they should according to the rules. However, these free kick differentials are definitely an aid in winning games. After all, it is called a "free kick" for a reason. It allows you to make a decision In disposing of the ball without opposition interference.

As someone who watched their first game against Sydney, I am not sure if Sydney would have won that game if their free kick differential was the same as the West Coast-Port Adelaide game in the favour of West Coast.

 

[ThaiTiger]

2017 - Richmond ranked 18th in free kick differential.
2018 - Richmond ranked 18th in free kick differential.

There I was thinking that our 2017 Premiership was manufactured by the AFL. Geez, we got to play the Grand Final at the 'G our home ground where it's always been played. If that's not handing the Cup to Richmond what is?

Richmond play against the opposition, umpires, mods and tools on Bigfooty every week and we still win a lot more than we lose.

 

[Lsta062]

It's almost as if Richmond's strategy is to push the limits of the rules because the advantage they derive from it is greater than the disadvantage they incur from a negative free kick differential.

Nah, too logical.

They push the rules because the reward they get from doing things that are at the boundary of the AFL rules (but still within the rules) are greater than the disadvantage they receive from the negative free kick differential. You are insinuating that they get away with things that the opposition does not get away from, which I disagree with.

 

[Corkintheocean]

They push the rules because the reward they get from doing things that are at the boundary of the AFL rules (but still within the rules) are greater than the disadvantage they receive from the negative free kick differential. You are insinuating that they get away with things that the opposition does not get away from, which I disagree with.

I wasn't insinuating the latter at all. I don't think Richmond are cheats or that they are thugs. I think they have to some extent crunched the numbers and worked out that the game style they play results in a free kick against differential, but that this is an optimal strategy. The turnovers, and breaking of lines that they create provides a greater point differential than the infringements against that sometimes result.

I made no comment on whether it was smart, dumb fair, unfair or otherwise. But if you must know, given you are the reigning premiers, my actual belief is that it is intelligent football.

 

[Corkintheocean]

Wow... now we are cheating because we get less free kicks? Lmao

Spectacularly miscontrued. It's not cheating to concede free kicks. You're just being caught for infringing.

See my above post for further clarification.

 

[Rob]

Haven't seen the incident prior, or in context but to me that looked like Conca 'released' the ball - part of my biggest criticism over the HTB rule is that this ISN'T paid often enough.

The problem is the umpire is (in real time and from distance with other players in the way) trying to interpret how the ball came loose - did an Eagle touch it? Or did Conca release the ball and drop it? So it's the rule (and inconsistent application) rather than the umpire IMO.

The question for the umpire is that given Conca had no prior whether he was making an attempt to handball it. If he was - and it's difficult to mount a case otherwise - then the correct call is play on. He doesn't actually have to get a legal disposal away - he just has to attempt to (and not throw it, otherwise he gives away a free under a different rule),

The biggest misconception around 'illegal disposal' is that it should be paid if any player doesn't get a kick or handball away. That's just not true. To concede a free for illegal disposal, you have to throw it or hand it to a teammate. Just dropping the ball does not result in a free for illegal disposal. It might for holding the ball if you had prior, or if you deliberately dropped it in the tackle (i.e didn't make an attempt to handball or kick, but you rarely see this paid).

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

The question for the umpire is that given Conca had no prior whether he was making an attempt to handball it. If he was - and it's difficult to mount a case otherwise - then the correct call is play on. He doesn't actually have to get a legal disposal away - he just has to attempt to (and not throw it, otherwise he gives away a free under a different rule),

The biggest misconception around 'illegal disposal' is that it should be paid if any player doesn't get a kick or handball away. That's just not true. To concede a free for illegal disposal, you have to throw it or hand it to a teammate. Just dropping the ball does not result in a free for illegal disposal. It might for holding the ball if you had prior, or if you deliberately dropped it in the tackle (i.e didn't make an attempt to handball or kick, but you rarely see this paid).

This is exactly what the Richmond player did in that video though - in the umpires view, he deliberately dropped it in the tackle.

As a Hawthorn fan (see my previous post) the current adjudication is a massive issue for me. It just doesn't align with the way I like to see teams play (not least because it's how my team did at it's peak).

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

The decision tree should be pretty simple series of Yes/No questions.

With Prior
Did ball-player dispose legally? (Yes/No). If Yes, play on.
IF No, was he being tackled? (Yes/No). If No, play on.
If Yes, Free kick to be awarded.
Legality of tackle decides to which team the free kick goes.

Without Prior
Did player dispose legally? (Yes/No). If Yes, play on.
If No, was he being tackled? (Yes/No). If No, play on.
If yes, did ball-player attempt to dispose legally? (Yes/No). If yes, play on.
IF no, did ball-player maintain possession? (Yes/No). If yes, play on.
If No, did tackler strip the ball free? (Yes/No). If yes, play on.
If no, Free kick to be awarded
Legality of tackle decides to which team the free kick goes.


I feel the 'interpretations' are going away from what they 'should' be, and it is opening the game up to more and more gamemanship and deliberate manipulation of the rules.

Get rid of 'below the knees' unless the player goes past the ball with their body (especially their legs).
Remove "dived on it" as prior opportunity, especially if instantly tackled.
Don't hesitate to make it seem like the player under the pack had time to get it out. An extra 3 seconds with four opponents on top isn't prior.
Reduce time given for "prior" - 2 steps is plenty, a second is an eternity.
Pay "in the back" in tackles on the ground
Pay "high tackle" if tackle starts high. A headlock is generally considered high, even if the second tackler.
Pay "kicking in danger"
Pay "dropping the ball" when it wasn't clearly knocked out by the tackler.
Pay "throwing" when two open hands are on the ball at disposal
Pay "incorrect disposal" when prior opportunity has been had
Pay "shepharding, arm chops, body blocks, arm holds, etc". Anything that isn't in the interest of winning the ball directly needs to be penalised.

Two weeks of horrifying free kick counts (100 plus), and the coaches and players will adjust. We get a far better game, free flowing and no more 'scrums'. Simple black and white rules that aren't open to manipulation or interpretation.

Finally two thoughts that would dramatically improve the game:

A quick whistle is a good whistle.
A whistle is only used to stop play.