Tonights umpiring thread !

[MrChristo]

I'm wrong about the Callan free .

For someone accusing others of over analysing, you've written 4 essays...

Choas Theory, Gen x/y...give it away...

Call it a 'generalisation' if you will, but I'm pretty sure your username gives away a fair bit of your thought process.

[And yes, I'm fully aware of the hypocritical nature of the next statement, but maybe it would be best if we just ignore all future idiots. Probably fair to say that the reaction is exactly what they are after.
Extremely poor form. ]

 

[GoalSneak38]

Worst umpiring ever. Watched the replay it was so biased it wasn't funny. Hang your head in shame AFL.

 

[NBates]

Where's Alfalfa Male?

CAT's got his tongue?

Meeeoooooowwww!!!! Purrrrrrrrrrrr......

 

[Biggy_Boy]

I really felt for you guys on Friday night. To come that close against the top team in the league and have the win taken away from you because of some absolutely awful calls must be heartbreaking.

The umpiring in the Collingwood/Cats game wasn't great either but, when the result is a 73 point win, it doesn't really matter. However, in a game like the Bulldogs one those poor decisions really stick out as factors in a loss.

Would've been interesting to see if St. Kilda could have worked themselves into the game after half time. Rather than having the umps do it for them.

Hopefully decisions like this won't be costing anyone a premiership next week. To be quite honest, I believe the weaker team on Friday night got through to the GF, which bodes well for Geelong I guess. The Bulldogs looked a lot better for the majority of the game and if not for the umpires and some poor goal shots, they'd be in a grand final this year.

 

[Zeno The Great]

Would be a whole different story for this clown if our captain dived like a Chinese olympian in front of goal and it cost his team the game. Every neutral supporter friend of mine could not believe what happned there, there was an artice in the paper today analysing every wrong free kick - when in history has that been done. They even called the diver's free kick as correct and there was still a massive balance to St kilda. What a joke. Riewoldt might be a champion player, but he lost the respect of a lot of the football world on Friday night with his diving - you would never see a real champion like Carey or J Brown dive like that.

 

[Borgsta]

What if instead of the free the ump bounces the ball and Hudson does his knee ala Ottens in round 2? What if Conney slipped and KO'd himself?

What if you left the thread and the board well alone and manage to continue posting on bigfooty for the rest of the week?

 

[Dog 36]

On One HD they just highlighted several umpiring decisions they were Embarrasing at best. They were shockers.

The afl was quick to make a statement via Patrick Keane how the Lake free kick at start of 2nd half was correct SO CAN I EXPECT SOME EXPLANATION ON THE OTHER ONES THAT WERE SHOWN

HEY AFL ITS OKAY TO SAY WE GOT IT WRONG.

 

[Leon]

Re: ARSE wipe umpire !

It's fans like you that are a blight on the game.

Yes it was written in the heat of the moment and I'm sure that now, a couple days later, you would be more than ready to take back these two statements but really let's be honest, even if you did mean it, you can't back it up.

I came on here to offer empathy. I was hoping that maybe a few of you guys would jump on board our bandwagon as a fellow "hard-luck" club.
I don't care how close the game is. 1 point or 100. The umpires are not the reason a team EVER loses. If the Dogs kicked straight in the first quarter the game may have turned out differently.

I hope that you don't teach your kids to be umpire bashers.

You still have a job, home and a family that I'm sure you love. Yes it would be heart breaking to think about Fridays game but in reality it has no impact on your life what so ever.

Like I said I didn't come on here to troll. Most of you have my sympathy and empathy.

Good luck for next season.

I'll be going for the saints.

Alpha Male, I can't speak for everyone on here, but I dont hold a grudge against St Kilda for what happened.

I certainly do against the umpires. They ****ed it up on Friday, completely and quite appallingly, and most of the key decisions went against us.

From my point of view , dont see this thread as being anti-St Kilda, because its not - its just anti-umpires, or anti-last Friday's umpiring.

The umpires aren't the reason we lost the game, but you can't deny that their poor performance at critical stages did impact the game.

Anyway, good luck on Saturday. I'd be very happy to see St Kilda win.

 

[JA27]

in the home and away series its fine to have interpretations of rule changes from week to week and paying some 50/50s and not the others, but when it comes to finals only the free kicks that are 100% there should be paid. on friday night this was not done, which is fine as long as its consistant, but this wasnt the case either. the bulldogs may have had their chances to kick goals but the basic fact is umpiring decisions detiremend the outcome of the match on friday night, i dont think that would have happened if the umpires were only only paying decisions that were 100% there. in my opinion it should have been the western suburbs v western district.

 

[underthestars]

At least the Bulldogs still have the R.E.S.P.E.C.T. of the footy world.

unfortunately you've lost a fair bit over these last few days.
you played better, but lost. we've all been there. move on.

 

[suetonius]

Davo,

Yes. Free kick counting is over analysing. Players control the game. Don't do anything wrong you wont get caught. It's like people who sook after getting caught "only" a couple K's over the limit. You were still speeding.

That argument just doesn't hold when you have a player like Hargrave CLEARLY kicking the ball away while being tackled, yet still getting pinged for holding the ball.

Your speeding analogy is wrong. A better analogy would be people getting thrown in jail for crimes they did not do.

Secondly, why do you think I would like to support St Kilda in the Grand Final? I have never liked St Kilda. I would even go as far as saying that I would rather see Collingwood win a flag over St Kilda.

 

[suetonius]

Guys I'm not trying to justify the frees and yes we were lucky to win but we were lucky that you missed so many shots. Put those goals on the board and free kicks are no longer important.

Ok lets overview everything with some logic. The basic premises we both agree on are:

1. You are not justifying the frees.

2. The saints were lucky.

3. The bulldogs missed opportunities.

4. The margin was close

I would like to state a proposition from the above premises that we can both agree on: The Bulldogs inability to kick straight AND unjustifiable umpiring decisions had a negitive impact on the Bulldog's chances of winning. If one or other of these premises are latered then the outcome of the game would in turn be altered.


So assuming the frees can not be justified and the bulldogs missed opportunities yet still managed to get close to winning; IF the unjustified free kicks were taken out of this equation then what we have is as follows:

1. The Bulldogs would still have missed opportunities

2. The margin would still be close

3. However by removing a central premise (the bad umpiring) we would have an unknown Δ outcome


It is not beyond reason to suppose that the Bulldogs could have wasted opportunities and still won. Therefore it is undeniable to claim that the unjustifiable umpiring decisions had no effect on the outcome of the game.

Agreed?

 

[suetonius]

It's such a Gen Y attitude to blame everyone else and this is coming from a 21 year old!!!

It is such a 21 year old (who grew up in the Milton Friedman neo-liberal era of religious fevered individualism) thing to say that all unfortunate outcomes are the result of a personal shortcoming.

 

[NBates]

unfortunately you've lost a fair bit over these last few days.
you played better, but lost. we've all been there. move on.

You've got to be joking. The Bulldogs haven't lost any respect! Read all the posts from opposition sides.

 

[kleptomjc]

Ok lets overview everything with some logic. The basic premises we both agree on are:

1. You are not justifying the frees.

2. The saints were lucky.

3. The bulldogs missed opportunities.

4. The margin was close

I would like to state a proposition from the above premises that we can both agree on: The Bulldogs inability to kick straight AND unjustifiable umpiring decisions had a negitive impact on the Bulldog's chances of winning. If one or other of these premises are latered then the outcome of the game would in turn be altered.


So assuming the frees can not be justified and the bulldogs missed opportunities yet still managed to get close to winning; IF the unjustified free kicks were taken out of this equation then what we have is as follows:

1. The Bulldogs would still have missed opportunities

2. The margin would still be close

3. However by removing a central premise (the bad umpiring) we would have an unknown Δ outcome


It is not beyond reason to suppose that the Bulldogs could have wasted opportunities and still won. Therefore it is undeniable to claim that the unjustifiable umpiring decisions had no effect on the outcome of the game.

Agreed?

OOO! Fun! Delta, the change in outcome. I'll bite. I Agree in your logical proposal so far.

From my point of view, missed shots ( perhaps by gia, griff and gilbs ?)
in the last ten mins cost us and we wouldn't be having this conversation. We had our chances to win it, and didn't take them, but still annoyed that we had to win it from those chances. If the umpiring were better, at that stage we would have only been adding margin not trying to take the lead.

 

[cosmicr]

3. However by removing a central premise (the bad umpiring) we would have an unknown Δ outcome

going with the whole logic theme, I will take out one of the saints perceived central premises - nick riewoldt. would the saints still have won? hmmm??? my point is you cant take out things that weren't there. nick riewoldt was there, and so were all the dodgy umpiring decisions. your logic is flawed.

 

[kleptomjc]

However, no one is alleging the Nick wasn't there. However, some St Kilda fans are arguing that bad decsions weren't there, or didn't or can't have a impat on the game. Therefore, we are trying to prove that they can infact have an impact on the game, hence we need to remove them, in order to prove that we can not remove them, as they were a part of the game, and hence had an effect on the outcome......that is in english terms without having a look at it with my whiteboard. Remembering this isn't my premise, I'm still interested in the entire logical argument before I pick it apart.

 

[cosmicr]

However, no one is alleging the Nick wasn't there..

but they are alleging he won the game for them.

 

[kleptomjc]

but they are alleging he won the game for them.

That, I would suppose, brings on a whole new argument, on wether or not the final scorer wins the game, or infact the whole effort up to and including that final score.......

You may be correct in your assertion that some people are alledging that nick won the game for them, however this "logical proof" isn't aimed at them, however those who are of the opinon the umpiring had no effect on the game, and the Riewoldt argument is another argument entirely.

As a side note, I really hope the orginal logic poster wasn't finished, as I really cbf'ed making a formal logical proof, and not 100% sure I actually can.

 

[kleptomjc]

Also, found that the following article also addresses the umpiring and thought it may be relevant, although the layout could have done with some work. The end of the article imparticular is good, as it critiques most of the contentious umpiring decsions. Interesting read.

AFL backs decision that brought goal

Jesse Hogan | September 20, 2009 | The Age

link:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/rfnew...ght-goal/2009/09/19/1253209041252.html?page=2

taken from mid-article:

"An evaluation of the match by The Sunday Age determined there were 20 contentious decisions made by the umpires. While the Bulldogs fared worse than the Saints in the umpiring - they received seven ''harsh'' or ''very harsh'' decisions, compared with four for St Kilda - The Sunday Age believes the umpires' decisions were justified on nine occasions. Those nine decisions included the two decisions backed by the AFL and Walker's two goal umpiring decisions. "

link:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/rfnew...ght-goal/2009/09/19/1253209041252.html?page=2


Interesting stuff.

I wonder if by saying the 9 descions include the four that the afl have sanctioned, they are saying they won't/aren't allowed to comment on them.......??


(sorry mods if I got the new linking rule wrong. It is a large paragraph....)

 

[crownie]

unfortunately you've lost a fair bit over these last few days.
you played better, but lost. we've all been there. move on.

just go and post on your teams board in the who you want Baker to take out.

you Hypocrites have been crying all week about Lakes treatment on Reiwoldt but now you all seem happy for Baker to snipe a Geelong player on Saturday.

 

[Shotgun ange]

Saints changes announced for Grand Final today. Out: Shane McInerney Out: Ray Chamberlain . Nice how the AFL Umpire selectors have supported these guys for their great efforts on Friday night!

 

[suetonius]

going with the whole logic theme, I will take out one of the saints perceived central premises - nick riewoldt. would the saints still have won? hmmm??? my point is you cant take out things that weren't there. nick riewoldt was there, and so were all the dodgy umpiring decisions. your logic is flawed.

What exactly don't we agree on? I agree that without Roo the outcome would have changed, just as we would have a different outcome if the dodgy umpiring decisions were not there.

 

[suetonius]

However, no one is alleging the Nick wasn't there. However, some St Kilda fans are arguing that bad decsions weren't there, or didn't or can't have a impat on the game. Therefore, we are trying to prove that they can infact have an impact on the game, hence we need to remove them, in order to prove that we can not remove them, as they were a part of the game, and hence had an effect on the outcome......that is in english terms without having a look at it with my whiteboard. Remembering this isn't my premise, I'm still interested in the entire logical argument before I pick it apart.

My point exactly.


In my system of logic, no single factor "wins the game". Some factors effect the game more than others (for example the players have more agency over the outcome than the people cheering in the crowd), however the final outcome of a football match is the total sum of an array of factors.

Anyway, please feel free to pick the logical argument apart or add to it. I am willing to learn.

 

[BBBaz]

unfortunately you've lost a fair bit over these last few days.
you played better, but lost. we've all been there. move on.

No one asked you UTS and perhaps it is you that had better move on from our board.