Umpire bias against Toby Greene: has it gone too far?

[_jrtp09_]

Reaping what he has sown.

If you’re suggesting Greene was BOG because he won the game for the Giants, then yes.

Umpires have a reputation for being either incompetent or corrupt and I saw that again last night.

Oh and the 2016 GF, don’t get me started.

 

[katmanblue]

Id say theyve stopped loving Selwood. Rekn hes almost suffering for his reputation as a ducker now

Bout time

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[BF Tiger]

An yet no doubt you'd be the first to bang on about umpiring bias in a loss

As you would. But it’s not about you or I.

Should his actions or his reputation change the laws of the game?

Im not the biggest lover of his antics, But Ive said it, some players like Selwood/Mclean/Danger/Cripps get all the love, However If your Lance Franklin Elliot Yeo or Toby Greene you have to lose a tooth before the umpire thinks about paying a free

It sucks for TG and the Giants, but he has made life difficult for umpires throughout his career and that unfortunately does appear to impact their decision making. It’s not fair but umps are humans too. A sub-conscious bias has always existed when it comes to ball players v grubby players.

 

[10571z]

100% that 50 was disgraceful

 

[keithrichards]

As you would. But it’s not about you or I.



It sucks for TG and the Giants, but he has made life difficult for umpires throughout his career and that unfortunately does appear to impact their decision making. It’s not fair but umps are humans too. A sub-conscious bias has always existed when it comes to ball players v grubby players.

How has he made life difficult for them?

 

[SterlingArcher]

Can't imagine why the umpires hate him. Total mystery.

Not sure if you think this is actually a clever point??

No one is saying that he isn't dirty or that he is popular.

But each contest should be decided on its merits, don't make a decision based on whether or not the player has been in MRP trouble loads.

 

[SunshineBoy]

100% that 50 was disgraceful

Yeah I agree , seriously only NINE more frees

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Absolutely they treat him differently. Sicily is exactly the same. Free kicks are paid against more easily than anyone else and can't buy one the other way.

I get players have a reputation but contests need to be judged on the merits of that contest alone and needs to be at least similar for all players.

For Greene (and Sicily) the difference is stark.

 

[mehow2g]

You're not a legit umpire if you umpire a y player differently regardless of his past behavior.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

It's probably also worth mentioning the difference in the way 'stars' are umpired compared to your average player which stems from similar biases and assumptions.

Often when a star and average player are contesting and the average player wins the contest or the star falls or is made to look silly, etc there is an assumption the average player must have infringed. This leads to stars being given more leniency and more easily being awarded free kicks.

Unfortunately for Toby (and Sicily), there is an inherent assumption that they are more likely to have infringed or more likely to have been malicious when making contact, laying a bump, etc, meaning more free kicks against (as well as harder to earn them). It becomes a real problem when they are very obviously infringed against and the umpire calls play on regardless.

 

[Pessimistic]

Slightly off, but I don’t see any actual dog acts by Sicily. Just more likely to react to niggle in the past.

and if umpires had bias, surely north would find it hard to get frees?

 

[queensberryrules]

Systemic Greene-ism.
As obvious as the nose on ya face.
Reparations.

 

[Juddernaut08]

Absolutely they treat him differently. Sicily is exactly the same. Free kicks are paid against more easily than anyone else and can't buy one the other way.

I get players have a reputation but contests need to be judged on the merits of that contest alone and needs to be at least similar for all players.

For Greene (and Sicily) the difference is stark.

I actually find Sicily even more unilikeable. Such a flopper go play soccer!

 

[Roobs321]

It has been going on with Greene for 2-3 years now, but last night was glaring. He seems almost resigned to it.

Tends to happen though to serial transgressors, they get hawked without benefit of the doubt. Goodwill for a period would do the trick. Not ideal, but familiar in our game.

 

[Ambrosia]

That 50 paid against him was laughable. It didn’t even make sense

 

[TheKITC]

I think it's interesting to note the difference in treatment between Joel Selwood (AFL and media darling) and Toby Greene.

Greene has had far more 'indiscretions' and is basically a 'hated' player; if you inserted Selwood into the positions Greene has found himself in, I am confident the whistle would be blown. The evidence in the high tackle scenarios is there for everyone to see, despite the years of protests by Geelong people to the contrary. Case in point was the disgraceful free kick awarded to a flopping Selwood against Carlton last week from a bump that would happen almost a hundred times in every game.

It is not right and the 'you reap what you sow' attitude does not wash with me. Greene is clearly disadvantaged by perceptions of him and if I were the Giants I would be raising it with the umpiring department/AFL then going public if nothing changes to drive the agenda.

 

[My Name Is Nobody]

Toby to win Brownlow

 

[RUNVS]

It's probably also worth mentioning the difference in the way 'stars' are umpired compared to your average player which stems from similar biases and assumptions.

Often when a star and average player are contesting and the average player wins the contest or the star falls or is made to look silly, etc there is an assumption the average player must have infringed. This leads to stars being given more leniency and more easily being awarded free kicks.

Unfortunately for Toby (and Sicily), there is an inherent assumption that they are more likely to have infringed or more likely to have been malicious when making contact, laying a bump, etc, meaning more free kicks against (as well as harder to earn them). It becomes a real problem when they are very obviously infringed against and the umpire calls play on regardless.

Maybe true of some stars but opposition defenders can get away with everything short of murder on Buddy.

 

[Gak Attack]

Maybe true of some stars but opposition defenders can get away with everything short of murder on Buddy.

This is true with most forwards, yet another inconsistency in the way rules are applied. Often forwards are expected to be held on to, hit high etc. with nothing but as soon as they do a slight nudge or anything the other way they often are quick to punish the forward. A marking contest between midfielders on the wing is often umpired differently to one in the forward 50.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

They do, he’s a dirty player and that’s what happens. It’ll turn after a while and if it’s highlighted enough - in fact it’ll go too far the other way as they look to correct it and go over the top. Always the way.

I remember as soon as people started calling Lloyd a diver, it went the other way and for a period he was being absolutely assaulted by opponents - they could do whatever they liked outside the rules, and they knew it - and he wouldn’t get a free. It went way too far the other way. Then eventually it swung back and was pretty normal.

 

[RUNVS]

They do, he’s a dirty player and that’s what happens. It’ll turn after a while and if it’s highlighted enough - in fact it’ll go too far the other way as they look to correct it and go over the top. Always the way.

I remember as soon as people started calling Lloyd a diver, it went the other way and for a period he was being absolutely assaulted by opponents - they could do whatever they liked outside the rules, and they knew it - and he wouldn’t get a free. It went way too far the other way. Then eventually it swung back and was pretty normal.

Chris Judd was a very dirty player and he never had to deal with umpires that would pay free kicks against him all the time.

 

[Gigantic]

His reputation precedes him and unfortunately umps probably see things that aren't there. No benefit of the doubt whatsoever.

 

[_Mike_]

More a problem of the umpiring standards of today. Almost makes you miss great umpires like Glenn James and Peter Cameron who didn’t take s**t from players & the crowds and stood behind their decisions, calling it as they saw it for what it was.

 

[Grrr]

I think it's interesting to note the difference in treatment between Joel Selwood (AFL and media darling) and Toby Greene.

Greene has had far more 'indiscretions' and is basically a 'hated' player; if you inserted Selwood into the positions Greene has found himself in, I am confident the whistle would be blown. The evidence in the high tackle scenarios is there for everyone to see, despite the years of protests by Geelong people to the contrary. Case in point was the disgraceful free kick awarded to a flopping Selwood against Carlton last week from a bump that would happen almost a hundred times in every game.

It is not right and the 'you reap what you sow' attitude does not wash with me. Greene is clearly disadvantaged by perceptions of him and if I were the Giants I would be raising it with the umpiring department/AFL then going public if nothing changes to drive the agenda.

Yes but Selwood put his head over the ball as hard as anyone ever, but did develop the arm raise to an art form. Greene has a list of indiscretions an arm long. Nothing like Selwood as a player.

 

[queensberryrules]

Harry Beitzel never disriminated in paying free kicks. Why Whately thinks it's normal is that he likes performing metaphoric fellatio on the official AFL line to keep getting gigs.