Roast Umpires are on the take

[TTRRAAVVIISS]

You do realise you've just made the case that bad kicking and not Buckleys game plan cost us the game.

How so?

I’m actually saying both cost us. Players didn’t execute. But considering Cats won the clearances and broke even at centre clearance, had treloar or crisp goaled, Id say Cats counter our goal by winning the next centre clearance and getting inside 50 themselves anyway.

The gameplan is highly inefficient. Over 400 possessions for 46 inside 50s and 20 scoring shots? That’s a shot at goal every 20.25 possessions. For some perspective, Richmond average is 12.83 possessions per scoring shot while the Lions average 18.01.

When our team is placed under decent defensive pressure and confronted with a quality defensive structure, as always under Buckleys tenure, the teams performance is average and often poor.

The cats slowed us up leaving defence, and forced us wide disturbing the run and carry Bucks wants to generate from HBF. Players like Murray (63% disposal efficiency) became ineffective vs the cats.

That’s because the Cats game plan took away our perceived strengths and decided to play the game between the arcs. They were happy to play it that way cause they know their gameplan can be executed better than the pies gameplan.

Regardless of the above, I’m still blaming gameplan and poor execution for the loss. I ain’t having a sook about the umps.

Funny, in the 4 games we won, I don’t recall anyone starting a thread saying “how lucky are we with the umps? Geez if not for the umps we’d have chalked up another loss. We’re averaging 26 frees for a game. No wonder we keep winning with that armchair ride we’re getting”.

 

[Alexander323bc]

I am curious to know, should a holding the ball decision be awarded as a free kick or not? Or should a free kick be only reserved when the umpire has awarded a free kick due to an infringement? I just think a free kick has a connotation that the someone did something wrong while a tackle means you did something right. As in you are rewarded for a positive action while an infringement means someone else is rewarded due to a negative action?

 

[magpies42]

As bad as the umpiring was, and it was really really bad, it’s hard to blame them for the loss (not saying you were).

I mean, 5.15. Kick 10.10 (which isn’t great either) and we win. Have a coach capable of producing a Plan B and we win.

But yeah, the umpiring was worse than the Adelaide game.

There is no plan b a coach can put in place when the players turn the ball over in the way that did in the first half.

Secondly, I have no doubt the umpires saw the stats promoted in the media this week about our free for differential and thought they might even it up...for no reason.

 

[magpies42]

How so?

I’m actually saying both cost us. Players didn’t execute. But considering Cats won the clearances and broke even at centre clearance, had treloar or crisp goaled, Id say Cats counter our goal by winning the next centre clearance and getting inside 50 themselves anyway.

The gameplan is highly inefficient. Over 400 possessions for 46 inside 50s and 20 scoring shots? That’s a shot at goal every 20.25 possessions. For some perspective, Richmond average is 12.83 possessions per scoring shot while the Lions average 18.01.

When our team is placed under decent defensive pressure and confronted with a quality defensive structure, as always under Buckleys tenure, the teams performance is average and often poor.

The cats slowed us up leaving defence, and forced us wide disturbing the run and carry Bucks wants to generate from HBF. Players like Murray (63% disposal efficiency) became ineffective vs the cats.

That’s because the Cats game plan took away our perceived strengths and decided to play the game between the arcs. They were happy to play it that way cause they know their gameplan can be executed better than the pies gameplan.

Regardless of the above, I’m still blaming gameplan and poor execution for the loss. I ain’t having a sook about the umps.

Funny, in the 4 games we won, I don’t recall anyone starting a thread saying “how lucky are we with the umps? Geez if not for the umps we’d have chalked up another loss. We’re averaging 26 frees for a game. No wonder we keep winning with that armchair ride we’re getting”.

I think it’s more fair to judge us against other teams that have played Geelong. They can play a real lock down game, makes sense to do that against us with our shonky skills and lack of experience.

Pendlebury in the side and we would have had a different result, pure and simple

 

[Anzacday]

Write in your diary guys I actually liked, (and agree) with this post from TTRRAAVVIISS.
They were all over us, the pleasing thing for me was we tried something different, (as opposed to previous years).
No excuses - the umpire was bewildering at times but the Cats were better than us.
Just like we stifled Adelaide's game, the Cats did it to us.
Let's hope we learn from it and can counter it going forward.

 

[jonbe54]

Shocked there isn’t already a thread for this.

It was clear to all Collingwood supporters at the ground today, that the umpires were biased towards Geelong. It was disgusting.

To all of those ranting 'it's our own fault we lost'

really? . . . . .

Where does the OP mention it's an excuse for losing???

The umpiring was biased and blatantly so AND it was consistently so.

Whether or not it caused the loss is IRRELEVANT to the OP.

EVERY SINGLE TIME s**t umpiring is mentioned the same suspects jump up with 'it didn't cause the loss' - maybe it didn't but it sure as hell effected the game.

There is no excuse for bias in umpiring but it is happening on a consistent basis - especially when the recipient receives free's for simply being an established star.

 

[Darkyprotector]

Perfect example Sunday

All clubs know our style now

Geelong anticipated our handballs and stifled our run

We were too obvious and not enough blokes took on the tackler making them commit

Also Some mention of free kicks and our average

That Shows how concerned the opposition is to stop us playing on

Hawks did it
Gws did it
Richmond as well

Game stops at a free kick and you can then defensively readjust

Re Murray notice that crisps getting free a fair bit now


Wonder why

Note most are in the defensive part of our ground making it easy to lock it in

 

[No SPIN]

How so?

I’m actually saying both cost us. Players didn’t execute. But considering Cats won the clearances and broke even at centre clearance, had treloar or crisp goaled, Id say Cats counter our goal by winning the next centre clearance and getting inside 50 themselves anyway.

The gameplan is highly inefficient. Over 400 possessions for 46 inside 50s and 20 scoring shots? That’s a shot at goal every 20.25 possessions. For some perspective, Richmond average is 12.83 possessions per scoring shot while the Lions average 18.01.

When our team is placed under decent defensive pressure and confronted with a quality defensive structure, as always under Buckleys tenure, the teams performance is average and often poor.

The cats slowed us up leaving defence, and forced us wide disturbing the run and carry Bucks wants to generate from HBF. Players like Murray (63% disposal efficiency) became ineffective vs the cats.

That’s because the Cats game plan took away our perceived strengths and decided to play the game between the arcs. They were happy to play it that way cause they know their gameplan can be executed better than the pies gameplan.

Regardless of the above, I’m still blaming gameplan and poor execution for the loss. I ain’t having a sook about the umps.

Funny, in the 4 games we won, I don’t recall anyone starting a thread saying “how lucky are we with the umps? Geez if not for the umps we’d have chalked up another loss. We’re averaging 26 frees for a game. No wonder we keep winning with that armchair ride we’re getting”.

Watch the second half of the replay.
Late in the game Hodge is specifically asked what Coll need to to to win the game.
He says " just more of the same there is no problem with the games plan" - and justifies his comment quoting the eveness of the stats at the time eg inside 50 were 33 v 36.
He simply said that our conversion was letting us down.
So I'm inclined to believe one of the smartest guys in the game that there is nothing wrong with the game plan.
So many easy shots missed late in the game by Treloar 2, Crisp 1, JDG 1, Wells 2 was the reason we lost.

Even Scott in the HS on Monday said that he was taking no comfort form the game - he knew they could easily have lost that game.

So there is nothing wrong with the game plan - we dominated in the last half but failed to convert.

I'm actually quite relaxed because GEEL are no threat based on this performance - Ablett looks cooked, no game breaking speed or evasive ability left.
Selwood quiet even without Greenwood sitting on him and Danger only influential late in the game.
Hawkins and Menzel missing don't improve them as much as our injured players would improve our team.

Of course their HG advantage will give them a free ride into the 8, but they will do no damage.

 

[JB1975]

Watch the second half of the replay.
Late in the game Hodge is specifically asked what Coll need to to to win the game.
He says " just more of the same there is no problem with the games plan" - and justifies his comment quoting the eveness of the stats at the time eg inside 50 were 33 v 36.
He simply said that our conversion was letting us down.
So I'm inclined to believe one of the smartest guys in the game that there is nothing wrong with the game plan.
So many easy shots missed late in the game by Treloar 2, Crisp 1, JDG 1, Wells 2 was the reason we lost.

Even Scott in the HS on Monday said that he was taking no comfort form the game - he knew they could easily have lost that game.

So there is nothing wrong with the game plan - we dominated in the last half but failed to convert.

I'm actually quite relaxed because GEEL are no threat based on this performance - Ablett looks cooked, no game breaking speed or evasive ability left.
Selwood quiet even without Greenwood sitting on him and Danger only influential late in the game.
Hawkins and Menzel missing don't improve them as much as our injured players would improve our team.

Of course their HG advantage will give them a free ride into the 8, but they will do no damage.

And Geelong kicked 9 goals and 12 behinds. They certainly would have won more scoring opportunities if one or both of their most important forwards were playing, but it could also be argued that they should have won by another four goals given some of the ones they missed on the day.

Our ball movement broke down. Geelong were able to stifle our run-on play, and we weren't able to conjure or execute an alternative which could generate enough viable shots on goal. Too many times we were forced too wide or forced to kick from too far out. A few goals were more obviously 'gettable' (e.g. Wells running into the open goal), but this doesn't paper over the fact that we struggled to capitalise on our control of general play.

Our defensive structure held up okay, but I'm not sure that this would have been the case against a more potent attack.

Don't get me wrong, I'm of a view that we can turn things around quickly enough, that we have the method and personnel to get things on track. Still, our game on Saturday was a sobering and quite frankly shitful performance, and a fistful of futile stats (e.g. inside 50s) can't disguise it.

 

[JB1975]

To all of those ranting 'it's our own fault we lost'

really? . . . . .

Where does the OP mention it's an excuse for losing???

The umpiring was biased and blatantly so AND it was consistently so.

Whether or not it caused the loss is IRRELEVANT to the OP.

EVERY SINGLE TIME s**t umpiring is mentioned the same suspects jump up with 'it didn't cause the loss' - maybe it didn't but it sure as hell effected the game.

There is no excuse for bias in umpiring but it is happening on a consistent basis - especially when the recipient receives free's for simply being an established star.

The umpiring was occasionally poor, but never biased. There's a big difference. Sometimes we've been on the happier end of poor umpiring, in which case we'd rightly laugh off any suggestion of biased umpiring by opposition fans, so on this occasion I think that we should have the good grace to accept that whatever mistakes were made last Sunday made no difference at all to our performance and we should then try and pretend that this thread never existed.

 

[No SPIN]

And Geelong kicked 9 goals and 12 behinds. They certainly would have won more scoring opportunities if one or both of their most important forwards were playing, but it could also be argued that they should have won by another four goals given some of the ones they missed on the day.

Our ball movement broke down. Geelong were able to stifle our run-on play, and we weren't able to conjure or execute an alternative which could generate enough viable shots on goal. Too many times we were forced too wide or forced to kick from too far out. A few goals were more obviously 'gettable' (e.g. Wells running into the open goal), but this doesn't paper over the fact that we struggled to capitalise on our control of general play.

Our defensive structure held up okay, but I'm not sure that this would have been the case against a more potent attack.

Don't get me wrong, I'm of a view that we can turn things around quickly enough, that we have the method and personnel to get things on track. Still, our game on Saturday was a sobering and quite frankly shitful performance, and a fistful of futile stats (e.g. inside 50s) can't disguise it.

I think you missed my point - if Hodge clearly indicated conversion and NOT game plan was the problem then that suggests the performance was far better than many here acknowledge.
You cant ignore an astute analyst of the game like Hodge.

 

[JB1975]

I think you missed my point - if Hodge clearly indicated conversion and NOT game plan was the problem then that suggests the performance was far better than many here acknowledge.
You cant ignore an astute analyst of the game like Hodge.

If I get 20 astute analysts of the game and ask them to dissect our game against Geelong, I reckon I'd get at least five different explanations of why we went wrong. You've decided that Hodge is your man, that his wisdom trumps any other possible explanation, that's your prerogative.

And so I could quote Mick Malthouse, who described us against Richmond as one of the two best teams of the competition a couple of weeks ago, but who suggested that our ball movement against Geelong became too predictable. See, there's an expert to support every view. Who to believe? Me, I'll believe my own eyes as I sat there at the ground and watched us butcher the ball across the middle of the ground, and then as I watched us give Geelong far too much time to set up defensively.

 

[mike123]

I think you missed my point - if Hodge clearly indicated conversion and NOT game plan was the problem then that suggests the performance was far better than many here acknowledge.
You cant ignore an astute analyst of the game like Hodge.

I'd argue Hodge is wrong, evenes of the stat implies our gameplan isn't efficient enough to capitalise on.

 

[jonbe54]

The umpiring was occasionally poor, but never biased. There's a big difference. Sometimes we've been on the happier end of poor umpiring, in which case we'd rightly laugh off any suggestion of biased umpiring by opposition fans, so on this occasion I think that we should have the good grace to accept that whatever mistakes were made last Sunday made no difference at all to our performance and we should then try and pretend that this thread never existed.

Rubbish they don't call duckwood duckwood for no reason - and the entire world is aware of it - yet he is still the darling who can't be touched.

AGAIN - neither the OP or I even for one second claimed the umpires changed the result - what part of that don't you understand???

Geelong and Hawthorn, NEVER touch them whilst they are in possession.

THIS thread is about BAD umpiring - NOT about the result.

As for accepting second rate umpiring that has been going on for some time - again absolute trash thinking.

Would you accept a pay cut from an employer because he favored one of your work colleagues??

Of course you wouldn't and I for one won't accept third rate biased umpiring whether we win by a hundred or lose by a hundred.

Bad umpiring is unacceptable at ANY time.

 

[No SPIN]

I'd argue Hodge is wrong, evenes of the stat implies our gameplan isn't efficient enough to capitalise on.

Isn't poor conversion and poor efficiency the same thing.
If we were efficient in our conversion don't we win the game?

 

[JB1975]

Rubbish they don't call duckwood duckwood for no reason - and the entire world is aware of it - yet he is still the darling who can't be touched.

AGAIN - neither the OP or I even for one second claimed the umpires changed the result - what part of that don't you understand???

Geelong and Hawthorn, NEVER touch them whilst they are in possession.

THIS thread is about BAD umpiring - NOT about the result.

As for accepting second rate umpiring that has been going on for some time - again absolute trash thinking.

Would you accept a pay cut from an employer because he favored one of your work colleagues??

Of course you wouldn't and I for one won't accept third rate biased umpiring whether we win by a hundred or lose by a hundred.

Bad umpiring is unacceptable at ANY time.

You said that the umpiring was biased, not just 'bad'. Any suggestion that the umpiring was biased is garbage.

 

[mike123]

Isn't poor conversion and poor efficiency the same thing.
If we were efficient in our conversion don't we win the game?

Possible but most of our shots were hard shots anyways, so I say our gameplan didn't allow us to get easier to convert shots.

 

[jonbe54]

You said that the umpiring was biased, not just 'bad'. Any suggestion that the umpiring was biased is garbage.

biased umpiring is not bad???

and yes it was biased - not against collingwood but for geelong - a team that is coached to duck at every opportunity when not clear and especially for duckwood - actually a fine player but enough of a slag to dine out on the umpiring rubbish dished out to opposing teams for his advantage.

we certainly do differ let's leave it at that

 

[JB1975]

biased umpiring is not bad???

and yes it was biased - not against collingwood but for geelong - a team that is coached to duck at every opportunity when not clear and especially for duckwood - actually a fine player but enough of a slag to dine out on the umpiring rubbish dished out to opposing teams for his advantage.

we certainly do differ let's leave it at that

Biased umpiring is bad, but bad umpiring is not necessarily biased. There was nothing biased about the umpiring on Sunday.

 

[jonbe54]

Biased umpiring is bad, but bad umpiring is not necessarily biased. There was nothing biased about the umpiring on Sunday.

ok last reply to you on this thread, I'll leave you to your delusions on this subject

 

[No SPIN]

Possible but most of our shots were hard shots anyways, so I say our gameplan didn't allow us to get easier to convert shots.

Treloar - easy set shot in 3rd qtr missed
2 other running goals with no tackling pressure - missed having kicked many similar goals
Crisp - easy running goal missed
Wells - set shot missed and snap miss from 5 meters
JDG - running goal straight infront - missed

These were not hard shots - and all in the last half of the game.

 

[JB1975]

Treloar - easy set shot in 3rd qtr missed
2 other running goals with no tackling pressure - missed having kicked many similar goals
Crisp - easy running goal missed
Wells - set shot missed and snap miss from 5 meters
JDG - running goal straight infront - missed

These were not hard shots - and all in the last half of the game.

Geelong missed plenty of 'gettable' goals as well. If we convert their non-rushed behinds into goals and then convert our non-rushed behinds into goals...Geelong still win the game.

St Kilda's kicking at goal this year has been woeful, and sometimes the amount of behinds they've kicked would (if they were goals) amount to a winning score, but no one in their right mind would suggest that St Kilda's problems are confined to conversion. As we were on Sunday, the Saints often find themselves being outplayed.

 

[No SPIN]

Geelong missed plenty of 'gettable' goals as well. If we convert their non-rushed behinds into goals and then convert our non-rushed behinds into goals...Geelong still win the game.

St Kilda's kicking at goal this year has been woeful, and sometimes the amount of behinds they've kicked would (if they were goals) amount to a winning score, but no one in their right mind would suggest that St Kilda's problems are confined to conversion. As we were on Sunday, the Saints often find themselves being outplayed.

Mike123 was making the point that our gameplan caused "hard' shots, I was simply responding that was not the case with 6 examples of easy shots missed.

 

[Old Spice]

Geelong had a very effective defensive zone in play which we needed to handball through or chip through, so naturally we were going to have a high disposal to goal-scoring ratio.

We failed to execute with some very poor skill errors in the first half.

And yes, the umpiring was definitely odious.

I'm not sure why when we look at the contributing factors in a games loss we wouldn't account for all factors, including umpiring. It played its part alright.

 

[JB1975]

Geelong had a very effective defensive zone in play which we needed to handball through or chip through, so naturally we were going to have a high disposal to goal-scoring ratio.

We failed to execute with some very poor skill errors in the first half.

And yes, the umpiring was definitely odious.

I'm not sure why when we look at the contributing factors in a games loss we wouldn't account for all factors, including umpiring. It played its part alright.

How much of a contributing factor do you think it (umpiring) was? Was it in any way responsible for the result? Which decision or non-decision had the most influence on the result?