Analysis Umpiring and the Western Bulldogs

[Ted's Robot]

And what's worse the call on Caleb was a few seconds after Libba tackled a Carlton player who dropped the ball after standing around for 5 seconds wondering what to do with the ball. Umpire called ball up. As obvious a holding the ball ive ever seen. I was furious it wasn't paid. You don't need to guess how I reacted 10 seconds later when Caleb was pinned. Very strangely called game.

I find myself yelling "What's the difference?" a lot at the footy. I know it is hard to umpire bla bla bla but why is it so hard to umpire consistently throughout a game. Why is it sometimes a ball up when a player holds the ball in after being tackled with no prior and other times it's paid HTB? I sometimes think the umpires just don't want to throw the ball up.

I also think the umpires are affected by the media and crowd. The article by that supposed journo whatever his name was after the kangas game was a disgrace and do I think it was just a coincidence we got screwed the following week against WC. No!

Have to wonder why when we win eg GF, tigers game, kangas, the media is all over how we were favoured by the umps but when we get a bad run, eg games against swans, Melbourne, WC.
NOT A WORD!

 

[Floridog]

- If a player is tackled with no prior opportunity and they are unable to dispose of it, it's a ball up.
- If they have prior opportunity and don't legitimately dispose of the ball (whether it is jarred out in the tackle, they drop it, they throw it, they place it on the ground or they simply hold onto it), it's a free kick to the other team.

It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.

I would just add if they carry the ball out of bounds in a tackle when they have had prior to the free kick list.

 

[ScragCity]

Didn't mean they employ damo to do that meant why didn't he get punished by them when they obviously employ him given his articles and videos on the offical afl website. The afl are huge on never questioning umpires and someone they employ does it and he receives zero punishment.

No doubt the afl pass messages to umpires to check how they are interpreting a certain rule just look at the change of deliberate out of bounds to insufficient intent mid season.

In legal terms it's called Freedom of Press. Like it or not he's a journalist so he can say whatever he wants.

 

[MJ_Dogs]

I find myself yelling "What's the difference?" a lot at the footy. I know it is hard to umpire bla bla bla but why is it so hard to umpire consistently throughout a game. Why is it sometimes a ball up when a player holds the ball in after being tackled with no prior and other times it's paid HTB? I sometimes think the umpires just don't want to throw the ball up.

I also think the umpires are affected by the media and crowd. The article by that supposed journo whatever his name was after the kangas game was a disgrace and do I think it was just a coincidence we got screwed the following week against WC. No!

Have to wonder why when we win eg GF, tigers game, kangas, the media is all over how we were favoured by the umps but when we get a bad run, eg games against swans, Melbourne, WC.
NOT A WORD!

Tall poppy syndrome and jealousy. That's all it is. Alive and well in Australia. If you win, people will try tear you down and attribute your success to some other factor. Always happens and this league is at the forefront of it unfortunately. We've just never really felt it until now.

 

[Norm De Guerre]

Yah! We're still on top of the ladder!

This should be good for 50-60 pages on the main board.

 

[Timewillcome]

The overall free ride we apparently get by the umps I see as a result of a couple of things.

Opposition coaches start to cry to the AFL about the free kick differential, as there must be something going on that favours the bulldogs. No evidence, just stats and assumptions. Pike cries after the Adelaide loss early in the season. Longmire cries after the GF about a couple of 50/50 calls. The AFL instead of dismissing it as rubbish, fining coaches for trivial unpire bashing and protect their employees give the whole thing oxygen by providing a review and then saying the umps got a couple wrong. (Never hear Longmire complain when they win, just when he tries to deflect when they lose). Didn't say if it would have changed the result or if they missed a few bulldogs frees as well, which it wouldn't and they did. Just appease the clown by saying there were errors.

Complaining about the stats is to ensure the umpiring department has this 'conspiracy' at the front of their minds. When a split second decision is needing to be made, the ump might subconsciously not award a free to a bulldog player, or award it against because he doesn't want to seem biased, cop the wrath of the media and the coaches. Its working.

Our quick handpass game is another, dogs player must be throwing it as opposition can't do it. Opp coaches complain to highlight a non issue. Umps now start to see every quick handball as a throw because subconsciously they don't want to seem biased and draw more attention.

We have a couple of players who are some of the best at leaning into tackles and dropping the knees. We got a lot of high contact frees last year, of which a lot were legitimate as we were first to the ball. This year, I have seen a lot of high contact frees ignored, even when they are not ducking, leaning or dropping knees. Not saying this dropping knees should have been allowed, just that we now seem to be at the other extreme where we get nothing, while other clubs still get them paid, Selwood is the master.

Not a bulldogs only one by as has already been mentioned, the rules are too confusing for HTB. Dropping the ball is completely different to knocked out in a tackle. Should be awarded as incorrect disposal every time there is prior opportunity. A fend off, side step, turn are all prior opportunity.

Again, not only our club but HTB when on the player ground drags the ball in is hard to officiate, and has been made harder now where opposition players sit on the player on the ground, on both sides, pushing the ball back under and holding it in. Its like a Rugby Union tackle.
Only thing i can see fixing this is, opposition players over the player on the ground must keep their feet. Can't go to ground and cover the player to hold it in and get a free. This makes it possible for the player on the ground to release the ball with a handpass or knock it on. No need to guess if the player on the ground is making enough effort. Ball doesn't come out, free kick. Other players go to ground and hold it in, ball it up. Keeps play moving. Probably creates other issues though, like every change.

 

[dogwatch]

Pretty sure there was a statement by the AFL that the ducking issue would be addressed this year. Can't recall whether that was a rule change or just an interpretation (which is pretty damning in itself isn't it?)

We still get some frees this way but they are generally justified (ie not primarily an attempt to draw the free). Selwood is so good at it that it's hard for the umpires to know whether he ducked (buckled at the knee) or just had a low centre of gravity at the time from gathering the ball.

It's a hard one to get right even 95% of the time.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

They said if a player lowers the knees and/or raises an arm to force the tackler's hold up and gets taken high, it will be taken as that player having contributed to the high tackle and it's play on.

Getting back to throwing, is there any stat anywhere that spells out how many frees are given for throwing, for all teams? I see plenty of throws by other teams, we're constantly saying, how did he get rid of that?

 

[go you pups]

And what's worse the call on Caleb was a few seconds after Libba tackled a Carlton player who dropped the ball after standing around for 5 seconds wondering what to do with the ball. Umpire called ball up. As obvious a holding the ball ive ever seen. I was furious it wasn't paid. You don't need to guess how I reacted 10 seconds later when Caleb was pinned. Very strangely called game.

Was that on the wing in front of the MCC?

Me and my brother were going apeshit over that one, clear no attempt whatsoever to get rid of the footy there.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

I would just add if they carry the ball out of bounds in a tackle when they have had prior to the free kick list.

Maybe adding too much grey though?

 

[MC Bad Genius]

Yah! We're still on top of the ladder!

This should be good for 50-60 pages on the main board.

View attachment 393938

It'd be more interesting to see it separated for home and away matches.

But as has been pointed out many times already, the raw free kick count doesn't tell all of the story. It's arguable that a big differential in a tight game might be influential (at risk of getting flamed, the free kick count in last year's GF at 3/4 time was quite lopsided), but without actually going through the footage and calculating incorrect calls AND missed calls, it's really only a VERY rough guide.

 

[go you pups]

In legal terms it's called Freedom of Press. Like it or not he's a journalist so he can say whatever he wants.

Nope

Defamation still exists friend, they have to write truth or opinion

 

[go you pups]

but without actually going through the footage and calculating incorrect calls AND missed calls, it's really only a VERY rough guide.

We've used this argument regularly, but it falls on deaf ears

Uneducated opposition fans and media are plain and simply dumb on this issue where all they look at is just numbers, not actually watch the games and go through all the poor decisions/missed decisions, or why the free kick count is lopsided like a team being penalised for being regularly 2nd to the ball which is how it should be really, why should the tackler always be rewarded? Why wasn't he first to the ball in the first place? Tackling is an important defensive mechanism in the game, but it's not the be all end all of the game.

The media were so pathetic after we played Norf, I went to that game and a majority of the free kicks came our way in the second quarter when we got the jump on them and were looking like the clear better side, we were first to the ball and the free kicks were there, Norf simply were undisciplined or not good enough in that time frame, yet they kick a couple of goals late in the game off the back of some brilliance from one player (Cunnington) and nearly pinch it at the end where they were behind all night (we didn't kick straight which didn't help up either in the end), yet straight up the media says to Bwad "Bwad, so what was your thoughts about the elephant in the room, tonights umpiring"..

FFS MEDIA, DID YOU ACTUALLY WATCH THE ******* GAME AND FIGURE OUT WHY NORF WERE 4-5 GOALS DOWN IN THE FIRST PLACE? LIKE MAYBE BEING OUTPLAYED? MIDFIELD BEING BEATEN UP MAYBE???

But but but umpires...........

The standard of journalism in this country is pathetic and it's a farce how decent, ethical institutions like the ABC, SBS and Fairfax are struggling to stand on two feet.

Anyways, thanks for contributing here, always good to see logical opposition fans pop in, would be nice to see a few more, yet unfortunately a lot of people post with a chip on their shoulder these days.

 

[MJ_Dogs]

Was that on the wing in front of the MCC?

Me and my brother were going apeshit over that one, clear no attempt whatsoever to get rid of the footy there.

Wasn't at the game. It was on the telecast side. I think that's the MCC side

 

[go you pups]

Wasn't at the game. It was on the telecast side. I think that's the MCC side

Yeah it was that one, I think it was Kerridge or Graham who was tackled, atrocious non-call of the day that one.

 

[ScragCity]

Nope

Defamation still exists friend, they have to write truth or opinion

Do you even read posts before you reply to them? I was saying that Barrett is allowed to be critical of umpires and doesn't fall under the same rules that AFL coaches do. I'd appreciate it if you'd consider the context of my posts before replying to them, friend.

 

[go you pups]

Do you even read posts before you reply to them? I was saying that Barrett is allowed to be critical of umpires and doesn't fall under the same rules that AFL coaches do. I'd appreciate it if you'd consider the context of my posts before replying to them, friend.

No journalist has a freedom pass, that is the point I was making to your comment

 

[ScragCity]

No journalist has a freedom pass, that is the point I was making to your comment

In the state of Victoria, press freedom is explicitly protected under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

Yes, defamation is a thing and so is national security, but outside of those two issues journalists are protected and you are dead wrong.

 

[go you pups]

In the state of Victoria, press freedom is explicitly protected under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

Yes, defamation is a thing and so is national security, but outside of those two issues journalists are protected and you are dead wrong.

So tell me why organisations such as the MEAA exist then?

I would assume plenty of media workers are bound by the MEAA in Victoria.

 

[_Mike_]

Yes, defamation is a thing and so is national security, but outside of those two issues journalists are protected and you are dead wrong.

Defamation is a tort, a civil wrong to which the majority of states have the Defamation Act

Only judicial proceedings and parliamentary sittings are protected from being liable for defamation.

 

[Leon]

Whenever footy is discussed umpiring is always a favoured topic, but this year it has special significance for the Western Bulldogs. That’s for a whole lot of reasons including:

• The debate about whether we got an unwarranted advantage from the umpiring decisions in the 2016 GF, the fact that the AFL took the unusual step of reviewing it and then saying we did benefit unduly, and the subsequent discussion about whether that supposed advantage was enough to swing the GF our way (or would we have won anyway).

Just on this point.

The umpiring department review every single game of the season and its decisions. It wasn't a one off to review the Grand Final.

I don't think the AFL said we received an undue advantage. IIRC they said there were decisions or non decisions that went against Sydney that were incorrect. The ones that were highlighted were Wood on Hannebery and the below the legs decision that went to McLean just before half time. No mention was made of the Clay Smith free kick so am assuming they were fine with that decision.

From my POV at least the McLean one was incorrectly awarded to us but the Wood on Hannebery one was play on. In real time I thought it was a free kick but the rule actually says that it's contact below the knee, not on the knee, that a free kick should be awarded. Wood hit Hannebery on the knee, not below.

I'm also sick of the whinging that comes our way with umpiring. The whinging is simply that we get a lot of free kicks and that's it. Are we actually doing anything wrong to get the free kicks? Diving? Play acting? Engaging in thuggery? Can anyone seriously argue we are cheating on any way to get free kicks?


I also think in a general sense football fans are all the same - that is, everyone is pissed off that we're getting lots of free kicks, but if it were their club in that position, they'd be defending them and protesting the other club's complaints just as we do.

I'm actually done with reading the threads and posts on BF and Twitter etc that slag us off. It simply isn't worth getting angry over, and again, if these people had their club in the position that we are in, they'd be just as vocal about defending them as we are.

 

[Leon]

The snap decision to ban 3rd man up has had a big impact on the way our group has played in 2017.

Bontempelli alone won 5 or 6 hitouts to advantage in the GF and yet the AFL killed that off without any consultation or particularly strong reasons for season 2017.

I keep banging on about this point on this forum and I won't stop.


So ****ing angry at the AFL for changing this rule.

 

[dogwatch]

Just on this point.

The umpiring department review every single game of the season and its decisions. It wasn't a one off to review the Grand Final.

I don't think the AFL said we received an undue advantage. IIRC they said there were decisions or non decisions that went against Sydney that were incorrect. The ones that were highlighted were Wood on Hannebery and the below the legs decision that went to McLean just before half time. No mention was made of the Clay Smith free kick so am assuming they were fine with that decision.

From my POV at least the McLean one was incorrectly awarded to us but the Wood on Hannebery one was play on. In real time I thought it was a free kick but the rule actually says that it's contact below the knee, not on the knee, that a free kick should be awarded. Wood hit Hannebery on the knee, not below.

I'm also sick of the whinging that comes our way with umpiring. The whinging is simply that we get a lot of free kicks and that's it. Are we actually doing anything wrong to get the free kicks? Diving? Play acting? Engaging in thuggery? Can anyone seriously argue we are cheating on any way to get free kicks?


I also think in a general sense football fans are all the same - that is, everyone is pissed off that we're getting lots of free kicks, but if it were their club in that position, they'd be defending them and protesting the other club's complaints just as we do.

I'm actually done with reading the threads and posts on BF and Twitter etc that slag us off. It simply isn't worth getting angry over, and again, if these people had their club in the position that we are in, they'd be just as vocal about defending them as we are.

Thanks for the clarification about the AFL review of the GF.

Am I right in saying they only commented publicly on the decisions that supposedly disadvantaged Sydney but were silent on any that disadvantaged us?
That in itself seems pretty odd, especially wrt the biggest game on the AFL calendar.

 

[ScragCity]

So tell me why organisations such as the MEAA exist then?

I would assume plenty of media workers are bound by the MEAA in Victoria.

Probably for the same reason some people wear two condoms at the same time.

 

[MJ_Dogs]

Yeah it was that one, I think it was Kerridge or Graham who was tackled, atrocious non-call of the day that one.

Yep that's the one. Ridiculous. As blatant a HTB as there ever has been