Umpiring Bias?

[Max Power]

Here is a chance to have some mindless Essendon bashing again

One of our good Bomber folk sent Geish an e-mail about how we (Bombers) are getting bent over backwards and screwed from behind by the maggots

http://essendon.rivals.net/default.asp?sid=1451&p=2&stid=8116144

Good quality rant!

 

[Frodo]

Pretty much garbage but there is a competence problem with umpiring that needs addressing. It is a question of interpretation of rules, consistency and bias.
I gasp when reading that players must be aware of the position of umpires so as to avoid collision. In just about every sport in the world a major aim of umpiring/refereeing is to be as invisible as possible but AFL umpiring is different!!!!
AFL views need to change and the training of umpires needs a quantum leap.

 

[Dan26]

I personally think it is all a load of rubbish. If we get less free kicks tha anyone else, but the consequence is we are on top of the ladder, then let's keep it up!

 

[dunstall19]

Originally posted by Dan25
I personally think it is all a load of rubbish. If we get less free kicks tha anyone else, but the consequence is we are on top of the ladder, then let's keep it up!

YEAH THATS RIGHT- KEEP IT UP HAWKS.

ESSENDON BEND THEMSELVES OVER BACKWARDS IF ANYTHING - AT TRAINING.

THE REASON PROBABLY LIES IN THE FACT THAT ESSENCRUD PLAYS THE SOFTEST NON PHYSICAL GAME PLAN WHICH DOESNT REWARD ANYONE AS THEY DONT GO IN HARD/ NEVER HAVE.

ESSENCRUD HAD TO HAVE SHARES IN THE MAGGOTS LAST YR AND START COMPLAINING WHEN THEY GET SOME IN CONSISTENT SHIT LIKE ALL CLUBS HAVE.

ESSENCRUD MEMBERS/FANS ARRIVED ON THE SAME BOAT.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by dunstall,19



ESSENCRUD MEMBERS/FANS ARRIVED ON THE SAME BOAT.

At least Essendon have acheived something since 1991.


Speaking of Soft - how soft was Jason Dunstall??

 

[elt]

Can we vote Dunstall19 off the Hawk Isand? Send him to Boot Camp? Complain to Big Brother? I think he might be The Mole ... either that or a Popstar.

 

[dunstall19]

Originally posted by elt
Can we vote Dunstall19 off the Hawk Isand? Send him to Boot Camp? Complain to Big Brother? I think he might be The Mole ... either that or a Popstar.

I VOTE ELT GET A NEW NAME- HAIRCUT AND A JOB - AND GO HOME ON THE BOAT YOU CAME OVER ON WITH ALL ESSENCRUD WANNABEES.

#19 GOAL KING

 

[Arch]

uncyherb knows how to string a few words together, and unlike the majority of posters on this thread I actually bothered to read the article he wrote, and think he has some good points, with evidence to back up what he says. Its not just an Essendon thing, hes talking about football in general.

Why is there a direct link with the quality of teams and the amount of frees paid against them ???? I think the AFL conspiracy theory is a bit rich, but its definitely interesting numbers he's put up there.

 

[servo]

Interesting that UncleHerb didn't mention either Adelaide club to demonstrate his theory.

That's because both clubs stats would refute his theory.

Port Adelaide and Adelaide consistently have more frees against than for. It doesn't generally seem to matter whether they are high or low on the ladder, whether they play home or away, or even whether their effectiveness rating is high or low.

If their is bias against a side then I beleive it is in response to either the attitude of their players on the field or the carry on of their fans in the outer. I do not for one moment beleive that there is any kind of conspiracy going on. Lets face it, most umpires struggle to comprehend how to bounce a ball and remember the rules on the same day. How are they possibly going to also play out a game plan of victimisation on top of it?

 

[Danny Chook Fan Club]

Originally posted by Jars458
Speaking of Soft - how soft was Jason Dunstall??

Very dangerous territory there Jars ...

Which was the softest part? The two knee reconstructions? The chronic ankle injuries? Playing with a still-healing fractured skull?

The man had unlimited courage, and was also a scrupulously fair ball player. An absolute icon to the game, and you're calling him soft?

Please insert retraction below.

 

[Hawkforce]

Dunstall... soft?!

For every Dunstall19, there is a Jars I guess...

By all means get involved in a shit fight with the poster D19, Jars.

But please don't involve one of the greatest players ever to play the game in your little games.

Calling Jason Dunstall "soft" is an absolute disgrace... he NEVER pulled out of a contest.

Ever...

 

[dunstall19]

Originally posted by Jars458


At least Essendon have acheived something since 1991.


Speaking of Soft - how soft was Jason Dunstall??

YOU IDIOT. YOU CAN THANK HAWTHORN FOR YOUR FLAGS ON THE PLATTER AFTER JARMAN CAME HOME TO RESURRECT A USELESS PACK OF NO HOPERS.

ABOUT ESSENCRUD- THEY HAVE WON LESS THAN THEVE CHOKED SINCE 91' SO ITS NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF.

#19 DIEGO LOPES ENRIQUE

 

[uncyherb]

Interesting that UncleHerb didn't mention either Adelaide club to demonstrate his theory.

I was actually trying (and failing) to keep the letter short.

If you look at Adelaide, they actually DO support the theory.

2000
12th in Possessions
10th in Effectiveness
11th in Frees

Probably near to what you would expect from a mid-field (ie 6-12th) placed team.. every stat in about the same area of ranking

2001
15th in Possessions
15th in Effectiveness
9th in Frees

Once again, showing that a team that is less skilled has a higher frees for difference.

Admitedly, it is not as big a diff as for the Roo's (15th,15th,4th) but it does support the theory.

As for Port, while they are ranked 8th in frees while being higher placed than last year, they were ranked 6th in frees in 2000, while being 16th and 14th in poss. & effect. now that the possessions are up to 4th, and their effectiveness at 1st, they have a drop off in frees.... doesn't make sense to me!

 

[Carey_is_King]

Originally posted by Jars458


Speaking of Soft - how soft was Jason Dunstall??

I can't take to him as a person, but boy oh boy was he a player. Comments like the above show a total lack of understanding of the game.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Carey_is_King


I can't take to him as a person, but boy oh boy was he a player. Comments like the above show a total lack of understanding of the game.

It depends what the intention of the comment was now doesn't it!!!!


If you must have to s-p-e-l-l everything out on this board then so be it

Dunstall was a great player of course.

You can sleep better at nights now, mate.

 

[RogerC]

d 19, what the hell are you doing having a go at elt? Watch yourself, son.

 

[magpie_joffa]

ALL UMPIRES CAN GET THUCKED.....LOL

 

[Hedonist]

Originally posted by dunstall,19


ABOUT ESSENCRUD- THEY HAVE WON LESS THAN THEVE CHOKED SINCE 91' SO ITS NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF.

#19 DIEGO LOPES ENRIQUE

Really? 96 and 99 and 93 and 2000. Twice we've ****ed since 91 as you put it and twice we've won flags. Dickhead.

 

[windyhill]

Originally posted by dunstall,19


YEAH THATS RIGHT- KEEP IT UP HAWKS.

ESSENDON BEND THEMSELVES OVER BACKWARDS IF ANYTHING - AT TRAINING.

THE REASON PROBABLY LIES IN THE FACT THAT ESSENCRUD PLAYS THE SOFTEST NON PHYSICAL GAME PLAN WHICH DOESNT REWARD ANYONE AS THEY DONT GO IN HARD/ NEVER HAVE.

ESSENCRUD HAD TO HAVE SHARES IN THE MAGGOTS LAST YR AND START COMPLAINING WHEN THEY GET SOME IN CONSISTENT SHIT LIKE ALL CLUBS HAVE.

ESSENCRUD MEMBERS/FANS ARRIVED ON THE SAME BOAT.

16-8,have a cry about the premiership count too, knob

 

[servo]

Herb, even though I don't beleive you are the same herb, I will continue the debate.

The point that you were trying to make was that Essendon is hard done by looking at frees for and against.

I don't care where they rank, what are the frees for and against for each team over the period you are researching? Yes perhaps there minor round finishing position may be of interest.

Effectiveness stats are crap and show absolutely nothing.

If the picture you are trying to paint is correct then perhgaps the better sides get less frees because they are better at avoiding tackles and collisions. They would also be better at laying tackles so they would lay more tackles. In theory this would mean they are liable to give more frees away in tackles than they will get when being tackled.

Conspiracies are just excuses people use when they cannot stand back and observe all that is happening.

 

[Carey_is_King]

Originally posted by Jars458


It depends what the intention of the comment was now doesn't it!!!!


If you must have to s-p-e-l-l everything out on this board then so be it

Dunstall was a great player of course.

You can sleep better at nights now, mate.

To suggest he was soft is nearly as stupid as it gets, but keep talking, (and spelling it out), because you make yourself look sillier with every post.

 

[Hedonist]

Originally posted by Hedonist


Really? 96 and 99 and 93 and 2000. Twice we've ****ed since 91 as you put it and twice we've won flags. Dickhead.

Must also mention that in 1996 we finished 6th and to finish 3rd was a great effort. No one expected us to get into the grand final let alone prelim, so really in 96 we didn't choke.

Get your facts straight you diego "drug ****ed" loving queer.

You are a disgrace and don't deserve to use Dunstall, (a true champion I might ad) as your posting name.

 

[kaz68]

Originally posted by Jars458


It depends what the intention of the comment was now doesn't it!!!!


If you must have to s-p-e-l-l everything out on this board then so be it

Dunstall was a great player of course.

You can sleep better at nights now, mate.

OK spell it out. To get back at a moronic poster you denigrate a champion ??? I have seen you get stuck into other posters for their lack of vocabulary, ability to put a sentence together, attacks on players, etc, but when you decide to 'put up' you come up with a bigger pile of manure than those you accuse.

BTW Dunstall_19 do us Hawks fans a favour and change your moniker to something that doesn't make us cringe every time we read one of your posts !!!

 

[uncyherb]

Herb, even though I don't beleive you are the same herb, I will continue the debate.

I can't prove it to you.. other than to back it up with serious discussion... not just a bunch of crap about some player or other.... that wasn't what the post was about.

Max Power (bomberblitz guy... name starts with A) posted it on his site after asking me.. then posted the link here to start debate... then posted a link for this site on the Don's boards.. I didn't know this site existed until that moment - hence the low post numbers.

The point that you were trying to make was that Essendon is hard done by looking at frees for
and against.

I don't care where they rank, what are the frees for and against for each team over the period
you are researching? Yes perhaps there minor round finishing position may be of interest.

Effectiveness stats are crap and show absolutely nothing.

The periods mentioned for my research are every round back to Rd1 2000. Year 2000 includes all games including finals. Year 2001 games are obviously only complete up to the end of Rd 6.

As for the Frees ....

2000

Adelaide -23
Brisbane -38
Carlton -47
Collingwood +31
Essendon -61
Freo +2
Geelong +16
Hawthorn +4
Kangas +29
Melbourne -25
Port Adel. +11
Richmond +81
St. Kilda -45
Sydney 1
WCE +-0
W.Bull +52

2001


Adelaide -5
Brisbane -16
Carlton +37
Collingwood +29
Essendon -27
Freo +32
Geelong -22
Hawthorn -43
Kangas +14
Melbourne -6
Port Adel. +5
Richmond -30
St. Kilda +13
Sydney +8
WCE -9
W.Bull +11


I disagree that Effectiveness says nothing... how else can you look at Possessions and have them mean anything? So far this year, Freo have the most Possessions in the league (1,976) but the 3rd lowest effectiveness... which would you say is a true reflection of what the team is playing like??

If the picture you are trying to paint is correct then perhgaps the better sides get less frees
because they are better at avoiding tackles and collisions. They would also be better at laying
tackles so they would lay more tackles. In theory this would mean they are liable to give more
frees away in tackles than they will get when being tackled.

I thought about this... but the main fault in that logic is that a team that is first to the ball more often (in part reflected by the possession stat) will be less likely to give away a free.. and more likely to receive one by being the one with the ball - we all know umps pay 10 times the amount of incorrect tackles compared to holding the balls. So we should see more frees due to the 'in front' effect. We should also see fewer frees paid against a side that has a higher skill level (in my opinion, covered in part by the effectiveness stat - at least as much as any stat can) due to incorrect disposal & incorrectly applied tackles.

Conspiracies are just excuses people use when they cannot stand back and observe all that is
happening.

Which is exactly why I have spent the time on the stats... people are biased (and, admitedly so are peoples intepretations of stats) and I am a seriously 1 eyed essendon supporter... I wanted to know if my team was being ripped off the way I thought they were (in the umpiring)... so I took all the facts into account. To me it looks like a set of numbers that don't add up, and if I were a Hawks or Richmond supporter, I would be asking questions too.

 

[servo]

OK it makes a bit more sense now.

The Richmond stats are very interesting, a turnaround of over 110 so far this year.

My belief that effectiveness stats are not effective measures stems from forwards being able to gain a 100% effectiveness stat when they may have kicked 3 goals 2 points. Surley a point should be regarded as inneffective (ie: did not achieve the desired result)

In my eyes this casts doubt on the whole effectiveness theory.