Umps reveal hit list

[Freo Big Fella]

To say the "protected" players are given latitude by the umps for their own indiscretions is just plain false, and frankly...pretty hard to fathom. Given the amount of scrutiny on them by umps looking for free kicks committed against them, anything they do themselves is going to be picked up straight away

Garbage. If Gieschen says to an umpire "Watch player X, it's likely he's going to be scragged by player Y" then the umpires instinct will be to give player X the benefit of the doubt in any close decisions.

Even if it works as you say, where does it stop? Do we get a list of Full Forwards that get the same "special protection" from the umpires? What about Ruckmen? Sandilands is continually scragged and has his arms illegally held to him in contests, why does he warrant no special protection?

 

[Bollox]

Should I be putting all my $ on the umpire's favourite players for the Brownlow medal then?

as always yes...but even moreso now.

It also opens up the possiblity of blatant favoritism ...and the fact the competition is being manipulated.

If u have more blokes on their goody goody list then u get a better ride...your free kick counts go up and free's against go down...no reason why this shouldnt be construed as clandestine match fixing.

...so what about poor little Nathan Foley who's got his scone in the pack trying to win the ball ???....is he on their "list" ???...who the hell let an idiot like Geishen get the right to decide who gets favoured and who doesnt ?

 

[- PC -]

Guys, we already see a favourites list each Tuesday at the Tribunal

Rookie gets games

Star gets points or let off

 

[- PC -]

Go to the basketball board and ask those on there what they think about preferential treatment for stars v rookies... its commonly known as paying your dues

(not that I agree with it)

 

[Mancey]

The AFL should never have done anything that contributes to an umpires bias.

For the last time, this report is nothing about the umpires being biased towards certain players and allowing them to infringe without penalty.

Its merely saying these ballwinners, from all teams (not just west coast, geez, does everything have to be about west coast with some sydney posters) are watched closer as they are likely to be infringed against. Its not saying these players receive any latitude for their own actions in any way shape or form. If you think anything geischen said does imply this, show me where, and how.

Its protection...not favouritism.

 

[PHX]

Arnfield was taken off running duties at the weekend in response to the AFL reviewing the use of runners after Fremantle ruckman Aaron Sandilands was bumped into by a Richmond runner at the MCG last month.

The AFL, which fined the Tigers, expressed concern to all clubs that runners were spending too much time on the field.

To avoid conflict - and potential fines of $10,000 - with AFL House, Port has chosen to keep Arnfield to fitness roles while there is a blitz on runners. It is uncertain when he will resume running duties.

They're real smart in Adelaide about getting the facts right.

 

[Bollox]

For the last time, this report is nothing about the umpires being biased towards certain players and allowing them to infringe without penalty.

Its merely saying these ballwinners, from all teams (not just west coast, geez, does everything have to be about west coast with some sydney posters) are watched closer as they are likely to be infringed against. Its not saying these players receive any latitude for their own actions in any way shape or form. If you think anything geischen said does imply this, show me where, and how.

Its protection...not favouritism.

u numbskulls would try to defend anything if it reflected badly on your club.

dont waste your time and ours....it is fairly obvious WHY the weagles win most free kick counts...if it wasnt obvious b4 it certainly is now...or isnt an admission from geishen enough proof for u ?

 

[PHX]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa3aUqPky74

You can't hold onto a guys jumper for 1 second, and expect a holding the ball when he spins out of the tackle noob.

THAT is what they were complaining about???

Judd broke the tackle and kicked the goal. That's not holding the ball.

 

[- PC -]

They're real smart in Adelaide about getting the facts right.

Its Rucci

Nuff said

 

[Mancey]

THAT is what they were complaining about???

Judd broke the tackle and kicked the goal. That's not holding the ball.

Yep. Should have heard the uproar.


Ah bollox, again inferring all the players on the list are from west coast. The same guidelines are applied to the main ballwinners of every team, including sydney. A few freo fans in another thread jumped on this same bandwagon after a simalar article was released in the west this week, until i highlighted that Josh Carr and Haselby had exactly the same number of frees awarded to them as judd, presumably for the same reasons, umpires knowing they win the ball, and thus picking up all the attempts to ****** them.

What do you actually think has geischen has admitted to?

 

[timthetoolman]

For the last time, this report is nothing about the umpires being biased towards certain players and allowing them to infringe without penalty.

Its merely saying these ballwinners, from all teams (not just west coast, geez, does everything have to be about west coast with some sydney posters) are watched closer as they are likely to be infringed against. Its not saying these players receive any latitude for their own actions in any way shape or form. If you think anything geischen said does imply this, show me where, and how.

Its protection...not favouritism.

I didn't mention West Coast,My so defensive. and the AFL issuing protection orders contributes to umpire bias. Simple as that. The rules are there to protect the players and the game, not AFL edicts.

And i'll say this as many times as like and won't even get defensive.

 

[Mancey]

This is where you don't understand human nature; not your own and not the umpires.
When you watch a game you see it from a West Coast Eagles point of view. Remember that mark by Leo Barry in a grand final a couple of years ago. I'll bet you saw the freekicks that should have been awarded for any number of infringements made against West Coke Eagles. I a Sydney supporter saw a great mark and other Sydney players in that pack situation being infringed against by West Coke players nad a neutral observer just saw a great mark.
If the AFL issue an edict to Umpires that they must umpire a game paying particular attention to infringements against certain players human nature dictates that their decision making ability in those situations has already been corrupted.
The AFL should never have done anything that contributes to an umpires bias.

nah, didnt mention em at all mate.

wtf

Protection isnt being biased, if its applied to all clubs. I think people are missing geischens point here. He's not saying they are favoured in any way shape or form, merely umpires have their eye on them a bit more due to repeated attempts to curb their ball winning capacity.

Clubs are able to contact the umpires and express their concerns about illegal tactics used against them. After repeated infringements at stoppages against certain players from their clubs, they will contact the umpires and make them aware of it. If they have a legitimate beef, of course the umps will be looking for it in future. Its one of the things they do that actually make sense

Cue more "its just west coast" comments

 

[timthetoolman]

nah, didnt mention em at all mate.

wtf

Protection isnt being biased, if its applied to all clubs. I think people are missing geischens point here. He's not saying they are favoured in any way shape or form, merely umpires have their eye on them a bit more due to repeated attempts to curb their ball winning capacity.

Clubs are able to contact the umpires and express their concerns about illegal tactics used against them. After repeated infringements at stoppages against certain players from their clubs, they will contact the umpires and make them aware of it. If they have a legitimate beef, of course the umps will be looking for it in future. Its one of the things they do that actually make sense

Cue more "its just west coast" comments

i was trying to give you an example of something which may allow you to see that everyone has certain biasses. I couldn't care less which clubs the AFL Edict affects. The simple fact is it affects the game by contributing to bias.
So i will restate my last comment I said nothing about the west coast in relation to the AFL'S new "initiative"

 

[Mancey]

Your "unbiased" point of view may have been slightly better made, by using an example with no coke references mate

 

[timthetoolman]

nah, didnt mention em at all mate.



Clubs are able to contact the umpires and express their concerns about illegal tactics used against them. After repeated infringements at stoppages against certain players from their clubs, they will contact the umpires and make them aware of it. If they have a legitimate beef, of course the umps will be looking for it in future. Its one of the things they do that actually make sense

Cue more "its just west coast" comments

Couldn't agree with you less. Once these issues are raised with the Umpires and they decide they have made a mistake by not ruling on them in the first instance they need to ask themselves why and address it from a training point of view. It should not contribute to the Umpires Game plan for next weeks matches..My God they shouldn't even have a gameplan. They should simply apply the rules to what they see, and if they're not, they need to ask themselves the question....Why not? and then fix it.

 

[timthetoolman]

Your "unbiased" point of view may have been slightly better made, by using an example with no coke references mate

Sorry typo............by the way did you see the thing done by chasers............extremely poor taste.

 

[Mancey]

Scenario:

You're umpiring St kilda and Western Bulldogs. Its a stoppage, you have one set of eyes, and you can either watch a contest between Stevie Baker and Scott West, or Andrew Thompson and Shaun Higgins.

Which one are you going to concentrate on?

Umpires aren't omnipotent, they can't and don't see everything, all you can ask is they see more than they miss. And to do that takes some common sense on what to watch and when.

Its pretty simple stuff

And yes the chaser rocks, and the west coke eagles sketch was funny the first time i saw it. They've done far far better work than that tho

 

[Hearts to hearts]

FWIW this was posted on our board by Tas:

free kicks for/against so far this season

Chris Judd 24/7
Daniel Kerr 14/6
Shaun Burgoyne 4/6
Andrew McLeod 3/4
Robert Harvey 3/0
Simon Black 13/10
Dale Thomas 3/8
Gary Ablett 9/4
Brent Harvey 4/3

 

[Punt_Road_Roar]

Richmond are disadvantaged already !!!!!!!!!!!

We dont have any ball players !!!

We dont have any players with balls either

 

[Rosella]

FWIW this was posted on our board by Tas:

free kicks for/against so far this season

Chris Judd 24/7
Daniel Kerr 14/6
Shaun Burgoyne 4/6
Andrew McLeod 3/4
Robert Harvey 3/0
Simon Black 13/10
Dale Thomas 3/8
Gary Ablett 9/4
Brent Harvey 4/3

not sure where you are getting your figures from, but the AFL has Kerr at 24 and Judd 14

 

[Skystyler]

The point is players are being judged differently based on their reputation - Be it positive (eg Judd, Kerr, R. Harvey, Ablett) or negative (Baker, Pickett, Hall) - and that is unfair. I would expect a significant backlash over Gieschen's comments.

 

[sigur]

The problem as I see it is that umpires must therefore go into a game with preconceived expectations of which players to ping and which players to give the benefit of the doubt to.

Crows v Collingwood last week - at one stage the scores were around even, free kick count as 19-10 in favour of collingwood, but one umpire (Chamberlain) had awared 10 frees to collingwood and only 1 to the crows. So here we have a situation were two of the umps have awarded 9 frees to each side between them and the 3rd umpire has gone 10 to 1 - did the crows players just play bad in front on one umpire or did he go into the game thinking the crows are all scraggers?

Unpires do a tough job and often have to make judgement calls - they're not often in position to see hands in the back or to see if a player has disposed of the ball correctly when slung in a tackle. You don't want their judgement call based on a list that the Giesh has given em.

Disclaimer 1 - I'm NOT saying that free kick count should be even.
Disclaimer 2 - I'm NOT saying collingwood didn't thoroughly deserve their win.

 

[Mancey]

List from pro stats, dunno where geisch pulled thomas from

Chris Judd 13/5
Daniel Kerr 25/11
Shaun Burgoyne 6/7
Andrew McLeod 6/5
Robert Harvey 3/0
Simon Black 14/10
Dale Thomas 2/11
Gary Ablett 10/4
Brent Harvey 5/3

 

[DeeHughMan]

Godfrey is a very close checker a bit like Baker.

I think that these guys can be effective against certain types of players because they are very tough. they have no problem with recieving what they dish out. i think what they do is mostly blocking then pestering the player the whole time to distraction

 

[Mancey]

Better examples of those players with differences between frees for and against
Player For/Against
Murphy 15/4
Corey 12/2
Kirk 14/11
J Carr 13/9
Haselby 13/7
Firrito 13/10
Jude Bolton 13/4 (maybe working for you too sydney fans, better than judds ratio)
Cross 13/5
Heath Shaw 13/9
Alwyn Davey 12/5