Free kick count Approved

[markmark]

I hope someone does a documentary on freekick westcoast.

[Jacks Back]

There's a lot of excuses for disparity in free kicks, and nothing arguments like 'free kicks don't have to be equal.
So what do you do? You analyze stats over all clubs, over a long time period - so personnel change, game plans change, and team success changes. Then check for trends and outliers.
So here we go: u fortunately our stupid site won't allow image size control so these were enormous - instead i'll paste the link.
https://thearcfooty.com/2016/04/23/freekicksathome/
https://thearcfooty.com/2016/04/24/whic ... ree-kicks/
https://thearcfooty.com/2016/09/14/do-t ... ree-kicks/

Those first two pages are a damning indictment on umpires at west coast land. The third one I have no idea what that is about.

[Sainter_Dad]

I need to address this - and here is probably the best place. Last night on SEN Ox and Marco took issue with the umpiring, but Ox said that it did not affect the outcome of the game as St Kilda kicked themselves out of it. I had the following discussion (summarised) with my son.

If a child came home from school with a 49% on his maths test, and you reviewed it with him only to discover that the teacher had incorrectly marked one of the equations as wrong when it was in fact right, would you respond to your child (and the teacher) "That's Okay - if you had got the other 45% of the test correct the teachers mistake would not have affected whether you passed or not" - or would you approach the teacher and get the mark reviewed and your child passes the test.

The UMPIRES AFFECTED THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME - Now I totally agree that if the scoreline was 19-13 the result would not have been affected, but the effect was still there, and would have been in the margin. You cannot say one erroneous aspect of a game does not impact the overall game.

I do not want or expect anyone to change the result of the game - but I am sick and bloody tired of people saying that the umpires have no impact on the game, or that they cannot change the result. We went there expecting a bashing - in the end we almost pulled off a fantastic win - we fell just short - but we were robbed - it is part of the AFL - but to say it does not happen is Ostriching!

[desertsaint]

There's a lot of excuses for disparity in free kicks, and nothing arguments like 'free kicks don't have to be equal.
So what do you do? You analyze stats over all clubs, over a long time period - so personnel change, game plans change, and team success changes. Then check for trends and outliers.
So here we go: u fortunately our stupid site won't allow image size control so these were enormous - instead i'll paste the link.
https://thearcfooty.com/2016/04/23/freekicksathome/
https://thearcfooty.com/2016/04/24/whic ... ree-kicks/
https://thearcfooty.com/2016/09/14/do-t ... ree-kicks/

Those first two pages are a damning indictment on umpires at west coast land. The third one I have no idea what that is about.

The third one shows that the argument that the team that wins more contested ball wins more frees, is a tenuous one.

[SuperDuper]

I need to address this - and here is probably the best place. Last night on SEN Ox and Marco took issue with the umpiring, but Ox said that it did not affect the outcome of the game as St Kilda kicked themselves out of it. I had the following discussion (summarised) with my son.

If a child came home from school with a 49% on his maths test, and you reviewed it with him only to discover that the teacher had incorrectly marked one of the equations as wrong when it was in fact right, would you respond to your child (and the teacher) "That's Okay - if you had got the other 45% of the test correct the teachers mistake would not have affected whether you passed or not" - or would you approach the teacher and get the mark reviewed and your child passes the test.

The UMPIRES AFFECTED THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME - Now I totally agree that if the scoreline was 19-13 the result would not have been affected, but the effect was still there, and would have been in the margin. You cannot say one erroneous aspect of a game does not impact the overall game.

I do not want or expect anyone to change the result of the game - but I am sick and bloody tired of people saying that the umpires have no impact on the game, or that they cannot change the result. We went there expecting a bashing - in the end we almost pulled off a fantastic win - we fell just short - but we were robbed - it is part of the AFL - but to say it does not happen is Ostriching!

yes.. agreed

AFL heads in the sand..

[Johnny Member]

I need to address this - and here is probably the best place. Last night on SEN Ox and Marco took issue with the umpiring, but Ox said that it did not affect the outcome of the game as St Kilda kicked themselves out of it. I had the following discussion (summarised) with my son.

If a child came home from school with a 49% on his maths test, and you reviewed it with him only to discover that the teacher had incorrectly marked one of the equations as wrong when it was in fact right, would you respond to your child (and the teacher) "That's Okay - if you had got the other 45% of the test correct the teachers mistake would not have affected whether you passed or not" - or would you approach the teacher and get the mark reviewed and your child passes the test.

The UMPIRES AFFECTED THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME - Now I totally agree that if the scoreline was 19-13 the result would not have been affected, but the effect was still there, and would have been in the margin. You cannot say one erroneous aspect of a game does not impact the overall game.

I do not want or expect anyone to change the result of the game - but I am sick and bloody tired of people saying that the umpires have no impact on the game, or that they cannot change the result. We went there expecting a bashing - in the end we almost pulled off a fantastic win - we fell just short - but we were robbed - it is part of the AFL - but to say it does not happen is Ostriching!

Two things s*** me:

1) When people focus on the free kick count. It's irrelevant. And, it also gives those in charge the easy out without having to actually address the issue of bias/corrupt/poor officiating. The 'lopsided count' is the wrong argument.

2) When people say stuff like "it did not affect the outcome of the game as St Kilda kicked themselves out of it", or like Robbo saying "don't whinge about the umpiring, whinge about wasting chances etc. etc"

That's life advice. That's the type of advice I'd offer my son in your example above. I wouldn't encourage him to focus on the teacher's performance or lack thereof - I'd encourage him to do better than just 49%. You know, focus on the things you can control etc. etc.

But that's not to say that you completely ignore the error by the teacher. Of course you don't.

The issues are separate. They are entirely different issues - but that doesn't mean that both don't need to be addressed. And it doesn't mean that just because Saints supporters are 'whinging' about the umpiring, that they aren't also aware that poor football by the Saints is also an area that needs to be addressed.

It doesn't mean that because the Saints kicked poorly for goal, that the umpires weren't awful and no one should be focusing on that.


Like the test example you gave, you'd want your son to focus solely on his marks. You want to encourage him to focus on what he can control, and to improve. Worrying about, or blaming the teacher's error won't do that. The club obviously doesn't want players blaming umpires for losses. They want them to focusing on what they can control and trying to get better.

But we're fans. Not players. Not coaches. Just observers.

The only thing we can control is whether we watch games, buy memberships or go to the footy. Fans can, and have every right to whinge about anything and everything they want to. If I buy a sandwich and it has a hair in it - I'll whinge about it. If I buy a red t-shirt and a blue one arrives in the post - I'll whinge about it. And when I buy the AFL's product, I expect it to be what I paid for. If it's not, I'll whinge about it.

Besides, whinging about the players missing goals is just as futile as whinging about the umpires.

[Sainter_Dad]

Said .......

I think you will find if you look at my past posts, that I do not want the count to be even - I want it to be right. BTW - I used to umpire junior footy, and two prime examples stick in my head.

* I called a mark, a little early, and the player spilled it - I reversed the call and balled it up - apologising to the player.
* Whilst relieving umpiring in a different league I sent a player off 5 minutes into the game for 10 minutes - but the league had a send off - off for the half rule. I did not think it warranted a full half, so I bought him back on - I was 16 at the time, and all hell broke loose - but I was the officiating umpire - I copped it from the opposition coach, but it was the correct thing to do
* At no stage did I ever believe that I got even 80% of the calls/non calls right - it is not possible

Oh I totally agree on accepting mediocrity in life/study/childrens efforts etc - but maybe a better analogy is if you have to pay your mortgage and the bank takes an incorrect fee out from your account, then charges you the 'dishonour fee' because you don't have the funds in the account to cover your mortgage. They then refund the incorrect fee - but leave the dishonour fee. You would put your hand up and expect that the dishonour fee be reversed. You would not simply say "If I had an extra $100.00 in that account - I would not have been charged the dishonour fee"

As I said - the result of the game is determined - but it pisses me off when people say that there was no impact from the umpires - especially at AFL Review level. Just tell us they got 5 wrong, or 15 wrong, and to suck it up - I can accept that - but to say that they got it 100% right is farcical.

I know that they are human, and errors occur, and crowd pressure occurs, but they farked it up - come out and tell us - and we move on - say that nothing is wrong, and we keep hammering at them to get it right.

[satchmo]

The sad thing is that in 2017 this still happening, and still being excused and explained away as being fine. Everyone can see it, yet it still happens. It would be ok if we had the same advantage on our home ground, but that is never going to happen.

[CarlD]

The "impartial" review consisted of the umpires going through the tape, counting the free kicks given during the match. Yep, 23 - 8 was correct.

[Sainter_Dad]

The "impartial" review consisted of the umpires going through the tape, counting the free kicks given during the match. Yep, 23 - 8 was correct.

I think that I heard somewhere that they review the free kicks given, and whether the free was there - it is not a review of what was missed. So it is only a cursory glance in the interests of saying that they have done a review

[magnifisaint]

What about these examples?

The free kick paid against Steven for deliberate out of bounds when tackled right on the boundary and the non-decision for Gaff's kick out of bounds
Push in the back to Hill paid vs non decision for Kennedy pushing Brown in the back
A goal review prompted by crowd reaction and goal disallowed despite there being no conclusive evidence
West Coast ruckman caught with the ball, dropping it and receiving a free

Unbelievable.

These are the examples that should be put forward in the media. You can't just say there's a discrepancy because all the umpires will say is no there wasn't. The deliberate out of bounds rule should be abolished. It's abysmal.

[SemperFidelis]

In today's Hun:

"FORMER AFL umpire Derek Humphery-Smith has put the heat back on players and clubs while describing umpiring across Round 2 as “actually pretty good”.

While acknowledging there were some free kicks missed in West Coast’s clash with St Kilda on Saturday night — which ended with a free kick count of 23-8 in favour of the Eagles — the former whistleblower said it was players rather than umpires that were not understanding new rule interpretations this year."

[Sainter_Dad]

In today's Hun:

"FORMER AFL umpire Derek Humphery-Smith has put the heat back on players and clubs while describing umpiring across Round 2 as “actually pretty good”.

While acknowledging there were some free kicks missed in West Coast’s clash with St Kilda on Saturday night — which ended with a free kick count of 23-8 in favour of the Eagles — the former whistleblower said it was players rather than umpires that were not understanding new rule interpretations this year."

And so it continues

Dear Humper - Please explain how a ball not returned on the full is not a 50?

[White Winmar]

Of course it was "approved". I would've loved the Humper doing my performance reviews back in the day. I agreed with the bit about "some" free kicks were missed". If the definition of "some" is about a dozen. And if "some" refers to only one side. Us. Seriously, when it comes to the umpiring, the AFL and the Humper have as much credibility as Chemical Ali.

[SemperFidelis]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/a ... vcsyr.html

[stevie]

F#$&ing Humpty Numpty

[Con Gorozidis]

The "impartial" review consisted of the umpires going through the tape, counting the free kicks given during the match. Yep, 23 - 8 was correct.

I think that I heard somewhere that they review the free kicks given, and whether the free was there - it is not a review of what was missed. So it is only a cursory glance in the interests of saying that they have done a review

Exactly

[Con Gorozidis]

I don't expect them to get every free right or even every game to be even but there is a genuine systemic bias with the Eagles in Perth that has been going on for six years or so at least.
The fact the AFL won't acknowledge it let alone address it is galling.
The fact the state run AFL media brigade act as propaganda machines for this is disgusting as well. More like Nth Korea.
Us fans shouldn't just go along with it like sheep.
They more we act like sheep and just believe what we are told the more we will be treated like sheep.

[SuperDuper]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/a ... vcsyr.html

So they dont explicitly train umpires about home ground biases?
That is extraordinary. A tin pot league masquerading as professional.

[samuraisaint]

In today's Hun:

"FORMER AFL umpire Derek Humphery-Smith has put the heat back on players and clubs while describing umpiring across Round 2 as “actually pretty good”.

While acknowledging there were some free kicks missed in West Coast’s clash with St Kilda on Saturday night — which ended with a free kick count of 23-8 in favour of the Eagles — the former whistleblower said it was players rather than umpires that were not understanding new rule interpretations this year."

And so it continues

Dear Humper - Please explain how a ball not returned on the full is not a 50?

My question to the umpiring review panel is this: why at Subiaco does the umpire not pay timely frees to interstate sides for tackles, but continually gives the Eagles time to dispose of it - so much time in fact that players are sometimes swung 360 degrees before they give a handball off - or time to dive forward and then be rewarded incorrectly with a free kick for in the back?

Again, unbelievable state of affairs.

[Saints43]

The fact that St Kilda coverted badly is irrelevant. The umpires continually turned the momentum of the match to the poorer performing team by ignoring their infringements.
I'm not even sure it could happen as often as it did unintentionally.

[meher baba]

With p66 no longer here, someone needs to stick up for the umpires. I didn't think they were that bad on Saturday night: I saw some dodgy calls both ways. There were certainly a few decisions against us that I thought were a bit rough.

There was a free kick paid to one of their forwards after a tangle with one of our defenders (I can't remember who was involved) where it was clear that the forward had hold of our guy's jumper. That happens a lot, but what annoyed me was the the umpire on the spot waved play on and then one further away - with no better angle on the play - awarded the free. I really hate that, even when it benefits us.

I also think the 50 awarded against Gilbert when he was running off the field was pretty tough, although it's difficult to argue it wasn't technically there.

The video decision that Mav's goal was touched was also really ridiculous: I would defy anyone viewing the video, no matter how many times, to be certain whether or not there was a touch. The benefit of the doubt should go to the attacking team IMO.

And there should have been a holding the ball decision in the lead up to Geary's deliberate out of bounds (which, on its own, was a fair call by the ump, I thought).

But, having said all that, I don't reckon the 23-8 free kick count was hugely unjust. The fact is that the Eagles' style of game is one where they tend to hang off their opponents and wait for them to turn the ball over, and then try to punish them quickly on the rebound with a very high conversion rate from a relatively smaller number of entries to the forward 50

Teams that play like this don't tend to give many free kicks away. It's a style that suits the Eagles at home, but hasn't done them too many favours playing away, particularly in finals when there's a lot more pressure on goalkickers and the conversion rate of all teams tends to be a lot lower. As far as I can work out, the Eagles have won only one finals game away from Perth in the 21st century: and that was the 2006 GF which they won by one point.

I hate that style of play and much prefer our current approach of attacking the man with the ball.

[desertsaint]

The video decision that Mav's goal was touched was also really ridiculous: I would defy anyone viewing the video, no matter how many times, to be certain whether or not there was a touch. The benefit of the doubt should go to the attacking team IMO.
.

I thought inconclusive meant it was umpire's call. didn't the ump call a goal?

[White Winmar]

I reckon we should adopt the EPL model. Let the coaches go absolutely bananas on the umpires, on everything from terrorism to dodgy free kicks. Arsene Wenger recently blamed the referees for Arsenal going down 10-1 (on aggregate) in the Europa league. Comic gold! Seriously though, there is no other public sphere where a group is offered blanket immunity from criticism. Everyone else in the game cops criticism, some of it justified, most of it not.

I appreciate how difficult the game is to umpire. With a gigantic playing field, 36 players and the tremendous pace of the game, it ain't a picnic. I've only umpired one game in my life and that was an intra club praccy match when I was coach. I was terrible, a fact I was constantly reminded of by the players, who also accused me of playing favourites. So you even cop it when you're all on the same side!

Constructive criticism is a key factor in improvement. I find it hard to believe they don't look at the "missed" frees. I think they do a reasonable job most of the time. Saturday night was not one of them. The sad thing was, it was entirely predictable. The longitudinal stats over time don't lie. Look up Desert Saint's post. It's been happening for years. Time for the Humper to look at the reasons why. It's not a statistical anomaly. It is a statistically significant, long term pattern. Houston, we have a problem, even if the AFL doesn't acknowledge it. I would set the most underworked organisation in the world, the AFL Integrity Unit to work on it and start earning its money. With all the suspicion around betting and outcomes of games these days, it's only a matter of time a disgruntled punter takes the on the AFL and its Koalas.

[SaintPav]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/a ... vcsyr.html

So they dont explicitly train umpires about home ground biases?
That is extraordinary. A tin pot league masquerading as professional.

+1