Let’s talk umpires and cheating

[The Fireman]

I suggest having a look at the comments on the fox footy site to see what the ‘experts’ have to say about the umpiring.

...


No worries though, some will still support the maggots through thick and thin.





https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/be- ... 55du7.html

Without going back over the 3 previous pages in all its glory, I don't recall anybody denying that - overall - the umpiring in the game last night was anything other than unsatisfactory.

What some - including me - fundamentally disagree with is the allegation that, in effect, poor decision-making is in fact a somehow coordinated, deliberate and dishonest campaign of cheating to favour one team over another.

Yes indeed. Well put.

+1

[saynta]

I suggest having a look at the comments on the fox footy site to see what the ‘experts’ have to say about the umpiring.

...


No worries though, some will still support the maggots through thick and thin.





https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/be- ... 55du7.html

Without going back over the 3 previous pages in all its glory, I don't recall anybody denying that - overall - the umpiring in the game last night was anything other than unsatisfactory.

What some - including me - fundamentally disagree with is the allegation that, in effect, poor decision-making is in fact a somehow coordinated, deliberate and dishonest campaign of cheating to favour one team over another.

Yes indeed. Well put.

+1

But the fact remains. Some teams are in fact favoured over other teams, for whatever reason. ie Eagles and the filth.

[St.Roly]

I suggest having a look at the comments on the fox footy site to see what the ‘experts’ have to say about the umpiring.

...


No worries though, some will still support the maggots through thick and thin.





https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/be- ... 55du7.html

Without going back over the 3 previous pages in all its glory, I don't recall anybody denying that - overall - the umpiring in the game last night was anything other than unsatisfactory.

What some - including me - fundamentally disagree with is the allegation that, in effect, poor decision-making is in fact a somehow coordinated, deliberate and dishonest campaign of cheating to favour one team over another.

Yes indeed. Well put.

+1

But the fact remains. Some teams are in fact favoured over other teams, for whatever reason. ie Eagles and the filth.

Alright, we'll let you have the last word then...oops, your turn

[saynta]

I suggest having a look at the comments on the fox footy site to see what the ‘experts’ have to say about the umpiring.

...


No worries though, some will still support the maggots through thick and thin.





https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/be- ... 55du7.html

Without going back over the 3 previous pages in all its glory, I don't recall anybody denying that - overall - the umpiring in the game last night was anything other than unsatisfactory.

What some - including me - fundamentally disagree with is the allegation that, in effect, poor decision-making is in fact a somehow coordinated, deliberate and dishonest campaign of cheating to favour one team over another.

Yes indeed. Well put.

+1

But the fact remains. Some teams are in fact favoured over other teams, for whatever reason. ie Eagles and the filth.

Alright, we'll let you have the last word then...oops, your turn

[sunsaint]

Alright, we'll let you have the last word then...oops, your turn

its funny how one of those aforementioned AFL favoured love children has been handed the schedule from hell
With 4 games in less than 14 days & in multiple states
Pretty sure this forum would be in melt down if we scored that draw
but its all about the cheating and whispers and conspiracies & little green men

[saynta]

Alright, we'll let you have the last word then...oops, your turn

its funny how one of those aforementioned AFL favoured love children has been handed the schedule from hell
With 4 games in less than 14 days & in multiple states
Pretty sure this forum would be in melt down if we scored that draw
but its all about the cheating and whispers and conspiracies & little green men

The guy who fixed that draw doesn't umpire matches for f***'s sake.

[SaintPav]

I suggest having a look at the comments on the fox footy site to see what the ‘experts’ have to say about the umpiring.

...


No worries though, some will still support the maggots through thick and thin.





https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/be- ... 55du7.html

Without going back over the 3 previous pages in all its glory, I don't recall anybody denying that - overall - the umpiring in the game last night was anything other than unsatisfactory.

What some - including me - fundamentally disagree with is the allegation that, in effect, poor decision-making is in fact a somehow coordinated, deliberate and dishonest campaign of cheating to favour one team over another.

Have to disagree with this red herring argument.

It doesn't need to be deliberate cheating. The AFL are well aware that, for what ever reason, the stronger clubs including the Adelaide and Perth teams, get a much better deal with the umpires at the expense of the weaker clubs.

This umpiring bias has been a systemic issue for at least 20 years and the AFL have chosen to ignore it. This is called wilful blindness and recklessness, and not doing anything about it when they know it's an issue is just as bad as deliberate cheating.

”When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
Frederic Bastiat, The Law

[Yorkeys]

What should the AFL have done/do, say bring in a rule that if booing/yeahing reaches 80 decibels its a free against the home side. Its a tough one and the Eagles and Adelaide supporters know they can intimidate umps. In the NFL "the impact of Seattle fans had such an impact on the success of the team in the 1980's that Seahawks President Mike McCormack retired the number 12 jersey on December 15, 1984 forever. A tribute to the best fans in the NFL."

[saynta]

I suggest having a look at the comments on the fox footy site to see what the ‘experts’ have to say about the umpiring.

...


No worries though, some will still support the maggots through thick and thin.





https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/be- ... 55du7.html

Without going back over the 3 previous pages in all its glory, I don't recall anybody denying that - overall - the umpiring in the game last night was anything other than unsatisfactory.

What some - including me - fundamentally disagree with is the allegation that, in effect, poor decision-making is in fact a somehow coordinated, deliberate and dishonest campaign of cheating to favour one team over another.

Have to disagree with this red herring argument.

It doesn't need to be deliberate cheating. The AFL are well aware that, for what ever reason, the stronger clubs including the Adelaide and Perth teams, get a much better deal with the umpires at the expense of the weaker clubs.

This umpiring bias has been a systemic issue for at least 20 years and the AFL have chosen to ignore it. This is called wilful blindness and recklessness, and not doing anything about it when they know it's an issue is just as bad as deliberate cheating.

”When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
Frederic Bastiat, The Law

well put.

[St.Roly]

I suggest having a look at the comments on the fox footy site to see what the ‘experts’ have to say about the umpiring.

...


No worries though, some will still support the maggots through thick and thin.





https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/be- ... 55du7.html

Without going back over the 3 previous pages in all its glory, I don't recall anybody denying that - overall - the umpiring in the game last night was anything other than unsatisfactory.

What some - including me - fundamentally disagree with is the allegation that, in effect, poor decision-making is in fact a somehow coordinated, deliberate and dishonest campaign of cheating to favour one team over another.

Have to disagree with this red herring argument.

It doesn't need to be deliberate cheating. The AFL are well aware that, for what ever reason, the stronger clubs including the Adelaide and Perth teams, get a much better deal with the umpires at the expense of the weaker clubs.

This umpiring bias has been a systemic issue for at least 20 years and the AFL have chosen to ignore it. This is called wilful blindness and recklessness, and not doing anything about it when they know it's an issue is just as bad as deliberate cheating.

”When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
Frederic Bastiat, The Law

well put.

Yeah but no.

How am I introducing a red herring by directly addressing the claim of alleged cheating that is the topic of the thread? I would suggest that it is Pav's hands that smell fishy. To claim that wilful blindness/recklessness is equivalent to deliberate conduct makes me desperately hope that Pav does not ply legal services for a crust.

Given my propensity (however justified) to climb on my legal high horse, I preface my final remarks with the disclaimer that I am no statistician (only just scraped through first year stats at uni). Nevertheless, there doesn't seem to be much support for your claims about the "Adelaide and Perth teams" - assuming you meant to include Free and Port. Also, I recommend having a look at afltables.com. The free kick stats there go all the way back to 1965 and show some very interesting things than we can hypothesise about - eg St.K's free kick ratio appears to be 5th best over that 50+ years. The best? That powerhouse Fitzroy!

[SaintPav]

I suggest having a look at the comments on the fox footy site to see what the ‘experts’ have to say about the umpiring.

...


No worries though, some will still support the maggots through thick and thin.





https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/be- ... 55du7.html

Without going back over the 3 previous pages in all its glory, I don't recall anybody denying that - overall - the umpiring in the game last night was anything other than unsatisfactory.

What some - including me - fundamentally disagree with is the allegation that, in effect, poor decision-making is in fact a somehow coordinated, deliberate and dishonest campaign of cheating to favour one team over another.

Have to disagree with this red herring argument.

It doesn't need to be deliberate cheating. The AFL are well aware that, for what ever reason, the stronger clubs including the Adelaide and Perth teams, get a much better deal with the umpires at the expense of the weaker clubs.

This umpiring bias has been a systemic issue for at least 20 years and the AFL have chosen to ignore it. This is called wilful blindness and recklessness, and not doing anything about it when they know it's an issue is just as bad as deliberate cheating.

”When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
Frederic Bastiat, The Law

well put.

Thanks.

Old Roly-poly must have missed his stats lectures on asymmetry and multivariate analysis.

Technically, the AFL isn't breaking any law, obviously. I was referring to the well established and accepted legal principle used in our common law system of “wilful blindness” or a “deliberate shutting of one’s eyes to what is going on’’.

So, must have skipped those lessons on ethics and morality too.

Reminds me of the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon we have.

Calvin: Is it right to remain ignorant?

Hobbes: I don't know. But I refuse to find out!

[St.Roly]

I suggest having a look at the comments on the fox footy site to see what the ‘experts’ have to say about the umpiring.

...


No worries though, some will still support the maggots through thick and thin.





https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/be- ... 55du7.html

Without going back over the 3 previous pages in all its glory, I don't recall anybody denying that - overall - the umpiring in the game last night was anything other than unsatisfactory.

What some - including me - fundamentally disagree with is the allegation that, in effect, poor decision-making is in fact a somehow coordinated, deliberate and dishonest campaign of cheating to favour one team over another.

Have to disagree with this red herring argument.

It doesn't need to be deliberate cheating. The AFL are well aware that, for what ever reason, the stronger clubs including the Adelaide and Perth teams, get a much better deal with the umpires at the expense of the weaker clubs.

This umpiring bias has been a systemic issue for at least 20 years and the AFL have chosen to ignore it. This is called wilful blindness and recklessness, and not doing anything about it when they know it's an issue is just as bad as deliberate cheating.

”When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
Frederic Bastiat, The Law

well put.

Thanks.

Old Roly-poly must have missed his stats lectures on asymmetry and multivariate analysis.

Technically, the AFL isn't breaking any law, obviously. I was referring to the well established and accepted legal principle used in our common law system of “wilful blindness” or a “deliberate shutting of one’s eyes to what is going on’’.

So, must have skipped those lessons on ethics and morality too.

Reminds me of the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon we have.

Calvin: Is it right to remain ignorant?

Hobbes: I don't know. But I refuse to find out!

Pav, I know exactly what you were referring to, which is why I know exactly how flawed any claim of equivalence (in your words “just as bad as”) between recklessness and deliberate cheating is - whether on a strictly forensic or ethical basis.

I hope, when the factual basis for your statement that “the stronger clubs including the Adelaide and Perth teams, get a much better deal with the umpires at the expense of the weaker clubs” arrives that it is a hell of a lot more convincing than your attempt to demonstrate an understanding of the law. I have pointed you in the direction of the available statistics - impress us with some original work.

[SaintPav]

I suggest having a look at the comments on the fox footy site to see what the ‘experts’ have to say about the umpiring.

...


No worries though, some will still support the maggots through thick and thin.





https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/be- ... 55du7.html

Without going back over the 3 previous pages in all its glory, I don't recall anybody denying that - overall - the umpiring in the game last night was anything other than unsatisfactory.

What some - including me - fundamentally disagree with is the allegation that, in effect, poor decision-making is in fact a somehow coordinated, deliberate and dishonest campaign of cheating to favour one team over another.

Have to disagree with this red herring argument.

It doesn't need to be deliberate cheating. The AFL are well aware that, for what ever reason, the stronger clubs including the Adelaide and Perth teams, get a much better deal with the umpires at the expense of the weaker clubs.

This umpiring bias has been a systemic issue for at least 20 years and the AFL have chosen to ignore it. This is called wilful blindness and recklessness, and not doing anything about it when they know it's an issue is just as bad as deliberate cheating.

”When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
Frederic Bastiat, The Law

well put.

Thanks.

Old Roly-poly must have missed his stats lectures on asymmetry and multivariate analysis.

Technically, the AFL isn't breaking any law, obviously. I was referring to the well established and accepted legal principle used in our common law system of “wilful blindness” or a “deliberate shutting of one’s eyes to what is going on’’.

So, must have skipped those lessons on ethics and morality too.

Reminds me of the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon we have.

Calvin: Is it right to remain ignorant?

Hobbes: I don't know. But I refuse to find out!

Pav, I know exactly what you were referring to, which is why I know exactly how flawed any claim of equivalence (in your words “just as bad as”) between recklessness and deliberate cheating is - whether on a strictly forensic or ethical basis.

I hope, when the factual basis for your statement that “the stronger clubs including the Adelaide and Perth teams, get a much better deal with the umpires at the expense of the weaker clubs” arrives that it is a hell of a lot more convincing than your attempt to demonstrate an understanding of the law. I have pointed you in the direction of the available statistics - impress us with some original work.

So says the solicitor!

You want me to include University in my statistical analysis as well?

[saynta]

I suggest having a look at the comments on the fox footy site to see what the ‘experts’ have to say about the umpiring.

...


No worries though, some will still support the maggots through thick and thin.





https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/be- ... 55du7.html

Without going back over the 3 previous pages in all its glory, I don't recall anybody denying that - overall - the umpiring in the game last night was anything other than unsatisfactory.

What some - including me - fundamentally disagree with is the allegation that, in effect, poor decision-making is in fact a somehow coordinated, deliberate and dishonest campaign of cheating to favour one team over another.

Have to disagree with this red herring argument.

It doesn't need to be deliberate cheating. The AFL are well aware that, for what ever reason, the stronger clubs including the Adelaide and Perth teams, get a much better deal with the umpires at the expense of the weaker clubs.

This umpiring bias has been a systemic issue for at least 20 years and the AFL have chosen to ignore it. This is called wilful blindness and recklessness, and not doing anything about it when they know it's an issue is just as bad as deliberate cheating.

”When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
Frederic Bastiat, The Law

well put.

Thanks.

Old Roly-poly must have missed his stats lectures on asymmetry and multivariate analysis.

Technically, the AFL isn't breaking any law, obviously. I was referring to the well established and accepted legal principle used in our common law system of “wilful blindness” or a “deliberate shutting of one’s eyes to what is going on’’.

So, must have skipped those lessons on ethics and morality too.

Reminds me of the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon we have.

Calvin: Is it right to remain ignorant?

Hobbes: I don't know. But I refuse to find out!

[saynta]

I suggest having a look at the comments on the fox footy site to see what the ‘experts’ have to say about the umpiring.

...


No worries though, some will still support the maggots through thick and thin.





https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/be- ... 55du7.html

Without going back over the 3 previous pages in all its glory, I don't recall anybody denying that - overall - the umpiring in the game last night was anything other than unsatisfactory.

What some - including me - fundamentally disagree with is the allegation that, in effect, poor decision-making is in fact a somehow coordinated, deliberate and dishonest campaign of cheating to favour one team over another.

You claiming some sort of legal qualifications are you?

Have to disagree with this red herring argument.

It doesn't need to be deliberate cheating. The AFL are well aware that, for what ever reason, the stronger clubs including the Adelaide and Perth teams, get a much better deal with the umpires at the expense of the weaker clubs.

This umpiring bias has been a systemic issue for at least 20 years and the AFL have chosen to ignore it. This is called wilful blindness and recklessness, and not doing anything about it when they know it's an issue is just as bad as deliberate cheating.

”When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
Frederic Bastiat, The Law

well put.

Thanks.

Old Roly-poly must have missed his stats lectures on asymmetry and multivariate analysis.

Technically, the AFL isn't breaking any law, obviously. I was referring to the well established and accepted legal principle used in our common law system of “wilful blindness” or a “deliberate shutting of one’s eyes to what is going on’’.

So, must have skipped those lessons on ethics and morality too.

Reminds me of the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon we have.

Calvin: Is it right to remain ignorant?

Hobbes: I don't know. But I refuse to find out!

Pav, I know exactly what you were referring to, which is why I know exactly how flawed any claim of equivalence (in your words “just as bad as”) between recklessness and deliberate cheating is - whether on a strictly forensic or ethical basis.

I hope, when the factual basis for your statement that “the stronger clubs including the Adelaide and Perth teams, get a much better deal with the umpires at the expense of the weaker clubs” arrives that it is a hell of a lot more convincing than your attempt to demonstrate an understanding of the law. I have pointed you in the direction of the available statistics - impress us with some original work.

[saynta]

I suggest having a look at the comments on the fox footy site to see what the ‘experts’ have to say about the umpiring.

...


No worries though, some will still support the maggots through thick and thin.





https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/be- ... 55du7.html

Without going back over the 3 previous pages in all its glory, I don't recall anybody denying that - overall - the umpiring in the game last night was anything other than unsatisfactory.

What some - including me - fundamentally disagree with is the allegation that, in effect, poor decision-making is in fact a somehow coordinated, deliberate and dishonest campaign of cheating to favour one team over another.

You claiming some sort of legal qualifications are you?

Have to disagree with this red herring argument.

It doesn't need to be deliberate cheating. The AFL are well aware that, for what ever reason, the stronger clubs including the Adelaide and Perth teams, get a much better deal with the umpires at the expense of the weaker clubs.

This umpiring bias has been a systemic issue for at least 20 years and the AFL have chosen to ignore it. This is called wilful blindness and recklessness, and not doing anything about it when they know it's an issue is just as bad as deliberate cheating.

”When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
Frederic Bastiat, The Law

well put.

Thanks.

Old Roly-poly must have missed his stats lectures on asymmetry and multivariate analysis.

Technically, the AFL isn't breaking any law, obviously. I was referring to the well established and accepted legal principle used in our common law system of “wilful blindness” or a “deliberate shutting of one’s eyes to what is going on’’.

So, must have skipped those lessons on ethics and morality too.

Reminds me of the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon we have.

Calvin: Is it right to remain ignorant?

Hobbes: I don't know. But I refuse to find out!

Pav, I know exactly what you were referring to, which is why I know exactly how flawed any claim of equivalence (in your words “just as bad as”) between recklessness and deliberate cheating is - whether on a strictly forensic or ethical basis.

I hope, when the factual basis for your statement that “the stronger clubs including the Adelaide and Perth teams, get a much better deal with the umpires at the expense of the weaker clubs” arrives that it is a hell of a lot more convincing than your attempt to demonstrate an understanding of the law. I have pointed you in the direction of the available statistics - impress us with some original work.

[CURLY]

Collingwood last two games trailing for the majority of the game

43-20 there way.

What a joke.

[The_Dud]

Round 3, 2020

Collingwood 81 defeat St Kilda 37

Free kicks Coll 17 - Stk 19

[CURLY]

Round 3, 2020

Collingwood 81 defeat St Kilda 37

Free kicks Coll 17 - Stk 19

But 5 goals from frees to zero.

Elani and Ray have shown a bias for Collingwood. Ray has umpired three games for 61 - 27 Collingwoods way.

[Yorkeys]

If players are getting unpleasant messages from punters what must umps be getting, unless umps isolate from social media (?). Putting the discipline of law aside for a moment, I wonder what behavioural science says about the impact of threats and club criticisms post match have on individual umps. I'd start from the completely unscientific hypothesis that it hardens any conscious or unconscious bias whereas real time loud frequent booing and affirming causes umps to favour the loudest in the moment. Umps must also like the nods and winks they get from Dangerfield, Selwood, Fyfe, Nic N et al because it makes them feel pally with the stars. Ratts is a wake up and is diplomatic in regard to umpires, if not the rules. I imagine if, say, Steeley, came up with a ripper comment to an ump after a shocking decision against us he would find frees hard to come by for a while. As we are told, they are only human.

[saynta]

Round 3, 2020

Collingwood 81 defeat St Kilda 37

Free kicks Coll 17 - Stk 19

But 5 goals from frees to zero.

Elani and Ray have shown a bias for Collingwood. Ray has umpired three games for 61 - 27 Collingwoods way.

The inept and the biased. Thank you for exposing the maggots and in turn the AFL for their corruptness. Keep up the good works and don't let the bed bugs bite.

Know he doesn't worry you.

[CURLY]

Round 3, 2020

Collingwood 81 defeat St Kilda 37

Free kicks Coll 17 - Stk 19

But 5 goals from frees to zero.

Elani and Ray have shown a bias for Collingwood. Ray has umpired three games for 61 - 27 Collingwoods way.

The inept and the biased. Thank you for exposing the maggots and in turn the AFL for their corruptness. Keep up the good works and don't let the bed bugs bite.

Know he doesn't worry you.

We play Adelaide in Adelaide lead from start to finish so all the usual in first for the ball and better team s*** applies apparently Adel 29 StKilda 19

Collingwood play Adelaide down at half time Collingwood 11 Adelaide 4

Biased and utter corruption.

[shanegrambeau]

Sorry, here I am again with a naive question but I simply have not watched enough footy.

Please tell me clearly and simply, what are the three most contentious and hard to officiate rules that are causing so much concern?

1) Holding the ball? Insufficient Prior opportunity vs Sufficient prior opportunity. (Guess this is one)
2) ???
3) ??

[saynta]

Round 3, 2020

Collingwood 81 defeat St Kilda 37

Free kicks Coll 17 - Stk 19

But 5 goals from frees to zero.

Elani and Ray have shown a bias for Collingwood. Ray has umpired three games for 61 - 27 Collingwoods way.

The inept and the biased. Thank you for exposing the maggots and in turn the AFL for their corruptness. Keep up the good works and don't let the bed bugs bite.

Know he doesn't worry you.

We play Adelaide in Adelaide lead from start to finish so all the usual in first for the ball and better team s*** applies apparently Adel 29 StKilda 19

Collingwood play Adelaide down at half time Collingwood 11 Adelaide 4

Biased and utter corruption.

The basic facts would appear to confirm yours and my long held belief.

[The_Dud]

Round 3, 2020

Collingwood 81 defeat St Kilda 37

Free kicks Coll 17 - Stk 19

But 5 goals from frees to zero.

Elani and Ray have shown a bias for Collingwood. Ray has umpired three games for 61 - 27 Collingwoods way.

I'd love to know where you're getting those numbers from, have you got a link to that data?