-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Footy media , love’m or hate’ m ?
- Thread starter Mr Brightside
- Start date
We the paying public are gonna get screwed over by whomever wins the bid and so that being the case my preference is to pay Nine/Stan/Age..... and not give one more cent to especially the Murdochs and NewsCorp!
Other upside. .... no more Robinson and possibly Whatley
Downside.... probably more Cornes, Barrett and Wilson
Other upside. .... no more Robinson and possibly Whatley
Downside.... probably more Cornes, Barrett and Wilson
Perhaps it's not so much what you say above for many of us on PRE as this - again - for about the 5th consecutive year (although cannot confirm that just now because that link may have been taken down from SEN site (!?) but have sent it to you before.
Cogent quote:
Richmond remains rooted to the bottom of the ladder with a negative disparity of -69. The Tigers have received the third least frees for (367) while giving away the most (436).
They are -27 clear of second bottom St Kilda on -42
I, like many Tiger fans, am just heartily sick of just not getting a fair go year after year, to be umpired the same as all other teams. However, these seasonal tables usually show numerous questionable inequities every year. Why these consistent patterns e.g. Dogs 1st. Tigers last so often etc? Why do Pies do so much better that Tigers although Fly has virtually transferred RFC high pressure, constant rebound and run with speedy attacks from turnover, compared to the club that innovated this style, now replicated to varying extents by many other sides, even Geesook?
I can handle losing fine, getting beaten by a better side. As I, and many others on PRE proved, by sustaining our loyal support of this team over 37 years of losing.
BTW, still waiting for the definitive proof we lost to the Brions. Apparently decided by the broached AFL policy on a highly unconvincing ARC 'decision' and dismissal of Umpire's Call. That really crystallizes what many on here find intolerable about where AFL has gone under Gil and his motley crew.
Also, we are regenerating, as Dimma and club are saying, not a rebuild. On the basis of '22, signs of excellent progress as distinct from failure or losing. We proved still capable of contending ... that's clear.
As yet unbeaten in finals ... except by the Umpiring dept. How odd!
He’s never ever liked the review system. He’s campaigned against it since it was introduced. He does toe their line and push their agenda in nearly every other issue, though.
But Ch.9 have still been showing games on FTA haven't they because I've watched briefly at times. So some sort of split deal, like AFL this year?
Leon, I understand you will reject all of this out of hand but I'm going to say it anyway.
Firstly, the free kick count and differential tells you nothing at all about the quality of umpiring. The only way to do that is to look at each game and see how many were right, how many were wrong and how many were missed.
Secondly, if you think the free kick count impacts the result of the game (and I don't and neither I suspect does Richmond) then it pays to analyse why it happens. Richmond are -69 for the season, Nankervis and Bolton are -55!
Bolton's are a different story, he gets caught trying to do too much but the risk and reward balance is pretty strong. Dustin managed to get himself to his usual -10 in minimal games for much the same reason.
Nankervis though is just a free kick mess. Yep he cops some weird ones in the ruck as all ruckman do but he also gives away cheap stupid ones for fun. Watch the first free kick of the game on Thursday 30 seconds in. He launches a completely unnecessary and pointless high tackle that achieves nothing more than adding one to the frees against tally. Classic Nank.
Throw in another couple of well-known cheap free kick merchants in Riewoldt and Pickett and you have another -15. So 5 blokes pull their heads in and the free kick differential is +11 and everyone is saying what a good job the umpires are doing, which is of course just as stupid as thinking the negative count says they are doing a bad job.
Lastly, why does it keep happening year after year? Because if you think the free kick counts matter, I'm pretty sure you are not on the same page as the club. They don't care about giving them away. We are happy for Nankervis and Pickett to make blokes nervous, we are happy for Bolton and Martin to take the game on, and we accept Riewoldt's enthusiasm sometimes comes with drawbacks. In my humble opinion, many posters on here would enjoy footy much more next year if they adopt the same attitude.
Not real sure I could accept that way of looking at a game during the heat of battle. But it's certainly a different perspective worth trying.
This can be true and it can also be true some
Umpires are unconsciously biased against Richmond or even just particular Richmond players.
It’s the free kicks for that does my head in. I feel this is where we lose out the most.
As I’ve posted separately we need a separate transparent organisation to evaluate the decisions with the sole objective of improving the umpires. Funded by the afl but effectively independent. The risk of gambling corruption is also omnipresent.
Pretty good summary. Nank is moronic with those late hits. That first one was so bad and pointless.
And agree you have to review each game in isolation not just rely on the raw numbers. Although it has been shown before that in finals we do better on a raw numbers basis.
So the 2 on the contract to go plus another 7 years of *smile* Mark Robinson. .... I'll be dribbling in a nursing home by then.... at least I'll have something in common with him I suppose 
I appreciate the detailed and rational response. I am generally a very rational person as well, but admit that I can lean to the emotional side when it comes to my football team. But, I think a long time ago, I started to feel that we did not seem to be getting paid frees for the virtually same incidents as our opponents. Over years this grew into a more aggrieved attitude, because it continued to become seemingly a fact of life for RFC, and was statistically verifiable too. I think it may have been accentuated since our successful rise to a 3-time flag team.
That's what still really irritates me, and I think many other RFC fans now - evident in hundreds of posts such as on the Umpire Farce thread of 690 pgs currently. I know the rules very well although not pedantically, after following the sport for my whole life, but I still frequently see our players get instantly or harshly penalised for decisions like HTB or supposed arm chops, whereas when our guys are on the receiving end of almost exactly the same actions, it is either ignored or no infringement.
The EF - frees were 16/7 at HT, including 4 of ours being OOF as someone posted (thought that seemed correct although not sure how many we gave away OOF, suspect about 2). So that's effectively only 3 in a half to us, in a huge final, with almost 5 times the advantage to the opposition. Amazing discrepancy. Some memorable examples of my continuing objection above: the questionable ones paid to Hipwood against Floss for a very minor arm touch when he appeared to run under the ball flight anyway. Later on, 1st year player Gibcus for a supposed hold - almost negligible and very arguably not limiting contesting the ball. Both resulting in goals. Ross tackled immediately, ball appeared knocked out by the tackle but still pinged. While a few times I believe oppo players were caught after definite prior allowed, ball-up. (If I get time I will go through at least that 1st half and attempt a detailed analysis). This is what frustrates us so much; not so much the ones we get pinged for, but the same incidents which are not paid to our players.
There is no need to tell me, btw, that there ever has to be a relatively even no. of frees, or that each incident must be judged on its merits.
Re Nank, yes his aggression is his calling card; he's a smaller ruckman without particularly great athleticism, so attack on the ball and any opponents in the vicinity is his forte, raison d'etre. And it's frustrating that he gives away many. However, I think he and the club are acutely aware of that now and making some effort to ameliorate it. But he might as well have a target on his back now. He's typecast as a villain so much so he was actually reported for an action an umpire imagined more than actually saw evidence of:
Tough on Toby: Richmond’s please explain to umpires for skipper’s ‘harsh’ treatment
Tigers coach complains umps aren’t treating his captain fairly... and the numbers back him up
www.foxsports.com.au
Bolton and Dusty. Yes, sometimes they get pinged for attempting to evade tackles unsuccessfully and RFC fans understand and largely accept this because the rewards can pay off to our credit. However, IMO, both are treated far more harshly that some players from other sides e.g Pendlebury, who in similar circumstances is allowed more time to dispose and is far more liberally treated, rarely pinged.
I also disagree that Dimma and the club don't care. That may have been true in our glory days 2017 - 2020, but there were clear signs that the club is tired of apparently harsher adjudication that our opponents nearly every game, and is taking steps (even if not strong enough yet) to alter this.
Overall, we seem to be definitely persona non grata as a club. Caro and Hutch referred to this again in discussing the disputed review issue last night on FC. It smacks of an entrenched prejudice by the AFL to me, but it's far from just me as you well know. It seems highly questionable that this negative *smile* differential has continued for so many years now, almost unabated, even though our team has altered a lot. I see our young players such as Balta, Bolton, even the harmless Gibcus, seemingly given very harsh adjudications in their early years at AFL. Because they play for us ... and they're good, showing a heap of promise?
There are literally hundreds of sound and legitimate observations, comments, objections and queries on PRE re these issues. I don't think we are all deluded, paranoid fantasists.
Anyway, I respect your alternative view, just not entirely convinced.
Last edited:
I appreciate your response as well, Leon, very well put and a nice dispassionate post.
A couple of things though, firstly out on the full is not considered a free kick and doesn't count in the stats as one, so the 16-7 is only what is paid by the field umpires.
Without analysing the half it's impossible to say what that number says but we can analyse it to some degree based on what we know statistically about umpiring. Season reviews show that when the umpire put the whistle in their mouth and blows it they are correct about 8/10 decisions as a group average. The best umpires are generally a bit better than that and given it was a final they probably had those but we will take the overall average for the sake of the exercise.
So the odds say that out of those 23 free kicks 18 are correct and 5 incorrect. The miss free kick rate runs at about 15% of free kicks paid so on 23 frees there are probably 3 or so missed.
Those figures are very rubbery and pretty meaningless without watching the game but based on the stats it would require every single error to have gone against us to be even close to breaking even.
So when people talk about the free kick differential and the ones we don't get, the reality is generally there aren't enough wrong decisions when the whistle goes or missed decisions to make that plausible and you can be fairly confident of that without even watching the game.
The other flaw in your position I think, as I have often said to others, is that you talk about only marginal or missed calls against us, but not for the opposition. The reality is there are many instances of the things you describe in a game, adjudications about holds, prior opportunity or not, etc that have to be interpreted and the reality is they happen to both sides throughout the game. For example a Brisbane person would say why is Cumberland allowed to run 30 metres and kick a goal while Rich is pinged for running too far when he had probably gone less distance. When we only draw examples one way it creates a view that only one team is suffering when that is never the case.
By the way I don't consider everyone to be deluded, paranoid fantasists, I just think it is very difficult for most people to look at umpiring rationally through the lens of passion for their team.
Believe it or not I used to be a raging abuser of umpires as well. What changed for me was I got a job where every year the umpires would come and present education sessions about the rules and umpiring. Once I understood things from their point of view it changed the way I view the game. I wish every fan had the same opportunity because people would enjoy football more.
Good discussion though!
Well I’m a proud deluded, paranoid fantasist.
The majority of umpires are ok when they umpire other teams.
But when they do our games I know for a fact they are strongly encouraged to cheat us.
They and their masters are corrupt cheating bastards and can gagf and that includes that prick Noah Dev in the ARC. I have incontrovertible proof he is on the take from Indian bookmakers. He can double gagf
