I only watched bits and pieces of the game, but the lopsided free kick count is significant. It is not so much whether all the frees granted to Footscray were there, it is more a question of whether similar incidents were not paid as a free to Sydney. Didn't watch close enough to really look but that is where there is likely a difference.
DS
I see a lot of us assuming umpire bias in here, but we should focus on what the Bulldogs are doing.
What's going on here? What's true? I think the Bulldogs, and other teams, train to win free kicks.
They are very technical and know what they are doing.
In contrast, we don't think about that as much because Richmond plays with honour and doesn't worry about manipulating technical rules to win.
If we don't like this situation, there is only one practical way to change the landscape anytime soon:
Draw attention to it.
The answer already exists as a rule. If you contribute to your own high contact, then it's play on. That is a rule, correct? It was introduced specifically to curb the Joel Selwood shrug. So why is the Joel Selwood shrug still prevalent?
That's what we should be drawing attention to.
In theory, any player that tries to manipulate the rules for their own advantage should not be rewarded with a free kick.
It shouldn't matter how the player does it.
This is in the category of the old intentional out of bounds rule - the umpire needs to read the intent of the player.
Every single time a Bulldogs player carefully twists into a tackle with the technique to draw a free kick, it rightfully should not be a free kick.
If it happens too fast, then they need to be trained at spotting these techniques better or alternative deterrents would need to be introduced.
End of the way, it's a player-generated problem, so the solution will come from a focus on what the players are doing to create the problem.
