-
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.
West Coast has won 524 more free kicks than its opposition.......
- Thread starter nitrotiger
- Start date
Coburgtiger said:
I think you are probably right, I just hope they are sly to what is happening and are working on a way to negate it. If they know to look for the signal with the arm, I spotted it pretty easily and was able to identify it quickly when I knew what I was looking for, they just have to make sure they drop their own arm underneath and pin the ball.
Yeah, you're right, it won't be an easy technique to adapt to. But I have no doubt that players are capable of it. They've adapted to many different changes in the game, most of which have come about by changing the rules (Hands in the back, chopping the arms etc.)
I just hope they don't bring in a new rule that's hard for umpires to monitor consistently. Let the game evolve with the rules in place. With this, and the sliding tackle at the moment, lets hope it never gets to a point where players can't play the ball if they're on the ground.
I just hope they don't bring in a new rule that's hard for umpires to monitor consistently. Let the game evolve with the rules in place. With this, and the sliding tackle at the moment, lets hope it never gets to a point where players can't play the ball if they're on the ground.
Yup, one of my bug-bears for the last few years has been "in the back" paid when a player is already prostrate. If a player is lying on the ground it isn't possible to get lower so when a player comes in and makes contact anywhere near the back the pay a free kick. I think this is part of the reason for the slide tackle, players trying to find a way to get into a contest with a player who is low down, by getting lower down.Coburgtiger said:
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Thought maybe a digit slipped in there somewhere.michael roach said:
michael roach said:
That's an umpire bias issue then.
524 more .Unbelievable stat.
They are human umpires.They have emotions like the rest of us.
Anyone watched the judging in the Olympics or judging in the Eurovision song contest or the World Cup?
They might not know they are doing it when they do.
It's like when you show a kid 2 coloured balls and the kid grabs the one he likes the colour of better than the other.
The thing I find strange is ,the West Coast supporters go hard on the umpires and get rewarded.
Richmond supporters go hard on the umpires and they get their back up.
There is bias in umpiring.Derek can argue till the cows come home and Giesch.
They are biassed in the 2 biggest sporting events in the World.
Why wouldn't they anywhere else?
I'm right on this one.
i've seen too many Richmond players lay perfect tackles and no free while the other team gets a holding the ball for a nothing tackle to think otherwise.
That Nahas 50 against West Coast was laughable and actually cost us the game.
KnightersRevenge said:
yep..i remember ashley duck hams getting the ball on the boundry line..turned ,ducked downand headed straight into rance....of course ducky hams gotta free..and goaled....in my opinion..be a bloody man and respect the game and win it like a real footballer not some new age duck......get rid of this damn garbage asap
I don't think it's a bias specifically against richmond, but there is an element of the human psyche that plays in any umpiring decision. I think you'll find, across the board, that teams that are regarded as 'bad' will get more free's against them than teams that are regarded as 'good' simply because in a fifty fifty decision, an umpire will say. 'There's no way Jimmy Bartel would have dropped that mark.' Or 'Collingwood couldn't possibly have been under so much pressure they were caught holding the ball.' They're going to get the decision right nine times out of ten, but it's the tenth one that swings the way of their own subconscious bias. And of the general impressions of the football world. You'll notice that a player who starts to be known as a rough player tends to get more soft frees against him. (little Jakey for example)
It's pretty silly to suggest everyone's out to get Richmond, but, as we have been a bottom side for twenty odd years, it's ingrained in the mentality of the general population that we are a bad side, and umpires can't pull themselves out of this, they're not robots. You'll see the same frees that drive us nuts every week also go against brisbane, GWS, Melbourne...
Once we're good enough to beat both the oppostion, and our own reputation, the fifty fifty decisions will fall our way. It's already starting to happen a little bit.
It's pretty silly to suggest everyone's out to get Richmond, but, as we have been a bottom side for twenty odd years, it's ingrained in the mentality of the general population that we are a bad side, and umpires can't pull themselves out of this, they're not robots. You'll see the same frees that drive us nuts every week also go against brisbane, GWS, Melbourne...
Once we're good enough to beat both the oppostion, and our own reputation, the fifty fifty decisions will fall our way. It's already starting to happen a little bit.
Blokes who duck their head or "shirk" a tackle to have it slip around their neck intentionally should be made accountable. Whether by MRP or umpires it has to be done because they are inviting rough conduct for the sake of a free kick.
Coburgtiger said:
Agreed, this is the interesting point because if the tackler comes in under the ball carriers arm it is very easy to pin the ball and carrying arm and almost impossible to get the leading arm back to effect disposal.
Coburgtiger said:
Agree again, we just have to suck it up at the moment.
Although I think the commentators (who generally follow the trends) have a big effect on umpires. Notable that MacAvaney actually made a comment about umpires not giving us a fair go. As you say - it's changing.
To be honest I think it's just about universally accepted that visiting sides are not going to get the rub of the green with the umpires at Subiaco..
Look at us when we came here last season, the umpiring was diabolical and the free kick count stood out like dogs balls with how lopsided it was..
The WA crowd is very intimidating because it's always a sell out and they boo every single decision that goes against the eagles.. Im not saying that other supporters dont do this but it is very noticeable at Subi.. I just about have to watch Eagles games at Subi on mute because I cant stand the crowd..
Anything remotely close to 50/50 will go to the WCE..
Look at us when we came here last season, the umpiring was diabolical and the free kick count stood out like dogs balls with how lopsided it was..
The WA crowd is very intimidating because it's always a sell out and they boo every single decision that goes against the eagles.. Im not saying that other supporters dont do this but it is very noticeable at Subi.. I just about have to watch Eagles games at Subi on mute because I cant stand the crowd..
Anything remotely close to 50/50 will go to the WCE..
L2R2R, Smasha and Arlobill, the hard done by crap is getting a bit too much, get first to the ball and the tide will turn! Did anyone notice most of North Melbourne's first half goals came from relatively soft or for a better word uncontested play, where as West Coast tend to kick goals from contested play which when a team is in a attacking play, they will try and win the ball at all costs and therefore lead their opposition to the ball and in a contested situation force the opposition to tackle, whether the tackle is correct or an infringement, the odds are with the ball carrier that he will in fact end up with the ball! When you look at the West Coast domination over four teams and quite possibly a fifth, that being Hawthorn in their 6 wins this year, it's no wonder they have a higher free kick count, it doesn't always work this way but it does more often than not!Jason King said:
Talon said:
Tend to agree with you Eagle Claw. Not many rules in aussie rules refer to the "intention" of an act. No where does it say that a deliberate push in the back is more harshly punished or, indeed, that a accidental arm chop shouldn't be penalised.
Whether players are dropping to their knees deliberately or not, it is against the rules to intentionally, recklessly or accidentally make any sort of tackling contact above the shoulder.
There are four ways to solve this issue
1. change the rules to treat this sort of action in the same vain as ducking the head (hard to police but possible)
2. change the rules to make it illegal to take possession or dispose of the football whilst not on your feet. This takes away the advantage of "going to ground" whilst in possession of the footy
3. train players to not tackle players that drop their knees, but rather wait until they have gone to ground where their ability to have an effective disposal is reduced
4. train players to tackle better
I prefer option 4. Too many players tackle lazily, which leads to missed tackles, as well as these free kicks.
Richmond was notorious for missing tackles until 12 months ago - we have improved here fortunately.
This is a media beat up that will be forgotten by round 16 - someone can quote me on that!!
As for WCE getting 524 more free kicks in Perth (the actual topic of the thread) - it's called home ground advantage. One of the anomalies of our game is half the sides are in one city. Therefore interstate sides enjoy much better home support as a percentage and much less support away. A side like Richmond plays a great majority of home games where the crowd is maybe split 60-40 our way, not much more home support and hard to influence the umps a lot more than the Pies/Bombers/Dogs supporters at the ground. However, WCE play 10 of 11 home games in front of a crowd split 95-5 in their favour. Course the influence is going to be greater. Even when they play Dockers at home they enjoy a 75-25 split as Subi is not as big as the MCG.
I think you'll find their away free kick counts against Melbourne sides is a lot more against them than Richmond's away free kick counts against other Melbourne sides. One of the benefits of supporting a Melbourne based club is that three quarters of the games we play in are derbies. I wouldn't swap that to get a good run from umps every second game - NEXT TOPIC!!
I much prefer option 1 to option 4, PBoRSM. In fact, I think if option 4 was realistic, then this whole thing wouldn't be an issue.
As for those saying this is a media beat up, that's garbage. People have been noticing this for a while now. Just most because footy journos copy each other's ideas and it has taken one of the original ones this long to notice, doesn't make it a beat up.
Fair play to the Eagles for trying to milk free kicks. Ability to milk free kicks has become a big part of the game these days unfortunately. Hawks were good at it in 2009/10. Cats have been good at it for years. It is not good for footy, and it forces the AFL to keep changing the rules to keep up, but you do what you can to win.
IMO the AFL either needs to penalise people who they suspect are guilty of it or relax the ruling on legit bumps.
As for those saying this is a media beat up, that's garbage. People have been noticing this for a while now. Just most because footy journos copy each other's ideas and it has taken one of the original ones this long to notice, doesn't make it a beat up.
Fair play to the Eagles for trying to milk free kicks. Ability to milk free kicks has become a big part of the game these days unfortunately. Hawks were good at it in 2009/10. Cats have been good at it for years. It is not good for footy, and it forces the AFL to keep changing the rules to keep up, but you do what you can to win.
IMO the AFL either needs to penalise people who they suspect are guilty of it or relax the ruling on legit bumps.
<
Open Mike
|
The Brownlow Game
>
