Match Day Rnd. 2. Western Bulldogs V Sydney Swans. 7.50 pm Etihad Stadium.

[crackedactor]

I will second that motion. very unevenly applied. Well with all this talk about the umpiring standards, we may get a fair game on Friday night!! However I am not counting on it! Just a sideline... Paul Roos was saying the three Collingwood midfielders had plenty of possessions last week but only laid 4 tackles between them whereas a kid playing his first game called Hayward laid 6 tackles! I think he is giving Hayward his seal of approval.

[Blue Sun]

Beveridge dismisses the claim of umpire favouritism

He is living in la la land it seems. I'm sure his tune would be different had his team been on the other end of the lopsided free kick count.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Thanks for that link Meg. I tried the SMH link and they reckon I've used up my quota, so in case anyone else is in the same position, here's The Age link:

AFL admits Western Bulldogs free in front of goal was wrong

And yes, well done by John, he's handled the situation in a very civilised way.

That's well and good but what about the other 30 free kicks?

[S.S. Bleeder]

John has done well to bring attention to the one-sided, biased umpiring without attracting a fine. Professional and all class.

I personally wish that he would come out and attack the umpires. God knows they have it coming. I remember Hird doing the same against the umpires back in the 90's earning a big fine. We played them the following week at the MSG and were absolutely reamed by them. Sam Newman came out and heavily criticised the umpires that day saying that it cost us the match.

Maybe if Longmire did rattle their cage it would wake them up?

[Dosser]

Earlier in the game, Adams from WB found himself in exactly the same position as Mills did but chose to sidestep and run it out of the goalsquare, which is the intent of the rule. I was furious at the Mills decision at the time, but I am now thinking that it was a fair call - regardless of how much it hurt us.

[dimelb]

I personally wish that he would come out and attack the umpires. God knows they have it coming. I remember Hird doing the same against the umpires back in the 90's earning a big fine. We played them the following week at the MSG and were absolutely reamed by them. Sam Newman came out and heavily criticised the umpires that day saying that it cost us the match.

Maybe if Longmire did rattle their cage it would wake them up?

Won't happen, SSB 1) it would only deepen any hostility towards the Swans from the AFL and 2) it would cost at least $20,000, which I think is what Hird copped, if not more for inflation!

It is better tactics and in the end more productive to tackle it the way he has by approaching the man overseeing the umpires. And I've never been an umpire but it looks to me like a pretty tough gig, so encouraging the AFL to resource them better is more likely to get results for the clubs.

And I share Dosser's view from the previous post.

[chalbilto]

Just throwing a curve ball here but could it be that the umpires are harsher on the Swans as a retaliation to Longmire's comments regarding having professional umpires?

[Meg]

Just throwing a curve ball here but could it be that the umpires are harsher on the Swans as a retaliation to Longmire's comments regarding having professional umpires?

No.

[Mel_C]

How many times have we heard this from the umpires boss that the free kick that cost us a goal was incorrectly paid?? It is so frustrating!

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

[Sandrevan]

After the game on Friday night I was really upset. During the week I wasn't really expecting the Swans to win because of our injury list and debutant players. Some of the umpiring calls were terrible - particularly those against AA. The Zach Jones HTB was just wrong - he had no prior opportunity. Even with the cheating umpires we managed to wrestle back the lead. I was jumping around my lounge room when Buddy kicked those 2 goals.
I know that the WBs play footy that resembles volley ball at times but the Swans made so many basic mistakes that resulted in turnovers. Hannebery had the fumbles in the first half. Reg kicked out of defence straight to a Bulldogs player. Who was watching Stringer at the centre bounce in the 4th quarter? Too many swans seemed to drift in and out of the game.
The commentators used to say about Hawthorn (2013-15) 'If you make a mistake, the Hawks will punish you for it'. The Bulldogs are just taking the Hawthorn tactics and taking it to the next level. As another poster wrote it looks like the umpires have divorced Hawthorn and are now shacked up with the Bulldogs - this looks to be true as well.
On another matter I really like our new players; particularly Florent and Newman. Newman looked right at home I thought.

[Meg]

Hi Sandrevan, I made this comment much earlier in this thread - but the umpire did not penalise Zak Jones for HTB with prior opportunity. The umpire's words (to a protesting Zak) were that 'you made no genuine attempt to dispose of the ball'. In other words the umpire agreed Jones had no prior opportunity but once tackled Jones had to attempt to legally dispose.

I haven't looked at a replay and I haven't read any comments for or against. I do have an image in my head of Zak clinging on to the ball while wrestling with BD players. Usually a player makes some sort of pretend punching action to get the umpire to call a ball up. And I don't recall Zak doing that. (He might not have been able to get one arm free to do so.)

[Bexl]

Western Bulldogs dismiss umpiring favouritism talk

I'm still very pissed off about having a flag stolen from us by corrupt people. they owe us one. not to mention the hunderds of $ myself and others would have got with a Swannies win which we would have got with un biased umpires!

[Doctor]

Earlier in the game, Adams from WB found himself in exactly the same position as Mills did but chose to sidestep and run it out of the goalsquare, which is the intent of the rule. I was furious at the Mills decision at the time, but I am now thinking that it was a fair call - regardless of how much it hurt us.

I agree. I was far more concerned about the ridiculous Aliir free kick to Boyd and the inconsistent interpretation of HTB than that one.

[Meg]

Three things make me think the Dogs had been very well coached on the tightened conditions around rushed behinds. (And that sadly the Swans had not.)

1. Hayden Kennedy on Whistleblowers said that when they did a tour of the clubs explaining the new interpretations, they showed a video which included one instance almost identical to the Mills scenario (probably the video I posted earlier).

And this led to a question (perhaps by the Dogs??) along the lines, 'does that mean if we don't chase hard it will be adjudicated as not immediate physical pressure?' Kennedy said their answer then, and how it was applied to Mills, is that the umpires will judge 'immediate physical pressure' on factual pressure not perceived pressure. (So the fact that Mills thought he was under pressure was not sufficient.)

2. Picken was quick-thinking enough to slow down so he was not applying 'immediate physical pressure' on Mills. Clearly he had thought about (been coached for?) this situation.

3. When Adams was in a similar position to Mills he worked it out of the goal square - he was sufficiently aware not to risk rushing through a behind.

[liz]

Three things make me think the Dogs had been very well coached on the tightened conditions around rushed behinds. (And that sadly the Swans had not.)

1. Hayden Kennedy on Whistleblowers said that when they did a tour of the clubs explaining the new interpretations, they showed a video which included one instance almost identical to the Mills scenario (probably the video I posted earlier).

And this led to a question (perhaps by the Dogs??) along the lines, 'does that mean if we don't chase hard it will be adjudicated as not immediate physical pressure?' Kennedy said their answer then, and how it was applied to Mills, is that the umpires will judge 'immediate physical pressure' on factual pressure not perceived pressure. (So the fact that Mills thought he was under pressure was not sufficient.)

2. Picken was quick-thinking enough to slow down so he was not applying 'immediate physical pressure' on Mills. Clearly he had thought about (been coached for?) this situation.

3. When Adams was in a similar position to Mills he worked it out of the goal square - he was sufficiently aware not to risk rushing through a behind.

The longer this discussion goes on, the more misgivings I have about this new interpretation, irrespective of whether the free against Mills was the intention of the new interpretation.

When Mills was closing on the ball, Picken was close by. In the second or so that it took Mills to reach the ball (ahead of Picken), he had no time to turn around, make an assessment of where Picken was, and whether he was sufficiently close to apply actual physical pressure as soon as Mills took possession. Bear in mind how HTB is now being adjudicated. Had Mills taken possession and been immediately tackled by a Picken who had chosen to pursue him with more vigour (and Picken most certainly has the pace that would have enabled him to do so), what are the chances that he'd have been pinged anyway.

The combination of these new interpretations acts against the player who makes the ball his primary objective, and who gets to the ball first. That, to me, goes against the spirit of the game I love to watch.