#AFL Round 16 Bombers v Swans Sat 6-Jul at MCG #AFLDonsSwans @sydneyswans

[mcs]

I didn't see this game, so can't comment on the umpiring. But I tend to agree that winning is more about playing better than the other team, and less about bad umpiring.

I think the most unfortunate thing is the focus on the free kick count. I can understand it, and I think people seize on it because it's the only data regarding free kicks that we have. We are not told when in the game they are awarded, for example, or how many led directly to a goal.

There is in fact very little evidence that larger free kick differentials lead to larger scoring margins. Even if there is an effect, other factors are just far more important. I'll make a graph one day but I doubt it will convince anyone who believes otherwise

Well put Neil - as you often do.

I'm happy to have a whine about the umpiring like anyone else - because I do think we get a short straw and have done for an extended bit.

But its nigh on impossible to analyse properly because there are so many factors for which data is not available. Only the free kick count as you suggest.

A critical one for instance is what one might coin 'free kicks not paid'. Being obvious infractions not paid, or obvious incidents that should lead to free kicks being paid (the obvious one being good tackles where players have had prior opportunity etc). Another one being throws and the like.

Its analysis that could only ever be done by a team of people with a lot of time on their hands to say the least.... but it would be fascinating.

The macro level count only tells a tiny bit of the story. Can't read much into that beyond really its more likely that some teams end up well up on the free kick then others, in certain circumstances. Doesn't tell you why however

[The Big Cat]

But how exciting having the ball coming back onto the field of play. And if the ball hits the post on the fly and bounces back into play, the rule should be that it can still be marked as long as it hasn't hit the ground. Every one of those posters would be a highlight.

No no no! Let play go on if it bounces back, but it also must score something! A player misses a goal by a bee's diaphragm and you get nothing, when missing by two metres gets you a point. Think about a shot after the siren where a goal wins you the game or a point gets a draw, and you hit the post and you get nothing!!! FCOTW.

[dejavoodoo44]

If it hits the post ............ 3½ points. Split the difference.

In the game now, hitting the post is a disappointment. But how exciting having the ball coming back onto the field of play. And if the ball hits the post on the fly and bounces back into play, the rule should be that it can still be marked as long as it hasn't hit the ground. Every one of those posters would be a highlight.

I suppose that it could be exciting? But remember that the AFL's concussion policy is one of harm minimization, not one of, 'aww go on, let's see you headbutt the immovable object'.

[Jimitron5000]

I went to the game on Saturday and for the most part didn't notice the umpires that much, until the free kick to McDonald-Tipinwuti. One of the softest free kicks I have seen, and from there Essendon got a number of frees that contributed to their victory. Even the Essendon fans behind me though they were playing with 25 in the last quarter.
That said, I liked our effort but were let down by poor execution. The final kick into the forward 50 was often dreadful and didn't give our forwards a chance.
Rowbottom looked good and Aliir played a terrific game.

[barry]

We conceed the game by not playing a ruckman. This meant we had to steel from the backline (Allir) or steel from the forward line (Reid) or unsettle both (move McCartin around).
Another poor performance by the selection committee.

[Bloods05]

We conceed the game by not playing a ruckman. This meant we had to steel from the backline (Allir) or steel from the forward line (Reid) or unsettle both (move McCartin around).
Another poor performance by the selection committee.

Who would you have played, Barry? Knoll? Did you see his NEAFL performance? He's not ready.

[Blood Fever]

We conceed the game by not playing a ruckman. This meant we had to steel from the backline (Allir) or steel from the forward line (Reid) or unsettle both (move McCartin around).
Another poor performance by the selection committee.

Sinclair being out was a problem although Allir was among the best on ground. We only conceded 76 points and missed a number of chances. Trust selection committee to decide Knoll, Amartey etc not up to it yet. Big, big step up from NEAFL.

[Markwebbos]

We conceed the game by not playing a ruckman. This meant we had to steel from the backline (Allir) or steel from the forward line (Reid) or unsettle both (move McCartin around).
Another poor performance by the selection committee.

I don’t think it was a poor selection from the MC. I think it shows our lack of depth in tall players right now. I hope that Cameron is fit to play this week and gets a run of games.

Are there other tall players who should be given a game other than Thurlow who was also injured?

[Ralph Dawg]

We conceed the game by not playing a ruckman. This meant we had to steel from the backline (Allir) or steel from the forward line (Reid) or unsettle both (move McCartin around).
Another poor performance by the selection committee.

I agree with this analysis to a point. Clearly no talls in NEAFL are considered AFL ready. Zac Clarke's really ordinary performance until the last 10 minutes of the match is a case in point as to what happens when you pick someone who's not up to standard. However, I still would've been confident Amartey couldve at least matched it with Clarke and neutralize the ruck contest. Whether it would've made the difference, who knows? Aliir was certainly giving us alot of drive out of the centre which Amartey would not have. But then we would've maintained our forward and defensive structure. Lots of what ifs!

[barry]

Agree Ralph. Amartey or Knoll could have been at least as good as Clarke.

[stevoswan]

I didn't see this game, so can't comment on the umpiring. But I tend to agree that winning is more about playing better than the other team, and less about bad umpiring.

I think the most unfortunate thing is the focus on the free kick count. I can understand it, and I think people seize on it because it's the only data regarding free kicks that we have. We are not told when in the game they are awarded, for example, or how many led directly to a goal.

There is in fact very little evidence that larger free kick differentials lead to larger scoring margins. Even if there is an effect, other factors are just far more important. I'll make a graph one day but I doubt it will convince anyone who believes otherwise

You're graph will mean nothing to those who actually saw the game and say that Essendon probably got about four goals from free kicks they didn't deserve and that we missed out on goals from frees not paid. In a game decided by ten points, we probably would have won if the game was umpired fairly. Graph schmaph.....

[AnnieH]

Well that was pretty crap, wasn't it.
Onwards and upwards.

[stevoswan]

Well that was pretty crap, wasn't it.
Onwards and upwards.

The game was two days ago. Where have you been?

[AnnieH]

The game was two days ago. Where have you been?

Out.
I tend not to play on RWO on the weekends... it means I have to pull my computer out and start it and stuff. Easier to play at work!!
It doesn't work on my phone.

[stevoswan]

Out.
I tend not to play on RWO on the weekends... it means I have to pull my computer out and start it and stuff. Easier to play at work!!
It doesn't work on my phone.

Fair comment....