Tweet
I read somewhere no player has been suspended for anything since July....
-
-
Thats interesting, and i have had the feeling that they are letting a lot more go though.
However, I doubt Toby Greene would have been suspended in H&A. There was no eye-gauging, it was a bit a hair pulling, pushing head in the mud, and rubbing arm across face/head.
None of which warrant a suspension.
They would have to invent a new "Toby Greene" rule, and then a few months later retract it once a high profile victorian was changed with the same thing.
Like Goodes was the pieied piper that led the racists out of the shadows, Toby Green is the pieied piper of the anti-expansionists.Comment
-
At the end of the 1st quarter there was another shocker. The marking contest between Toby Greene and Easton Wood. Princess Toby executes the perfect block with his forearm and Wood threw himself forward and is paid a free. On replay it was so obvious that Wood was staging.Comment
-
I don't like the Bont very much but I don't like any of the Bulldogs players (for obvious reasons). However, what Toby Greene did was very ordinary.
As for the game I was barracking for GWS because I just couldn't stand to see the game gifted to the Bulldogs. It really did look like the only way for GWS to have a chance of winning was to beat up the opposition - and they did exactly that. I doubt very much it was by chance. I think they would have had a definite plan to get physical if the umpires started to turn the game in favour of the Bulldogs. In general, I don't like this approach but how else can a team nullify biased umpiring.Comment
-
#freekickGW$
What a tosser this bloke is.
Had the gall to smirk during the "apology".
Hope they lose their next game. He doesn't deserve a premmie medal.Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.Comment
-
The interesting thing to me was in the R22 game at Giants Stadium between GWS & the Bulldogs, the free kick count was 17-5 in the Bulldogs
favour. Yes, the Dogs gave away 5 free kicks in an entire game of footy according to the umpires. Seems unimaginable how that is even possible.
On Saturday the free kick count was 34-28 in the Dogs favour. So what happened to the Dogs game style in the space of three weeks to
mean they gave away almost six times as many free kicks?. As is well known it was a physical game, but it was GWS doing the roughing
up and applying relentless pressure. So you can see how they might give away some more free kicks than usual. But the Dogs total was also
very high, 28, up from 5 three weeks earlier. Did they start unravelling because of the pressure from GWS? or something seriously wrong
with the umpiring in R22? Five free kicks in an entire game!Comment
-
I don't think the umpires are inherently biased. I think the bulk of them take their job pretty seriously. It's a craft that a person
can get good at with experience, and some are better than others. There will be good umpires, average ones and poor ones.
Just like in any profession. If they are not full time umpires, it will be harder for them to get better at it. Same as any job.
I think they are influenced by the crowd noise. They need to try harder or be better trained to be not influenced by it. I think
the umpires benefit a bit from the AFL being very unwilling to criticise them. Having said that though, we as fans, don't really
know what the internal review process is. But they are employees of the AFL, and it will be the AFL that will decide on the tenure of
their employment, not the fans. But I still believe umpires are a bit of a protected species because presumably the AFL is
worried about the numbers coming up through the ranks and they don't want experienced people leaving the game. That part
is understandable.
There is something about the Dogs playing style and the umpires perceptions of it that has resulted in them benefitting from
some fairly substantial free kick differentials for awhile now. The free kick differential can't be put down to crowd noise like with
West Coast, because the Dogs just don't play in games where the crowd is almost entirely their own fans. Besides, they don't have
a lot of fans anyway. I always wondered why no one has really looked closely at their playing style. I've noticed they drop the
ball when tackled, but don't understand why they aren't pinged for incorrect disposal. Possibly someone needs to look at
the handpassing style that involves both hands moving at the same speed. Not sure how you can punch the ball when both your
hands are moving at the same speed. I'm curious why that isn't deemed a two handed throw. These are just a couple things.
Clearly something is going on that is different to way other teams play.Last edited by KTigers; 10 September 2019, 05:00 PM.Comment
-
What is more likely:
A) the Bulldogs have developed techniques which avoid free kicks and no other team has been able to copy.
B) the umpires have a bias against certain other teams.
If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
Bias festering on the scab of unaccoutability.
In a fair workplace, the umps of the 2016 GF would never umpire a final again.Comment
-
I agree that Bont shouldn't have been playing after injuring the GWS player the other week. If I recall correctly, when the MRO was reviewing the incident he didn't have the medical report from GWS. As soon as the report was made available then the incident should have been reviewed again.
Dawson was suspended which I'm still annoyed about after seeing the recent decisions!Comment
-
Lots of good thoughts there.
I think a lot of players get away with a handball action that's closer to a throw than a punch. So long as there's a moving closed fist, umpires at a distance can't judge the force and just have to assume a handball.
The thing that annoyed me most about the 2016 Dogs was that they were clearly trying to hide throws by doing them backwards between the legs. I assume that this was coached and based on the observation that umpires can't penalise what they can't see. They seem to do it less now, so maybe umpires are on to that tactic.
I agree that umpires are unlikely to be inherently biased and most do their best, even if that isn't always great. I think a lot of the criticism stems from technology and media. On TV we see every play replayed multiple times, from multiple angles, in super slow motion, discussed for days afterwards. An umpire sees it once, in a half second, from a distance and often obscured. They have to call it as they see it and move on.
In fact for that reason I sometimes think we need less technology - maybe even none - rather than more. Just accept that the game is adjudicated by as well as played by humans, and that humans sometimes make mistakes, and that bad umpiring has a tiny effect on the game compared with good playing.Comment
-
Interesting stat for 2019
This season Geelong is the best ground ball forward 50 contested possession team but also the best ever in this stat being recorded
I wonder how this flows onto higher scoring probability?"be tough, only when it gets tough"
Comment
Comment