Special Message to Curly

[meher baba]

I have been reluctant to get involved in the debate about the free kick against Hayes last week.

However, as I saw it, the player was brought to ground with his arms completely pinned, which is always a dangerous tackle (albeit nothing bad happened on this occasion), and certainly should be against the rules. And indeed, I thought that umpires had been directed to stamp this sort of tackle out of the game.

Sure, the commentators thought it was a dud decision. So what: the commentators often get it wrong.

Anyway, I’ve said it now: anyone who wants can have a go at me.

[saynta]

It’s all much easier to understand if, like me, you see the umpires as fundamentally unbiased, but inadequately trained and with a very poor culture.

[The_Dud]

Or by the umpires being more accountable - educates the masses and at the same time lets the umpires understand our frustrations

Telling people "that since the stat has been recorded St Kilda is one of the most 'favoured' teams by the umpires" is irrelevant - that is like saying there was steak delivered last week - but you still have to have sausages today

Umpires get things wrong - telling people to understand the rules that are technically correct is like issuing a fine for backing out of your driveway - technically it is a fine - but it is not 'seen' as being an infringement

Remove the concept of 'technically' there and pay what is actually there - was the Freo player actually slung/dangerously tackled - no - the elements were there for it to be considered but it did not happen

Does touching someone on the shoulder but not impacting the play affect the outcome (esp if the opposition is the one to move the hand there) - nope - but it gets paid (see Selwood)

Forget the rules - the umpires should umpire to the result - was the player impeded - yes - pay a free - I don't care if you call it holding the man/unfair tackle/potato peeling - that is irrelevant
Impede a player from having a fair attempt at doing an action - free kick against
Incorrectly dispose of the ball whilst being tackled - free kick against
Dangerous Action (and we all know what they are) - free kick against

Everything else - let the game play on

I think you've got rose-coloured glasses on SD! The masses don't want to be educated, they want all the 50/50 free kicks to go their way! And I would imagine the umpires know exactly how 'frustrated' the masses are.

And regarding the education, you're proving my point yourself! It was a 'dangerous tackle', 100%, yet you've said 'no'! He pinned both the arms, then dumped/slammed/slung him to the ground. There's no debate. NOW you can debate the rule, which I agree isn't a good one, but the umpires don't have that option, they play to the rules!

I agree that football is better when the umps 'put the whistle away' and I wished footy was more like that. Though I don't think you Castle-esque "umpire to the vibe" method would be feasable! Adding more grey-area and interpretation is only going to upset supporters more.

Telling people "that since the stat has been recorded St Kilda is one of the most 'favoured' teams by the umpires" is irrelevant - that is like saying there was steak delivered last week - but you still have to have sausages today


The point of that, to stick with your analogy, is to refute the person when they claim "You never ever give me steak!" by showing them the receipt and saying "Look, you actually have steak 4 times a week, which is in fact more than any of your friends". They don't care though, they'd just rather be upset, there's nothing you can do to please them!

[Sainter_Dad]

I have been reluctant to get involved in the debate about the free kick against Hayes last week.

However, as I saw it, the player was brought to ground with his arms completely pinned, which is always a dangerous tackle (albeit nothing bad happened on this occasion), and certainly should be against the rules. And indeed, I thought that umpires had been directed to stamp this sort of tackle out of the game.

Sure, the commentators thought it was a dud decision. So what: the commentators often get it wrong.

Anyway, I’ve said it now: anyone who wants can have a go at me.

Not having a go Meher - and I agree that the action itself had the elements of the dangerous tackle - but how many - exactly the same - are not paid?
I see slings, heads driven into the ground etc every week - no action taken

Protect the head - I ABSOLUTELY agree - but don't pay one and not the other - esp if it is a 2022 directive to stamp it out

How is that tackle any safer than what Acres did to King? It comes back to what one umpire considers is dangerous vs what another does

[Sainter_Dad]

And regarding the education, you're proving my point yourself! It was a 'dangerous tackle', 100%, yet you've said 'no'! He pinned both the arms, then dumped/slammed/slung him to the ground. There's no debate. NOW you can debate the rule, which I agree isn't a good one, but the umpires don't have that option, they play to the rules!

Actually - I totally agree the point that his arms were pinned - I disagree that he was slung or dumped - I don't believe his head ever touched the ground - which would have happened if there was anything dangerous about the tackle

Maybe I miscommunicated - the action - technically - had one element of the 'crime' but not the other - which meant that it was not completed as dangerous. Acres knock to Kings head was far more dangerous and whilst it is in the rules that he can bump - the fact that he hit head high should have drawn a free.

Oh - and I never claimed to be a St Kilda supporter means you are exempt from bias - or that you are in anyway sensible - in fact the supporting of our Rag Tag bunch of players by a Rag Tag bunch of lunatics is by definition the meaning of insanity

[The_Dud]

And regarding the education, you're proving my point yourself! It was a 'dangerous tackle', 100%, yet you've said 'no'! He pinned both the arms, then dumped/slammed/slung him to the ground. There's no debate. NOW you can debate the rule, which I agree isn't a good one, but the umpires don't have that option, they play to the rules!

Actually - I totally agree the point that his arms were pinned - I disagree that he was slung or dumped - I don't believe his head ever touched the ground - which would have happened if there was anything dangerous about the tackle

Maybe I miscommunicated - the action - technically - had one element of the 'crime' but not the other - which meant that it was not completed as dangerous. Acres knock to Kings head was far more dangerous and whilst it is in the rules that he can bump - the fact that he hit head high should have drawn a free.

Oh - and I never claimed to be a St Kilda supporter means you are exempt from bias - or that you are in anyway sensible - in fact the supporting of our Rag Tag bunch of players by a Rag Tag bunch of lunatics is by definition the meaning of insanity

I wouldn't have thought there was much debate that he was dumped to the ground, he certainly wasn't gently lowered! The action is what needs to be punished, not the outcome. They can't go around waiting for medical examination to declare whether a tackle was dangerous or not! Exact same tackle but with only one arm pinned, no problem, carry on.

The Acres / King bump was definitely a free, and clearly a mistake. King did get a free from Acres later on for a much tamer incident. But umps can't go around doing 'square ups' or worried that they might have made an error earlier in the game. They have to try make the correct decision in every instance, even if that team already has 15 more free kicks than their opposition.

Someone on here even said the location on the ground and time on the clock should influence whether something is a free kick or not

The masses will never be happy!

[Sainter_Dad]

And regarding the education, you're proving my point yourself! It was a 'dangerous tackle', 100%, yet you've said 'no'! He pinned both the arms, then dumped/slammed/slung him to the ground. There's no debate. NOW you can debate the rule, which I agree isn't a good one, but the umpires don't have that option, they play to the rules!

Actually - I totally agree the point that his arms were pinned - I disagree that he was slung or dumped - I don't believe his head ever touched the ground - which would have happened if there was anything dangerous about the tackle

Maybe I miscommunicated - the action - technically - had one element of the 'crime' but not the other - which meant that it was not completed as dangerous. Acres knock to Kings head was far more dangerous and whilst it is in the rules that he can bump - the fact that he hit head high should have drawn a free.

Oh - and I never claimed to be a St Kilda supporter means you are exempt from bias - or that you are in anyway sensible - in fact the supporting of our Rag Tag bunch of players by a Rag Tag bunch of lunatics is by definition the meaning of insanity

I wouldn't have thought there was much debate that he was dumped to the ground, he certainly wasn't gently lowered! The action is what needs to be punished, not the outcome. They can't go around waiting for medical examination to declare whether a tackle was dangerous or not! Exact same tackle but with only one arm pinned, no problem, carry on.

The Acres / King bump was definitely a free, and clearly a mistake. King did get a free from Acres later on for a much tamer incident. But umps can't go around doing 'square ups' or worried that they might have made an error earlier in the game. They have to try make the correct decision in every instance, even if that team already has 15 more free kicks than their opposition.

Someone on here even said the location on the ground and time on the clock should influence whether something is a free kick or not

The masses will never be happy!

Agree on the highlighted point

And agree that there should not be square ups - can you point me to where the Umpires Advocate has said that the Acres Bump on King was an error - if so - you have my full apology - if not - this is what I am talking about as full disclosure - as I understand it - at this point the Umpires have said that they are happy with the umpiring. NO ACCOUNTABILITY - no satisfaction from the masses

[Otiman]

This post on Reddit does a good job of assessing every free kick, paid and unpaid. It's a great insight and I recommend watching the plays back and trying to disagree with the outcome.
https://www.reddit.com/gallery/ttgk7x

[Yorkeys]

You can parse different passages of play, can invoke intangibles like what the AFL wants, what might have happened, but it's what happens that matters.Hayes tackle was good. The ump anticipated a sling, but Hayes was too skillful for him. However intentioned it was wrong and cost us %.
I actually think the masses will be quite happy if umps get it right. To suggest otherwise is dismissive of supporters intelligence.

We have been on the end of some shockers. Its quality not quantity.

I thought that the way the team disciplined themselves after that free was terrific. We have been known to go to jelly under other coaches.

[Sainter_Dad]

This post on Reddit does a good job of assessing every free kick, paid and unpaid. It's a great insight and I recommend watching the plays back and trying to disagree with the outcome.
https://www.reddit.com/gallery/ttgk7x

That will make for interesting reading

Is this an official AFL sanctioned reddit - or is it an umpire / ex umpire who is weighing in with his/her opinion?

Also - do they do every game?

[Otiman]

Not sure on their background, here's our game vs Collingwood.

https://www.reddit.com/gallery/tjyhly

[Freebird]

The big question though is how does this fit into the AFL backed umpiring conspiracy against St Kilda???

Easy target. Have no voice in the media to say anything. Collingwood get a raw deal The Herald Sun will run a week worth of stories about it. We get reamed its just dismissed as its only StKilda

That's not giving a reason why the AFL have instigated this conspiracy against us?

Riewoldt, Montagna, Dal Santo, Ross Lyon, Michael Roberts, Mark Fine, plus many more ex-St Kilda people are active in footy media, plus the AFL CEO!!

Also the Dogs are an equally minor team (before 2016 especially) so why do they get targeted for the exact opposite treatment to us in this grand conspiracy??

Well then you explain why Dud - the stats are there.
You just can't dismiss it as nothing to see here because you were an ump and understands how hard a job it is

[Sainter_Dad]

The big question though is how does this fit into the AFL backed umpiring conspiracy against St Kilda???

Easy target. Have no voice in the media to say anything. Collingwood get a raw deal The Herald Sun will run a week worth of stories about it. We get reamed its just dismissed as its only StKilda

That's not giving a reason why the AFL have instigated this conspiracy against us?

Riewoldt, Montagna, Dal Santo, Ross Lyon, Michael Roberts, Mark Fine, plus many more ex-St Kilda people are active in footy media, plus the AFL CEO!!

Also the Dogs are an equally minor team (before 2016 especially) so why do they get targeted for the exact opposite treatment to us in this grand conspiracy??

Well then you explain why Dud - the stats are there.
You just can't dismiss it as nothing to see here because you were an ump and understands how hard a job it is

Hey Freebird

I think The Dud was pointing out that since the stat has been recorded we have been on the winning end of the Free Kick count:

Telling people "that since the stat has been recorded St Kilda is one of the most 'favoured' teams by the umpires" is irrelevant - that is like saying there was steak delivered last week - but you still have to have sausages today


The point of that, to stick with your analogy, is to refute the person when they claim "You never ever give me steak!" by showing them the receipt and saying "Look, you actually have steak 4 times a week, which is in fact more than any of your friends". They don't care though, they'd just rather be upset, there's nothing you can do to please them!

I may be wrong but I think that was the point.

And to give him his dues - from 1965 to 2022* the free kicks are

For	Against
33,946	33,109

So in my life we are up by 837 free kicks

However in the 2,000's (probably more relevant) - we are down 239

Year	For	Against
2022*	42	52
2021	401	433
2020	292	299
2019	398	434
2018	410	464
2017	392	374
2016	370	392
2015	393	457
2014	341	369
2013	355	394
2012	404	396
2011	449	491
2010	450	504
2009	484	421
2008	501	523
2007	461	414
2006	382	397
2005	470	401
2004	372	359
2003	304	349
2002	353	309
2001	334	320
2000	375	420
Total	8733	8972

[Sainter_Dad]

In Fact (And you did open the door Dud)

Year	For	Against	Differential
1965	584	617	-33
1966	670	652	-15
1967	563	545	3
1968	680	701	-18
1969	781	800	-37
1970	935	1000	-102
1971	1066	1015	-51
1972	1088	969	68
1973	952	957	63
1974	828	864	27
1975	842	819	50
1976	878	737	191
1977	889	708	372
1978	846	727	491
1979	954	827	618
1980	842	793	667
1981	804	873	598
1982	789	806	581
1983	925	888	618
1984	807	779	646
1985	771	737	680
1986	704	661	723
1987	644	647	720
1988	706	582	844
1989	690	578	956
1990	596	537	1015
1991	577	517	1075
1992	665	595	1145
1993	542	498	1189
1994	492	501	1180
1995	412	416	1176
1996	416	465	1127
1997	428	438	1117
1998	454	437	1134
1999	393	451	1076
2000	375	420	1031
2001	334	320	1045
2002	353	309	1089
2003	304	349	1044
2004	372	359	1057
2005	470	401	1126
2006	382	397	1111
2007	461	414	1158
2008	501	523	1136
2009	484	421	1199
2010	450	504	1145
2011	449	491	1103
2012	404	396	1111
2013	355	394	1072
2014	341	369	1044
2015	393	457	980
2016	370	392	958
2017	392	374	976
2018	410	464	922
2019	398	434	886
2020	292	299	879
2021	401	433	847
2022	42	52	837

Graphed it looks like this:


So since 2009 there has been a rapid and constant decrease in the differential - ie year on year we are on the wrong end of the count.

So Dud your point about have a receipt with Steak on it - is more realistically - my father had steak here and he told me about it - but I get sausages.

[Freebird]

Far out sd I'm more interested in why the dogs are favoured...could you do stats for them?

I recall Tony Shaw as coach remarked that all the coaches knew dogs were favoured by umps

[Sainter_Dad]

Far out sd I'm more interested in why the dogs are favoured...could you do stats for them?

I recall Tony Shaw as coach remarked that all the coaches knew dogs were favoured by umps

Why the F@rk would you ask that of me? You deserve what you asked for - cry into your beer!

For	Against
34,661	32,525

So in my life they are up by 2,136 free kicks

However in the 2,000's (probably more relevant) - they are down 722

[Ghost Like]

This is a rabbit hole of massive proportions. I tend to think it can only be looked at in eras (dynasties / umpire numbers / rule changes) or 5 or 10 year blocks.

We are bemoaning seemingly favoured teams now, this season, so overall or in our lifetimes don't really say too much. For the Bulldogs, their sweet spot has been from season 2016 onwards. The highlighted period being the finals period of 2016. We could only dream of a leg up or extra leg in 2009 & 2010.

What was that about the ox turning a wheel? The planets really need to align...Planet Players / Planet Injuries / Planet Umpires / Planet Form / Planet Opposition.

[CQ SAINT]

Free kicks are like wins, the better you get, the more you get.

So many players are slipping under arms with no intention of breaking away, they just absorb the tackle, they don't panic or raise their arms, they just expect the free.

Smart forwards lunge and raise their arms, the dont engage with stronger players groping them.

I believe we are also seeing, and we will see more of, players who are pinned and swung just going with the momentum and hoping they don't hit their head. Particularly in clutch situations.

We just need to develop our game play, not only our game plan.

Lonie did lots of it, I wasn't a fan of Lonie because of the many times he got these frees and fudged the kick and shook his head or punched the ground, has left me with a perception bias but he clearly thought about it, put himself in vulnerable positions and drew a free kick.
When it didn't work he was on his arse, and had to get up and slink off.
We are too desperate, too chaotic and not focussed on anything else, too often.
Maybe that's a bias too but too me, and possibly the umpires, it sticks and its supported by our dismil free kick trend in the last decade.
Thomas attacked with highly skilled players and won free kick, Lyon squeezed the game down to winnable positions and wasn't frightened to have his players infringe at favourable times and positions.
The umpires analyse things in order.
Did Butler dispose of the ball correctly or was he tripped, the result was a goal, either way and the rule and the spirit of the game was respected.
I didn't hear many arguments for the trip which happened as the player slipped down Butlers torso, but if Butlers grip on the ball wasn't impacted by the initial tackle, I'm a monkeys uncle. He motioned a quick swipe at the ball and it went forward, their is no doubt he was legged and it all happened very fast.
I believe most umpires analyse the game well but they are s*** scared of missing decisions which are scrutinised by several camera angles.
When asked they explained what they saw. If they can articulate that within the measure of the rules they are fine, of they can't, they are scrutinised. We just like to believe they can get away with turning games.
Cheating and incompetence are not the same thing.

[Sainter_Dad]

Cheating and incompetence are not the same thing.

At no stage did I accuse them of cheating or a conspiracy - I agree with you that it is perception of the incident and of the player involved.

But COMPETENCE I kind of expect when you are being paid up to a purported $150K for a part time job!!!!!
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/pay ... 2b0qg.html

There are less free kicks paid per year now with 3 umpires and more convoluted rules than 40 years ago but they still do not seem to be able to get it right - and guess on decisions. [Not sure that I prefer 3 umpires - but Occ Health and Safety can't have them running so far for their $5,000+ for 3 hours work]

[Ghost Like]

Cheating and incompetence are not the same thing.

At no stage did I accuse them of cheating or a conspiracy - I agree with you that it is perception of the incident and of the player involved.

But COMPETENCE I kind of expect when you are being paid up to a purported $150K for a part time job!!!!!
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/pay ... 2b0qg.html

There are less free kicks paid per year now with 3 umpires and more convoluted rules than 40 years ago but they still do not seem to be able to get it right - and guess on decisions. [Not sure that I prefer 3 umpires - but Occ Health and Safety can't have them running so far for their $5,000+ for 3 hours work]

I agree S_D, I think we can survive with one central umpire & allow for 4 boundary umpires who can intervene with decisions within their quadrant & boundary side of the ball.

[Sainter_Dad]

Cheating and incompetence are not the same thing.

At no stage did I accuse them of cheating or a conspiracy - I agree with you that it is perception of the incident and of the player involved.

But COMPETENCE I kind of expect when you are being paid up to a purported $150K for a part time job!!!!!
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/pay ... 2b0qg.html

There are less free kicks paid per year now with 3 umpires and more convoluted rules than 40 years ago but they still do not seem to be able to get it right - and guess on decisions. [Not sure that I prefer 3 umpires - but Occ Health and Safety can't have them running so far for their $5,000+ for 3 hours work]

I agree S_D, I think we can survive with one central umpire & allow for 4 boundary umpires who can intervene with decisions within their quadrant & boundary side of the ball.

My model goes:
1 central umpire - you will miss some free kicks - but the interpretation would be the same at all parts of the ground
4 boundary umps - only allowed to over-rule blatantly obvious free kicks - like a mark is called but the Boundary Ump clearly sees it hit the turf before (not allowed to actually call a decision)
1 Ump in the ARC to overrule the blatantly obvious that we see on TV - overuling decisions only again

An over ruled decision results in a ball up.

Boundary Umpires can be part time
Central Umpires and ARC Umpires full time (with coaching together for the interpretations)

Minimal fuss - Umpires become beige again

PS But Muggins has no chance of being listened to - lol
(Well maybe in 10 years like the proposal for the draw/draft) - http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... &p=1232095

[Sainter_Dad]

Oh Curly - where for art thou?

[bigcarl]

Not often we appear,to get the rub of the green. What were the frees for and against stats?

[Scollop]

Oh Curly - where for art thou?

http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 4#p1945794

[The_Dud]

SD - yep the stats are right there for all to see. When the claim is “St Kilda has always been screwed by the umps/AFL” I feel the greatest sample size is the one to go to for most accuracy.

Also I think your one central ump idea would be a disaster, they’d be 100m away from the play half the time!

And the reaction to the umpiring tonight again just reinforces my earlier points. +8 is the most lobsided count we’ve had all year, but where’s the outrage? Supporters don’t want “fair/balanced” umpiring, they want it weighted well and truly in their teams favour!