Champion Data record individual umpire stats on free kicks paid etc, but the AFL forbids the release of those stats.......for obvious reasons!
Champion Data record individual umpire stats on free kicks paid etc, but the AFL forbids the release of those stats.......for obvious reasons!
I'm with Stevo here. If some people want to "move on" from the issue, well they can. They just don't have to involve themselves
in the discussion anymore. Moving on from the footy season itself is another thing entirely. Trade week is only so interesting.
I don't really care where Tyrone Vickery ends up, just as long as it's not with us. I think I'm going to head out to oh so royal Randwick for
the next few weeks and make a series of poorly thought out investments on some very large horses carrying very small people
as they run very fast whilst drinking beer with a high alcohol content and eating food with a high fat content.
But that's really the key point. If the umpires had correctly paid the two previous sliding tackles then it is doubtful that Hanners gets injured at all as the players would have adapted to the officiating. The umpires failed in their duty of care.
The article is a bit weird though. Why would the AFL say that the umpires made 3-4 errors. If they checked the game in the review they would know if it was three, four or ten. There shouldn't be any ambiguity at this point.
This is a horrible thread. I can't stand it. I have been trying all week to let the disappointment subside. I try to persuade myself that the umpiring wasn't the reason we lost, but I can't actually convince myself that it wasn't a factor. It's not just about goals directly scored, it's also about momentum (as I think others have pointed out). And with a differential of 12 frees in the Dogs' favour, at, say 40 metres per kick, that's about 500 metres gained. Any player would like to have a stat like that.
I fully agree with Stellation's observation about the last couple of goals; when we started going long down the middle, that was the moment I thought, "We're gone. The boys are losing their faith, we've switched to panic mode."
I don't believe in conspiracy, but I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder if even the umpires got caught up in all the Doggie Dream hype.
This much I will say. When I drove from Melbourne up to Sydney to see the first final and saw Isaac's mark denied and the turnover converted to a goal, I ask myself, Do I really want to make this kind of trek in order to see the game live, when sub-standard umpiring can be so influential to the momentum and outcome of a game? I'm rusted on to the Bloods, but no way, AFL, am I rusted on to your product.
Yep, this is a great post. I also think the best explanation for the awful umpiring is that the umpires had a self-conscious bias to the Bulldogs, swept up in the city's will for the Bulldogs to win. So one-sided was it, it reached the point where I was stunned Stevic awarded the Hewett the HTB free in the final term (until I saw the replay and it was unavoidable). The accepted narrative of the game is that the Bulldogs had 22 contributors and we didn't, but even if that is true it only became telling in the final term. Had we led by 8 at halftime (as we should have had the awful awful free not been given against Jack for kicking in danger when his legs we taken from him) the game may have developed differently in the second half. I consumed way too much AFL media in the month leading to the grand final, and by the end was impassioned by the bias and myopia. That has been amplified by the manner of this loss.
You drove from Melbourne to watch the first final? Respect. The drive back to Canberra was bad enough (my phone battery died, and I was condemned to silence). I then dragged my family down for the grand final. We had a great day at the zoo on Sunday, thankfully.
Bookmarks