Free kick prediction v D's

[barry]

Sydney 12
Melbourne 25

[DST]

With the pasting the Dees are getting in the press down here in Melbourne (all downhill skiers) you would have to think they will come out very hard at the man and ball this week. If they do they are going to give away plenty of frees if their aggression is over the top.

I reckon it will be close this week decision wise, which will be the first time in many weeks.

DST
:D

[TheHood]

So far in 2005, Sydney have "given away" 328 Free Kicks and "earned" 251.

We're 77 over par and I reckon nearly 50 of that differental has come from the past 3 games.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by TheHood
So far in 2005, Sydney have "given away" 328 Free Kicks and "earned" 251.

We're 77 over par and I reckon nearly 50 of that differental has come from the past 3 games. Hawthorn are the only team ahead of us in the against dept.

[swan_song]

Depends if we get those 3 d*ckw*ds from the wobbles game...or a combination of them plus Goldsphincter...but seriously, I'd reckon 25 to 14...with at least four demon goals from frees. Well, never mind the wobbles being kept goalless for a half, apart from two silly but soft free kicks in front of goal in the last minutes of the second term, the cats would only have scored only one in a half... great job from our backs (cept LRT that is). In fact through actual play, they did only score one in a half of footy, and that's just plain pathetic...more like us than them!

[TheHood]

Originally posted by ScottH
Hawthorn are the only team ahead of us in the against dept.

How is it that a team that is equal 3rd on the ladder can be so regularly second to the ball causing every in the back over the shoulder you can imagine?

How the heck do we win at all with that free kick ratio?

It's not so much the frees paid against us as the ones that are not paid to us for identical infringements during the same game.

I have this sinking feeling The Sphinkter or McLaren are looming in the shaddows over the next week or so to have another go at us.

[liz]

Originally posted by TheHood
It's not so much the frees paid against us as the ones that are not paid to us for identical infringements during the same game.



Yup. There were two or three frees that Geelong got on Sat that were completely bewilderingly soft but the majority 'were there'. It was the in-the-backs that we didn't get, the holding the mans that were missed in our favour that was frustrating. Few of them were blatant but were there as much as half the Cats' ones.

[ScottH]

Kennelly had 4 against in the 1st half, IIRC.

[Wil]

Originally posted by TheHood
I have this sinking feeling The Sphinkter or McLaren are looming in the shaddows over the next week or so to have another go at us.

I nearly (or did) scream out "Bring back Goldspink". Him and Mclaren are better than the clowns we have had the past couple of weeks.

Anyone know how many non-vic umpires there are in the AFL?

[Jeffers1984]

The ultimate worst trio to umpire us in a game would be:

Darren Goldspink, Brett Allen, Scott Mclaren

One of the umps from the Pies game can be emergency.

Shudders at the thought.

[Chubby Muffler]

Originally posted by liz
It was the in-the-backs that we didn't get

Can I ask you guys for a bit of clarification here? We got pinged on Sat night for a push in the back. To me and my mate, it just looked like a solid tackle being laid from sort of side on. Really good tackle, but when I watched the replay the commentators were saying there was a free kick there. Cannot remember who it was exactley but it was in front of Geelongs goal. Might have been Chapman (just about every kick of his came from a free).

[ugg]

I think the one you are referring to is Leo Barry on Cameron Thurley. It was harsh because Barry tackeld him from behind and Thurley fell forward and Barry just went with him. However, these ones do get paid because it is what the rules specifiy (a stupid rule IMHO). As liz said, it was the ones we didn't get that irked me more.

[NMWBloods]

One of the problems is that Kennelly and Barry are very untidy tacklers (and Bevan when he's in), and a few of our other players can be too. Certainly I notice more in our games than watching others how much we jump into people's backs or grab them around the head.

That's not to say we don't get a bad run at times, but our reckless tackling doesn't help.

[Chubby Muffler]

Originally posted by ugg
I think the one you are referring to is Leo Barry on Cameron Thurley. It was harsh because Barry tackeld him from behind and Thurley fell forward and Barry just went with him. However, these ones do get paid because it is what the rules specifiy (a stupid rule IMHO). As liz said, it was the ones we didn't get that irked me more.

Stupid indeed - thanks for the reply.

[liz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
One of the problems is that Kennelly and Barry are very untidy tacklers (and Bevan when he's in), and a few of our other players can be too. Certainly I notice more in our games than watching others how much we jump into people's backs or grab them around the head.

That's not to say we don't get a bad run at times, but our reckless tackling doesn't help.

I certainly think that a tackling clinic for Kennelly wouldn't be a bad thing - and if Barry, Bevan and Malceski happen to be available too, they might want to watch in.

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by barry
Sydney 12
Melbourne 25
With a 5-16 free kick count to half time.

[silent lurker]

Originally posted by Jeffers1984
The ultimate worst trio to umpire us in a game would be:

Darren Goldspink, Brett Allen, Scott Mclaren

One of the umps from the Pies game can be emergency.

Shudders at the thought.
No room for Justin Schmitt?

[Vivien]

I think the Barry on Thurley free kick was fair enough. At first glance I thought we were harshly done by, but looking at the replay it was definitely there, even though Thurley did sort of just fall over and drag Leo with him. If it were Scarlett in Barry Hall's back I think we'd all feel it was fair enough.

Lack of consistent umpiring is definitely hurting us, but I what I also can't stand is the fact that we seem to give away a lot of free kicks when the momentum of a game is just starting to swing our way, or when we're just starting to mount a comeback. This dampens the momentum we might otherwise have had.

One final thought - is it just a coincidence that in the last 3 weeks, when the free kick count has gone well against us, that we have played 3 Melbourne sides?

[Vivien]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
One of the problems is that Kennelly and Barry are very untidy tacklers (and Bevan when he's in), and a few of our other players can be too.

That's not to say we don't get a bad run at times, but our reckless tackling doesn't help.

100% agree.

[Benevolent Ert]

Originally posted by Vivien
I think the Barry on Thurley free kick was fair enough. At first glance I thought we were harshly done by, but looking at the replay it was definitely there, even though Thurley did sort of just fall over and drag Leo with him. If it were Scarlett in Barry Hall's back I think we'd all feel it was fair enough.


If it were Scarlett in Hall's back there's no way in a million years it would be paid

[Vivien]

Originally posted by Ert
If it were Scarlett in Hall's back there's no way in a million years it would be paid

Exactly. And we'd all be livid.

[liz]

Talking of frees, what did people think about the HTB decision against Hall? IMO he had no prior opportunity and it was a great tackle that pinned his arms and gave him no opportunity to dispose of the ball. But because he tried to break free rather than stand meekly as soon as he was tackled, he was pinged.

It's the second time in a month that he's had a HTB against him in these circumstances.

[ugg]

Exactly, there was no way in the world he had an opportunity to dispose of the ball. Yes, he did try to break through the tacklers, but he shouldn't be pinged for it. Perhaps if he had dropped it stone cold like some Geelong players did he could have got away with it. Its just an example of the different set of rules that he is adjudicated under.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by liz
But because he tried to break free rather than stand meekly as soon as he was tackled, he was pinged.
The inconsistency of HTB, particularly this part, really p*sses me off! :mad:

[Diego]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
The inconsistency of HTB, particularly this part, really p*sses me off! :mad:

It's a fine line between pleasure and pain.

[BonBon]

I'm not going to predict, but however many free kcks we get, add about 5-10 on that. Umpires are very inaccurate.

[TheHood]

Originally posted by liz
Talking of frees, what did people think about the HTB decision against Hall? IMO he had no prior opportunity and it was a great tackle that pinned his arms and gave him no opportunity to dispose of the ball. But because he tried to break free rather than stand meekly as soon as he was tackled, he was pinged.

It's the second time in a month that he's had a HTB against him in these circumstances.

Yep, the unwritten rule is;

If you're big and you're pinned and you try and bust the tackle and you're unsuccessful, then You're Gone!

The rules committee are meek and the umpires have questionable intelligence, all makes for the annoying regulation our game is slave to.

The more this year goes on, the more Roosy's suggestion in 2003 that Umps need to be full time and have a proper training centre/academy because this current lot are just plain @@@@@@@*d!

[stellation]

Originally posted by TheHood
The rules committee are meek and
shall inherit the earth, which hardly seems fair.

[Agent 86]

Originally posted by liz
...because he tried to break free rather than stand meekly as soon as he was tackled, he was pinged.

It was harsh - but Barry almost always takes on defenders (and I wouldn't have it any other way) & he is gonna get pinged occasionally.

What's really annoying me lately is when a player on the ground with the ball has 3 defenders jump on him gets penalised. I'm predicting Melbourne to get 4 frees for this on the weekend.

[Old Royboy]

We winge about the umpiring, but have a look at the stats; most of the free kick deficit is down to 4 or 5 serial offenders, mostly down back.

Leo 10-18, Tadgh 10-20, LRT 8-15, Crouchy 10-15 and of course serial maggot victim Bazza at 15-24.

Swans defence is 3rd best in the comp, yet we probably give away more goals through free kicks (esp as a % of total score) than most. If pressure saves 6 goals, but costs 3 through free kicks I?ll take the pressure, untidy as it is.

Our backs need to work on their tackling technique, but realistically it (and umpire interpretation) will not change overnight. I reckon the lopsided counts (and our moaning) will continue.

[Agent 86]

Originally posted by Old Royboy
...Leo 10-18, Tadgh 10-20, LRT 8-15

It's even more disturbing that it's our backs getting caned.

In our last 6 games agains Vic based sides the f&a free tally is 88-142. I think more than tackling practice is required to solve this.

[Wil]

Originally posted by Agent 86
It's even more disturbing that it's our backs getting caned.

In our last 6 games agains Vic based sides the f&a free tally is 88-142. I think more than tackling practice is required to solve this.

Its not just tackling. Its physical mismatches and poor technique in contests plus a lack of team work in the backs to help each other (i.e. too many 1 on 1 contests where the attacking player will always get the benefit of the doubt).

[Glenn]

Providing the attacking team is not Sydney :rolleyes:

With the difference in the free kicks, surely it can not just be put down to poor technique:confused:

[floppinab]

Originally posted by Old Royboy
We winge about the umpiring, but have a look at the stats; most of the free kick deficit is down to 4 or 5 serial offenders, mostly down back.

Leo 10-18, Tadgh 10-20, LRT 8-15, Crouchy 10-15 and of course serial maggot victim Bazza at 15-24.

Swans defence is 3rd best in the comp, yet we probably give away more goals through free kicks (esp as a % of total score) than most. If pressure saves 6 goals, but costs 3 through free kicks I?ll take the pressure, untidy as it is.

Our backs need to work on their tackling technique, but realistically it (and umpire interpretation) will not change overnight. I reckon the lopsided counts (and our moaning) will continue.

Opposition are on to this a bit . I don't necessarily disagree with some of the comments on tackling techniques but in combination with opposition players going the dive or duck when they feel the hands around the torso doesn't help. A couple of Thurleys on Sat. night were in that mould.

[Agent 86]

Have a look at these free kick numbers for non-Vic teams in the top 8 for Round 15.

Kangaroos 28 vs West C. 16
Brisbane 11 vs Collingwood 21
Hawks 25 vs Adelaide 17
Sydney 13 vs Geelong 25

Anybody see a pattern here?

[TheHood]

Originally posted by Agent 86
Have a look at these free kick numbers for non-Vic teams in the top 8 for Round 15.

Kangaroos 28 vs West C. 16
Brisbane 11 vs Collingwood 21
Hawks 25 vs Adelaide 17
Sydney 13 vs Geelong 25

Anybody see a pattern here?

Compelling, though I did notice you left out the Freo Dogs game which had an even count.

Also, the Port Dees game which was slightly in favour of the Dees. Though, extrordinarily, Tredrea was paid 5 free kicks. So was Jeff White but that can happen in the ruck.

They whinge at Port that he doesn't get enough Frees but that kind of day would let our Baz kick 10 or so. Where do you get one of those umps from? Las Vegas?

[Thunder Shaker]

We should examine the nature of the frees we give away. If our players get pinged for tackling too high, is it because their tackling technique needs work or because the opponents ducked their heads? Do we get pinged for holding the ball a lot despite not having prior opportunity? We should make any possible effort to get rid of the ball if we are tackled. If the arms are pinned, the umpire must see that lest we are penalised.

I think part of the fault lies in the game plan. Many of the frees appear to be for such matters as high tackles and holding the ball. A high tackle means we were second to the ball. Holding the ball often means the player received the ball in a handpass or off the ground. If we kick the ball more, we would concede fewer frees of this nature because the recipient would take a mark. Most of the time a mark is as good as a free kick so we should play for them.

[cruiser]

Originally posted by Agent 86
Have a look at these free kick numbers for non-Vic teams in the top 8 for Round 15.

Kangaroos 28 vs West C. 16
Brisbane 11 vs Collingwood 21
Hawks 25 vs Adelaide 17
Sydney 13 vs Geelong 25

Anybody see a pattern here?
Those bloody Victorians!:p

[giant]

Originally posted by Agent 86
Have a look at these free kick numbers for non-Vic teams in the top 8 for Round 15.

Kangaroos 28 vs West C. 16
Brisbane 11 vs Collingwood 21
Hawks 25 vs Adelaide 17
Sydney 13 vs Geelong 25

Anybody see a pattern here?

A Sydney supporter texted these stats to WLF last night - you the culprit Max? If so, keep fighting the good fight.

The amazing part is that the non-Vic teams were (mostly) convincing winners in each game. Go figger...

[Dave]

Originally posted by Agent 86

What's really annoying me lately is when a player on the ground with the ball has 3 defenders jump on him gets penalised. I'm predicting Melbourne to get 4 frees for this on the weekend.

Or the ball is dragged back in by the tackling player and the tackled player gets pinged for it.

[Agent 86]

Originally posted by TheHood
Compelling, though I did notice you left out the Freo Dogs game which had an even count.

Also, the Port Dees game which was slightly in favour of the Dees.

I don't like the truth to get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

Neither Freo or the Dogs are likely to be contenders this year (just ask Rocket) - so does anyone care about this result?

As for Port - the score indicates this game was a non-event from early on (Melbourne must've been awful). Tredrea 5 frees and 5 goals 5 - And the umps in this game included Stuart Wenn & D Goldspink - weird! One thing, tho, the other ump, Woodcock, is from SA.

[Tooth Fairy]

Originally posted by Agent 86
Have a look at these free kick numbers for non-Vic teams in the top 8 for Round 15.

Kangaroos 28 vs West C. 16
Brisbane 11 vs Collingwood 21
Hawks 25 vs Adelaide 17
Sydney 13 vs Geelong 25

Anybody see a pattern here? that your obsessive?

I know, I know, it's all a big conspiracy. Those nasty Vics will come after you if you keep raving.

[Agent 86]

Originally posted by Tooth Fairy
that your obsessive?

I know, I know, it's all a big conspiracy. Those nasty Vics will come after you if you keep raving.

Fair enough - but it's not like I'm expecting a royal commission or anything. I just find it interesting.

Like I find it interesting that 2 of the umpires for the Geelong game were recruited from ummm... Geelong. And then the free count is 2-1 to ummmm... Geelong.

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by Agent 86
Like I find it interesting that 2 of the umpires for the Geelong game were recruited from ummm... Geelong. And then the free count is 2-1 to ummmm... Geelong.
Thank goodness we brought our own umpire otherwise we would not have got any frees at all! :D

[barry]

Originally posted by Agent 86
Have a look at these free kick numbers for non-Vic teams in the top 8 for Round 15.

Kangaroos 28 vs West C. 16
Brisbane 11 vs Collingwood 21
Hawks 25 vs Adelaide 17
Sydney 13 vs Geelong 25



The funny thing is in all these instances the non-vic teams won and quite hansomely (except WC), so the non-vic teams were making the play, first to the ball, etc. Which should in general give away less free kicks.

[floppinab]

18 - 16 against us tonight. Our best run for quite a while and from what I saw on the TV a much better performance from the canaries. We got a couple of softies but so did they. Still a bit disappointing to see things like Hall getting monstered in the last for no free.

[Agent 86]

Originally posted by floppinab
18 - 16 against us tonight. Our best run for quite a while and from what I saw on the TV a much better performance from the canaries. We got a couple of softies but so did they. Still a bit disappointing to see things like Hall getting monstered in the last for no free.

Yep. I thought pretty fair overall - the one (not paid) against Bazza was v poor decision (esp. given the soft one against Leo a minute later). Thankfully that didn't alter the result - as it was basically a 12 point play. Oh, and the one leading to Neitz's 2nd goal was a mystery.

[Foreign Legion]

Neitz got two frees for good acting technique. Robertson got one for the same thing.

Bazza just needs to work on his stunt work - he doesn't fall spectacularly enough - he needs some advice from someone like 'The Thespian' - Matthew Lloyd.

[liz]

I thought the reversed free against Read was a bit soft. He didn't really make much contact. But then it shouldn't have been a free to him in the first place because the call that Buchanan's tackle was 'in the back' was pretty tough in my view. I thought it was as not 'in the back' as a tackle can be when you're chasing someone down from behind.

[ugg]

Maybe so, but it was really silly to do it, especially right in front of the umpire.