Sydney is Victimised by Umpires

[BSA5]

I agree with both of you in that I do not believe that the umpires have been told to umpire our games differently. However, I do believe that umpires have pre-conceived ideas about how certain players play the ball and the game. As an example look at two opposites in the league, Matthew Lloyd and Barry Hall. Lloyd only has to trip over his boot lace and he gets a free kick. See round 1 2006, he is standing next to Leo Barry and they are both making side on contact, Lloyd (in his expected style) dives forward and gets a free kick for in the back of all things. Hall on the other hand can be mugged by three players in the goal square and a free is paid against him. It's this umpiring with preconceived ideas about how a player plays the game that is wrong. I think it is a subconcious thing, but it is very (I wanted to say bloody) annoying when your team is the one that is umpired more harshly as a result.

Yep, there are definitely preconceived ideas about how certain players play, and Lloyd is an example of somebody who benefits, and Hall is an example of somebody who suffers. There may also be preconceived notions about how certain teams play. In that sense, I think the Swans generally suffer as well. The new holding-the-ball and hands-in-the-back interpretations are designed to speed the game up by discouraging stoppages. The Swans often try to slow the game down by creating stoppages. So, when a Swans player is caught with the ball, the umpires (perhaps understandably) tend to assume they are deliberately trying to cause a stoppage. These interpretations were designed to stop this, so they pay a free. Whether or not the free actually appeared to be there is less important. This is bad (because it means that often players will get wrongly penalised), but it is understandable. It's certainly no conspiracy. It's just a subconscious preconceived notion, based on the objectives of the new rules.

[AnnieH]

I agree with both of you in that I do not believe that the umpires have been told to umpire our games differently. However, I do believe that umpires have pre-conceived ideas about how certain players play the ball and the game. As an example look at two opposites in the league, Matthew Lloyd and Barry Hall. Lloyd only has to trip over his boot lace and he gets a free kick. See round 1 2006, he is standing next to Leo Barry and they are both making side on contact, Lloyd (in his expected style) dives forward and gets a free kick for in the back of all things. Hall on the other hand can be mugged by three players in the goal square and a free is paid against him. It's this umpiring with preconceived ideas about how a player plays the game that is wrong. I think it is a subconcious thing, but it is very (I wanted to say bloody) annoying when your team is the one that is umpired more harshly as a result.

Classic example.

[goswannie14]

I know, but there are a lot of people (don't know this forum well enough yet to know if many are on here) who genuinely do think that the umpires have been told to umpire differently for us.

I do not think that the umpires have been told to umpire the Swans differently, but I honestly believe that the non Victorian teams are umpired in a more lenient manner particularly when playing against non Victorian clubs. This has been demonstrated on the "official" for and against free kicks statistics. Weather this is a subconscious act on the part of the umpires I don't know. I don't believe that they intentionally umpire this way, maybe the roar factor, home town supporters, intense scrutiny?????????????

From a Swans supporter's perspective the "official statistics" have shown the Swans have been the most harshly treated. I am sure that the majority of fair minded supporters would agree that the Swans get the rough end of the pineapple with close 50/50 calls. Is umpiring the Sawns harshly a subliminal thought in umpires minds which has its origins with the remarks of Andrew Demetriou in 2005 regarding the "ugly" style?

A case for Twighlight Zone or X-files???????

The truth is out there somewhere!

I agree with both of you in that I do not believe that the umpires have been told to umpire our games differently. However, I do believe that umpires have pre-conceived ideas about how certain players play the ball and the game. As an example look at two opposites in the league, Matthew Lloyd and Barry Hall. Lloyd only has to trip over his boot lace and he gets a free kick. See round 1 2006, he is standing next to Leo Barry and they are both making side on contact, Lloyd (in his expected style) dives forward and gets a free kick for in the back of all things. Hall on the other hand can be mugged by three players in the goal square and a free is paid against him. It's this umpiring with preconceived ideas about how a player plays the game that is wrong. I think it is a subconcious thing, but it is very (I wanted to say bloody) annoying when your team is the one that is umpired more harshly as a result.

[Old Royboy]

Oh FFS - are people still sooking about that!

Yep, I had $20 on Monty at 70/1. That clown Sheehan and his mates cost me 1400 bucks and I will NEVER forgive them.

[TheGrimReaper]

why would you do that when 3 or 4 bloods could have won the norm smith,barry ,buchanan,fosdike or LRT were all better than judd that day.

if your in melb. think how many of them you would trust to vote on the brownlow.

I know that Judd robbed of those 4 blokes off the Norm Smith Medal mate. But like others said, Greg Williams and Andrew McLeod were robbed of a Brownlow Medal in recent years, if they had a panel without bias, then those two would have won.

[Big Al]

why would you do that when 3 or 4 bloods could have won the norm smith,barry ,buchanan,fosdike or LRT were all better than judd that day.

if your in melb. think how many of them you would trust to vote on the brownlow.

In hindsight and after watching the game a 1000 times you are probably right. But at the time it was announced I knew Judd would get it based on what I had just seen. It wasn't a surprise to me at the time.

[bedford]

It goes to show that maybe the Umpires shouldn't be giving the Brownlow Medal votes at all? Maybe a panel would be a better idea, consist of former players, media experts and former umpires.

why would you do that when 3 or 4 bloods could have won the norm smith,barry ,buchanan,fosdike or LRT were all better than judd that day.

if your in melb. think how many of them you would trust to vote on the brownlow.

[chalbilto]

I know, but there are a lot of people (don't know this forum well enough yet to know if many are on here) who genuinely do think that the umpires have been told to umpire differently for us.

I do not think that the umpires have been told to umpire the Swans differently, but I honestly believe that the non Victorian teams are umpired in a more lenient manner particularly when playing against non Victorian clubs. This has been demonstrated on the "official" for and against free kicks statistics. Weather this is a subconscious act on the part of the umpires I don't know. I don't believe that they intentionally umpire this way, maybe the roar factor, home town supporters, intense scrutiny?????????????

From a Swans supporter's perspective the "official statistics" have shown the Swans have been the most harshly treated. I am sure that the majority of fair minded supporters would agree that the Swans get the rough end of the pineapple with close 50/50 calls. Is umpiring the Sawns harshly a subliminal thought in umpires minds which has its origins with the remarks of Andrew Demetriou in 2005 regarding the "ugly" style?

A case for Twighlight Zone or X-files???????

The truth is out there somewhere!

[BSA5]

That is the whole point of the article though - that the Swans did realise it was almost certainly an off-the-cuff, meant-to-be humorous comment and thus acted accordingly.

In contrast to the current comings and goings...

I know, but there are a lot of people (don't know this forum well enough yet to know if many are on here) who genuinely do think that the umpires have been told to umpire differently for us.

[Wardy]

oh well as a show of support for Roos and basically sticking it up the AFL and proving that the AFL doesn't have the monopoly on being childish - this season all coaches should have their kids in shot at the post match interviews - doens't matter how old they are or how many - grandkids (if applicable) to attend as well, the umpires are more than welcome to bring their kids too. - Andy D would have a fit.

[bennyfrou]

I call bull@@@@. No umpire is going to admit that sort of thing. I think it's the same as Roosy. The guy was joking, but the Swans employee didn't pick up on it.

That is the whole point of the article though - that the Swans did realise it was almost certainly an off-the-cuff, meant-to-be humorous comment and thus acted accordingly.

In contrast to the current comings and goings...

Agreed, Liz. How silly of us not to act on it in the manner that the AFL has when the shoe is on the other foot.

[Wardy]

Let's agree Anderson - doesn't think - end of story

er um yeah, nah, done!

[sprite]

- just so that eliminates the types like Adrian Anderson from thinking that they are experts.

Let's agree Anderson - doesn't think - end of story

[Wardy]

You were going ok till the "media experts" idea

Indeed - Mike Sheehan is one of the "experts" who judges the Norm Smith - so there goes that theory. It should be players who have played more than 200 games at the highest level - just so that eliminates the types like Adrian Anderson from thinking that they are experts.

[AnnieH]

I've been saying for years that the umpires have it in more for us than for any other team.
If you watch enough of the "other" games, you can see that they umpire the game "a bit differently" for us.