UMPIRES - FREE KICKS

[KTigers]

I don't believe the umpires favour teams. Why would they do that? It would make a bit of a lie of their entire profession.
And I'm not saying umpiring is an easy gig or anything either. Stuff happens so fast on the field, I can barely keep up
with it watching the replay. But lots of jobs are hard, and that's what they signed up for and get paid for. I guess I think
if the umpires are coached to be aware of the crowd influence, then maybe that coaching is not working that well.
Because it's not as if visiting teams to Perth suddenly develop a more careless, or "dirty" game style on the flight over
there for the last twenty years.

[bloodspirit]

Rightly so. That doesn’t mean umpiring can’t be improved though. Sadly, the rightly maligned rules of the game committee doesn’t seem to consider ease of umpiring when looking at the game.



They do actually. Haydn Kennedy discussed this in an interview he did on the AFL site. They are well aware of the problem, but as it is a subconscious bias, it is very hard to do anything about. Umpires are coached in ignoring crowd influence, and to not give “even-uppers”, but the problem persists and I don’t think anyone knows what to do.

It’s amusing and frustrating that fans think that only umpires have subconscious bias and that they are completely fair and impartial. . I’ve yet to hear a Swans fans explain the stats by saying “yeah, we’re a very dirty team - that’s why we’ve been so successful”.

Brilliant post!

[neilfws]

and sit second overall for total frees since 1997.

So they've added frees for and frees against since 1997 and calculated the difference?

Then the question is: why start in 1997? Summing over seasons from some arbitrary date is not any kind of rigorous analysis. Seasons vary: there have been several in a row, for example, when the Bulldogs for-against playing away was way below the league average.

I've said this in other threads, but I'll say it again. I completely understand why fans seize on the free kick differential. But first, I think they do it in large part, because it's the only information about free kicks that we have. And second, there is very little evidence that winning the free kick count leads to more wins, or even bigger margins, on average.

I'm not saying that free kicks aren't a factor. But we don't know from freely-available data when in the game they were awarded, which umpire awarded them or whether the award led to a score. Those are all things I'd like to know!

[Scottee]

The Hun have just published analysis of 20 years of free kick data by "Melbourne mathematician" John Marinopoulos

Category: | Herald Sun

"Marinopoulos, a mathematics and statistics guru from Value Advisory Partners, has analysed every free kick paid by AFL umpires in home-and-away matches since Round 1, 1997 when Port Adelaide joined the competition."

The report shows (some of this may NOT shock you):

• West Coast rank number 1 when playing at home
• The Bulldogs have ranked in the top 3 for 13 of the past 23 seasons in home frees and they were number 1 on the free kick register in 2016
• Sydney rank 18th this year for free kicks paid
• And we rank in the bottom 3 for away free kicks and overall free kicks over the last 20 years.

There's actually data you can download and graphs and all sorts. n.b. data excludes finals!

I would like to see a comparison of 50m penalties that result in goals and of where the free kicks are paid. I reckon we get crucified in each of these areas as well.

[ScottH]

Our numbers in finals are no better! Some time ago, I researched the free kick figures for the final series when we were the team everyone wanted to win. I didn't think we got a charmed run like the 2016 Bulldogs but wanted the figures to prove it.

2005 finals free kicks: Swans 53 Opponents 70

2012 finals fee kicks: Swans 40 Opponents 52

No help for us there, even though we were the sentimental favourites in both games.

2016 finals free kicks: Swans 59 Opponents 82
2016 finals free kicks: Puppies 79 Opponents 48

Thanks for opening old wounds!!!
Actually, they have never healed

We are rarely on the plus side of frees.

[Nico]

I don't believe the umpires favour teams. Why would they do that? It would make a bit of a lie of their entire profession.
And I'm not saying umpiring is an easy gig or anything either. Stuff happens so fast on the field, I can barely keep up
with it watching the replay. But lots of jobs are hard, and that's what they signed up for and get paid for. I guess I think
if the umpires are coached to be aware of the crowd influence, then maybe that coaching is not working that well.
Because it's not as if visiting teams to Perth suddenly develop a more careless, or "dirty" game style on the flight over
there for the last twenty years.

I agree KT and I have a good Swans friend who has just umpired his 700th official game. He says the higher the level the harder it is to umpire due to better skills and the pace of the game. And this can vary between Amateur reserves and seniors at all levels. But John is puzzled at times when something obvious is let go when the umpire is in perfect position. I boundary umpired for 6 years when my sons played junior footy, and you better believe that you see things closer up than over the fence and in most cases the umpires got it right.

My gripe is the frees not paid for throwing or just letting the ball go when tackled.

[barry]

Until umpiring is a full time job, we will never get the professionalism we need.

I dont buy the "subconcious bias" argument. No doubt it exists, but if you are aware of it, you can compensate.

The great weight of evidence of home ground influence on free kicks (irrespective of team) is damning in its inherent unfairness.
Once they address that, they can then work out why some teams are favoured (fairypups) and others are harmed (Sydney teams)

[mcs]

My gripe is the frees not paid for throwing or just letting the ball go when tackled.

It is the frees not paid that frustrate me. For the good part of a decade (Not so much the last year or so as our tackling is half as effective as it once was) we got very little reward for being fantastic pressure/tackling teams. The old Hawthorn 'dropsies from above' or the Fairypuppies 'throw at all costs' (Including the famous tunnel ball from the GF) great examples.

[Go Swannies]

In the modern game every aspect is analysed for advantage. I'm sure that coaches of every other team think that they can push the boundaries a bit further against the Swans without being penalised. That must be worth a few percent.

[Mountain Man]

Once again I call for a comparison of Tribunal penalties by team.

I reckon our $ fines and weeks suspended, (ie penalties for dirty/dangerous play) would be at the low end of the competition.

[Bloods05]

Until umpiring is a full time job, we will never get the professionalism we need.

I dont buy the "subconcious bias" argument. No doubt it exists, but if you are aware of it, you can compensate.

The great weight of evidence of home ground influence on free kicks (irrespective of team) is damning in its inherent unfairness.
Once they address that, they can then work out why some teams are favoured (fairypups) and others are harmed (Sydney teams)

You can't be aware of subconscious bias.

[Beerman]

Until umpiring is a full time job, we will never get the professionalism we need.

I dont buy the "subconcious bias" argument. No doubt it exists, but if you are aware of it, you can compensate.

The great weight of evidence of home ground influence on free kicks (irrespective of team) is damning in its inherent unfairness.
Once they address that, they can then work out why some teams are favoured (fairypups) and others are harmed (Sydney teams)

Agree about the umpires. It absolutely mystifies me how at least the field umpires are not full-time professionals in this day and age.

The problem with the subconscious bias is that no-one can work out *how* to compensate for it. It’s extremely powerful and being aware of it doesn’t help much.

It’s not just sport. We’re all aware of the placebo effect, but amazingly it works **even if you tell the patient you are giving them a placebo**. That is, if you give a sick person a tablet and say “Here you go. This is a sugar tablet. It won’t help you in any way”, they still feel better than if you give them nothing!

With Australian Rules the problem is that the rules rely on interpretation so much it gives a lot of room for that bias to take effect. They need to be made less ambiguous and easier to adjudicate. If you ask someone to pick a number between 1 and 100, there is a clear bias to odd numbers, but no-one is going to say 24 + 12 = 37 because of that bias.