Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 69

Thread: Umpiring: the good, the bad and the ugly

  1. #13
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    11,125
    When Shuey dropped the knees against us and was not awarded the free I thought, finally. But then Hunter got away with it against us. He blatantly dropped the knees when our player was about to make contact, almost sliding sideways. George Hewett has been a serial offender but appears to have got it out of his game.

    Selwood is also the serial offender. With all the issues with concussion I don't get why players want to put themselves into a head high tackle.

    Is a very tough one for umpires to interpret because of the head high rules, but if they start paying a free for HTB it will stop.

  2. #14
    If we have an umpiring containment thread can we have a praise Warner, diss Rowbottom containment thread too?

  3. #15
    Veterans List dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    7,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Nico View Post
    When Shuey dropped the knees against us and was not awarded the free I thought, finally. But then Hunter got away with it against us. He blatantly dropped the knees when our player was about to make contact, almost sliding sideways. George Hewett has been a serial offender but appears to have got it out of his game.

    Selwood is also the serial offender. With all the issues with concussion I don't get why players want to put themselves into a head high tackle.

    Is a very tough one for umpires to interpret because of the head high rules, but if they start paying a free for HTB it will stop.
    With the Selwood style of milking a high contact free, the initial contact is usually around chest/forearm level. Selwood and his imitators, then push their arms outwards and drop their body. This means that while contact to the head is made, it's usually a glancing blow: so there's little chance of receiving the sort of forceful blow, that would cause the violent whiplash that leads to concussion.

    To me, it's a totally cynical method used by some players, to take advantage of a rule that was designed to protect all players. And I'm just a little bit surprised, that more players don't think to themselves, "Well, stuff ya, I'm going to hit you properly, next time."

  4. #16
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    I reckon it will give the Tippett-thread™️ a run for it’s money
    I hope so! I'm happy to see this thread, and I hope we can divert people here when umpiring discussion threatens to overrun a match thread.

    So to continue this discussion:

    Quote Originally Posted by Faunac8 View Post
    Did you read and assess the rest of my post ? I ask because you seem to be fixated on statistics and haven’t addressed my question of the potential impact that debatable or dubious decisions have on players and the flow of games.
    I understand that this is not something that is quantifiable however I still believe it has an impact on games.
    If you feel that free kicks have no impact in any way on games and results then we can happily agree to disagree.
    It's true, I am fixated on statistics - it's kind of what I do for a living. Umpiring decisions are an emotive subject, debating them is part and parcel of the fun of being a footy fan and that's great! But I hope there is room for those of us who take a step back, a deep breath and try to be a bit more objective about it all, even when it's our own team.

    I don't feel that free kicks have no impact on games (though I can see how one or two of my posts might be interpreted that way). But I do think that there are very, very few games where the result hung on an umpiring decision. And I also think that of the many factors that can influence the outcome of a game, free kicks are nearer the bottom of the list than the top.

    I'd like to recommend the book Footballistics to anyone who enjoys a bit of data analysis. There's an entire chapter in there on home ground advantage and umpire bias. It's complicated...but basically concludes that whilst there is evidence for unconscious umpire bias, it amounts on average to a difference of a few points per game at most. Now you might argue that some games are won and lost by a few points and you'd be right - but that would be to ignore all the other things that went on in the game.

    I'd also recommend following the Twitter hashtag for any AFL game (not for long though or your brain will melt). You'll find that fans of every single team are convinced that the umpires are against them, the opponent always gets the rub of the green and even that there is a league conspiracy against their success. I'm afraid Swans fans are nothing special in that regard

    Anyway: I'm glad to have this thread, and I'll be using it to try and convince everyone that the free kick differential is a useless number with no bearing on anything!

  5. #17
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Can we do away with the swear filter for this thread? It should really spice things up.

    We can have some full frontal anger venting that might have some positive psychological effects as well.

  6. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Bangalore Swans View Post
    I’m in here for solutions.

    What about an umpiring review system for the coaches:

    I would propose 2 reviews per half. The coach pushes a button and tells the bunker what decision to review. At the next mark or stoppage the decision is reviewed and an outcome given.

    An example would be Luke Beverage challenging that McCartin push in the back in the 1st quarter. The review would have given the Bulldogs the easy shot at goal.

    The coaches get a total of two reviews a half and they only get two regardless of the outcome.
    In a word: no.

  7. #19
    Veterans List dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    7,331
    Quote Originally Posted by neilfws View Post
    I hope so! I'm happy to see this thread, and I hope we can divert people here when umpiring discussion threatens to overrun a match thread.

    So to continue this discussion:



    It's true, I am fixated on statistics - it's kind of what I do for a living. Umpiring decisions are an emotive subject, debating them is part and parcel of the fun of being a footy fan and that's great! But I hope there is room for those of us who take a step back, a deep breath and try to be a bit more objective about it all, even when it's our own team.

    I don't feel that free kicks have no impact on games (though I can see how one or two of my posts might be interpreted that way). But I do think that there are very, very few games where the result hung on an umpiring decision. And I also think that of the many factors that can influence the outcome of a game, free kicks are nearer the bottom of the list than the top.

    I'd like to recommend the book Footballistics to anyone who enjoys a bit of data analysis. There's an entire chapter in there on home ground advantage and umpire bias. It's complicated...but basically concludes that whilst there is evidence for unconscious umpire bias, it amounts on average to a difference of a few points per game at most. Now you might argue that some games are won and lost by a few points and you'd be right - but that would be to ignore all the other things that went on in the game.

    I'd also recommend following the Twitter hashtag for any AFL game (not for long though or your brain will melt). You'll find that fans of every single team are convinced that the umpires are against them, the opponent always gets the rub of the green and even that there is a league conspiracy against their success. I'm afraid Swans fans are nothing special in that regard

    Anyway: I'm glad to have this thread, and I'll be using it to try and convince everyone that the free kick differential is a useless number with no bearing on anything!
    I did enjoy Footballistics. I enjoyed James Coventry's other football book, Time and Space, even more. If you haven't read it, it's essentially looking at various innovations in the game, over the last 160 years or so: with the focus on rule changes to speed up the game and coaching tactics that aimed to give players time and space.

  8. #20
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Quote Originally Posted by neilfws View Post
    I hope so! I'm happy to see this thread, and I hope we can divert people here when umpiring discussion threatens to overrun a match thread.

    So to continue this discussion:



    It's true, I am fixated on statistics - it's kind of what I do for a living. Umpiring decisions are an emotive subject, debating them is part and parcel of the fun of being a footy fan and that's great! But I hope there is room for those of us who take a step back, a deep breath and try to be a bit more objective about it all, even when it's our own team.

    ....

    Anyway: I'm glad to have this thread, and I'll be using it to try and convince everyone that the free kick differential is a useless number with no bearing on anything!
    Thanks Neil, I really enjoy your contributions.

  9. #21
    Great post Neil. I've bought the book and look forward to reading. I'd suggest the 2016 grand final is an example where a bias had a very big impact on a game. Also the Hawthorn game this year. A statistical analysis doesn’t capture concepts like momentum. Without having read the book yet, i doubt they have considered that the umpiring is in a feedback loop i.e. players go into their shell when they cop a series of poor decisions. Complex human systems often defy statistical analysis, and modelling, at least with the usual techniques. I'll read before judging.

    Re people all favouring their team, not surprising. Not sure what that tells us about the statistics though. Also, my view is that the umpiring at present is not just biased in some games, but just really poor. It's a situation of the AFLs making by constant rule changes and using advisories on interpretations as a mechanism for shaping the game's flow. I'd hate the be an umpire. Its more art than science and the value of art is in the eye of the beholder.

  10. #22
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Sunshine Coast
    Posts
    1,548
    Unsurprisingly given my previous posts I totally agree with you Legs Akimbo ( why are our arms never Akimbo by the way )
    “A statistical analysis doesn’t capture concepts like momentum” this is a simple summary of the point I was trying to convey.
    Statistics in football provide us with a very useful tool to compare previous performance but they can’t capture the potential performance that the awarding of free kicks may or may not affect.
    Of course in reality nothing can and that’s why many like to ponder the what if’s and attribute much more influence to decisions that we feel have impacted on our team.
    That is why no amount of statistical data will ever convince me that umpiring decisions had little or no impact on the 2016 GF
    "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

  11. #23
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Inner West
    Posts
    2,402
    Re the 2016 GF (and Stevo will probably self combust down there in Vic when he reads this) I just don't think 12 free kicks are worth
    22 points. 12 additional kicks are about 5.5% of the total number of Bulldogs kicks in that game. 22 points (their winning margin) is
    25% of their entire score. And if they are then 10 free kicks (the Dogs differential in their prelim against GWS) must be worth 6
    points (their winning margin in that game). I can see how a free kick can reverse the direction the ball is heading, and the momentum
    thing, but 22 points is a lot to catch up. 6 points isn't though, and so I think the team that was really robbed in 2016 were the Giants.
    A Giants-Swans GF that year, well we'll never know...
    The above theory has given me "closure" over 2016. With my battery of psychologists I am still working on "resolving" 2014, but
    even that process has been complicated by the sight of large birds (that may be eagles) in the sky, and the sight of Wayne Carey
    bringing back memories of earlier and still unresolved crises from 2006 and 1996 respectively. It's been a challenging 25 years
    I tell you.
    Last edited by KTigers; 15th July 2021 at 10:34 AM.

  12. #24
    Travelling Swannie!! mcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    7,800
    Quote Originally Posted by KTigers View Post
    Re the 2016 GF (and Stevo will probably self combust down there in Vic when he reads this) I just don't think 12 free kicks are worth 22 points.
    12 additional kicks are about 5.5% of the total number of Bulldogs kicks in that game. 22 points (their winning margin) is 25% of their entire
    score. And if they are then 10 free kicks (the Dogs differential in their prelim against GWS) must be worth 6 points (their winning margin in
    that game). I can see how a free kick can reverse the direction the ball is heading, and the momentum thing, but 22 points is a lot to catch up.
    6 points isn't though, and so I think the team that was really robbed in 2016 were the Giants. A Giants-Swans GF that year, well we'll never know...
    No doubt the giants were @@@@@@ over royally too.

    But I think the 22 point margin masks the impact of the umpiring that day somewhat too. We were within what 6 or 7 points with around 5 minutes of in play time left in the game. They kicked those couple of late goals to blow the margin, when the damage had already been done.

    The issue more broadly with free kick counts is they only capture the actual free kicks given. In many games it those that aren't given that should be given (that Grand Final being a good example). So the statistics only capture part of the story.
    "You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO