#Freekickoppositionteams

[The Adelaide Connection]

In light of the competitions collective conscious being turned on to this notion that we get an unfair armchair ride with the umpires, does anyone else hear the drums of doom that we are about to cop a terrible run with the umpires as they adjust based on the noise?

We have already been on the end of some very ordinary decisions in close games (see Geelong, WC, GWS). Will all this noise end up costing us and giving our opposition a big advantage in the games in the run home?

I for one would be happy to launch a fundraising page where we can all contribute to pay Al's Highlights a salary to put together a compilation of free kicks we get and the ones we don't get, and those that the opposition do and don't get. Empty vessels can and have made the most sound and now unfortunately the one bad free kick we get is used each week as "proof" that we get unfair treatment. It'd be nice to post a weekly video and pour water on the momentum this fire is gathering.

[S Coast Simon]

I will donate to the cause. I have always been a fair sport when it comes to free kicks I know when we have gotten away with one and call it out against us. I find this absolutely ridiculous all the clubs going to the afl for explanations on the rules. You know the rules you clowns. I am impressed by Bevo being the bigger man and not stooping to this level. The carry on by Longmire and the rules after we beat them made him look like a spoilt brat that didn't get his own way. This will hurt us for sure. I didn't like Goddard very much in the past but coming out and defending the Bulldogs and basically saying what we all know. The AFL got rid off the third man up and somehow changed their perception of what is actually a hanball to slow our progress. Everyone is carrying on about how bad we are playing but fail to take into account how much we have lost from our arsenal with the rule gone. The Bont is quieter without jumping third. It has halted Blicavs career it seems. All our onballers used to benefit from this tactic. Massive loss to our game. This was another reason Bevo didn't stress about a ruckman to much. Now it's gone and we don't have a ruckman in top 15 in the league. I would love to know the date the rule change was announced if anyone knows.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

It's already happened this year. The swans game the main example. But it's been happening all year, particularly early with the whole "throwing" claims. But yes, i see that it will get worse after this week. You watch. Luckily though we are playing an interstate team at home so the effect shouldnt be as bad. But the following week against Adelaide we'll get pantsed by the umps. Especially after the mother of all sook from the crows the last time we played them. Bookmark it.

[bornadog]

DO DOGS GET A DREAM RUN? (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/afl-daily-live-rolling-footy-news-from-around-australia/news-story/1bc1c42b71d5be56c07051c2c2cfc113?utm_content=SocialFlow&utm_campaign=EditorialSF&utm_source=HeraldSun&utm_medium=Twitter)
Western Bulldogs captain Bob Murphy has rejected suggestions his club receives favourable treatment from the umpires.

But he says coach Luke Beveridge has emphasised playing in a way that impacts the free kick count in his time as coach.
The Bulldogs won the count 26-14 against North Melbourne after at one stage leading 15-2. They have received 263 frees this season (second-most behind Brisbane) and given away 216 (third-fewest behind West Coast and Collingwood).

"Where does it say that it has to be 7-7?," Murphy said on SEN.

"When Luke started at the Bulldogs he talked about those things - you play in front, you don't give away free kicks because free kicks kill you, especially in the middle of the ground.

"It's not something we train or talk about mainly but it's part of the team discipline."

[Bulldog Joe]

DO DOGS GET A DREAM RUN? (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/afl-daily-live-rolling-footy-news-from-around-australia/news-story/1bc1c42b71d5be56c07051c2c2cfc113?utm_content=SocialFlow&utm_campaign=EditorialSF&utm_source=HeraldSun&utm_medium=Twitter)
Western Bulldogs captain Bob Murphy has rejected suggestions his club receives favourable treatment from the umpires.

But he says coach Luke Beveridge has emphasised playing in a way that impacts the free kick count in his time as coach.
The Bulldogs won the count 26-14 against North Melbourne after at one stage leading 15-2. They have received 263 frees this season (second-most behind Brisbane) and given away 216 (third-fewest behind West Coast and Collingwood).

"Where does it say that it has to be 7-7?," Murphy said on SEN.

"When Luke started at the Bulldogs he talked about those things - you play in front, you don't give away free kicks because free kicks kill you, especially in the middle of the ground.

"It's not something we train or talk about mainly but it's part of the team discipline."

What a novel approach.

Could perhaps the clubs having a whinge simply be advised of the sense of that.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

What a novel approach.

Could perhaps the clubs having a whinge simply be advised of the sense of that.

So other clubs think so lowly of us that whenever we implement something innovative, we must be cheating or getting preferential treatment. Handball club we were throwing. Working on not giving away free kicks means the umps are favouring us.

I never realised how deep our perception of being minnows was in the eyes of other clubs. They're having a hard time accepting change aren't they?

[Twodogs]

What a novel approach.

Could perhaps the clubs having a whinge simply be advised of the sense of that.

Bevo mentions that exact fact (we always play in front, perhaps other clubs could look at what they are doing instead of us, we are a disciplined team are all answers he's given to the free kick question this season.) every time he's asked about umpiring.

[hujsh]

So other clubs think so lowly of us that whenever we implement something innovative, we must be cheating or getting preferential treatment. Handball club we were throwing. Working on not giving away free kicks means the umps are favouring us.

I never realised how deep our perception of being minnows was in the eyes of other clubs. They're having a hard time accepting change aren't they?

Not even necessarily that. Nothing innovative about playing in front, going for the ball and not doing stupid shit. It's how you're meant to play the game (though some AFL coaches might disagree)

[LostDoggy]

As bevo says, have an independent reviewer or panel go through the games and mark all the frees that should have been given in each of these games and come out with a definitive list over time. The numbers by themselves are meaningless.

[SonofScray]

Not even necessarily that. Nothing innovative about playing in front, going for the ball and not doing stupid shit. It's how you're meant to play the game (though some AFL coaches might disagree)

I've seen people try and argue the minor Premiership is the greater achievement and that our lucky run has exposed that fact. Ridiculous the lengths people are prepared to go.

[hujsh]

I've seen people try and argue the minor Premiership is the greater achievement and that our lucky run has exposed that fact. Ridiculous the lengths people are prepared to go.

Until their club wins a premiership (if they manage to do so)

[Flamethrower]

The one question I continually ask people when they make the unfounded accusation that we are the AFLs & their umpires pets is...why?

The AFL have tried multple times to kill us off, they make up new rules just to keep us down - why would an organisation that worships the mighty dollar deliberately favour one of the minnows of the competition who are followed by one of the poorest demographics...it makes no sense.

If the AFL were going to instruct the umpires to favour anyone, it would be a super rich team with wealthy followers - they have more disposable income to give to the AFL.

If it was some wierd attempt to copy the fairytale that occurred in the EPL with Leicester City winning the league, that may pass the sniff test last year - but that is done and dusted now - it's 2017 - the thinking at AFL HQ would be time to put the Dogs back in the pound, where they belong.

[bulldogtragic]

I like it. 'They' have been pushing hard to get the attention of the AFEL umpires. But it will only take another little nudge and then 'they' will alienate the umpires to the point of no return. 'They' have intimated that the umpires aren't being fair, but it's becoming a slanderous smear that the umpires are cheating or collouding. This will end up being a positive. I used to umpire once upon a time as well as my former career, I will tell you this... when you make it 'us against them' (where we are not in the 'them' group), (a) you're determined to be impartial and not swayed, and (b) there's nothing personally sweeter than being in a position to make a straight up strong point to people calling into to question your honesty or integrity.

These media leaking sooks have succeeded in ruffling feathers and maybe generating second guessing. But I hope it continues, louder, longer, more aggressive, more ruder and more disgusting than it already is. When it tips over the edge, Luke Beveridge will be there again standing up for umpires just like always does, and like he did with Troy Panell last year. When he was the only voice in entire footy industry saying he actually made all the right calls, it was just he had runs of play. Bevo's not doing it to cheat, he's being honest and using his profile to fight against claims of corruption in our umpire ranks. More should use their profile for this too, but let them attack umpires to AFEL House and then leak it to journos. Says a lot about them and that they're not 100% focussed on their affairs.

You catch more frees with honey, than vinegar.

[The Adelaide Connection]

As bevo says, have an independent reviewer or panel go through the games and mark all the frees that should have been given in each of these games and come out with a definitive list over time. The numbers by themselves are meaningless.

I like this a lot. I'd also like them to have a free kick category called: "Free kick that was inconsequential because recipients had already taken the mark or played on." We would lead the league in these. Quite often it is a tactic to slow teams like us down (when you know they are off so you commit the professional foul hoping to slow them down). I think we were up to about 4 or 5 of these in the opening 10 minutes of the GF.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

While we're on the topic, out-of-bounds on the full really needs to be separated from free kick counts. Because it's misleading when people start complaining about free kick counts. What if on saturday north kicked the ball on the full 7 times?

[Bulldog Joe]

I like this a lot. I'd also like them to have a free kick category called: "Free kick that was inconsequential because recipients had already taken the mark or played on." We would lead the league in these. Quite often it is a tactic to slow teams like us down (when you know they are off so you commit the professional foul hoping to slow them down). I think we were up to about 4 or 5 of these in the opening 10 minutes of the GF.

Why can't they provide a detailed analysis on the umpiring from each game.

It would clearly identify to everybody, the issue that the umpires deal with and provide a better understanding in why there is a free kick differential.

[soupman]

I've seen people try and argue the minor Premiership is the greater achievement and that our lucky run has exposed that fact. Ridiculous the lengths people are prepared to go.


Playing devils advocate here but is that such a ridiculous assertion? Atm the AFL schedule is wildly unbalanced. Home and away games are practically meaningless compared to the finals. For example a result one way or the other this weekend may seem like it makes a huge difference, but in reality it may mean stuff all.

Really there are 3 tiers you spend the entire season qualifying for: top 4, top 8 and outside the 8. The positions within those tiers are close enough to be considered the same, there is realistically no benefit to finishing 3rd over 4th, or 5th over 6th, and while the home ground advantage is worth something I've seen enough finals now to know that at most it provides a 10% advantage.

The AFL system is the equivalent of F1's having a 22 lap qualifier for a 4 lap race. The winner (or minor premier I our case) of the qualifying tournament is practically irrelevant, despite them being proven to be the best performed team in a comp where draws are theoretically even. Instead we heap all the praise on the team that wins a sudden death style tournament at the end, where some teams are given minor (home ground) or major (double chance) advantages over others.

It just seems rather unbalanced in the end when you think about it.


*A disclaimer that I am very happy with the current system and have no desire to see it changed. This is just something I've been thinking about the last few years.

[bornadog]

It just seems rather unbalanced in the end when you think about it.

*A disclaimer that I am very happy with the current system and have no desire to see it changed. This is just something I've been thinking about the last few years.

What is unbalanced is the actual teams you play every year. This BS of contrived blockbusters is just a big joke. The sooner a proper draw is introduced the better for the fairness of the whole competition.

[Twodogs]

Playing devils advocate here but is that such a ridiculous assertion? Atm the AFL schedule is wildly unbalanced. Home and away games are practically meaningless compared to the finals. For example a result one way or the other this weekend may seem like it makes a huge difference, but in reality it may mean stuff all.

Really there are 3 tiers you spend the entire season qualifying for: top 4, top 8 and outside the 8. The positions within those tiers are close enough to be considered the same, there is realistically no benefit to finishing 3rd over 4th, or 5th over 6th, and while the home ground advantage is worth something I've seen enough finals now to know that at most it provides a 10% advantage.

The AFL system is the equivalent of F1's having a 22 lap qualifier for a 4 lap race. The winner (or minor premier I our case) of the qualifying tournament is practically irrelevant, despite them being proven to be the best performed team in a comp where draws are theoretically even. Instead we heap all the praise on the team that wins a sudden death style tournament at the end, where some teams are given minor (home ground) or major (double chance) advantages over others.

It just seems rather unbalanced in the end when you think about it.


*A disclaimer that I am very happy with the current system and have no desire to see it changed. This is just something I've been thinking about the last few years.

I'm not. I want a fair season where every team plays each other twice. It can be done we just have to have the will power and the will to stand up to the Players' Association.

[Mantis]

What is unbalanced is the actual teams you play every year. This BS of contrived blockbusters is just a big joke. The sooner a proper draw is introduced the better for the fairness of the whole competition.

How do you propose a 'proper' draw is implemented?

[bulldogsthru&thru]

How do you propose a 'proper' draw is implemented?

I don't ever see a draw with all teams playing each other twice happening. 34 games plus finals will never be agreed on by the players association. And rightly so. It's an incredibly taxing game and to play an additional 12 weeks of football is a bit much. However i also don't think we should be reducing the fixture. I know it's not popular on here, but i am all for a 17-5 style draw. It also solves the perception of the minor premiership being a more true representation of the best team (which i think is rubbish by the way) as the best teams play each other for an extra 5 weeks. It needs a bit of fine tuning no doubt. I'm not in a mental state to get into that right now. But the fixture in it's current state is not fair. You think of the financial gains you make by making the finals and teams are missing because they have to play better teams twice as opposed to another team who plays lower teams twice. It has to be addressed.

[S Coast Simon]

Questioning the integrity if the umpiring department would be a very very dangerous thing to do I would have thought. the way Brad Scott carries on is embarrassing. The AFL must shudder when he is aired on TV.

[LostDoggy]

How do you propose a 'proper' draw is implemented?

The only way is to reduce the number of teams, remove the preseaon, turn the finals into a 3 round qtr-semi-final schedule and play every team H&A twice. Higher quality teams and a better spectacle. (I would hate to lose or merge the dogs of course)

Just fold GCS and GWS or North.

I'm not a fan of the conference system or the 17/5 but 17/5 would be the distant next preference.

[Ozza]

I have absolutely no problem with the current 22 game fixture. "Fairness" that I have been after in the past is in relation to all clubs being able to have access to Friday night and to a lesser extent, Saturday night games. But in terms of the 'who plays who' - this season is a good example of how teams that were seen to have a 'favourable draw' at the start of the season, might not actually have a favourable draw as it turns out.

As just one example, before the season started, I'm not sure teams would have necessarily been putting their hands up to play Hawthorn twice, but they probably would have considered Essendon, Port or Richmond as easier options. As it turns out, all three of these teams will finish higher than the hawks.

The AFL season is the most even it has ever been - the team sitting 17th on the ladder on a given week has won on 5 occasions this year I believe. As for the finals system, I disagree with the assertion that positions on the ladder don't really matter. The history of the final 8 would suggest that the positioning of teams after the H&A is crucial to your chances of success. Last year, our side broke all sorts of records and history - I wouldn't expect that the premier to come from outside the top 4 too often.

[bornadog]

How do you propose a 'proper' draw is implemented?

Pick the teams out of a hat, it is very simple. First 17 rounds everyone plays each other, then last five draw out of a hat - pure luck who you draw. You could go further and work out the last 5 games over the next 4 or so years so make sure you play teams twice over that period.

Currently teams like Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Richmond play each other twice, and I think the same with WestCoast& Freo, Sydney & gws and maybe Brisbane and GC (not sure on the interstate ones). Then the rest are worked out. Bloody Joke.

[soupman]

The AFL season is the most even it has ever been - the team sitting 17th on the ladder on a given week has won on 5 occasions this year I believe. As for the finals system, I disagree with the assertion that positions on the ladder don't really matter. The history of the final 8 would suggest that the positioning of teams after the H&A is crucial to your chances of success. Last year, our side broke all sorts of records and history - I wouldn't expect that the premier to come from outside the top 4 too often.

I don't disagree, top 4 offers a clear advantage over 5-8th. We were truly an anomaly. However I think positions 1-4 are almost equal, and 5-8 also. So we play 22 games each to determine if you fit in one of two groups of 4.

I just find it peculiar that we give barely any credit to the best performed side over a large sample size of 22 games, and heap all the praise on a team that probably has a lesser season but is in better form in the finals. Again, I'm fine with it and I enjoy the aspect that they are the best performing team when it matters against the best sides, but it does kind of render most of what happens in the season somewhat irrelevant.

For those asking how we make the draw more even, the fairest and most realistic proposal I can think of is a 25 game season into finals. It's drawn over a period of 2 seasons, and the objective is you play every side 3 times over two seasons. So you'll play 17 sides first time around, and then 8 teams a second time that year. The next season you will play 17 sides once, and a different 8 teams a second time. Unfortunately it is flawed in that you will miss out on playing one team 3 times, but that could be determined randomly. Home games always alternate, and the rest is as per normal. It would probably involve two bye rounds, possible shortening of the pre-season comp by at least a week but it could be accommodated and it is probably the fairest option available.

[Twodogs]

I don't disagree, top 4 offers a clear advantage over 5-8th. We were truly an anomaly. However I think positions 1-4 are almost equal, and 5-8 also. So we play 22 games each to determine if you fit in one of two groups of 4.

I just find it peculiar that we give barely any credit to the best performed side over a large sample size of 22 games, and heap all the praise on a team that probably has a lesser season but is in better form in the finals. Again, I'm fine with it and I enjoy the aspect that they are the best performing team when it matters against the best sides, but it does kind of render most of what happens in the season somewhat irrelevant.

For those asking how we make the draw more even, the fairest and most realistic proposal I can think of is a 25 game season into finals. It's drawn over a period of 2 seasons, and the objective is you play every side 3 times over two seasons. So you'll play 17 sides first time around, and then 8 teams a second time that year. The next season you will play 17 sides once, and a different 8 teams a second time. Unfortunately it is flawed in that you will miss out on playing one team 3 times, but that could be determined randomly. Home games always alternate, and the rest is as per normal. It would probably involve two bye rounds, possible shortening of the pre-season comp by at least a week but it could be accommodated and it is probably the fairest option available.

They get the McClennand trophy, what more do you want?


Actually I agree, up until 20 years ago the top team always enjoyed an advantage over the other finalists be it the Right of Challenge or a week's rest in the final five system. These days they get no more advantage than the team that finishes second.

What can you give them that rewards them finishing top? Apart from the McClelland trophy, obviously.

[bornadog]

They get the McClennand trophy, what more do you want?


Actually I agree, up until 20 years ago the top team always enjoyed an advantage over the other finalists be it the Right of Challenge or a week's rest in the final five system. These days they get no more advantage than the team that finishes second.

What can you give them that rewards them finishing top? Apart from the McClelland trophy, obviously.

For those that don't know about this trophy:


The McClelland Trophy is an Australian rules football trophy, which has been awarded each year since 1991 by the Australian Football League (AFL) to the team finishing first on the ladder after the completion of the home-and-away season, before the finals are played. Between 1950 and 1990 it was awarded to the club that performed the best across the three levels of competition; seniors, reserves and under 19s.

We have never won it - a hurdle I would like to see achieved.

[SonofScray]

Playing devils advocate here but is that such a ridiculous assertion?


*A disclaimer that I am very happy with the current system and have no desire to see it changed. This is just something I've been thinking about the last few years.

Without trashing some well made points, yes.
First past the post has merit if everyone played each other twice, home and away. There are too many variables in the fixture as it stands for 1st place to assume the space of the definitive measure of that season's champions. Pretty much agree with your points though.


Beyond that, the argument people are making goes against decades of conventional fan thinking. They are prepared to chuck out the status quo and devalue years of their own history to try discredit our achievement. That is the most ludicrous part. A bit of can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Ozza]

I don't disagree, top 4 offers a clear advantage over 5-8th. We were truly an anomaly. However I think positions 1-4 are almost equal, and 5-8 also. So we play 22 games each to determine if you fit in one of two groups of 4.


I don't agree that 1-4 are almost equal. Looking at this years likely top 4 - getting a top 2 spot and not having to travel is crucial. If GWS and Adelaide get 1st and 2nd - then the grand final spots are theirs to lose. If, for instance, Geelong got their noses in front of Adelaide - then Adelaide would likely travel to Skilled Stadium (or at least the MCG) week one of the finals. Say they lose that and play Port Adelaide week 2 at Adelaide oval....pretty crucial that they finish 3rd rather than 2nd in that sort of a scenario.

Last year, things didn't pan out the same way due to two Sydney sides playing each other week one, and two Melbourne sides (Cats/Hawks) playing off in the 2 v 3 qualifying final.

In terms of the bottom 4 of the 8 though - we were significantly disadvantaged by finishing 7th rather than 6th. North Melbourne finishing 8th, as you would expect, ended up travelling to Adelaide and getting bounced out.

In a national competition, there is a clear advantage, in finishing higher on the ladder.

[soupman]

I don't agree that 1-4 are almost equal. Looking at this years likely top 4 - getting a top 2 spot and not having to travel is crucial. If GWS and Adelaide get 1st and 2nd - then the grand final spots are theirs to lose. If, for instance, Geelong got their noses in front of Adelaide - then Adelaide would likely travel to Skilled Stadium (or at least the MCG) week one of the finals. Say they lose that and play Port Adelaide week 2 at Adelaide oval....pretty crucial that they finish 3rd rather than 2nd in that sort of a scenario.
I'm not sure it's that big an issue anymore.

I looked at the stats, 2006-2010 had barely any upsets and barely any wins away from home, but 2011-2015 had heaps.

Looking at just the first week of finals, 8 teams that finished lower than their opponent won (12 favourites won).
And of the matches where there was a clear home ground advantage it was a 6/6 split.

Breaking it down further of the upsets only 2 were in the top four (with 8 favourites winning), but both of them were away matches with a clear home advantage (home sides won 4 games).

In the 5-8 section you were more likely to win if you were the underdog, with 6 upsets (and 4 expected results), and away sides won 4 games to the home sides 2.

So positions 5-8 are clearly irrelevant regardless of finishing position or home ground (although a lot of them would have lost the next week, which doesn't disprove the argument), while the top 2 sides seem to be better than 3-4.

Anyway this is getting in confusing territory where I forget what I am arguing. I still think there are largely two tiers of top four and top 8 with positions within that not so important, home ground advantage in finals helps but I'm not sure it is that big a factor, especially in even years where there is little separating teams.

[always right]

Great to see Bevo take on this ridiculous argument that we are favoured by the umpires.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-30/beveridge-bristles-at-ump-bias-claims

After Sam Edmund's article on last week's game, I emailed him and challenged him to do some analysis on free kicks paid and unpaid over several dogs games to ascertain whether the calls were accurate. Still waiting for a response.

Staggered that no journalist has decided to do this sort of analysis.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

"Strong enquiries made at the end of last year"

No doubt that was from sydney.

[bornadog]

Great to see Bevo take on this ridiculous argument that we are favoured by the umpires.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-30/beveridge-bristles-at-ump-bias-claims

After Sam Edmund's article on last week's game, I emailed him and challenged him to do some analysis on free kicks paid and unpaid over several dogs games to ascertain whether the calls were accurate. Still waiting for a response.

Staggered that no journalist has decided to do this sort of analysis.

Listen to the whole press conference here
(http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/video/2017-06-30/beveridge-previews-west-coast)

[The Bulldogs Bite]

"Strong enquiries made at the end of last year"

No doubt that was from sydney.

Had to blame somebody for their consistent GF failures ;)

[bulldogsthru&thru]

2 interesting things out of Bevo's press conference:

1. He hates Brad Scott
2. His reaction to Boyd's under 18 coaches call for Tom to be played as a forward.....

[bornadog]

2 interesting things out of Bevo's press conference:

1. He hates Brad Scott
2. His reaction to Boyd's under 18 coaches call for Tom to be played as a forward.....

I read that article on SEN and laughed. Here (https://www.sen.com.au/news/2017/06/27/send-boyd-home-says-bomber-champ/) is the link if you are interested.

[Twodogs]

2 interesting things out of Bevo's press conference:

1. He hates Brad Scott
2. His reaction to Boyd's under 18 coaches call for Tom to be played as a forward.....


I think he just hates the Scott twins full stop.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I think he just hates the Scott twins full stop.

Who doesn't

[LostDoggy]

Bevo and Scott were in the Player Development/Assistant coaching group at Collingwood around 2009-2010. Wonder if there was any stories to come from that time? Buckley also became senior assistant to Malthouse in 2010 so it would've been a pretty lively coaching environment at the time.

[LostDoggy]

Loved Bevo's reactions when asked about comments from Tom Boyd's former coach.. "Who"

Enjoyed that presser! It's just hilarious the two incidents being brought up were both blatantly obviously the correct call. Plus the free kick that led to Higgins getting that set shot wasn't there.

[LostDoggy]

At the 10:50 mark of the interview when the the reporter mentions damian barrett's name.

Wow, he has soooo much contempt for barrett is not funny, ok it is a little bit.

Never change Bevo.

[Twodogs]

Who doesn't


Not me, that's for sure.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Just wait to you see the biblical proportion reaming we get from the umpires on Friday night. I have already planned to get to the exact amount of beers in me that I need to have all inhibitions released so I can yell out "Hashtag freekickadelaide" loud and frequently.
I believe the magic beer number is about 6.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I didn't see any of the game on the weekend, but on the footy shows monday night, both showed how the holding the ball rule has been lost on everyone. A few of the examples involved our game and all of these were us tackling the eagles.....i cannot say how bewildering those non-calls were. In one example, the eagles player stiff-armed two of our players before being tackled and dropping the ball.....yet it was play-on. Either the umpires made several mistakes or they were trying not to give us free kicks after the media reports during the week.

Friday night scares me.

Also i am in no way suggesting the umpiring lost us the game. It wasn't even close to being the case. But the integrity of the umpires is starting to be questioned when 2 performances from them have been strange in the 2 weeks following media reports of complaints of favouritism to us (vs Sydney and last week)

[LostDoggy]

I didn't see any of the game on the weekend, but on the footy shows monday night, both showed how the holding the ball rule has been lost on everyone. A few of the examples involved our game and all of these were us tackling the eagles.....i cannot say how bewildering those non-calls were. In one example, the eagles player stiff-armed two of our players before being tackled and dropping the ball.....yet it was play-on. Either the umpires made several mistakes or they were trying not to give us free kicks after the media reports during the week.

Friday night scares me.

Also i am in no way suggesting the umpiring lost us the game. It wasn't even close to being the case. But the integrity of the umpires is starting to be questioned when 2 performances from them have been strange in the 2 weeks following media reports of complaints of favouritism to us (vs Sydney and last week)


Like you said it wasn't why we lost but the umpires have lost all integrity and given some of the flogs in the media the power to write and defame them all they want. The AFL have made their own bed now.

[bornadog]

I didn't see any of the game on the weekend, but on the footy shows monday night, both showed how the holding the ball rule has been lost on everyone. A few of the examples involved our game and all of these were us tackling the eagles.....i cannot say how bewildering those non-calls were. In one example, the eagles player stiff-armed two of our players before being tackled and dropping the ball.....yet it was play-on. Either the umpires made several mistakes or they were trying not to give us free kicks after the media reports during the week.

I have heard on talk back radio others complaining about the way the game is currently being umpired. I think it goes back to the direction being given by Schwab and co. The whole interpretation of our game has changed and has effected the way the game is played.

Pretty sure we got away with a few HTB as well on Saturday, but two frees that I was livid about came with minutes to go when the scores were 1 point the difference. The so called dangerous tackle against The Bont (rubbish call) in the middle of the ground when we had the momentum, then the subsequent kick into the forward line and Petri getting a holding the man in the marking contest. I was close to that action and everyone had hands on each other, the umpire should have called play on. The two kicks gave them the opportunity to get the final goal.