 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| CamGivesMeWood wrote: |
If someone can give me a logical explanation for this which doesn't involve the umpires being unscrupulous cheats, I'd love to hear it. |
How bout this. When we aren't playing well, our players are undisciplined, get frustrated and give away stupid free kicks.
Yes, the umpiring yesterday was inconsistent rubbish, but it's like that most weeks. Players need to HTFU mentally and learn to STFU. Umpires will NOT change their mind because a player behaves like a petulant school kid.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
And,as my dear late dad used to say"Look,it does not matter at the end of the day,how many frees are given,but it DOES damn matter,where they are given,what part of the ground.The free kick count can be even,but if five of those frees were given on ONE sides forward line,resulting in five goals,whereas the OTHER five were given to the other side,on the HB line,no goals,then it makes one hell of a difference."Its just common sense,its WHERE frees are given,and 50 metre penalties,that really matter.
_________________
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man 
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Who was that Cheating Prick Number 5?
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
rocketronnie
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Location: Reservoir
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| CamGivesMeWood wrote: | Here's some evidence Rocket Ronnie.
First I'll state my theory. In a nutshell, the umps have it in for us. It's no particular ump or set of umps, it's the lot, which means it has to be a conspiracy. You can call me a hysterical nutjob if you want, but here are the stats.
Free kicks for vs Free kicks against = 305 - 283. If you divide one by the other to get a percentage, as we do for points scored for and against, you get 92.8%. I haven't done the other teams this year but last year we finished on around 84%, and Freo was the only team that fared worse. Most teams fell between 96% and 104%, which is what you'd expect. West Coast and Brisbane were way over the odds at around 115%.
At this point some of you are thinking that teams that get to the ball first get more free kicks, etc etc. But Lions weren't that good last year. And my argument, supported by evidence as RocketRonnie requested, doesn't end there.
You see, I think a HUGE discrepancy between frees for and against, especially seasons in a row, would start to look bad and even ostriches with their heads in the sand might start to wonder. So they make sure we get our fair share in games that are over anyway, in order to make the overall tallies respectable.
This year, I think the games that were over by 3 quarter time were the first against the Bombers, the Cats, the Eagles, the Hawks, the Tigers and the Swans (the margin was only 26 but the Swans kicked only one goal in the 2nd and 3rd quarters - it was over). Analysing our games in two groups, the close games vs. the spankings, yields the following results:
Close games: Frees for - 173 Frees against - 206 Percentage 84%
Spankings: Frees for - 110 Frees against - 99 Percentage 111.8%
Which represents a percentage difference of nearly 28% between games where the odd free kick didn't matter, and games where it really, really did, the Lions and the Roos just as HUGE, GLARING examples.
If someone can give me a logical explanation for this which doesn't involve the umpires being unscrupulous cheats, I'd love to hear it. |
You have provided evidence that there is sometimes a discrepancy between frees for us and against us.
Fine.
However you have no evidence that this is in any way deliberate and done for a malicious reason.
Other possible reasons for this are (a) Umpire incompetence; (b) Collingwood incompetence.
1) Umpires make mistakes - a lot of them. The Rules Committee circus encourages this inconsistency. If its doubtful or they are unsighted, they either don't pay them or guess. There was a good example of the guesswork going wrong in the Richmond-Brisbane game, when the umpire was unsighted when Foley was tackled and handballed it legally but he umpire paid incorrect disposal. There are many examples of this sort of thing in every match.
2) Some players still persist with hands in the back even thought they know they will get pinged. Some tackle incompetently. Some argue with umpires and regularly give away fifties etc etc.
Both of these other explanations are as, or even more, viable than explanations that are unprovable due to a total lack of evidence. Evidence of both (1) and (2) are readily available.
And furthermore, I will decline your invitation to refer to you as a "Hysterical Nutjob" as there is little or no evidence to prove that proposition. 
Next?
_________________
"Only the weak believe that what they do in battle is who they are as men" - Thomas Marshall - "Ironclad". |
|
|
|
|
favourites 2008
The Machine
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
Location: Mooroolbark
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Maybe we get undisciplined when the game is on the line. Play the percentages and dont give the umpires a chance to pin you.
_________________
Like Nicks, why not donate
http://magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
fence-banger 
Zito Kypro
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Location: northcote
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| rocketronnie wrote: | | fence-banger wrote: | | rocketronnie wrote: | ya gotta love a good conspiracy theory - even if its wildly wrong.  |
RocketRonnie,
how about you proving that the conspiracy theory is wrong. |
I have already in the terms that Dave has put it forward. Dave provided no evidence to show that it is true. Therefore, in the absence of positive evidence to the contrary, I make the reasonable assumption that the situation does not exist. Before someone brings it up, the absence of a thing does not prove its existence.
Next? |
Many posters do beleive that it's very smelly out there ~ they've listed all sorts of examples ~ these examples, years of them in fact, form an obvious pattern ~ that's how the conspiracy theory kicks-in.
It isn't mere imagination, and it isn't making excuses.
It's plain ugly fact.
_________________
Side by side we Stick together |
|
|
|
|
Breadcrawl
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | CamGivesMeWood wrote: |
If someone can give me a logical explanation for this which doesn't involve the umpires being unscrupulous cheats, I'd love to hear it. |
How bout this. When we aren't playing well, our players are undisciplined, get frustrated and give away stupid free kicks.
|
The problem with that rebuttal is that in the spankings there is a hiding handed to us by the Hawks. We didn't play well that day, we were soundly beaten, but the free kick count was roughly even, 23-20. The umpires didn't need to rip us off, the game was over so they didn't bother.
_________________
they can smell what we're cookin' |
|
|
|
|
rocketronnie
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Location: Reservoir
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| fence-banger wrote: | | rocketronnie wrote: | | fence-banger wrote: | | rocketronnie wrote: | | ya gotta love a good conspiracy theory - even if its wildly wrong. |
RocketRonnie,
how about you proving that the conspiracy theory is wrong. |
I have already in the terms that Dave has put it forward. Dave provided no evidence to show that it is true. Therefore, in the absence of positive evidence to the contrary, I make the reasonable assumption that the situation does not exist. Before someone brings it up, the absence of a thing does not prove its existence.
Next? |
Many posters do beleive that it's very smelly out there ~ they've listed all sorts of examples ~ these examples, years of them in fact, form an obvious pattern ~ that's how the conspiracy theory kicks-in.
It isn't mere imagination, and it isn't making excuses.
It's plain ugly fact. |
Plain ugly opinion more like. Convenient excuse also perhaps?
_________________
"Only the weak believe that what they do in battle is who they are as men" - Thomas Marshall - "Ironclad". |
|
|
|
|
Breadcrawl
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| rocketronnie wrote: |
You have provided evidence that there is sometimes a discrepancy between frees for us and against us.
Fine.
However you have no evidence that this is in any way deliberate and done for a malicious reason.
Other possible reasons for this are (a) Umpire incompetence; (b) Collingwood incompetence.
1) Umpires make mistakes - a lot of them. The Rules Committee circus encourages this inconsistency. If its doubtful or they are unsighted, they either don't pay them or guess. There was a good example of the guesswork going wrong in the Richmond-Brisbane game, when the umpire was unsighted when Foley was tackled and handballed it legally but he umpire paid incorrect disposal. There are many examples of this sort of thing in every match.
2) Some players still persist with hands in the back even thought they know they will get pinged. Some tackle incompetently. Some argue with umpires and regularly give away fifties etc etc.
Both of these other explanations are as, or even more, viable than explanations that are unprovable due to a total lack of evidence. Evidence of both (1) and (2) are readily available.
And furthermore, I will decline your invitation to refer to you as a "Hysterical Nutjob" as there is little or no evidence to prove that proposition.
Next? |
Umpire incompetence doesn't explain why we get more free kicks in walkovers, whether we win or lose, than we do in close games. Nor does it explain why we got 50 or so fewer free kicks than were given against us last year, because if it was simply error, you wold expect the mistakes to even out over time. They don't.
Statistics aren't going to refute the "players are incompetent" argument, obviously. Let's go over a few concrete examples from yesterday's game instead.
Heath Shaw used his HIP to gain advantage in a marking contest, and was done for hands in the back. His hands never touched his opponent. The same thing happened to Dale Thomas. Five minutes later, Monfries had a handful of Shaw's jumper between his shoulder blades and his other hand supporting the first by holding his own wrist, let go at the last moment to take the mark, and was paid it. The decisions were exactly the wrong way round, and this was 50m out from goal, at a stage when we were coming back at them and reducing the lead.
Laycock took the ball out of the ruck and was tackled, dropped the ball, and it was play on. If you take the ball out of the ruck you are considered to have had prior opportunity and are holding the ball as soon as an opponent TOUCHES you if you haven't already disposed.
Now you're going to go back to the "umpires make mistakes" argument, but conveniently, no single piece of evidence is going to shut down both of your explanations at the same time.
You still need to explain to me why the mistakes umpires make, apparently innocently, just so happen to go well against us in close games, and ever so slightly with us when the fat lady has sung.
_________________
they can smell what we're cookin' |
|
|
|
|
cobood 
In Bucks I trust!
Joined: 19 Oct 2000
Location: Northern Subs Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Excellent post CGMW.... go Ronnie try and call this one a convenient excuse.. 
_________________
....Collingwood Forever....
....Premiers 2010/ |
|
|
|
|
DaVe86
Man of Steele
Joined: 08 Oct 2004
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Umpires were well stacked against us.
If the umpires were fair, we would've only lost by 35 points.
We can get up in arms, but better to just acknowledge we were crap.
When you are 2nd to the ball, you are going to give away free kicks.
When you are the team chasing, you are going to give away more free kicks.
What annoys me is the simple ones missed like the holding the ball out of the ruck, a couple of high tackles, a soft 50 against Cloke for pointing, a ticky touchwood free kick against didak infront of goal which i thought initially was a free to Didak for high.
But, had no bearing on the result.
_________________
There's more to life than footy.........just not much more. |
|
|
|
|
Zakal
One Game, One Club, One Jumper
Joined: 04 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| DaVe86 wrote: | Umpires were well stacked against us.
If the umpires were fair, we would've only lost by 35 points.
We can get up in arms, but better to just acknowledge we were crap.
When you are 2nd to the ball, you are going to give away free kicks.
When you are the team chasing, you are going to give away more free kicks.
What annoys me is the simple ones missed like the holding the ball out of the ruck, a couple of high tackles, a soft 50 against Cloke for pointing, a ticky touchwood free kick against didak infront of goal which i thought initially was a free to Didak for high.
But, had no bearing on the result. |
...and those kinds of mistakes that annoy you will never be addressed if the criteria for addressing umpiring is "only when it has a bearing on the result."
...then of course theres the "oh well it was that close, we should have been good enough to win it."
Now im all for not giving the PLAYERS an excuse for the loss (to blame the umpiring)...but the umpiring standard is not related to the teams performance, and should not be confused. |
|
|
|
|
rocketronnie
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Location: Reservoir
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| CamGivesMeWood wrote: | | rocketronnie wrote: |
You have provided evidence that there is sometimes a discrepancy between frees for us and against us.
Fine.
However you have no evidence that this is in any way deliberate and done for a malicious reason.
Other possible reasons for this are (a) Umpire incompetence; (b) Collingwood incompetence.
1) Umpires make mistakes - a lot of them. The Rules Committee circus encourages this inconsistency. If its doubtful or they are unsighted, they either don't pay them or guess. There was a good example of the guesswork going wrong in the Richmond-Brisbane game, when the umpire was unsighted when Foley was tackled and handballed it legally but he umpire paid incorrect disposal. There are many examples of this sort of thing in every match.
2) Some players still persist with hands in the back even thought they know they will get pinged. Some tackle incompetently. Some argue with umpires and regularly give away fifties etc etc.
Both of these other explanations are as, or even more, viable than explanations that are unprovable due to a total lack of evidence. Evidence of both (1) and (2) are readily available.
And furthermore, I will decline your invitation to refer to you as a "Hysterical Nutjob" as there is little or no evidence to prove that proposition.
Next? |
Umpire incompetence doesn't explain why we get more free kicks in walkovers, whether we win or lose, than we do in close games. Nor does it explain why we got 50 or so fewer free kicks than were given against us last year, because if it was simply error, you wold expect the mistakes to even out over time. They don't.
Statistics aren't going to refute the "players are incompetent" argument, obviously. Let's go over a few concrete examples from yesterday's game instead.
Heath Shaw used his HIP to gain advantage in a marking contest, and was done for hands in the back. His hands never touched his opponent. The same thing happened to Dale Thomas. Five minutes later, Monfries had a handful of Shaw's jumper between his shoulder blades and his other hand supporting the first by holding his own wrist, let go at the last moment to take the mark, and was paid it. The decisions were exactly the wrong way round, and this was 50m out from goal, at a stage when we were coming back at them and reducing the lead.
Laycock took the ball out of the ruck and was tackled, dropped the ball, and it was play on. If you take the ball out of the ruck you are considered to have had prior opportunity and are holding the ball as soon as an opponent TOUCHES you if you haven't already disposed.
Now you're going to go back to the "umpires make mistakes" argument, but conveniently, no single piece of evidence is going to shut down both of your explanations at the same time.
You still need to explain to me why the mistakes umpires make, apparently innocently, just so happen to go well against us in close games, and ever so slightly with us when the fat lady has sung. |
Yep that's right. Poor umpiring and a lack of discipline at crucial moments in a game (such as Heath Shaw's brain fades in the last qtr against North) combine to create these situations.
The standard of umpiring is generally poor with little reasoned decision making being made. Umpires prefer to protect their arses and give technical free kicks rather than interpreting the situation in the context of the play. That's the fault of Geischen and the rules committee.
If umpiring has been poor across the whole of a game there is no reason to assume it will suddenly improve in a tight last quarter.
If we are playing in front (the result of which means we are usually winning the game), you are less likely to have frees given against you. Simple isn't it?
Also our lack of discipline with umpires hurts us. Its just my perception but we seem to be more argumentative with umpires as a team than others I've seen this year. I don't think it helps our play as it just destroys concentration and increases the likelihood of giving away even more silly free kicks (Ben Johnson drops his head whenever he has a decision against him and plays even more erratically as a result. As does Cloke at times). We have a very poor record of poor tackling technique and not adapting to the hands-in-the-back infringement (Rocca, Heath Shaw and Brown often have this problem). Lately we have been caught with the ball and are often second to the contest increasing the likelihood of an infringement (like the whole team).
So there. Now let's see some POSITIVE evidence of the Great Big Bad Umpires' Conspiracy. I wanna see either statements from umpires that they do it, documentary evidence from the AFL instructing umpires to be biased against Collingwood, statements from current umpires that they hate Collingwood and make decisions against us. Let's see the positive evidence that it occurs. PROVE your assertions please.
At the end of the day, I can't convince you to think rationally, only you can do that. Simplistic solutions like conspiracy theories are attractive because they are easy to believe. It also takes the heat from less palatable reasons for the free kick count.
There is no doubt the umpiring standard is consistently poor. However carrying on like pork chops won't bring any change in the situation. Its only pressure from the clubs to get rid of Geischen and his mates that will bring about some positive change. Carrying on about conspiracy theories just makes us look like "Hysterical Nut Jobs".
_________________
"Only the weak believe that what they do in battle is who they are as men" - Thomas Marshall - "Ironclad". |
|
|
|
|
fence-banger
Zito Kypro
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Location: northcote
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Where's the rationale, the logic, in believing that if Geischen was gotten rid of, that that would necessarily mean a better/improved standard of umpiring?
_________________
Side by side we Stick together |
|
|
|
|
Breadcrawl
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
You still need to explain to me why the mistakes umpires make, apparently innocently, just so happen to go well against us in close games, and ever so slightly with us when the fat lady has sung.
Not even going near that are you?
Your list of the things that you'd require to acknowledge that there might be something in what I'm saying shows that you're the one that isn't thinking rationally. You might as well say, "I'm not going to believe that that guy killed that other guy unless he admits it, brags about it or we find a written plan of how he went about it." Reasonable people investigate evidence and look for logical reasons to explain what they find.
I'm still waiting for your logical explanation for such a big difference in free kicks to us between close games and butt-whippings. The fact that you've declined this invitation several times now tells me you've got nothing.
_________________
they can smell what we're cookin' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
