 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fence-banger 
Zito Kypro
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Location: northcote
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Some argue with umpires and get pinged, as you say Rocket.
But hey, others argue with umpires and don't get pinged!
Some defenders haven't learnt yet that they won't get away with the new hands-in-the-back rule, as you say.
Again, others still get away with it. How so?
Milking frees?
OK for some, but not for others.
Some miss Grannies due to weeny Suspensions.
Others have the privelage of wearing a Medal around their necks, courtesy of an inconsistent Tribunal.
If you start with a Hunch that all is not right, it will eventually lead to a Theory ~ a smelly Conspiracy Theory can be the real thing.
_________________
Side by side we Stick together |
|
|
|
 |
jack_spain
Joined: 03 May 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dave The Man wrote: | | Who was that Cheating knob Number 5? |
Now, now Dave. Who was that knob who got Chapman into trouble for calling him a cheat last week? 2 x 50 metre penalties I think it was.  |
|
|
|
|
rocketronnie
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Location: Reservoir
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| CamGivesMeWood wrote: | 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. |
"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?"
Oops... you didn't read my post too closely did you?
Last time I looked that's an explanation of why we get more frees when we win.
When you are playing from behind or attempting to increase your deperation level in order to get the team ahead and are tackling hard but incorrectly you'll give away frees. If you are not playing well, are frustrated, and shoot your mouth off after a decision you don't like, you'll give away a fifty. If you are trying to mark from behind, you'll give away a free. It is usually the case that losing teams have a higher frees against count.
The only concession I'll give is that if you are a player and you shoot your mouth of at umpires continually about your opinion of their umpiring (as we do all the time) you're not going to endear yourself to them are you? I suspect some of the borderline interpretative decisions against are a result of umpires being unsympathetic to us because we continmually slag them off on field. Its again a result of our own indiscipline.
Evidence? Most evidence in criminal cases is physical, or based on eyewitness accounts, or is circumstantial in that points to motivation, method, identification etc. That being said it needs to reach a common standard of proof and be testable in cross examination. Its interpretable but only within a certain range of probability. What you've put forward is a pure assertion of opinion. Yoou have no actual facts to back it up at all. Your suggesting to me that it is so because you say it is and that is no argument at all.
The burden of proof here is on you guys asserting that umpires are cheats. Thats the proposition you've put forward. So far your premises dont lead to your conclusions. So show me how they do.
But don't worry I won't be holding my breath.... 
_________________
"Only the weak believe that what they do in battle is who they are as men" - Thomas Marshall - "Ironclad". |
|
|
|
|
rocketronnie
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Location: Reservoir
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| fence-banger wrote: | Some argue with umpires and get pinged, as you say Rocket.
But hey, others argue with umpires and don't get pinged!
Some defenders haven't learnt yet that they won't get away with the new hands-in-the-back rule, as you say.
Again, others still get away with it. How so?
Milking frees?
OK for some, but not for others.
Some miss Grannies due to weeny Suspensions.
Others have the privelage of wearing a Medal around their necks, courtesy of an inconsistent Tribunal.
If you start with a Hunch that all is not right, it will eventually lead to a Theory ~ a smelly Conspiracy Theory can be the real thing. |
You end up with a theory along with other possible theories. However, whether you adopt that needs to be based on which is more probable. What makes a theory probable? - a body of evidence and interpretation of evidence that leads to a likely or definite conclusion. In this case there is no direct evidence that a conspiracy or cheating exists. The evidence to support that theory can be interpreted just as validly in other ways as I have shown. Therefore it cannot be proved. End of story.
_________________
"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: | |
|
I reckon I've put forward facts. I also reckon you've started arguing in circles and repeating yourself. I'll put the facts forward one last time.
1. Free kick for vs. Free kick against percentage last year: 84%, 2nd worst in league . This is a FACT. We made a preliminary final last year. Did we do it getting to the ball second and playing from behind? Because these are the only reasons you've provided for the disparity. I think we played with a much more positive style last year.
2. Particularly bad free kicks are paid against us in particularly bad parts of the ground, at particularly crucial stages of the game. Evidence? Harry O'Brien's 50m penalty for a legitimate attempt to spoil in the dying stages of the Roos game which guaranteed a goal, Heath Shaw x 2 on the weekend, Alastair Lynch vs. Shane Wakelin in the goal square in the 02 grand final, and if you were even listening I could name countless others.
3. Our free kick count is significantly worse when the game is on the line, and your explanations for this seem to indicate that Collingwood players are the only players in the comp who feel the effects of pressure. This includes our veterans like Scott Burns, and opposition first year players, apparently. Do me a favour.
I give up. You are supposedly Collingwood supporters. If you want to revel in the punishment and stick to blaming the players, knock yourselves out.
_________________
they can smell what we're cookin' |
|
|
|
|
rocketronnie
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Location: Reservoir
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| CamGivesMeWood wrote: | I reckon I've put forward facts. I also reckon you've started arguing in circles and repeating yourself. I'll put the facts forward one last time.
1. Free kick for vs. Free kick against percentage last year: 84%, 2nd worst in league . This is a FACT. We made a preliminary final last year. Did we do it getting to the ball second and playing from behind? Because these are the only reasons you've provided for the disparity. I think we played with a much more positive style last year.
2. Particularly bad free kicks are paid against us in particularly bad parts of the ground, at particularly crucial stages of the game. Evidence? Harry O'Brien's 50m penalty for a legitimate attempt to spoil in the dying stages of the Roos game which guaranteed a goal, Heath Shaw x 2 on the weekend, Alastair Lynch vs. Shane Wakelin in the goal square in the 02 grand final, and if you were even listening I could name countless others.
3. Our free kick count is significantly worse when the game is on the line, and your explanations for this seem to indicate that Collingwood players are the only players in the comp who feel the effects of pressure. This includes our veterans like Scott Burns, and opposition first year players, apparently. Do me a favour.
I give up. You are supposedly Collingwood supporters. If you want to revel in the punishment and stick to blaming the players, knock yourselves out. |
All your evidence is circumstantial with no proof as to how this occurs. If it makes you feel good, so be it. Personally I think its a vacuous paranoid conspiracy theory.
I dont blame the players totally as I have said. Its a combination of a number of variable factors as I pointed out.
Also are you suggesting I have to be a "hysterical nutjob" to be a Collingwood supporter?
_________________
"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: | |
|
Rocket, you've been pretty free with the insults yourself!
You've also done pretty well in trying to address each point raised by us numbskulls in this thread. Well that is, you've been methodical, but not necessarily convincing IMHO.
And still, as far as I can see, you haven't explained how your suggestion of changing the Umpiring Boss automatically leads to improved umpiring??
_________________
Side by side we Stick together |
|
|
|
|
lethalburns 
Joined: 16 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I think our higher free kick count could have to do with the close checking man-on-man brand of football we play.
We are not a free flowing football side.
We are a team that congests space and tries to hunt our opponent with high tackle counts.
As such, we are probably more prone to giving away free kicks.
Also our backline has given away a lot of free kicks this year because we have been smashed through the middle in a number of games.
This explains why we are giving away more shots in front of goal. |
|
|
|
|
jack_spain
Joined: 03 May 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| lethalburns wrote: | | I think our higher free kick count could have to do with the close checking man-on-man brand of football we play. |
I take you point, but I'm sorry mate, we were anything but close-checking man-on-man last saturday. The Bombers had "loose men everywhere", and I'm not talking about their morals.  |
|
|
|
|
Breadcrawl
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| lethalburns wrote: | I think our higher free kick count could have to do with the close checking man-on-man brand of football we play.
We are not a free flowing football side.
We are a team that congests space and tries to hunt our opponent with high tackle counts.
As such, we are probably more prone to giving away free kicks.
Also our backline has given away a lot of free kicks this year because we have been smashed through the middle in a number of games.
This explains why we are giving away more shots in front of goal. |
Reasonable. So why were Sydney on the good side of the FF/FA ledger last year (again, I haven't done the other teams this year yet)? They got to a couple of grand finals playing close-checking, tackle-happy footy. Let me guess - they're infinitely better at tackling without infringing, right? 
_________________
they can smell what we're cookin' |
|
|
|
|
rocketronnie
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Location: Reservoir
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| fence-banger wrote: | Rocket, you've been pretty free with the insults yourself!
You've also done pretty well in trying to address each point raised by us numbskulls in this thread. Well that is, you've been methodical, but not necessarily convincing IMHO.
And still, as far as I can see, you haven't explained how your suggestion of changing the Umpiring Boss automatically leads to improved umpiring?? |
Geez is there enough bandwidth here to explain this one?
I'll keep it short cos I reckon you'll agree with this.
Geoff Geischen is an incompetent. He was an incompetent coach at The Tigers - disorganized, uncreative, not very motivating. After he lost his job at The Tigers he was taken on by the AFL, where he has the job of interpreting the Rules Committee Circus (RCC) decisions. Under his tutelage umpiring has become more inconsistent than it has ever been before. Interpretations have become reactive, often dependent on what the media are saying, and have become changeable from week to week. No wonder umpires and players have difficulties with them, essentially the rules are changing week to week.
The emphasis on paying technical frees over instinctive contextual frees (where the free is an infringement on the players ability to play the game successfully rather than a technical free for an infringement that may be an accident or was the result of the flow of the game) means that umpires are paying everything they see and some they think they see (Foley done for incorrect disposal when the umpire couldn't see it but guessed he threw it when he actually handballed it on Sat night). They would rather cover their ass than let the game flow. Why? As some ex-umpires have implied, they are pulled up by Geischen et al if they do not. Given that umpires have a split second to make up their minds re decisions, the less changes in interpretation they have to deal with in a year the better. Umpiring was better in the 90's, 80's and 70's because there was far more consistency in interpretation. Everyone knew what they are getting. These days you don't know what the interpretation is until the round is almost over. No wonder Umps and players seem confused.
I'd like to see Geischen gone, and Bartlett and Co also. Clearly they have a mechanistic and overly rule-driven view of how the rules should be interpreted, and one that is at odds with how the game is being played. I'd like to see recent ex-players and an ex-coach (Sheedy?) with some ex-umpires running the show on the Umpires' Committee, and the Rules Committee run by nominees from all the clubs (and no KB!).
The game needs rule stability not the lucky dip Geischen and Co serve up now.
There may be problems with my suggestions but they couldn't do a worse job than the current clowns. New incumbents with an agenda of rule consistency and letting the game evolve as it will, rather than trying to force it to be something else by reactive technical rule changes, could bring about positive change to umpiring.
_________________
"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: | | fence-banger wrote: | Rocket, you've been pretty free with the insults yourself!
You've also done pretty well in trying to address each point raised by us numbskulls in this thread. Well that is, you've been methodical, but not necessarily convincing IMHO.
And still, as far as I can see, you haven't explained how your suggestion of changing the Umpiring Boss automatically leads to improved umpiring?? |
Geez is there enough bandwidth here to explain this one?
I'll keep it short cos I reckon you'll agree with this.
Geoff Geischen is an incompetent. He was an incompetent coach at The Tigers - disorganized, uncreative, not very motivating. After he lost his job at The Tigers he was taken on by the AFL, where he has the job of interpreting the Rules Committee Circus (RCC) decisions. Under his tutelage umpiring has become more inconsistent than it has ever been before. Interpretations have become reactive, often dependent on what the media are saying, and have become changeable from week to week. No wonder umpires and players have difficulties with them, essentially the rules are changing week to week.
The emphasis on paying technical frees over instinctive contextual frees (where the free is an infringement on the players ability to play the game successfully rather than a technical free for an infringement that may be an accident or was the result of the flow of the game) means that umpires are paying everything they see and some they think they see (Foley done for incorrect disposal when the umpire couldn't see it but guessed he threw it when he actually handballed it on Sat night). They would rather cover their ass than let the game flow. Why? As some ex-umpires have implied, they are pulled up by Geischen et al if they do not. Given that umpires have a split second to make up their minds re decisions, the less changes in interpretation they have to deal with in a year the better. Umpiring was better in the 90's, 80's and 70's because there was far more consistency in interpretation. Everyone knew what they are getting. These days you don't know what the interpretation is until the round is almost over. No wonder Umps and players seem confused.
I'd like to see Geischen gone, and Bartlett and Co also. Clearly they have a mechanistic and overly rule-driven view of how the rules should be interpreted, and one that is at odds with how the game is being played. I'd like to see recent ex-players and an ex-coach (Sheedy?) with some ex-umpires running the show on the Umpires' Committee, and the Rules Committee run by nominees from all the clubs (and no KB!).
The game needs rule stability not the lucky dip Geischen and Co serve up now.
There may be problems with my suggestions but they couldn't do a worse job than the current clowns. New incumbents with an agenda of rule consistency and letting the game evolve as it will, rather than trying to force it to be something else by reactive technical rule changes, could bring about positive change to umpiring. |
I whole-heartedly agree. Awesomely well put Ronnie.
And the whole debacle is tolerated because it creates a big, fat margin of error within which the umpires can easily favour one team over the other, and blame 'interpretation' and the lag of players to become accustomed with new rules, rather than the real reason: intentional bias.
_________________
they can smell what we're cookin' |
|
|
|
|
rocketronnie
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Location: Reservoir
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| CamGivesMeWood wrote: | | rocketronnie wrote: | | fence-banger wrote: | Rocket, you've been pretty free with the insults yourself!
You've also done pretty well in trying to address each point raised by us numbskulls in this thread. Well that is, you've been methodical, but not necessarily convincing IMHO.
And still, as far as I can see, you haven't explained how your suggestion of changing the Umpiring Boss automatically leads to improved umpiring?? |
Geez is there enough bandwidth here to explain this one?
I'll keep it short cos I reckon you'll agree with this.
Geoff Geischen is an incompetent. He was an incompetent coach at The Tigers - disorganized, uncreative, not very motivating. After he lost his job at The Tigers he was taken on by the AFL, where he has the job of interpreting the Rules Committee Circus (RCC) decisions. Under his tutelage umpiring has become more inconsistent than it has ever been before. Interpretations have become reactive, often dependent on what the media are saying, and have become changeable from week to week. No wonder umpires and players have difficulties with them, essentially the rules are changing week to week.
The emphasis on paying technical frees over instinctive contextual frees (where the free is an infringement on the players ability to play the game successfully rather than a technical free for an infringement that may be an accident or was the result of the flow of the game) means that umpires are paying everything they see and some they think they see (Foley done for incorrect disposal when the umpire couldn't see it but guessed he threw it when he actually handballed it on Sat night). They would rather cover their ass than let the game flow. Why? As some ex-umpires have implied, they are pulled up by Geischen et al if they do not. Given that umpires have a split second to make up their minds re decisions, the less changes in interpretation they have to deal with in a year the better. Umpiring was better in the 90's, 80's and 70's because there was far more consistency in interpretation. Everyone knew what they are getting. These days you don't know what the interpretation is until the round is almost over. No wonder Umps and players seem confused.
I'd like to see Geischen gone, and Bartlett and Co also. Clearly they have a mechanistic and overly rule-driven view of how the rules should be interpreted, and one that is at odds with how the game is being played. I'd like to see recent ex-players and an ex-coach (Sheedy?) with some ex-umpires running the show on the Umpires' Committee, and the Rules Committee run by nominees from all the clubs (and no KB!).
The game needs rule stability not the lucky dip Geischen and Co serve up now.
There may be problems with my suggestions but they couldn't do a worse job than the current clowns. New incumbents with an agenda of rule consistency and letting the game evolve as it will, rather than trying to force it to be something else by reactive technical rule changes, could bring about positive change to umpiring. |
I whole-heartedly agree. Awesomely well put Ronnie.
And the whole debacle is tolerated because it creates a big, fat margin of error within which the umpires can easily favour one team over the other, and blame 'interpretation' and the lag of players to become accustomed with new rules, rather than the real reason: intentional bias. |
You had me until that last line!
I think the reason it's tolerated is because the current administration and The RCC are incapable of admitting they got it wrong. They do it in every other aspect of the AFL administration, why should this one be any different?
Here's a question for you Cam - IF there was an intentional bias - what do the AFL as a body get out of letting it flourish?
_________________
"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: | |
|
Power.
Collingwood, in terms of membership, sponsorship appeal, crowd-drawing power, is a juggernaut, and it advantages us in ways the draft and salary cap can't restrict. Demetriou is a huge power-tripper and I'm sure it bugs him that in some ways one club is almost as big as the game itself.
Do you doubt that interstate clubs have monopolised the ultimate success for the majority of this decade because the AFL willed it to be so? I can provide reams of evidence if you doubt this contention - I don't think many Collingwood supporters are in the dark about this - we were on the receiving end.
As a body, we are gluttons for punishment - the most spectacularly unsuccessful club in the comp, that has seemingly grown in strength every time we lost a Grand Final. If the AFL needed a whipping boy, don't we make perfect sense?
Then there's DTM's spurious theory about umps betting on the games. I think this unprobable. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone connected closely to Demetriou made an absolute shitload of money on Saturday backing the Dons. What do you need to create this profit-making opportunity? A huge group of passionate supporters putting their hardearned on their beloved Pies.
That, Ronnie, is all opinion, pure opinion, and there is no evidence. They are theories I have formed in order to explain phenomena which occur before my eyes.
I coach an amateur team, and on Sunday, for some unknown reason, the umpire favoured my team. It was apparent to me, and I spoke to the players at halftime about taking advantage of it.
It made me think, "I must be capable of some objectivity, since I don't think we deserved all of those free kicks. I felt sorry for the Dons on Anzac Day when they coldn't take a trick with the umpires. So why did I feel so infuriated on Saturday at the MCG, and why do I feel like that so often watching the Pies?"
I have no doubts it's happening mate. As I said, the reasons above make sense to me, but they are my theories only.
_________________
they can smell what we're cookin' |
|
|
|
|
Piethagoras' Theorem 
the hypotenuse, is always a cakewalk
Joined: 29 May 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
wow, really enjoyed the debate, fellas, keep up the good work. FWIW I actually support Ronnies view but Cam, you've thrown up a few beauties and really challenged my thinking. Well done. Minimal abuse, too 
_________________
Formally frankiboy and FrankieGoesToCollingwood. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
