Frees for and frees against

[Niximus]

Adelaide had 6 less free kicks than GWS on the weekend despite being first to the ball and not having to tackle them.

There was a very clear bias toward the Giants in that game. Most 50/50 calls went their way.

We were horrible no doubt, but it felt like an under 10's game where they were helping out the smaller kids. That shouldn't happen at the elite level of the game.

 

[Hump 17]

Few factors:

-Cox led the AFL in frees for last year I believe. He draws frees from ruck contests like no other. Not his fault they love to grapple onto him.
- Selwood
-Our midfield. It's very inside mid dominant. Kerr, Priddis, S.Selwood, Masten and Shuey all get down and dirty. Apart from holding the ball, that's where the frees are.
-Glass gives away hardly any frees. Back men often give away a heap.
-Our press. Put players under pressure and they are most likely to make mistakes and give away frees.
-Crowd influence at home games. It happens everywhere. Umpires get sucked into giving frees because of the crowd.

If anyone actually believes that the umpires go out on the ground and intentionally favor a side then they are delusional. Umpires make mistakes in all games which go both ways.

Also regarding the Masten free. It's easy to tell why the umpire payed it. He believed it was 2 Hawthorn players holding it in. I don't believe it was the correct decision but I can't understand how people can say they don't understand it.

Love all your reasons but thats the problem that you have while other teams cop. You say Glass doesnt give away frees while other defenders do. Have you got proof that its just that he doesnt get pinged when he infringes? Massive differance the same with Cox.

 

[josh_eagles]

That holding the ball call Masten got was ridiculous though.

I disagree... As soon as Osborne dived on the ball I said to myself "Gotta be ball"... it was there, he dived on it and didnt get it out. I can't see why that is getting so much attention, I've seen more dubious holding the ball decisions.

 

[mayne iac]

Maybe because the commentators said it was the most perplexing decision they had seen...Maybe because it was 2 blokes getting their hands on the ball at the same time, wrestling then "whistle" "ball"..WC Free

 

[Hairy Lager]

My mistake, so the umps just love the eagles regardless of ladder positions.

On an unrelated note, I wonder what the eagles do with all that leftover cash from their massive profits every year.

Party with it cause we're winners, what do you guys do?

 

[Spanish_Fly]

Learn the rules. Textbook free-kick. You can hate it, but that is 100% a free kick according to the dvd given to all clubs at the start of the season.

Well the AFL has come out and admitted that decision was wrong, take your blue and Gold goggles off and have another look if thats possible.

 

[Spirit Level]

Being first to the ball does help as well

this.

 

[mayne iac]

quack quack

 

[Hump 17]

Being first to the ball does help as well

Almost a disadvantage now days. You get pinned these days for going for the ball.

 

[Jentleman Geff]

I remember Naitanui getting a ruck infringement free kick in a derby last year because Barlow got in the way of him being third man up. Given Cox and Griffin were the two actually contesting the ruck, I'm not sure why such an infringement is paid, given that such a tactic is basically nullifying Griffin from the contest.

My theory is that a lot of Eagles players have reputations that precede them. So Naitanui gets frees that other young rucks wouldn't. Same as Riewoldt getting free kicks Buddy could only dream of. Umpires have pets.

 

[Hump 17]

I remember Naitanui getting a ruck infringement free kick in a derby last year because Barlow got in the way of him being third man up. Given Cox and Griffin were the two actually contesting the ruck, I'm not sure why such an infringement is paid, given that such a tactic is basically nullifying Griffin from the contest.

My theory is that a lot of Eagles players have reputations that precede them. So Naitanui gets frees that other young rucks wouldn't. Same as Riewoldt getting free kicks Buddy could only dream of. Umpires have pets.

Seriously how can you have Riewoldt in there after Friday night? His head was used as a speedball and still didnt get a free.

 

[Jentleman Geff]

Seriously how can you have Riewoldt in there after Friday night? His head was used as a speedball and still didnt get a free.

Historically he has an absurdly high free kick differential in his favour. Other key forwards could only dream of the free kicks he's gotten.

 

[kane249]

On an unrelated note, I wonder what the eagles do with all that leftover cash from their massive profits every year.

Pay off The West, Channel 7 Perth, Radio 'Eagle' 6PR, the other WA Media and the Illuminati who all conspire to keep Freo down

Money well spent too

 

[Dagless]

Dominant. Ruckmen.

 

[kane249]

I remember Naitanui getting a ruck infringement free kick in a derby last year because Barlow got in the way of him being third man up. Given Cox and Griffin were the two actually contesting the ruck, I'm not sure why such an infringement is paid, given that such a tactic is basically nullifying Griffin from the contest.

Because you're still not allowed to block off people from going up to contest the ruck even if they aren't the designated ruckman? You can thank Melbourne for first doing that against us in Naitanui's third game I think it was which brought it to light and the umps have been looking for it ever since.

On a side note nothing was stopping you from using Clarke, Johnson or someone else as third man up for your team to try and nullify Cox.

 

[estibador]

Because you're still not allowed to block off people from going up to contest the ruck even if they aren't the designated ruckman?

Are you sure about that?

The whole reason there is a designated ruckman is so the ump knows which player isn't allowed to be blocked from going at the ball. Otherwise what's the point?

There's no rule about allowing every player a free run at the ball, otherwise every time a player stands in front of his opponent at a stoppage it would be a free kick.

The Melbourne/Naitanui thing is where the designated ruckman thing came into focus because the eagles were trying to claim two ruckman should both be protected under the rules, when clearly only the designated one should be.

 

[kaiserchief13]

WC are just one of the best tackling teams (when they do tackle) in the competition, hence the lack of frees against. The frees for is because they have too many good athletes that the opposition can't compete with.

 

[Dagless]

WC are just one of the best tackling teams (when they do tackle) in the competition, hence the lack of frees against. The frees for is because they have too many good athletes that the opposition can't compete with.

The umps get lost in their shining blue eyes and beautiful locks.

 

[JRoo]

Devil's advocate here, but my understanding was that the free kick was paid against Osborne because Brad Hill's hands were also on the ball and they were holding it in together and making no attempt to get rid of it?

Wasn't Masten riding Osbornes back??

http://www.eaglesflyinghigh.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=429553

Is this the free kick where at one stage Masten was pretty much riding Osbourne before rolling him onto the ground?

 

[UpForGrabs]

Wasn't Masten riding Osbornes back??

Yeah, probably was. Anyway, AFL's come out and said that the decision was incorrect. Won't try and make sense of it or defend it from here on in.

 

[flyinghi64]

The biggest advantage in a free kick is where and when they are paid. 3 easy free's in front of goals is a heap better than 8 in defence or on the wing but all you see on the stat is 8 frees kicks to 3.
The Eagles may have won the count on the free's but there were many both ways not paid and others that shouldn't have been paid, take the quick throw's for example.

At the end of the day if you are first in at the ball and play the ball hard you have more chance of getting a resultant free from a clumsy tackle than if you are 2nd to the ball.

 

[JRoo]

Yeah, probably was. Anyway, AFL's come out and said that the decision was incorrect. Won't try and make sense of it or defend it from here on in.

So if an umpire couldn't work out who was or wasn't holding the ball why wasn't the obvious free kick; in the back paid against Masten?

 

[kane249]

So if an umpire couldn't work out who was or wasn't holding the ball why wasn't the obvious free kick; in the back paid against Masten?

Read the next part after what you just highlighted

Yeah, probably was. Anyway, AFL's come out and said that the decision was incorrect. Won't try and make sense of it or defend it from here on in.

It was a bed decision, these things happen

 

[ok.crows]

There was a very clear bias toward the Giants in that game. Most 50/50 calls went their way.

We were horrible no doubt, but it felt like an under 10's game where they were helping out the smaller kids. That shouldn't happen at the elite level of the game.

Oh yes, very much so. The level of incident that was required for GWS to receive a free kick was far lower than what was required for Adelaide to receive a free kick.

For example it needed only a GWS player to slightly lower his head in a tackle and a free would inevitably result for high contact. In contrast, apparently according to the umpires, the Crows players didn't have any heads. It was certainly somehow impossible for a GWS player to make any contact to a Crows players' head ... according to the umpires at least.

It is not so much that any given call was unequivocally wrong. It was just the difference in standard applied to determine if a free kick was justified (depending on which team was potentially infringing/infringed upon) that had the crowd riled.

 

[Vince12]

Are you sure about that?

The whole reason there is a designated ruckman is so the ump knows which player isn't allowed to be blocked from going at the ball. Otherwise what's the point?

There's no rule about allowing every player a free run at the ball, otherwise every time a player stands in front of his opponent at a stoppage it would be a free kick.

The Melbourne/Naitanui thing is where the designated ruckman thing came into focus because the eagles were trying to claim two ruckman should both be protected under the rules, when clearly only the designated one should be.

You can't intentionally block any player around the stoppages, regardless if they are ruckman or not.