The Bulldogs and Umpires: Time for a Royal Commission?

[The Warlord]

Sorry what? It's a problem now when players go into a contest and then 'bounce back up and keep going'? This is somehow evidence of playing for frees?

******* lol, this is some next level through the looking glass, parallel universe shitposting. Keep it coming

No, read the post.

When they go in and play for the free, and don't get it, they just bounce back up and keep going.

When a player goes into a contest and there's contact that should result in a free, and they don't get it, they make their displeasure known to the umpire.

That's the difference - certain Dogs players don't remonstrate despite making it appear there was contact because they know there was no contact.

It is a gambit to win possession.

It should be noted that the best Dogs players don't do this. Macrae and Dunkley are ball players who put their head over it. They get lots of frees because they earn them.

 

[The Warlord]

If that were the case, wouldn't we be ahead in terms of 'free-kicks for'? We are currently 6th - it's our 'free-kicks against' that provides the differential.

The points you made above that are probably very accurate and explain Richmond's outlier in terms of free-kick differential at the other end of the scale. But it's a fallacy/exagerration to suggest that players will go into a contest looking to win a free kick. At least not more so than most other players in the league. Each team has its players that have mastered the subtle art of raising the shoulder and dropping the knees. It's effective as an evasive technique more than anything. Often you will see a free-kick being paid, despite the player escaping the tackle anyway.

If it were true that some of our players enter a contest looking to win a free-kick, we wouldn't be 2nd in clearances and 5th in CP. And our free-kicks for will be a lot higher. Simple as that.

That's why I said free kick differential in the post.

Some teams are happy to give up frees - Richmond used to give away lots of professional frees to allow their intercept marking defence to get set up.

But some Dogs players - notably Daniel, Weightman and Hunter - DO go into some contests looking to win the free more than the ball. It is a tactic. They clearly train for it, they have methods of doing it that are clearly practised.

Indeed, the thing that makes it so obvious is when they DON'T do it. All three are very capable of winning hard balls when they want to. It is just that in certain situations they're obviously coached that the high percentage play to win possession to stage for the free.

I'd be interested to see a heat map of where the Dogs get their frees - there's certain positions onfield where certain players seem far more likely to try and get the free than in others. Contested situations on half forward and half back seem to be where most of the staging happens to my eyes.

As I said above, Macrae and Dunkley aren't doing it centre square, or through the middle.

Teams have to do everything possible to win, and for the Dogs this is part of their arsenal.

Pretending otherwise is simply delusional.

 

[drcollossimo]

That's why I said free kick differential in the post.

Some teams are happy to give up frees - Richmond used to give away lots of professional frees to allow their intercept marking defence to get set up.

But some Dogs players - notably Daniel, Weightman and Hunter - DO go into some contests looking to win the free more than the ball. It is a tactic. They clearly train for it, they have methods of doing it that are clearly practised.

Indeed, the thing that makes it so obvious is when they DON'T do it. All three are very capable of winning hard balls when they want to. It is just that in certain situations they're obviously coached that the high percentage play to win possession to stage for the free.

I'd be interested to see a heat map of where the Dogs get their frees - there's certain positions onfield where certain players seem far more likely to try and get the free than in others. Contested situations on half forward and half back seem to be where most of the staging happens to my eyes.

As I said above, Macrae and Dunkley aren't doing it centre square, or through the middle.

Teams have to do everything possible to win, and for the Dogs this is part of their arsenal.

Pretending otherwise is simply delusional.

 

[DogsAreBarking]

No, read the post.

When they go in and play for the free, and don't get it, they just bounce back up and keep going.

When a player goes into a contest and there's contact that should result in a free, and they don't get it, they make their displeasure known to the umpire.

That's the difference - certain Dogs players don't remonstrate despite making it appear there was contact because they know there was no contact.

It is a gambit to win possession.

It should be noted that the best Dogs players don't do this. Macrae and Dunkley are ball players who put their head over it. They get lots of frees because they earn them.

I read your post. That is just as likely to be a result of the discipline that you yourself highlighted. Perhaps, with intent only on winning the ball, they don't stop as often to think about 'contact that should result in a free' and just. keep. hunting. the footy.

You're entitled to your opinion based on your observations, but unless you play the game at the highest level and are out there on the track with AFL players, in the rooms getting the messages, out there on the field in the heat of the game, then like allllllll the rest of us here on the internet you just don't know. You're making inferences based on your observations and your biases. As we all are.

As you say, 'pretending otherwise is simply delusional.' The level of sanctimony that accompanies these accusations of bias/cheating is really bloody amusing though.

 

[The Warlord]

I read your post. That is just as likely to be a result of the discipline that you yourself highlighted. Perhaps, with intent only on winning the ball, they don't stop as often to think about 'contact that should result in a free' and just. keep. hunting. the footy.

You're entitled to your opinion based on your observations, but unless you play the game at the highest level and are out there on the track with AFL players, in the rooms getting the messages, out there on the field in the heat of the game, then like allllllll the rest of us here on the internet you just don't know. You're making inferences based on your observations and your biases. As we all are.

As you say, 'pretending otherwise is simply delusional.' The level of sanctimony that accompanies these accusations of bias/cheating is really bloody amusing though.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

 

[DogsAreBarking]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

I'm saying that you're entitled to think what you think, but to say that anybody who doesn't agree with what you think is delusional is ridiculous.

 

[Plugger35]

No, read the post.

When they go in and play for the free, and don't get it, they just bounce back up and keep going.

When a player goes into a contest and there's contact that should result in a free, and they don't get it, they make their displeasure known to the umpire.

That's the difference - certain Dogs players don't remonstrate despite making it appear there was contact because they know there was no contact.

It is a gambit to win possession.

It should be noted that the best Dogs players don't do this. Macrae and Dunkley are ball players who put their head over it. They get lots of frees because they earn them.

Macrae is one of the worst offenders when it comes to playing for free kicks, he tries to milk high or in the back frees almost every time he's tackled.

 

[Some Idiot]

Here's the table that didn't show in the post above for those that are too lazy to click on, which are probably all the idiots on here that just look at free kick tallies and whinge

Interesting that Stevic paid the least free kicks, probably why they like him for finals, doesn't pay as many soft ones as others

 

[bzparkes]

Interesting that Stevic paid the least free kicks, probably why they like him for finals, doesn't pay as many soft ones as others

Interesting that he also 'missed' the most, considering I saw 2 massive throws directly in front of him looking at the play.

Toby was right.

 

[Some Idiot]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

He's saying that the players don't stop and remonstrate out of discipline. Players are taught from a young age to play to the whistle, umpires aren't going to change their mind.

 

[BEaston]

But some Dogs players - notably Daniel, Weightman and Hunter - DO go into some contests looking to win the free more than the ball.

This is just false, considering they usually have the ball in their hands when they get tackled high. They've already won the ball, its on opposition to then tackle legally.

 

[The Warlord]

I'm saying that you're entitled to think what you think, but to say that anybody who doesn't agree with what you think is delusional is ridiculous.

The facts support my argument - sustained very high positive free kick differential.

 

[The Warlord]

He's saying that the players don't stop and remonstrate out of discipline. Players are taught from a young age to play to the whistle, umpires aren't going to change their mind.

And players lose that when they're drafted to the other 17 clubs? And only some Dogs players display this discipline in certain situations?

It doesn't add up.

 

[The Warlord]

This is just false, considering they usually have the ball in their hands when they get tackled high. They've already won the ball, its on opposition to then tackle legally.

This is where the nuance I talked about comes in. Hunter and Weightman especially will flash into a contest and drop the shoulder/throw the head back even before laying hands on the ball, or simultaneous to grabbing it.

They've entered the contest with the aim of winning the free there.

 

[The Warlord]

Blah blah blah

A compelling response. Please don't reply in future if you don't have anything to add to the discussion.

 

[Some Idiot]

And players lose that when they're drafted to the other 17 clubs? And only some Dogs players display this discipline in certain situations?

It doesn't add up.

No, all clubs have some players that play to the whistle and some players that like to remonstrate. The behaviours you've described aren't limited to Western Bulldogs players. Obviously a player might also react differently to a light tackle to their neck, compared to getting slapped hard across the face.

 

[Mahama]

That's the difference - certain Dogs players don't remonstrate despite making it appear there was contact because they know there was no contact.

Going to jump in and add my 2 cents because you've made some well-reasoned points that can actually be debated, and are actually considering what it is about our play style that gets us on top of the free kick differential. I've gone and put a little too much time into this (helps that I'm home with holes where my wisdom teeth used to be), but feel free to read the main points in bold or skip to the TLDR.


On your point about those players specifically though - I think you're a bit off mainly because those players don't technically stage for free kicks or throw their heads back. They don't need to.

Call it semantics, but they actually draw free kicks - Weightman by doing the arm lift / shoulder shrug, Hunter by doing the lean forward and make your neck as big as possible. Daniel does neither, but you missed McLean as another one. My impression has always been that they don't remonstrate because they know there's room in the rules for the umpire to say they contributed to the high contact with those moves, so why argue? And they'll keep doing it regardless because it makes them harder to tackle, legally or otherwise.


In saying that, if we're trying to figure out why the Bulldogs have lead the free kick differential in 4 of Bevo's 7 years coaching us, looking at our free kicks for isn't going to be much use. Our free kicks for aren't the outlier - our average ranking in that time is 7th, and this year we're 8th. The players you mentioned, despite drawing free kicks (and even if you're right and they all stage for free kicks), really don't win enough free kicks per game to move the needle:

• Cody Weightman: 1.67 FF
• Lachie Hunter: 1.35 FF
• Toby McLean: 1 FF
• Caleb Daniel: 0.78 FF

The most free for per game are players like Shuey (2.57), Cripps (2.30), Selwood (2.26). Even our biggest contested ball winners, Bont and Macrae, only get 1.71 frees for per game.

Instead, and as has been mentioned a few times now, our differential dominance comes from the outlier that is our free kicks against. Our average ranking in Bevo's years is 3rd in this category (compared to 9th in the few years before he arrived), so he's clearly instilled some things in our gameplan that means we consistently give away less free kicks. It doesn't take much to achieve this - an extra 3 free kicks against per game would put us right in the middle of the pack. So where are those 3 missing frees?

If you have a look at the free kicks against player rankings, three types of players are overrepresented in the top 100:

• Ruckmen (12 of the top 20). With something like 90 ruck contests a game, this isn't unexpected.
• Defenders. Presumably infringing in one on one contests against forwards.
• Contested midfielders. Particularly those on teams with poor contested possession differential.

In each of those categories, Bulldog players give away far less free kicks than their peers. We're moving into theories now so happy to hear other opinions, but I think each can be logically explained.

Our main ruckman for the majority of the year has been Tim English, who gives away just 1.15 free kicks per game. As far as number one ruckmen go, English would be about the least competitive in the league when it comes to ruck contests. For example, it's been a clear tactic throughout the year for him to effectively concede boundary throw-ins and instead focus on making sure he stays behind and the ball stays boundary side. It's a recipe for giving away less free kicks. Given Stef Martin was giving away 1.86 frees per game when fit, that's 0.71 frees accounted for.

Our main key defenders this year have been Keath (0.68 FA) and Cordy (0.53 FA), while our general defenders have been Bailey Williams (1.17 FA), Wood (0.85 FA), Duryea (0.57 FA), Daniel (0.52 FA) and Dale (0.42 FA). As has been pointed out in the media many times during the season, our defenders are uniquely reliant on avoiding one-on-one contests, where defenders are most likely to give away free kicks. These 7 players collectively average 14.1 defensive one-on-ones per game, while as a timely comparison, Brisbane's top 7 average 21.4. Our heavily zone-based defence means our defenders are less likely to find themselves alone in tough situations against their opponents, which means less infringements, which is reflected in the numbers. Our 7 defenders combine for 4.74 frees against per game, compared to Brisbane's 5.9 (+1.16). That brings us to 1.87 frees accounted for.

Finally, our top contested midfielders are Libba (1.04 FA), Macrae (0.96 FA), and Bont (1.38 FA). My theory here is that teams with the best contested possession differential are less likely to give away free kicks because they're more often first to the ball as a group. Players like Cunnington and Cripps top the frees against rankings because they're contested bulls themselves, but they're playing in midfields that are overall second to the ball, so they infringe more. We're 4th in contested possession differential, behind Melbourne, Geelong and Brisbane (though we were +10 against them on Saturday). Taking the top 3 contested ball winners from these 4 contest-dominant teams, the collective frees against are:

• 4.23 for Melbourne (Oliver the big outlier)
• 3.35 for Geelong
• 3.16 for Brisbane (Zorko the majority, dude's a psycho)
• 3.38 for the Dogs.

Compared to the Kangaroos, who are in the middle of the rankings for frees against overall mind you, their top 3 mids give away 4.8 free kicks a game. That's 1.42 more than the Dogs, and takes us to 3.29 frees against accounted for. We're done!

On their own, none of these 3 factors make much of an impact on free kick differential. But given the difference between ranking 9th and ranking 1st is just 3 free kicks, we really shouldn't expect the contributing factors to be huge. Those extra 3.29 frees against would drop us to 10th for free kick differential.


TLDR: The Bulldogs have had a strong free kick differential since Bevo started coaching us. This is entirely due to our remarkably low number of free kicks against - we're middle of the pack when it comes to free kicks for. Our uncompetitive ruckman, zone-based defence and strong contested ball winning all contribute to giving away roughly 3 less free kicks per game, without which we'd be ranked 10th in free kick differential. Certainly seems more likely than it being 'discipline' or a conspiracy anyway.

 

[Alesana]

This is where the nuance I talked about comes in. Hunter and Weightman especially will flash into a contest and drop the shoulder/throw the head back even before laying hands on the ball, or simultaneous to grabbing it.

They've entered the contest with the aim of winning the free there.

Just about every team has players that do this

 

[Some Idiot]

A compelling response. Please don't reply in future if you don't have anything to add to the discussion.

The most telling factor that makes your theory less plausible (Now I think you raised some good points about AFL house not caring about throws and wanting to promote an exciting gameplan) is that our free kicks for is actually on par with most teams, the big outlier is actually our low free kicks against. Which is why bulldogs supporters put it down to discipline more than anything else.

Realistically the team is only slightly better at not giving away free kicks than most teams and that adds up to a large number across the season.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

Macrae is one of the worst offenders when it comes to playing for free kicks, he tries to milk high or in the back frees almost every time he's tackled.

Can you perhaps then explain Jack Steele, who receives more frees than Macrae.
Steele 1.9 frees for per game in 2021
Macrae 1.7 frees for per game in 2021

On the reverse
Steele 1.4 frees conceded per game
Macrae 1.0 free conceded.

Gee that Bulldog player doesn't actually get more frees he just gives away less.

We have been trying to highlight the differential is about frees conceded not frees received but the brigade leading the charge are just so full of it, that facts aren't really relevant.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

And players lose that when they're drafted to the other 17 clubs? And only some Dogs players display this discipline in certain situations?

It doesn't add up.

The positive differential coincides with the Beveridge coaching period. Perhaps that indicates some correlation with the philosophies of the coach.

 

[BEaston]

Going to jump in and add my 2 cents because you've made some well-reasoned points that can actually be debated, and are actually considering what it is about our play style that gets us on top of the free kick differential. I've gone and put a little too much time into this (helps that I'm home with holes where my wisdom teeth used to be), but feel free to read the main points in bold or skip to the TLDR.


On your point about those players specifically though - I think you're a bit off mainly because those players don't technically stage for free kicks or throw their heads back. They don't need to.

Call it semantics, but they actually draw free kicks - Weightman by doing the arm lift / shoulder shrug, Hunter by doing the lean forward and make your neck as big as possible. Daniel does neither, but you missed McLean as another one. My impression has always been that they don't remonstrate because they know there's room in the rules for the umpire to say they contributed to the high contact with those moves, so why argue? And they'll keep doing it regardless because it makes them harder to tackle, legally or otherwise.


In saying that, if we're trying to figure out why the Bulldogs have lead the free kick differential in 4 of Bevo's 7 years coaching us, looking at our free kicks for isn't going to be much use. Our free kicks for aren't the outlier - our average ranking in that time is 7th, and this year we're 8th. The players you mentioned, despite drawing free kicks (and even if you're right and they all stage for free kicks), really don't win enough free kicks per game to move the needle:

• Cody Weightman: 1.67 FF
• Lachie Hunter: 1.35 FF
• Toby McLean: 1 FF
• Caleb Daniel: 0.78 FF

The most free for per game are players like Shuey (2.57), Cripps (2.30), Selwood (2.26). Even our biggest contested ball winners, Bont and Macrae, only get 1.71 frees for per game.

Instead, and as has been mentioned a few times now, our differential dominance comes from the outlier that is our free kicks against. Our average ranking in Bevo's years is 3rd in this category (compared to 9th in the few years before he arrived), so he's clearly instilled some things in our gameplan that means we consistently give away less free kicks. It doesn't take much to achieve this - an extra 3 free kicks against per game would put us right in the middle of the pack. So where are those 3 missing frees?

If you have a look at the free kicks against player rankings, three types of players are overrepresented in the top 100:

• Ruckmen (12 of the top 20). With something like 90 ruck contests a game, this isn't unexpected.
• Defenders. Presumably infringing in one on one contests against forwards.
• Contested midfielders. Particularly those on teams with poor contested possession differential.

In each of those categories, Bulldog players give away far less free kicks than their peers. We're moving into theories now so happy to hear other opinions, but I think each can be logically explained.

Our main ruckman for the majority of the year has been Tim English, who gives away just 1.15 free kicks per game. As far as number one ruckmen go, English would be about the least competitive in the league when it comes to ruck contests. For example, it's been a clear tactic throughout the year for him to effectively concede boundary throw-ins and instead focus on making sure he stays behind and the ball stays boundary side. It's a recipe for giving away less free kicks. Given Stef Martin was giving away 1.86 frees per game when fit, that's 0.71 frees accounted for.

Our main key defenders this year have been Keath (0.68 FA) and Cordy (0.53 FA), while our general defenders have been Bailey Williams (1.17 FA), Wood (0.85 FA), Duryea (0.57 FA), Daniel (0.52 FA) and Dale (0.42 FA). As has been pointed out in the media many times during the season, our defenders are uniquely reliant on avoiding one-on-one contests, where defenders are most likely to give away free kicks. These 7 players collectively average 14.1 defensive one-on-ones per game, while as a timely comparison, Brisbane's top 7 average 21.4. Our heavily zone-based defence means our defenders are less likely to find themselves alone in tough situations against their opponents, which means less infringements, which is reflected in the numbers. Our 7 defenders combine for 4.74 frees against per game, compared to Brisbane's 5.9 (+1.16). That brings us to 1.87 frees accounted for.

Finally, our top contested midfielders are Libba (1.04 FA), Macrae (0.96 FA), and Bont (1.38 FA). My theory here is that teams with the best contested possession differential are less likely to give away free kicks because they're more often first to the ball as a group. Players like Cunnington and Cripps top the frees against rankings because they're contested bulls themselves, but they're playing in midfields that are overall second to the ball, so they infringe more. We're 4th in contested possession differential, behind Melbourne, Geelong and Brisbane (though we were +10 against them on Saturday). Taking the top 3 contested ball winners from these 4 contest-dominant teams, the collective frees against are:

• 4.23 for Melbourne (Oliver the big outlier)
• 3.35 for Geelong
• 3.16 for Brisbane (Zorko the majority, dude's a psycho)
• 3.38 for the Dogs.

Compared to the Kangaroos, who are in the middle of the rankings for frees against overall mind you, their top 3 mids give away 4.8 free kicks a game. That's 1.42 more than the Dogs, and takes us to 3.29 frees against accounted for. We're done!

On their own, none of these 3 factors make much of an impact on free kick differential. But given the difference between ranking 9th and ranking 1st is just 3 free kicks, we really shouldn't expect the contributing factors to be huge. Those extra 3.29 frees against would drop us to 10th for free kick differential.


TLDR: The Bulldogs have had a strong free kick differential since Bevo started coaching us. This is entirely due to our remarkably low number of free kicks against - we're middle of the pack when it comes to free kicks for. Our uncompetitive ruckman, zone-based defence and strong contested ball winning all contribute to giving away roughly 3 less free kicks per game, without which we'd be ranked 10th in free kick differential. Certainly seems more likely than it being 'discipline' or a conspiracy anyway.

Good post and all, but I still think it's a conspiracy from Gil to get us premierships. Maybe with some collusion with Peter Gordon.

 

[DogsAreBarking]

And players lose that when they're drafted to the other 17 clubs? And only some Dogs players display this discipline in certain situations?

It doesn't add up.

Some teams are happy to give up frees - Richmond used to give away lots of professional frees to allow their intercept marking defence to get set up.

According to yourself, then yes, perhaps some players do lose this discipline when they're drafted to other clubs because the system that club is choosing to deploy asks them to.

 

[Dancing Dougy]

A compelling response. Please don't reply in future if you don't have anything to add to the discussion.

Haha, sure mate .

Your commentary is so incredibly biased and over the top. The criticism of Weightman is akin to a seasoned player supposedly flopping for years, he hasn’t played 20 games yet. He’s a kid weighing 70 something kilo playing against full grown men. It’s little wonder he gets thrown around. He’s short and positions himself to draw frees. flipping every team has players that do. Get over it!

 

[Northernsoul74]

Going to jump in and add my 2 cents because you've made some well-reasoned points that can actually be debated, and are actually considering what it is about our play style that gets us on top of the free kick differential. I've gone and put a little too much time into this (helps that I'm home with holes where my wisdom teeth used to be), but feel free to read the main points in bold or skip to the TLDR.


On your point about those players specifically though - I think you're a bit off mainly because those players don't technically stage for free kicks or throw their heads back. They don't need to.

Call it semantics, but they actually draw free kicks - Weightman by doing the arm lift / shoulder shrug, Hunter by doing the lean forward and make your neck as big as possible. Daniel does neither, but you missed McLean as another one. My impression has always been that they don't remonstrate because they know there's room in the rules for the umpire to say they contributed to the high contact with those moves, so why argue? And they'll keep doing it regardless because it makes them harder to tackle, legally or otherwise.


In saying that, if we're trying to figure out why the Bulldogs have lead the free kick differential in 4 of Bevo's 7 years coaching us, looking at our free kicks for isn't going to be much use. Our free kicks for aren't the outlier - our average ranking in that time is 7th, and this year we're 8th. The players you mentioned, despite drawing free kicks (and even if you're right and they all stage for free kicks), really don't win enough free kicks per game to move the needle:

• Cody Weightman: 1.67 FF
• Lachie Hunter: 1.35 FF
• Toby McLean: 1 FF
• Caleb Daniel: 0.78 FF

The most free for per game are players like Shuey (2.57), Cripps (2.30), Selwood (2.26). Even our biggest contested ball winners, Bont and Macrae, only get 1.71 frees for per game.

Instead, and as has been mentioned a few times now, our differential dominance comes from the outlier that is our free kicks against. Our average ranking in Bevo's years is 3rd in this category (compared to 9th in the few years before he arrived), so he's clearly instilled some things in our gameplan that means we consistently give away less free kicks. It doesn't take much to achieve this - an extra 3 free kicks against per game would put us right in the middle of the pack. So where are those 3 missing frees?

If you have a look at the free kicks against player rankings, three types of players are overrepresented in the top 100:

• Ruckmen (12 of the top 20). With something like 90 ruck contests a game, this isn't unexpected.
• Defenders. Presumably infringing in one on one contests against forwards.
• Contested midfielders. Particularly those on teams with poor contested possession differential.

In each of those categories, Bulldog players give away far less free kicks than their peers. We're moving into theories now so happy to hear other opinions, but I think each can be logically explained.

Our main ruckman for the majority of the year has been Tim English, who gives away just 1.15 free kicks per game. As far as number one ruckmen go, English would be about the least competitive in the league when it comes to ruck contests. For example, it's been a clear tactic throughout the year for him to effectively concede boundary throw-ins and instead focus on making sure he stays behind and the ball stays boundary side. It's a recipe for giving away less free kicks. Given Stef Martin was giving away 1.86 frees per game when fit, that's 0.71 frees accounted for.

Our main key defenders this year have been Keath (0.68 FA) and Cordy (0.53 FA), while our general defenders have been Bailey Williams (1.17 FA), Wood (0.85 FA), Duryea (0.57 FA), Daniel (0.52 FA) and Dale (0.42 FA). As has been pointed out in the media many times during the season, our defenders are uniquely reliant on avoiding one-on-one contests, where defenders are most likely to give away free kicks. These 7 players collectively average 14.1 defensive one-on-ones per game, while as a timely comparison, Brisbane's top 7 average 21.4. Our heavily zone-based defence means our defenders are less likely to find themselves alone in tough situations against their opponents, which means less infringements, which is reflected in the numbers. Our 7 defenders combine for 4.74 frees against per game, compared to Brisbane's 5.9 (+1.16). That brings us to 1.87 frees accounted for.

Finally, our top contested midfielders are Libba (1.04 FA), Macrae (0.96 FA), and Bont (1.38 FA). My theory here is that teams with the best contested possession differential are less likely to give away free kicks because they're more often first to the ball as a group. Players like Cunnington and Cripps top the frees against rankings because they're contested bulls themselves, but they're playing in midfields that are overall second to the ball, so they infringe more. We're 4th in contested possession differential, behind Melbourne, Geelong and Brisbane (though we were +10 against them on Saturday). Taking the top 3 contested ball winners from these 4 contest-dominant teams, the collective frees against are:

• 4.23 for Melbourne (Oliver the big outlier)
• 3.35 for Geelong
• 3.16 for Brisbane (Zorko the majority, dude's a psycho)
• 3.38 for the Dogs.

Compared to the Kangaroos, who are in the middle of the rankings for frees against overall mind you, their top 3 mids give away 4.8 free kicks a game. That's 1.42 more than the Dogs, and takes us to 3.29 frees against accounted for. We're done!

On their own, none of these 3 factors make much of an impact on free kick differential. But given the difference between ranking 9th and ranking 1st is just 3 free kicks, we really shouldn't expect the contributing factors to be huge. Those extra 3.29 frees against would drop us to 10th for free kick differential.


TLDR: The Bulldogs have had a strong free kick differential since Bevo started coaching us. This is entirely due to our remarkably low number of free kicks against - we're middle of the pack when it comes to free kicks for. Our uncompetitive ruckman, zone-based defence and strong contested ball winning all contribute to giving away roughly 3 less free kicks per game, without which we'd be ranked 10th in free kick differential. Certainly seems more likely than it being 'discipline' or a conspiracy anyway.