The Bulldogs and Umpires: Time for a Royal Commission?

[bzparkes]

OK looks like you're just full of hot air and no substance

Nah, just staying humble.

 

[charcoalchicken]

Three blatantly wrong decisions that could have got brissie over the line, Gardner free kick which resulted in a Brisbane goal when he clearly got the ball, Daniel deliberate out of bounds, which was a mis kick from mid air, which resulted in a Brisbane shot on goal and bontempelli’s overturned goal which was inconclusive at best, luckily the bulldogs were too good for Brisbane and the refs influence and won in spite of that

 

[O Grobbecker]

Don't hold your breath.

Sentinel holds the official 2021 Breath Holding Championship - Western Suburbs division.

 

[bzparkes]

Three blatantly wrong decisions that could have got brissie over the line, Gardner free kick which resulted in a Brisbane goal when he clearly got the ball, Daniel deliberate out of bounds, which was a mis kick from mid air, which resulted in a Brisbane shot on goal and bontempelli’s overturned goal which was inconclusive at best, luckily the bulldogs were too good for Brisbane and the refs influence and won in spite of that

Bontempelli's 'inconclusive at best' overturning was clear as day to anyone not a Bulldogs supporter apparently. They don't have optometrists in the Western suburbs?

Daniel's deliberate gets paid every day of the week. Do I think players should get punished for a poor skill execution? No, but for some reason that I absolutely cannot fathom, supporters cry foul about it being 'deliberate' when the rule has clearly been changed to 'insufficient' intent. Did he do everything he could to keep the ball in? Nope. That's your fault for not understanding the new interpretation.

Gardner I didn't see. Feel free to post a gif or something.

 

[adogsfan5]

No friend my argument was even more simplistic than that, it was without the VFL morphing into the AFL nobody was picking an underperforming poorly supported club from western Melbourne to enter the AFL

you got there by DeFault

Hence the ”Homer” quote you owe your existence to the two greatest words in the English language De-Fault

Lol what on earth are you on about? The vfl morphed into the afl in 1990.. 65 years after we had already entered the vfl. We already had our supporter base. What are you trying to claim you nuffy?

You’ve gone from dogs throwing, to dogs flopping, to dogs getting financial assistance to dogs getting more financial assistance than port to some weird idea about default selection lol.

To make you look even dumber - default is one word, not two.

Please make more sense.

 

[drcollossimo]

Lol what on earth are you on about? The vfl morphed into the afl in 1990.. 65 years after we had already entered the vfl. We already had our supporter base. What are you trying to claim you nuffy?

You’ve gone from dogs throwing, to dogs flopping, to dogs getting financial assistance to dogs getting more financial assistance than port to some weird idea about default selection lol.

To make you look even dumber - default is one word, not two.

Please make more sense.

Mate seriously......

Homer: Default? The two sweetest words in the English language! De-FAULT! De-FAULT! De-FAULT!
look up the Simpsons episode "Deep Space Homer" ffs

I started the argument about the Dogs being an AFL team by Default you interpreted my statement of standing on your own two feet to mean finances not me,
given your obvious own goal above maybe have a lay down friend

 

[adogsfan5]

Mate seriously......

Homer: Default? The two sweetest words in the English language! De-FAULT! De-FAULT! De-FAULT!
look up the Simpsons episode "Deep Space Homer" ffs

I started the argument about the Dogs being an AFL team by Default you interpreted my statement of standing on your own two feet to mean finances not me,
given your obvious own goal above maybe have a lay down friend

Yet still nobody knows what you’re on about regarding a “default” club haha…makes absolutely no sense in terms of the vfl changing to the afl.

if anyone can explain.. please do

Better to leave you be with your simpsons episodes before you embarrass yourself some more. Strange unit.

 

[drcollossimo]

Yet still nobody knows what you’re on about regarding a “default” club haha…makes absolutely no sense.

Better to leave you be before you embarrass yourself some more. Strange unit.

It only makes no sense to you mate

Your club was in the VFL, the VFL morphed into the AFL if it wasnt for that and the AFL formed by ANY and I mean any other criteria you were being left right out

That's what I mean by default, now it seems you cant win anything without dodgy decisions going your way

Just sad and pathetic really

 

[adogsfan5]

It only makes no sense to you mate

Your club was in the VFL, the VFL morphed into the AFL if it wasnt for that and the AFL formed by ANY and I mean any other criteria you were being left right out

That's what I mean by default, now it seems you cant win anything without dodgy decisions going your way

Just sad and pathetic really

Haha you legit have no idea what you’re talking about. “If the AFL had a criteria” . 2 years after they morphed into the afl, we were playing in a prelim.
What a nuffy you are.

It wasn’t that long ago you were using tarps in your crowd to help hide a lack of fans. What a small memory you have.

More Homor Simpson and less posting for you I reckon.

 

[Alesana]

So Bigfooty thinks a team that gets a few more frees than their opposition on average are winning games purely because of the Umps, when there have been multiple teams win games this year purely from incorrect decisions at the death, which would have inarguably changed the result. /facepalm

 

[Sentinel]

Here's a bit of light reading for those frothing at the mouth in this thread about last night's game. Looking forward to some sensible, well considered replies

 

[Alesana]

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

 

[Dancing Dougy]

Stop trying to derail the nuffies farcical arguments.

 

[adogsfan5]

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

“Knock me over with a feather”

 

[adogsfan5]

So Bigfooty thinks a team that gets a few more frees than their opposition on average are winning games purely because of the Umps, when there have been multiple teams win games this year purely from incorrect decisions at the death, which would have inarguably changed the result. /facepalm

Haha not one dogs game. That’s elite.

 

[Bald]

Usually when you lost it means you're second to the ball on most occasions. it was obvious last night that second to the ball for the Bulldogs means nothing to the umpires when they paid Bontempelli a mark and shot on goal for being the second set of hands in a marking contest in the second half.

It's also telling that the 2 clubs people complain get the rub of the green the most are clear 1 and 2 on the free kick differential for the entire season, as well as severely getting the rub of the green so far in the finals:

View attachment 1227233

Long reply alert, so feel free to ignore. There is a TL;DR at the bottom.

So clearly the differentials here stem not from the 'Frees For' but the 'Frees Against'. So the umpires aren't deliberately going out to give teams (in this case the Bulldogs and Geelong) more free kicks, they're intentionally or unintentionally not paying free kicks against these team's opponents. So in my mind, it comes down to two options.

Which of these two is it:

1. Teams that give away fewer free kicks than their opponents are disciplined teams.
2. The AFL is corrupt and has an agenda to push a couple of teams over a long period of time despite there being four teams in NRL-dominated states that would be far more benefited from such treatment.

I'll even let you have an 'other' option too. This is where you can actually explain if it isn't one of these two, what exactly is it then?

A reason I often read is that they "need to keep minnow clubs relevant" or something to that effect.

1. Geelong isn't a minnow club and whilst their differential is less than half of the Dogs, they are still widely criticized for the 'favoritism' they receive.
2. I believe the Western Bulldogs sit in the same category as teams like North Melbourne (5th) and St Kilda (17th) as far as their status in the game is concerned and when it comes to 'favoritism they don't feature quite as high, so what's up with that?

The large differential in free kicks has been a thing since Beveridge took over. In that time Beveridge has removed ill-discipline from the club. He has removed Michael Talia, Jake Stringer, and Luke Dahlhaus from the club. I put to you that he instills this level of discipline in the players when they take the field. Don't you think that's a far more likely situation than any of the rubbish conspiracy crap you read on these forums?

The irony in this entire situation is that Richmond has it completely the other way and there's no conspiracy there (outside of the tin-foil-hat-wearing Richmond supporters that subscribe to such nonsense). Don't worry Tigers fans. I know the very large majority of you just don't care. It is what it is, and the style of play you have has resulted in your team winning 3 premierships over a 4 year period, but in the interest of fairness, when these discussions are brought up regarding Richmond's situation, people concede that they play 'on the edge' and have 'white line fever'.

I just can't comprehend why it's not possible for two teams to be on opposite ends of the ledger.

TL;DR

Do teams that give away fewer free kicks more disciplined or is it corruption?

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

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

Do we have the one from the 2016 Grand final handy?

 

[charcoalchicken]

Do we have the one from the 2016 Grand final handy?

Still melting, beautiful

 

[BEaston]

You know what I am starting to realise? I probably already knew this, but it’s pretty evident at this moment.

I believe that people’s complaints on here (specifically neutrals) about Bulldogs’ positive free kick differential is driven by the Tall Poppy Syndrome and not people’s desire for true equity in the game. Why you ask? Well, I don’t see calls for a ‘Royal Commission’ into the following free kick differential (Richmond)

Adelaide +7
Essendon +5
Bulldogs +4
North Melbourne +3
Hawthorn +1 (overall)
—————————
St Kilda -5 (overall)
Melbourne -7
Gold Coast -7
Fremantle -8
Collingwood -8
Geelong -9 (overall)
Brisbane -10 (overall)
Carlton -10
Port Adelaide -10
West Coast -10
Sydney -10
GWS -12 (overall)

-86 is a large differential and a bigger outlier than Bulldogs’ +72 in 22 rounds, but you probably won’t find calls for a review into this from many neutrals. Only from Richmond fans and maybe some impartial neutrals. And yes, I am fully aware that I am a Richmond supporter posting about Richmond in a thread about Bulldogs, but I am doing that because this is actually the best current example for what I’m trying to convey. This isn’t just about Richmond - you can use Hawthorn, Essendon, Fremantle, Sydney, GWS and St Kilda as examples for this over the years as well.

Point is that it’s convenient for a ‘neutral’ to raise awareness and demand action against a successful Bulldogs having a large positive differential (or a successful West Coast having a large positive differential at home) because it weakens the authenticity of their success in many people’s eyes. This leads many to be more open to conspiracy theories about how this differential came to be.
However, it’s not as convenient for a ‘neutral’ to do the same for a club (especially if they are successful) on the other end of the differential because that may weaken your club’s achievements over that club. Therefore, ‘neutrals’ largely don’t care about that and will apply Occam’s Razor on the large negative differentials (e.g. put it down to discipline or gamestyle).

Why does this occur? From my observations, I think it’s because many supporters of the game are driven by the Tall Poppy Syndrome and not actual equity. Equity is an argument they’ll only use until their team gets what Bulldogs have now. That’s when they’ll start to base it on “gamestyle” and “discipline”.
An objective analyser would address both negative and positive outliers regardless of whether it helps or impacts their club.

Bottom line - and let’s be honest - is that:
1. Many neutrals on this thread are only complaining about Bulldogs and their ‘ride’ because their team is not receiving it.
2. Many Bulldogs fans are not complaining because it’s their team that is receiving it.
3. Many Richmond fans are complaining about the negative differential because their team is impacted by it.
4. Many neutrals don’t care about Richmond’s differential because their team is not the ones impacted by this.

I feel like these 4 things remain a constant on this website. It’s just the team and the supporter base that changes depending on what category they fall in.

TL;DR - I believe that many non-Bulldogs supporters calling out Bulldogs’ differential aren’t actually driven by equity. Rather, I believe that they’re driven by the Tall Poppy Syndrome.

100% it. great post.

Unfortunately the Dogs are making some other teams look bad, and some supporters with extreme insecurity who tie their personal worth to the standing of their football club cannot hack it. Need to find some excuse for the Dogs performance to ensure their fragile egos are not shattered.

 

[BEaston]

100% it. great post.

Unfortunately the Dogs are making some other teams look bad, and some supporters with extreme insecurity who tie their personal worth to the standing of their football club cannot hack it. Need to find some excuse for the Dogs performance to ensure their fragile egos are not shattered.

Having said that though, we definitely send cheques to Gil to filter down to the umps officiating our games each week. It's the only explanation. Long may it continue.

 

[The Warlord]

It is a FACT that the Dogs have a high positive free kick differential. They've had it for years.

Dogs fans say this is a result of discipline - and they are right, to a degree.

The Dogs play a style that is very popular at AFL House - based on fast ball movement, so the "flicking it around" stuff aka throwing doesn't get come down on like it would if their style were about manic contest footy.

By definition manic contest footy risks giving away frees. Indeed, it is predicated on it - bash your opposition for long enough until you win by physical dominance.

Thing is there multiple Dogs players who enter contests looking to win the free as much as the ball - Daniel, Weightman and Hunter especially. You see that when they go in and DON'T get the free, they just bounce back up and keep going.

That is infuriating for lots of fans. It is quite nuanced, all players will stage at times. Ben Cunningtonm will fall forward at the knees when tackled from behind if he can't get it out any other way.

But Cunners - like Cripps and so many others - enters every contest looking to win the ball and risk giving away a free in the process. Too many Dogs enter the contest looking to get a free.

When you add this to the Superstar Room that Bont gets (like a few others) to hang on to the ball in the tackle for hours, it gives the imnpression of a team that's really looked after.

And they are looked after because they play the style that AFL House wants teams to play.

And it works for them, so why would they change?

 

[drcollossimo]

It is a FACT that the Dogs have a high positive free kick differential. They've had it for years.

Dogs fans say this is a result of discipline - and they are right, to a degree.

The Dogs play a style that is very popular at AFL House - based on fast ball movement, so the "flicking it around" stuff aka throwing doesn't get come down on like it would if their style were about manic contest footy.

By definition manic contest footy risks giving away frees. Indeed, it is predicated on it - bash your opposition for long enough until you win by physical dominance.

Thing is there multiple Dogs players who enter contests looking to win the free as much as the ball - Daniel, Weightman and Hunter especially. You see that when they go in and DON'T get the free, they just bounce back up and keep going.

That is infuriating for lots of fans. It is quite nuanced, all players will stage at times. Ben Cunningtonm will fall forward at the knees when tackled from behind if he can't get it out any other way.

But Cunners - like Cripps and so many others - enters every contest looking to win the ball and risk giving away a free in the process. Too many Dogs enter the contest looking to get a free.

When you add this to the Superstar Room that Bont gets (like a few others) to hang on to the ball in the tackle for hours, it gives the imnpression of a team that's really looked after.

And they are looked after because they play the style that AFL House wants teams to play.

And it works for them, so why would they change?

I’ve literally said the same thing but not as well expressed as this ^ well said

 

[DogsAreBarking]

Thing is there multiple Dogs players who enter contests looking to win the free as much as the ball - Daniel, Weightman and Hunter especially. You see that when they go in and DON'T get the free, they just bounce back up and keep going.

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?

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

 

[The Warlord]

I’ve literally said the same thing but not as well expressed as this ^ well said

I write for a living so hopefully could express it well but the ideas are a result of both watching but also discussing with people here over the years, so your ideas are probably in there - thanks!

 

[conrad_437]

It is a FACT that the Dogs have a high positive free kick differential. They've had it for years.

Dogs fans say this is a result of discipline - and they are right, to a degree.

The Dogs play a style that is very popular at AFL House - based on fast ball movement, so the "flicking it around" stuff aka throwing doesn't get come down on like it would if their style were about manic contest footy.

By definition manic contest footy risks giving away frees. Indeed, it is predicated on it - bash your opposition for long enough until you win by physical dominance.

Thing is there multiple Dogs players who enter contests looking to win the free as much as the ball - Daniel, Weightman and Hunter especially. You see that when they go in and DON'T get the free, they just bounce back up and keep going.

That is infuriating for lots of fans. It is quite nuanced, all players will stage at times. Ben Cunningtonm will fall forward at the knees when tackled from behind if he can't get it out any other way.

But Cunners - like Cripps and so many others - enters every contest looking to win the ball and risk giving away a free in the process. Too many Dogs enter the contest looking to get a free.

When you add this to the Superstar Room that Bont gets (like a few others) to hang on to the ball in the tackle for hours, it gives the imnpression of a team that's really looked after.

And they are looked after because they play the style that AFL House wants teams to play.

And it works for them, so why would they change?

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.