No Oppo Supporters Umpiring in the grand final

[GotTheGoodes]

I'll just be interested to see if they umpire the tunneling & throwing the same throughout the season.

Ducking, throwing, sliding & tunnelling... Should be an interesting year.

 

[connolly]

I'll just be interested to see if they umpire the tunneling & throwing the same throughout the season.

Ducking, throwing, sliding & tunnelling... Should be an interesting year.

Footscray won their first GF by the umpire suspending the rule against knocking opposition players unconscious. The dirty dog Charlie Sutton went out and knocked three Melbourne players unconscious in the first quarter, including their full forward Jack Collins opponent. Collins went on to win the game for them. Sutton imbedded the term "shopping early" in the Footscray culture and so began a generation of cheap shot merchants out at the Western Oval, including Whitten. If anyone thinks Whitten was a good bloke they should talk to the good people at the trots with long memories. They won their next GF through a suspension of the rules regarding slinging the ball and sliding. And then expect us to join them in an orgy of narcissist self reflected glory. Always were a grub of club and always will be. Fairy tale indeed.

 

[GotTheGoodes]

Footscray won their first GF by the umpire suspending the rule against knocking opposition players unconscious. The dirty dog Charlie Sutton went out and knocked three Melbourne players unconscious in the first quarter, including their full forward Jack Collins opponent. Collins went on to win the game for them. Sutton imbedded the term "shopping early" in the Footscray culture and so began a generation of cheap shot merchants out at the Western Oval, including Whitten. If anyone thinks Whitten was a good bloke they should talk to the good people at the trots with long memories. They won their next GF through a suspension of the rules regarding slinging the ball and sliding. And then expect us to join them in an orgy of narcissist self reflected glory. Always were a grub of club and always will be. Fairy tale indeed.

Bob wouldn't knock anyone out though....

 

[stevie26]

Whittten, one of the greatest ever players to play the game I'll admit, was also a well known sniper and enforcer for the aptly named "Dogs," especially in his latter years. It would be a toss up between him and Ditterich for the dirtiest player during the late sixties/ early seventies. Perhaps Ditterich was a bit more open in his use of the forearm and elbow in contests, hence his record at the tribunal. Whitten was sneakier and tended to do his damage when in a pack of players. His highlight reel speaks for itself.

 

[Maddo11]

Ch7 using footage of hanners knee getting destroyed in the gf as promo material, do not adjust your sets for 2017 because this will be normal service i suspect.

 

[mtooler]

Ch7 using footage of hanners knee getting destroyed in the gf as promo material, do not adjust your sets for 2017 because this will be normal service i suspect.

Yeah Ive blown up eveytime Ive seen the promo, not a free kick was disgusting.

 

[RW]

Yeah Ive blown up eveytime Ive seen the promo, not a free kick was disgusting.

The worst thing about it is that when we won in 2005, every time footage of Leo's mark was shown we had to put up with whinging from mostly Eagles fans about Sampi's jumper being held, even though it was probably only for a split second and didn't influence the marking contest. Yet Easton Wood gets hailed as courageous for an action that resulted in an injury.

 

[sataris]

The worst thing about it is that when we won in 2005, every time footage of Leo's mark was shown we had to put up with whinging from mostly Eagles fans about Sampi's jumper being held, even though it was probably only for a split second and didn't influence the marking contest. Yet Easton Wood gets hailed as courageous for an action that resulted in an injury.

You're under estimating the bravery required to take someone out below the knees

 

[GotTheGoodes]

You're under estimating the bravery required to take someone out below the knees

Against the smaller opponent. #sobrave

 

[RW]

Suppose we should look for positives, we didn't play anywhere near our best and it still took fraudulent umpiring to put the result beyond doubt. Bring on Season 2017.

 

[swansfan51]

we didn't play anywhere near our best

Yes we did.

Disposal efficiency of 72.3% (above season average of 71.2%)
Generated 11 marks inside 50 (on line with season average of 11.6) from only 41 inside 50s. This was some of our best efficiency of the entire year
16 contested marks (well above season average of 13)
Workrate was demonstrated by laying 101 tackles (way above season average of 78, and our 4th best of the year) and 48 one percenters (on line with season average of 48.7)
Our defence had one of its better performances of the year in terms of absorbing inside 50 pressure, and only conceded an incredibly low 6 marks inside 50.
Heath Grundy lead the way with 12 intercept marks and all of our defenders produced near or above their season defensive stats.

In summary, we played the way we could expect. The defence had to absorb a lot of inside 50s, and all year they delivered one of the best ratios of inside 50s to scoring shots. So that went as expected. Our rucks, as they did most of the year, broke even without dominating or being dominated. As expected. The one paced and Kennedy-reliant midfield tried hard and demonstrated good work rate. As it did all year. It got thoroughly outworked and outrun on the outside and on the spread, as it did all year. So no real surprises there either. Our midfield generated about as many attacking opportunities as they did all year (in fact, better efficiency). Our scoring conversion was about what it was all year. So yet again, nothing to suggest we played worse than expected.

So why did we lose, I hear you cry? Because they were better.

They were harder than us, smashing our much vaunted midfield in both clearances and contested possessions. Their midfield absorbed far more rebound 50s, turning the ball around quickly, generating a flood of inside 50s which wore our defence down. Tom Boyd played the best game of his career, outmarking our targets and taking a phenomenal 6 contested marks at key times. Their midfield was far more effective and direct with the ball, generating a scoring shot every 16 disposals compared to our 22. They needed a lot less marks than us as they played direct, fast and with run through the corridor.

I know you don't like hearing it, but we got beaten by a younger, less experienced, better team.

 

[RW]

Yep, my argument has never been that the Dogs weren't the better team. They were, as the stats show. We just weren't given a fair chance to win it. And that isn't right. I know that me saying this won't change a thing, and I'll move on, but rightly or wrongly I still feel we were hard done by.

 

[connolly]

Yes we did.

Disposal efficiency of 72.3% (above season average of 71.2%)
Generated 11 marks inside 50 (on line with season average of 11.6) from only 41 inside 50s. This was some of our best efficiency of the entire year
16 contested marks (well above season average of 13)
Workrate was demonstrated by laying 101 tackles (way above season average of 78, and our 4th best of the year) and 48 one percenters (on line with season average of 48.7)
Our defence had one of its better performances of the year in terms of absorbing inside 50 pressure, and only conceded an incredibly low 6 marks inside 50.
Heath Grundy lead the way with 12 intercept marks and all of our defenders produced near or above their season defensive stats.

In summary, we played the way we could expect. The defence had to absorb a lot of inside 50s, and all year they delivered one of the best ratios of inside 50s to scoring shots. So that went as expected. Our rucks, as they did most of the year, broke even without dominating or being dominated. As expected. The one paced and Kennedy-reliant midfield tried hard and demonstrated good work rate. As it did all year. It got thoroughly outworked and outrun on the outside and on the spread, as it did all year. So no real surprises there either. Our midfield generated about as many attacking opportunities as they did all year (in fact, better efficiency). Our scoring conversion was about what it was all year. So yet again, nothing to suggest we played worse than expected.

So why did we lose, I hear you cry? Because they were better.

They were harder than us, smashing our much vaunted midfield in both clearances and contested possessions. Their midfield absorbed far more rebound 50s, turning the ball around quickly, generating a flood of inside 50s which wore our defence down. Tom Boyd played the best game of his career, outmarking our targets and taking a phenomenal 6 contested marks at key times. Their midfield was far more effective and direct with the ball, generating a scoring shot every 16 disposals compared to our 22. They needed a lot less marks than us as they played direct, fast and with run through the corridor.

I know you don't like hearing it, but we got beaten by a younger, less experienced, better team.

Statistics measure consequences not causes. Your post is a classic statistical fallacy. Or to put it another way you have put the cart before the horse. The biased umpiring was a determinative factor to produce the statistics. You mistake consequences for causes.

 

[Tuco]

Ch7 using footage of hanners knee getting destroyed in the gf as promo material, do not adjust your sets for 2017 because this will be normal service i suspect.

WTF?

If true that photo should be dropped into every locker in the lead up to the rematch.

 

[Tuco]

Suppose we should look for positives, we didn't play anywhere near our best and it still took fraudulent umpiring to put the result beyond doubt. Bring on Season 2017.

JPK dislikes this post.

 

[Tedeski]

If the umpires paid the decisions to us they should have, for example
a) the early 50 m penalty to Jack which would have been a converted goal
b) the free against Rampe for a throw which resulted in a ducking free kick to one of the Dog weasels for a goal
then the final stats are totally different!

Two goal turn around right there! Not allowing for momentum change. Not allowing for below the knee frees which in turn, allows the 'Dog' players to continue pushing the boundaries, knowing full well the umpires weren't enforcing rules that would normally be enforced. Throws, below the knee slides & momentum killing decisions that didn't go our way ALL contributed the the final stats that made the Dogs look the better team on the day!

I agree 100% with connolly & his thoughts!

 

[bungwahl]

Yes we did.

Disposal efficiency of 72.3% (above season average of 71.2%)
Generated 11 marks inside 50 (on line with season average of 11.6) from only 41 inside 50s. This was some of our best efficiency of the entire year
16 contested marks (well above season average of 13)
Workrate was demonstrated by laying 101 tackles (way above season average of 78, and our 4th best of the year) and 48 one percenters (on line with season average of 48.7)
Our defence had one of its better performances of the year in terms of absorbing inside 50 pressure, and only conceded an incredibly low 6 marks inside 50.
Heath Grundy lead the way with 12 intercept marks and all of our defenders produced near or above their season defensive stats.

In summary, we played the way we could expect. The defence had to absorb a lot of inside 50s, and all year they delivered one of the best ratios of inside 50s to scoring shots. So that went as expected. Our rucks, as they did most of the year, broke even without dominating or being dominated. As expected. The one paced and Kennedy-reliant midfield tried hard and demonstrated good work rate. As it did all year. It got thoroughly outworked and outrun on the outside and on the spread, as it did all year. So no real surprises there either. Our midfield generated about as many attacking opportunities as they did all year (in fact, better efficiency). Our scoring conversion was about what it was all year. So yet again, nothing to suggest we played worse than expected.

So why did we lose, I hear you cry? Because they were better.

They were harder than us, smashing our much vaunted midfield in both clearances and contested possessions. Their midfield absorbed far more rebound 50s, turning the ball around quickly, generating a flood of inside 50s which wore our defence down. Tom Boyd played the best game of his career, outmarking our targets and taking a phenomenal 6 contested marks at key times. Their midfield was far more effective and direct with the ball, generating a scoring shot every 16 disposals compared to our 22. They needed a lot less marks than us as they played direct, fast and with run through the corridor.

I know you don't like hearing it, but we got beaten by a younger, less experienced, better team.

Certainly agree that the Dogs were the better side on the day. But with the exception of tackling, those stats basically say we played a game that was "about average" based on our season (a slither above average based on the stats you've picked). That's not GF standard. We were good in patches and poor at other times, the umpiring was poor, and the Dogs played extremely well and deserved to win.

Agree with RW that it's not that the Dogs didn't deserve to win, but that Sydney had to contend with the most lopsided free kick differential percentage ever in a grand final. The gulf between the discipline of both sides was not as wide as the free kick count suggested.

And yes, it's totally pointless to be complaining about it. But as a Swans fan if you can watch that game and be content that both teams were umpired evenly, you're a far greater man than I!

 

[RW]

Right on cue, an article on the Fox Footy website this morning about Horse calling the umpiring department after the grand final.

Key points:

* The Swans sat down and watched the game on the Wednesday after the grand final.
* Like Roos, Longmire is an advocate for full-time umpires, but concedes that it may not be the answer.
* Horse considered the grand final to be "done and dusted".
* Former umpire Stuart Wenn described Horse's comments as "very balanced", and said that in principle, he was right.

(As an aside, Horse also said he had an "inkling" Mitchell would ask for a trade, so that probably means we knew he was gone )

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Love to hear what Longmire really thinks of that umpiring performance.

 

[brad cooper]

Love to hear what Longmire really thinks of that umpiring performance.

Hed be holding the clipboard over his mouth if expect

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Hed be holding the clipboard over his mouth if expect

I can't recall a GF when months have passed there are still articles questioning the umpiring.

 

[RW]

I can't recall a GF when months have passed there are still articles questioning the umpiring.

Most lopsided free kick count in a grand final was always going to be talked about, but I do admit our confirmation bias is partly to blame

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I think the narrative at the time prevented questions being asked at media level. Plus a kind of "Don't ruin their moment" thing amongst those commentators who did feel as though a wrong had been done.

 

[RW]

I think the narrative at the time prevented questions being asked at media level. Plus a kind of "Don't ruin their moment" thing amongst those commentators who did feel as though a wrong had been done.

It was brought up quite a bit at the time, though. The Age seemed to be more caught up in the Bulldogs fairytale than other media outlets. It was bad, but it wasn't swept under the carpet. I remember Gerard Healy lamenting the interpretation of the contact below the knees rule on On The Couch. The throwing was pretty bad too, but the trend lately seems to be to keep the ball moving at all costs and the interpretation of what constitutes a valid handball seems to have been relaxed just a bit. All we can do now is learn from it.

 

[sataris]

All we can do now is learn from it.

Agreed, the 50k profit we made should be directed entirely at wining and dining umpires constantly