Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

You're missing the difference in the two examples.

Brisbane were told at 3 quarter time to asses him - they put him back on the ground for the start of the 4th quarter before assessing him.

That’s because they were not yet aware of the notification from the arc as Drs were busy attending to players. As per the AFL statement.

The exact same reasoning that was given by the blues.

They both claimed they were delayed in being aware of the scat6 notification because the Drs were busy attending to players.

 

[SC_Power]

Don’t even have to look hard to see the bias here.

Brisbane fined 40k for their concussion treatment of Andrews.

Carlton nothing.

Both have the exact same reasoning as to why they didn’t immediately take off their players as their Drs were attending to other players.

Response from the AFL to the lions

“Brisbane’s submissions described the circumstances in which the message from the ARC was missed as Brisbane’s doctors were occupied in attending to players, including Andrews, over the 3Q time break, and in the period that followed. Whilst the AFL acknowledges the demands on Club doctors in sometimes dealing with multiple concurrent injuries and other issues during a match, the Concussion Guidelines require strict adherence to protect the health and safety of our players. “The AFL requires strict compliance of Clubs to the Concussion Guidelines to best protect the health and safety of our players”, AFL General Counsel Stephen Meade said.

AFL response to Carlton:

“Due to those other commitments, both of Carlton's doctors did not observe the incident involving McKay live and were delayed in reviewing the ARC Message and the vision. Please note that the ARC Medical Spotters did issue a mandatory off-field assessment (including SCAT6) notification to Carlton in relation to the 3a quarter incident involving McKay. Once the ARC Message was reviewed by Carlton's doctors, there was a further short delay (in the review of vision of the incident) before Carlton's doctors promptly instructed other staff to remove McKay from the field which was effected a short time later. Whilst the Club was in breach of protocols on account of the short delays in removing McKay from the field, the AFL acknowledges the Club's explanation predominantly on
account of Carlton's doctors dealing with multiple pre-existing and concurrent injuries.”

Aaaannnnnddd…. McKay a late out his week.

 

[sr36]

That’s because they were not yet aware of the notification from the arc as Drs were busy attending to players. As per the AFL statement.

The exact same reasoning that was given by the blues.

They both claimed they were delayed in being aware of the scat6 notification because the Drs were busy attending to players.

Yes, but the Carlton one was told during a quarter bwhen the doctors were in the rooms - a delay was more understandable. With Brisbane they were told at 3 quarter time when everyone was in the same spot and one of the players they were working with was Andrews - out on the ground. Couldn't interrupt the doctors working with Andrews to tell them that they needed to assess Andrews?

I feel sick defending Carlton.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Yes, but the Carlton one was told during a quarter bwhen the doctors were in the rooms - a delay was more understandable. With Brisbane they were told at 3 quarter time when everyone was in the same spot and one of the players they were working with was Andrews - out on the ground. Couldn't interrupt the doctors working with Andrews to tell them that they needed to assess Andrews?

I feel sick defending Carlton.

I think your assuming the message from the arc is delivered in person by an official.

I believe it’s just a text message. That’s why it wasn’t reviewed until later as they didn’t see the message as they were attending to players. Whether that included Andrews or not is irrelevant as they weren’t aware of the notification.

Just as Carlton have said. It doesn’t matter what time of the game it is. If the Drs are busy and don’t receive the notification until later, it’s the same result.

 

[sr36]

I think your assuming the message from the arc is delivered in person by an official.

I believe it’s just a text message. That’s why it wasn’t reviewed until later as they didn’t see the message as they were attending to players. Whether that included Andrews or not is irrelevant as they weren’t aware of the notification.

Just as Carlton have said. It doesn’t matter what time of the game it is. If the Drs are busy and don’t receive the notification until later, it’s the same result.

OK your point is valid then. Bloody Carlton - considering Weitering last final series who should have been assessed - should get the book thrown at them.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

OK your point is valid then. Bloody Carlton - considering Weitering last final series who should have been assessed - should get the book thrown at them.

It’s an absolutely broken system regardless. Who the heck thought a good notification was a text. Not like the afl to half arse something anyway.

 

[sr36]

It’s an absolutely broken system regardless. Who the heck thought a good notification was a text. Not like the afl to half arse something anyway.

Yeah sounds ridiculous. Reminds me of my work and people getting shitty because you didn't read and respond to their email immediately - sorry I was doing my job.

 

[SC_Power]

It’s a Carlton flag this year… bookmark it.

This second quarter v Port (yeah call me biased couldn’t give a rats) has been some of the most atrocious biased umpiring I’ve seen in a long long time.

 

[sr36]

It’s a Carlton flag this year… bookmark it.

This second quarter v Port (yeah call me biased couldn’t give a rats) has been some of the most atrocious biased umpiring I’ve seen in a long long time.

Curnow another 4 frees? Were they there?

 

[SC_Power]

Curnow another 4 frees? Were they there?

2 if I’m generous.

1 was purely because his opponent was stronger than him.

 

[Maddo11]

2 if I’m generous.

1 was purely because his opponent was stronger than him.

 

[sr36]

2 if I’m generous.

1 was purely because his opponent was stronger than him.

Just watching the third quarter. Jeez it's error filled.

 

[MUFASA12]

Port won't even make the finals

 

[OnceWeWereKings]

And now just checking some facts…..

Five of the current top eight interstate teams
Four of the top five interstate teams
One & two on the ladder both have academies

Going back the last 10 years, other than ‘19 & ‘20 an interstate team has been premier or runners-up every year.

Yet………..VICBias

Seriously.

 

[mightymouse75]

And now just checking some facts…..

Five of the current top eight interstate teams
Four of the top five interstate teams
One & two on the ladder both have academies

Going back the last 10 years, other than ‘19 & ‘20 an interstate team has been premier or runners-up every year.

Yet………..VICBias

Seriously.

Can't help it if Melbourne teams cant take advantage of their free hits.
Maybe it makes them soft

 

[The_Wookie]

And now just checking some facts…..

Five of the current top eight interstate teams
Four of the top five interstate teams
One & two on the ladder both have academies

Going back the last 10 years, other than ‘19 & ‘20 an interstate team has been premier or runners-up every year.

Yet………..VICBias

Seriously.

being able to overcome a bias doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

 

[doppleganger]

And now just checking some facts…..

Five of the current top eight interstate teams
Four of the top five interstate teams
One & two on the ladder both have academies

Going back the last 10 years, other than ‘19 & ‘20 an interstate team has been premier or runners-up every year.

Yet………..VICBias

Seriously.

6 of the top7 once again non-Melbourne teams who enjoy a distinct home ground advantage.

AFL House has the result it wanted.

 

[btdg]

6 of the top7 once again non-Melbourne teams who enjoy a distinct home ground advantage.

AFL House has the result it wanted.

Once again the psychological toll of playing week after week of matches at neutral venues has started to mount for the Big 4 Melbourne teams.

Poor Essendon have the worst of it - as the Big 4 team with the least members they are so frequently outnumbered in Blockbuster slots, and it just seems to burn them out so quickly that they fall apart in the second half of the year.

This year all of Collingwood, Carlton and Richmond experiencing the same drop-off, particularly after they had massively shortened pre-seasons (in Carlton's case, a full 4 weeks shorter than the are used to). In such an even comp, it is just hard to back up week after week on neutral fields.

I mean, look at Collingwood's run:

• Freo@FReo = away game in Perth
• Bulldogs@ Marvel = neutral field vs finals contender
• Melbourne@MCG = neutral field vs finals contender
• North@Marvel - neutral field at opponent's preferred venue
• Gold Coast@Gold Coast = away game vs finals contender
• Essendon@MCG = neutral field vs finals contender
• Geelong@MCG = neutral field vs finals contender
• Hawthorn@MCG = neutral field vs finals contender
• Richmond@MCG = neutral field
• Carlton@MCG = neutral field vs finals contender
• Sydney@Sydney = away game vs preimership favourite

That's a monster run. Three away games and then a horror run of 6 straight at the MCG. The poor pies will be exhausted by the time they get their next home game, which is against Brisbane, currently second on the ladder. That is the only home game Collingwood get in the entire second half of the year!

Meanwhile the non-Victorian teams get a nice home ground advantage for their academy-loaded squads to feast on every second week. Must be nice to have such a big advantage over your opponents so consistently - let alone the two teams that get 12 home games and 11 away each year!

Just clear anti-Vic Bias all round

 

[btdg]

As a more serious post, the grand final location is probably teh one real example of 'Vic-Bias' that can be thrown up, despite being more a historical and practical quirk.

But I'm not convinced it is the reason for the apparent recent dominance of Victorian teams. I think a better explanation is that GF day is such an unusual day that past GF experience is a far better predictor of success on the day that almost anything else. Consider the run of grand finals we have had and the success of the team with more experience (here: defined as team who played most recently in a GF);

2023: Collingwood (GF in 2018) def Brisbane
2022: Geelong (GF in 2020) def Sydney
2021: Melbourne def Bulldogs (last GF in 2016) - exception
2020: Richmond (GF in 2019) def Geelong
2019: Richmond (GF in 2017) def GWS
2018: West Coast (GF in 2015) def Collingwood
2017: Richmond def Adelaide (both had essentially zero players with experience)
2016: Bulldogs def Sydney (GF in 2014) - exception
2015: Hawthorn (GF in 2014) def West Coast
2014: Hawthorn (GF in 2013) def Sydney
2013: Hawthorn (GF in 2012) def Freo
2012: Sydney (GF in 2006) def Hawthorn (GF in 2008) - exception
2011: Geelong (GF in 2009) def Collingwood (GF in 2010) - execption, but hardly (Geelong had plenty of experience)
2010: TIED between St Kilda (GF in 2009) and Collingwood - Saints probably should have won
2009: Geelong (GF in 2008) def St Kilda
2008: Hawthorn def Geelong (2007) - execption
2007: Geelong def Port (2004) - exception
2006 and 2005 = equal/swapped
2004: Port def Brisbane (2003) - exception
2003: Brisbane def Coll both were equal
2002: Brisbane (2001) def Coll
2001: Brisbane def Essendon (2000) - Exception
2000: Essendon (1993) def Melbourne
1999: North (1998) def Carlton
1998: Adelaide (1997) def North
1997: Adelaide def St Kilda (neutral)
1996: North def Sydney (neutral)
1995: Carlton def Geelong (1994) - exception
1994: West Coast def Geelong (neutral)
1993: Essendon (1990) def Carlton
1992: West Coast (1991) def Geelong
1991: Hawthorn (1989) def WCE
1990: Collingwood def Essendon (1985) - exception

In 33 years of AFL, there have been 5 games where no team had an advantage. In the others, the most recent team to play in a GF has won 17 compared to 10 exceptions. But those 10 include:

• Essendon 2000, Carlton 1995, Geelong 2007 --> proably the 3 greatest single season teams of all time
• Some weird results like Bulldogs 2016 and Melbourne 2021 (who were losing badly then went nuts) and a couple where the winners were arguably just as ready for a big game (ie: Sydney vs Hawthorn 2012)

In the last 10 years it is particularly predictive, with only the Bulldogs weirdness proving the exception, and this holds regardless of whether the Victorian or non-Victorian team is at home.

My prediction: if Brisbane play any of the top 5 teams this year they win, unless Sydney get their mojo back, extend their dominance and reach 'all time dominant single season team' status. Sydney are winning against almost anyone other than Brisbane (or Collingwood making a massive run). Will be interesting to see how this prediction holds up though...

 

[doppleganger]

Once again the psychological toll of playing week after week of matches at neutral venues has started to mount for the Big 4 Melbourne teams.

Poor Essendon have the worst of it - as the Big 4 team with the least members they are so frequently outnumbered in Blockbuster slots, and it just seems to burn them out so quickly that they fall apart in the second half of the year.

This year all of Collingwood, Carlton and Richmond experiencing the same drop-off, particularly after they had massively shortened pre-seasons (in Carlton's case, a full 4 weeks shorter than the are used to). In such an even comp, it is just hard to back up week after week on neutral fields.

I mean, look at Collingwood's run:

• Freo@FReo = away game in Perth
• Bulldogs@ Marvel = neutral field vs finals contender
• Melbourne@MCG = neutral field vs finals contender
• North@Marvel - neutral field at opponent's preferred venue
• Gold Coast@Gold Coast = away game vs finals contender
• Essendon@MCG = neutral field vs finals contender
• Geelong@MCG = neutral field vs finals contender
• Hawthorn@MCG = neutral field vs finals contender
• Richmond@MCG = neutral field
• Carlton@MCG = neutral field vs finals contender
• Sydney@Sydney = away game vs preimership favourite

That's a monster run. Three away games and then a horror run of 6 straight at the MCG. The poor pies will be exhausted by the time they get their next home game, which is against Brisbane, currently second on the ladder. That is the only home game Collingwood get in the entire second half of the year!

Meanwhile the non-Victorian teams get a nice home ground advantage for their academy-loaded squads to feast on every second week. Must be nice to have such a big advantage over your opponents so consistently - let alone the two teams that get 12 home games and 11 away each year!

Just clear anti-Vic Bias all round

The Eagles understand how tough and taxing big blockbuster local rival clashes are.

In the home and away season, results show teams that enjoy a home ground advantage and play away games at neutral venues are better off then those who rarely get a home ground advantage game.

 

[doppleganger]

As a more serious post, the grand final location is probably teh one real example of 'Vic-Bias' that can be thrown up, despite being more a historical and practical quirk.

But I'm not convinced it is the reason for the apparent recent dominance of Victorian teams. I think a better explanation is that GF day is such an unusual day that past GF experience is a far better predictor of success on the day that almost anything else. Consider the run of grand finals we have had and the success of the team with more experience (here: defined as team who played most recently in a GF);

2023: Collingwood (GF in 2018) def Brisbane
2022: Geelong (GF in 2020) def Sydney
2021: Melbourne def Bulldogs (last GF in 2016) - exception
2020: Richmond (GF in 2019) def Geelong
2019: Richmond (GF in 2017) def GWS
2018: West Coast (GF in 2015) def Collingwood
2017: Richmond def Adelaide (both had essentially zero players with experience)
2016: Bulldogs def Sydney (GF in 2014) - exception
2015: Hawthorn (GF in 2014) def West Coast
2014: Hawthorn (GF in 2013) def Sydney
2013: Hawthorn (GF in 2012) def Freo
2012: Sydney (GF in 2006) def Hawthorn (GF in 2008) - exception
2011: Geelong (GF in 2009) def Collingwood (GF in 2010) - execption, but hardly (Geelong had plenty of experience)
2010: TIED between St Kilda (GF in 2009) and Collingwood - Saints probably should have won
2009: Geelong (GF in 2008) def St Kilda
2008: Hawthorn def Geelong (2007) - execption
2007: Geelong def Port (2004) - exception
2006 and 2005 = equal/swapped
2004: Port def Brisbane (2003) - exception
2003: Brisbane def Coll both were equal
2002: Brisbane (2001) def Coll
2001: Brisbane def Essendon (2000) - Exception
2000: Essendon (1993) def Melbourne
1999: North (1998) def Carlton
1998: Adelaide (1997) def North
1997: Adelaide def St Kilda (neutral)
1996: North def Sydney (neutral)
1995: Carlton def Geelong (1994) - exception
1994: West Coast def Geelong (neutral)
1993: Essendon (1990) def Carlton
1992: West Coast (1991) def Geelong
1991: Hawthorn (1989) def WCE
1990: Collingwood def Essendon (1985) - exception

In 33 years of AFL, there have been 5 games where no team had an advantage. In the others, the most recent team to play in a GF has won 17 compared to 10 exceptions. But those 10 include:

• Essendon 2000, Carlton 1995, Geelong 2007 --> proably the 3 greatest single season teams of all time
• Some weird results like Bulldogs 2016 and Melbourne 2021 (who were losing badly then went nuts) and a couple where the winners were arguably just as ready for a big game (ie: Sydney vs Hawthorn 2012)

In the last 10 years it is particularly predictive, with only the Bulldogs weirdness proving the exception, and this holds regardless of whether the Victorian or non-Victorian team is at home.

My prediction: if Brisbane play any of the top 5 teams this year they win, unless Sydney get their mojo back, extend their dominance and reach 'all time dominant single season team' status. Sydney are winning against almost anyone other than Brisbane (or Collingwood making a massive run). Will be interesting to see how this prediction holds up though...

Yep, GF experience and not being overawed by the event is important.

Whether you have played some games at the G in May and July is largely irrelevant.

Teams that have GF experience are advantaged in GFs.

 

[sr36]

being able to overcome a bias doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

No it doesn't, but when the stats don't support claims of a bias, there's a fair chance that those claims are biased.

 

[The_Wookie]

No it doesn't, but when the stats don't support claims of a bias, there's a fair chance that those claims are biased.

the stats support that the bias is overcome or evened out somewhat by other bias, not that theres no bias. Theres a fair chance that the people who claim that the bias doesnt exist are themselves biased.

We can do this all day if you want.

 

[sr36]

the stats support that the bias is overcome or evened out somewhat by other bias, not that theres no bias. Theres a fair chance that the people who claim that the bias doesnt exist are themselves biased.

We can do this all day if you want.

Clubs have advantages and disadvantages

If they're evened out, there is no bias ...

 

[doppleganger]

Clubs have advantages and disadvantages

If they're evened out, there is no bias ...

25 years of H&A ladders, shows that teams with a distinct home ground finish higher.

The H&A season is biased towards non-Melbourne teams.

It should be pretty obvious that AFL House policy of removing home ground advantage for one set of teams would see that group suffer compared to teams who retained their home ground advantage.

AFL House policy working, non-Melbourne teams dominate H&A ladder and the Northern expansion teams have played in the most GFs.