Add Category
Updated
It only took until round two for footy's favourite pastime to be reignited all across the country — it's officially umpire-hunting season, and the conspiracies and complaints are out in force.
#FreeKickHawthorn trended nationally on Saturday afternoon, Callum Mills' rushed behind forced an official response from the AFL, while fans and a selection of journos alike steamed as West Coast benefited from a 23-8 count against St Kilda.
From Thursday to Sunday the rage was maintained, with nearly every game pouring fuel on a fire that is always at least flickering underneath any footy game.
Fans love to complain about umpires, especially when their team loses. But maybe, just maybe, if everyone pauses for a second and has a look a little bit deeper, some of this angst can be avoided and everybody's blood pressure can get back to normal.
It's time to bust some myths.
Free-kick counts don't have to be even
I cannot stress this enough.
No other stat in the game is expected to end dead even — not kicks or handballs or marks or tackles or contested possessions or inside 50s — so why do we make this assumption for free kicks?
The absolute worst argument when trying to point out inequality in umpiring is "look at the free-kick count". It's not a figure that offers any sort of actual analysis of the match and certainly isn't automatically indicative of anything untoward from officials.
A lopsided free-kick count does not represent a poorly umpired game, just as a close free-kick count does not represent a well-umpired game. In fact, if umpires were hell bent on ensuring the count was even, you can guarantee the officiating would be much worse than it currently is.
So please stop using this as the backbone to the "(insert team here) was robbed" argument. You're going to need to work a little bit harder than that.
There's a reason some teams receive more and concede fewer free kicks
The three teams mentioned above — the Hawks, Eagles and Bulldogs — seem to be among the most commonly accused of receiving the umpires' affection, but perhaps there is a reason for that perception?
Let's start with Hawthorn. So far this season, and admittedly it's a small sample size, the Hawks have received the fifth-fewest free kicks but conceded the second least.
Similarly, West Coast has received the sixth-fewest but conceded fewer free kicks than anyone in 2017. So the perception comes not from receiving too many free kicks, but conceding too few. But maybe there is a reason for that.
Hawthorn is ninth for tackles and West Coast 13th, limiting the chances to give away free kicks. Unsurprisingly, the top two teams for frees against (Richmond and Sydney) are second and third respectively in the overall tackle count — more tackles means more opportunity to concede free kicks.
The Eagles and Hawks are also first and second in handball numbers this season, meaning their games have been more uncontested, with the ball more often than not in their possession. They aren't bash and crash teams, so the low number of free kicks conceded shouldn't be a surprise.
These numbers might only represent the first two games of this season, but they were largely true of last season too. The Eagles and Hawks were mid-table for free kicks for and against, stemming from the uncontested footy they played and a preference to corral instead of tackle.
The outliers, though, are the Bulldogs — they have received the third-most free kicks and conceded the third-fewest, but also stuck the most tackles of any team thus far. The Dogs had the greatest discrepancy between frees won and conceded last year too, so there is clearly something going right for them.
It could be a league-wide campaign to ensure they win games, or it could be that the pace they play at has caught teams off guard, that they tackle hard and technically soundly, and that they have lots of smaller, more agile players that can win free kicks. You decide.
Home-ground advantage is a thing, but it's not a problem
It's true. Just like players, coaches and fans, umpires probably are influenced by a loud and partisan crowd, even if it's only subconsciously.
If a packed house of fans are screaming for a decision, an umpire is at the very least going to be more aware of the potential for a free kick to be paid. That's unavoidable, it's human nature.
It's also why teams like playing at their home grounds. And guess what? Every single team in the league plays home games.
This argument only ever really seems to crop up for interstate games, though, most commonly when one of the Adelaide or Perth teams is on the receiving of what their (usually Victorian) opposition sees as home cooking.
You're supposed to get an advantage from playing at your home ground and, given the extra obstacles these interstate teams face every season, an extra free kick or two thanks to a particularly passionate crowd probably isn't the end of the world.
Umpiring this game is close to impossible
For the life of me, I cannot understand why anybody would want to be an AFL umpire.
You have to be as fit, if not fitter than the players, but with none of the fun of actually playing the game and with zero acclaim. You could umpire a match perfectly and still receive dog's abuse for the entire duration.
The rules change almost weekly and are already insanely complicated. The umpires need to have eyes on a dozen things at once, all moving at breakneck speed.
So yeah, they will stuff up from time to time. Miss something they might have seen or see something as illegal that may not have been.
But please, going forward, let's try not to let our own confirmation biases turn mistakes into some sort of Gillon McLachlan-led plot to ensure YOUR TEAM AND YOUR TEAM ONLY never wins anything.
Topics: australian-football-league, sport, australia, wa, sa, vic
First posted