2016 year in review: AFL

anon said | January 3rd 2017 @ 4:45am Re the youtube link. Watch it in real time at 26:39, around 13:08 on the playing clock. I can stop/start the video around 6 or 7 times per second of playing time. There is 1 stop/start click between the ball being on the tips of Jacks fingers and him getting hit. That's around 0.15 seconds, much less than the blink of an eye....hardly late. Also, marks are not completed in zero time, so effectively he was hit while still completing the mark. That cannot be called a late hit. None of the commentators mention any wrongdoing or that it should be 50m. You had to backtrack on the high contact claim, and now you have to backtrack on the lateness of the hit. This is getting a bit embarrassing for you.

I would support the Swans against a majority of the teams, but not against the Bulldogs on this occasion. To some extent the Swans have brought on board the South Melbourne tradition and it was thrilling when the Swans were able to break a very long premiership drought, just as it was fantastic how the Bulldogs were able to break their drought and the Lions when they broke theirs -- not so much for me though as it happened against the Bombers. I was happy to watch and support Hawthorn, St. Kilda and North Melbourne when they won their first premierships although I would now support any team against Hawthorn. I look forward to the Dockers and Gold Coast winning their first premierships, not so much for GWS as I suspect they will have a long period of dominance with their clever management of draft picks. A number of teams found it hard to play against the Bulldogs in 2016, the Swans should have done better in the last couple of years and I hope they are looking beyond the umpires to work out what they need to do to address their issues.

"So it was a conspiracy by the umpires. With this proof the result can be changed and perhaps we need to investigate previous grand finals and why stop there — there are other important matches in past seasons that would have impacted premierships." There was the Sydney Hawthorn game where Sydney had three free kicks up until 3/4 time, and two bad 50m penalties paid against them at critical times. I think Sydney are generally hated in AFL circles and subconsciously people want them to lose. Regardless, the Grand Final was umpired badly.

So it was a conspiracy by the umpires. With this proof the result can be changed and perhaps we need to investigate previous grand finals and why stop there -- there are other important matches in past seasons that would have impacted premierships.

"I don’t think jack is all that tough. It was a very courageous mark because he knew what was coming the other way and what they could have done to him. Wood could have given him a serious, perhaps career ending injury. But he didn’t." Please click the link. You'll see that Jack is a tough, courageous player. https://youtu.be/jpWpc5qfH4I?t=26m33s "It’ a contact sport. The bump wasn’t brutal, it wasn’t high, it wasn’t late and it wasn’t 50m." Please see the below link. You'll see that it was late, he had marked the ball, it's a 50m penalty every day of the week. If it's not a 50m penalty then all defenders should start adopting this kind of shirt front into their arsenal since there's no 50m penalty according to you. https://youtu.be/jpWpc5qfH4I?t=26m33s "It makes me wonder how many of your other grievances are suspect." You're the one being dishonest. Please see the youtube link. "Dogs kicked 2.6 to 1.2 in the 3rd quarter, with sydney’s only goal gifted to them with a soft 50m on Kennedy. Again, as I’ve said, dogs kick straighter and its nearly over by 3 quarter time, and a belting by the end." The 50m was there, just like it was when it was paid to the Bulldogs. Sydney had ZERO free kicks in the 3rd quarter. The Bulldogs two goals both came from horrible umpiring decisions. 17:09 Toby McLean of Bulldogs receives free kick for high contact, but ducked into the tackle. Ball is then kicked to the top of the square with a goal being scored. It should not have been a free kick. Another direct 6 points. 7:45 Start of a farcical series of umpiring decision. Morris dives into the Sydney player’s legs and not penalised for it. Morris wins the ball which leads to the following. 7:30 Rampe penalised for a really soft holding the ball. Carey comments that the umpires have let those go all game. 7:11 The previous soft free leads directly to the ball being kicked into the Bulldogs forward line where the Bulldogs get a free kick 30 metres out on an angle for non-existent high contact. It was basically a dive. Bulldogs score a goal. Really bad umpiring decision costs the Swans a direct 6 points. The Bulldogs would have scored ZERO goals in the third quarter if it wasn't for the umpires. At 3/4 time, the Bulldogs had 16 scoring shots to 13 despite the benefit of receiving 4 times more free kicks than Sydney. Despite Sydney only receiving one free kick for the previous 2.5 quarters. And with 8 minutes to go in the match it was only one point between the teams.

Antony, it is just silly to say that the umpires in any AFL game are biased let alone in a Grand Final. This is something we might feel in the heat of battle but should dismiss on calm reflection. It is important to be unbiased in chairing a meeting or refereeing a sporting match because this is a difficult task to do competently without adding to the difficulties with bias. I did think the Bulldogs were lucky to get away with a couple of handballs, one by Tom Liberatore comes to mind, but I don't believe it changed the result and umpires are less inclined to interfere in important games -- they don't want to award a free kick in what may be a grey area. By the way, a form line that comes to mind is the fact that GWS defeated the Swans, the Bulldogs defeated GWS and on this form line is it really surprising that the Bulldogs defeated the Swans? There is no point in raking over cold coals, the Bulldogs won.

The asy1ums are full of people who believe in conspiracy theories.

I beg to differ. There we plenty of mistakes in the umpiring that had a great bearing on the match. The incorrect disposal frees that weren't paid against the Bullies, they got away with throwing and dropping the ball all day, had a great bearing on the result. this is added to the already mentioned incidents. In the last quarter, in one passage alone the Bullies players dropped and threw the ball no less than 15 times. The passage resulted in a goal. At one stage Kieren Jack turns to the umpies with his hands in the air asking 'what the f is going on?'. This will go down as, not one of the most famous but one of the most infamous grand finals ever. If the swans had a 4-6 goal difference, as we would have had, and the umpires umpired without bias, which they didn't, we would have won the game. The fade out was always on the cards as we have been fading out for most of the season but we were never allowed to accumulate, there was always a free to stop the momentum. This was deliberate I believe.

I don't think jack is all that tough. It was a very courageous mark because he knew what was coming the other way and what they could have done to him. Wood could have given him a serious, perhaps career ending injury. But he didn't. It' a contact sport. The bump wasn't brutal, it wasn't high, it wasn't late and it wasn't 50m. It makes me wonder how many of your other grievances are suspect. Dogs kicked 2.6 to 1.2 in the 3rd quarter, with sydney's only goal gifted to them with a soft 50m on Kennedy. Again, as I've said, dogs kick straighter and its nearly over by 3 quarter time, and a belting by the end.

"It wasn’t an old fashioned shirtfront. If it was Jack would have been stretchered off, his day over. Easton Wood could have destroyed him, but instead was very restrained, keeping his feet on the ground and maintaining his line. An example of a (fairly halfhearted) shirtfront was Bruest’s semi-final hit on Picken. Picken didn’t get a 50m (but Stevic was umpire on the spot so doesn’t prove anything)." Kieren Jack is just tough is all. It was a late hit. It was a crunching bump. The commentators lauded the courage of Jack. Late hits especially with that force after the ball has been marked are an automatic 50m penalty every day of the week. Later on in the game we had two similar late hits with a 50m penalty being awarded each time. Are you going to tell me the sky isn't blue next? "I’ve watched the replay and still shots of the Wood/Jack collision, and I can’t see any direct head contact. The fact Jacks head whips forward is evidence he wasn’t hit directly in the head, otherwise his head would have gone backwards, as Wood was in front of him." Either way it's a 50m penalty for such a brutal bump. "2nd half Dogs kicked 6.10, Swans kicked 3.4. Dogs kick straighter and its a belting." The Bulldogs had 7 of the last 8 scores in the game. If the game had been umpired without bias, the Swans likely hold a 4-6 goal lead with 8 minutes to go, shut the game down and go on to win the game comfortably. With 8 minutes to go there was only one point between the teams and the Bulldogs were gifted a net 17 points in front of goal no ifs of buts. Sydney were gifted 0 points. Makes a big difference in a one point game.

"All you’ve done is regurgitate a whole lot of text consisting entirely of hypotheticals and what-ifs. It’s getting boring." I'm not talking what ifs. If I was talking what ifs I would applied a weighting to the howlers paid in general play. I'm instead talking about the net 17 points gifted to the Bulldogs through completely bogus free kicks in front of goal. Early in the final quarter, the Bulldogs had received 4x as many free kicks as Sydney. My careful analysis shows the Bulldogs were gifted bogus free kicks and Sydney were denied clearcut free kicks. I believe receiving 4x more free kicks than the Swans kept the Bulldogs in the game until early in the 4th quarter. Are you telling me that the free kick count (especially one as lopsided as 17-4 at one point in the final quarter) had no bearing on the result?

Google to the rescue again?

It wasn't an old fashioned shirtfront. If it was Jack would have been stretchered off, his day over. Easton Wood could have destroyed him, but instead was very restrained, keeping his feet on the ground and maintaining his line. An example of a (fairly halfhearted) shirtfront was Bruest's semi-final hit on Picken. Picken didn't get a 50m (but Stevic was umpire on the spot so doesn't prove anything). I've watched the replay and still shots of the Wood/Jack collision, and I can't see any direct head contact. The fact Jacks head whips forward is evidence he wasn't hit directly in the head, otherwise his head would have gone backwards, as Wood was in front of him. 2nd half Dogs kicked 6.10, Swans kicked 3.4. Dogs kick straighter and its a belting.

... then St. Kilda would have won the 2009 grand final

In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state.

So, taking into account the undisputed error in awarding Hawkins goal then St. Kilda would have won the 2009 grand final? I don't know about that. Doing a thousand simulations the expected result is a 2 point victory to Geelong (the last goal was meaningless), with a 70% chance of a Geelong victory. That is where following anon's nonsense will take you.

Won the argument? All you've done is regurgitate a whole lot of text consisting entirely of hypotheticals and what-ifs. It's getting boring. Not sure many of us actually care anymore. The Dogs won, the Swans lost. Congratulations to the Dogs, commiserations to the Swans. So, I'll repeat: Get. Over. It.

Watch the replay. It was an old fashion shirtfront with some head contact when Jack's head whipped forward. It's a 50m penalty every day of the week (except if your a Swan in a Grand Final against a Melbourne team). Had he be given the 50m penalty he's 100% chance of kicking that goal. The Swans couldn't have been too bad in the second half. With 8 minutes to go there was only one point difference. Gift 17 points to the Swans and give them a 17-4 free kick count and I think they would have had a 6 plus goal lead with 8 minutes to go.

I know when I have won the argument. When people can't debate my points and just say get over it.

1st quarter 13:00. Kieren Jack the Captain should have nailed the goal. It wasn't worth a 50m penalty...he only got clipped in the shoulder. Spun him around because he only weighs 70kg or so. He missed another gettable shot in the 2nd quarter and Franklin missed from 10m out. These were not gimmes (except Franklins) but they were gettable and it would have built scoreboard pressure on the Dogs. The dogs on the other hand kicked 7.1 to half time, from all angles and distances. The prelim against Geelong was not as one-sided as it appeared (apart from the 1st quarter slaughter), but the Cats couldn't eat into the deficit and the scoreboard pressure killed them. Sydney needed scoreboard pressure against the Dogs, as their physical pressure wasn't enough. In the end, Sydney did not function as a coherent team after half-time...that's why they lost. They weren't good enough for long enough. Swans only kicked 3 goals in the 2nd half...two of them from free kicks (the 50m given to Kennedy was soft). If the Dogs had taken their 2nd half chances it would have been a belting. I agree with you the 3rd quarter free kick (and goal) for high contact on Clay Smith was disgraceful...his own player hit him.

The one in the first minute has more bearing on the game because it effects more of the game.