What are the odds of that happening?
– Anonymous gambling addict
Each game of football is played under different conditions, at different grounds with different players and in different eras. Despite the differences, no matter how much football is altered is often stays exactly the same.
At the weekend, Geelong defeated Collingwood by three points in a slow, bruising match. The game, where both sides scored a combined 17 goals, will never be regarded as a classic, there wasn’t enough goals but it put the Cats a game clear on top. The number one team gets to brag, most likely meaningless in terms of finals. Geelong is undefeated, playing great football, but those old bodies won’t get any younger as the season gets longer.
The final score tells a story of dominance, 8:17 (65) to 9:8 (62), but it wouldn’t be Collingwood without controversy, but the Magpies certainly suffered more than most clubs at the weekend, when a goal by Scott Pendlebury late in the game was disallowed. The umpire, Shaun Ryan, had seen a free kick to Collingwood ruckman Cameron Wood fifty metres out from goal. Though Pendlebury heard the whistle, he gathered the ball and kicked a goal under pressure as Ryan blew the whistle again, then again, asking for the ball to be brought back.
Pendlebury’s goal would’ve put the Magpies in front. There was much confusion in Ryan’s vicinity after those blurts of his whistle. More than 81-thousand fans at the MCG wanted to know why the ball was being brought back. Millions more listening or watching were baffled. For a long time, possibly ten seconds, Ryan was the only man on the MCG with the answers. His explanation, I’d blown time on, was met with a single word response, what?
The decision, in fast or slow motion, didn’t seem right, because the advantage rule was altered before the season to give the players the authority to control the situation by playing on or stopping. Pendlebury didn’t stop, nor did Geelong’s defenders. Ryan stopped the play by blowing the whistle for time-on. By virtue of the law, when time-on is called play ceases. It seemed to all watching on or listening that Ryan had made a mistake, because in not calling advantage he penalised the Magpies.
After the game, Magpies coach Mick Malthouse wanted to blame Ryan and didn’t talk in riddles, describing the umpire as an old-time gunslinger, the fastest whistle in history.
‘It was clearly, to me, an advantage situation, Malthouse said. ‘All I’m saying is it’s remarkable given what we’ve been told that players make up their mind. You stop or you go, we went, Geelong went, we kicked a goal, it comes back, so someone has clearly got it wrong – us, them or whatever.’
The AFL’s Adrian Anderson told ABC radio that Ryan had lost sight of the football when Wood went to ground, which is why he blew time on. Anderson, while not offering an apology, admitted Ryan was quick on the whistle to blow time-on. That is as close to an apology the AFL gets, and it need not offer any further indications of blame.
Thankfully the match wasn’t a final. Football doesn’t need hysteria like that. The AFL though, needs to make it clear to the umpires and the players just how grey the rule is, to end the chaos.
On Monday, Collingwood’s Dale Thomas turned comedian when the incident was brought up during a press conference. ‘I’m not too sure where the confusion lies,’ he said. That simple, befuddled statement clearly sums up the advantage rule, how it leaves players confused, struggling to find the actual confusion. Everyone is confused. The AFL must be embarrassed.
On closer inspection, Ryan, the fastest whistle in history, didn’t cost Collingwood the game. The Magpies lost because they didn’t kick enough goals. It was their lowest score in 11 games, marginally better than the 6:18 (54) they kicked against Adelaide in round 21 last year.
Geelong had 11 shots on goal in the first quarter and led by 14 points instead of 40. In kicking 2.9, many fans were left holding their heads and swearing at the narrow misses and balls that found the post. The Cats ended up having 25 scoring shots to 17, the match, which should’ve been over at quarter time was alive until the final seconds. By virtue of averages, four of those extra eight shots would normally be goals, which would’ve made the margin comfortable, under the average law of averages.
Football doesn’t succumb to the law of averages, yet Collingwood succumbed to Geelong. The Magpies, clearly, didn’t deserve to win, and no correspondence will be entered unto. Malthouse, who insisted, pre-game, that the result would be meaningless, needs to get over the loss, leave the umpires alone and figure out why his team, that’d been flirting with losing most of the season, had finally lost.
Tough being a coach, huh? It can be good too, when the whistle doesn’t blow, or when the players perform as they should. Journalists had to ask Malthouse about that last non-goal. He was compelled to answer questions. He should’ve said the advantage rule is a mess but it’s working, depending on who you support. That would’ve confused the AFL for a while.
As the advantage rule reads, clubs are being disadvantaged by a disadvantage. No wonder everyone is confused. Let’s hope the impending alteration is a lighter shade of grey than charcoal.
A neat tangent
It’s tough being a fan of AFL, particularly when a fan predicted the result of Friday night’s match, picked the winning team in a tipping competition and didn’t get home in time put money on that certain assertion. But there’s more to football than ten bucks, and when the final siren blew, the vagaries of the match found a neat tangent to winters long ago when Melbourne recorded one of the bleakest, wettest seasons in history.
Consider the following passage from The Coach, written by John Powers in 1977:
But Carlton quickly deflated North’s buoyancy. Although North’s final score of 9.8 (62) to 8.17 (65) nudged them to within three points of Carlton, they played like a beaten side all afternoon. Even Barassi, pacing grimly among his players in the dressing room after the match, conceded they were lucky not to have lost by five goals.
The Coach is one of the best football books ever written. Powers was given complete access to all aspects of North Melbourne, training, the rooms before, during and after games, team meetings and match committee meetings. At age 42, Powers took part in pre-season training, doing all the running, skill work and match practice. His insight, despite the brevity, and The Coach could’ve been better if more consideration was paid to length, was gritty and blunt.
The paragraph Powers wrote above described North’s loss to Carlton in round eight, 1977, a defeat which tumbled the Roos from second to fourth. Powers used 57 words to outline the loss, less is more, obviously, but those words could never adequately portray the anguish Barassi felt, or highlight the best players, crucial contests and the moment the match turned. But that paragraph takes us from round 8, 2011, all the way back to round 8 in 1977 and provides an amazing stat.
Read the paragraph again and examine the score from that match. Compare that game from 34 years ago with the match at the weekend between Collingwood and Geelong…
The table below makes the comparison easy.
| Round 8, 1977 | ||||
| Carlton | 2.6 | 3.9 | 7.16 | 8.17 |
| North Melbourne | 2.1 | 5.6 | 5.7 | 9.8 |
| Round 8 2011 | ||||
| Geelong | 2.9 | 2.10 | 5.12 | 8.17 |
| Collingwood | 1.1 | 4.3 | 7.5 | 9.8 |
The same score, 34 years apart, is an interesting point. Perhaps a statistician could calculate the odds on it happening, but those odds must be in the thousands, perhaps the millions. Perhaps you’ve never seen it happen before, or you’re wondering how that statistic could even be remembered. Don’t bother wondering, it happened, a remarkable happening, the same round, same score, 34 years apart.
Aside from the final score and the same round, the following similarities can be drawn from the games:
Rare as identical scores seem, and there’s probably a way to research it, this isn’t the first time it has happened. Without doing the research, which would be lengthy and complicated, it has probably happened hundreds of times. A major failing of a statistic like this is memory, the ability to hoard thousands of scores and compare them when something like this happens.
There is no doubt it has happened before, but it deserves a mention. The last time I can recall the same scores being recorded in different matches decades apart was back in 2008. As everyone knows, North Melbourne defeated Hawthorn by 55-points in the 1975 grand final. Thirty-three years later, round 1, 2008, Essendon and North produced the exact same score, 19:8 (122) to 9:13 (67).
Two rounds later, just to prove it was no fluke, West Coast lost to Fremantle by 14 points, 10.13 (73) to 12.15 (87), which was the same score recorded by North Melbourne and Hawthorn in the 1978 semi final.
By now you’re probably seeing a pattern. The three games can recall that happen to have identical scores have involved North Melbourne, which is further proof it is no unique happenstance.
But tell me, aside from those three examples, when has happened before. Does anyone recall such an occurrence? Is anyone else nuts enough to remember things like this???
Pride Cup results
| 45 | Dave (7) |
| 44 | Dallas (6) |
| 43 | Stevo (5), Adam L (8), Matt B (6), Russ (6) |
| 42 | James (4), Anne (5) |
| 41 | Wayne (7), Sandra (6) |
| 40 | Eric (6), Andy (7), Matt (6), Pam (6), Neal (4) |
| 39 | Jim (6), Adam G (6) |
| 38 | Graeme (5) |
| 36 | Paul (5) |
| 32 | George (5) |
wordpress tema…
Wow, marvelous blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your site is great, as well as the content!…
About a year. My mate built the website.
