Men and women are different, the entire biological make up is different. Why do you want the men to be feminine?
Obviously the AFL do want that.
There is nothing wrong with men being men.
Umpiring The Umpiring Dissent Rule - Discuss Here
- Thread starter Wosh
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Men and women are different, the entire biological make up is different. Why do you want the men to be feminine?
Obviously the AFL do want that.
There is nothing wrong with men being men.
Easy. Everyone runs 50m one way, then 50m the other and they end up back in the same spot.
Cwp14
Debutant
- Apr 13, 2016
- 112
- 254
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Can we as supporters create some sort of mass boycott from attending/watching games. Make the big conglomerate that is the AFL these days accountable. If footballers can’t show frustration or emotion they are nothing but robots. Losing more and more interest in the sport I’ve loved since I was a child.
Did it two years ago myself. Only works in massive numbers. The sheep think the players and club need them. The AFL know they think like this and that’s why they just do whatever they like.
They dont realise the power they have but they won’t use it.
Empty Anzac Day stadium and watch the AFL go wtf? The sheep won’t do it though.
TheVillageIdiot7
Club Legend
- Apr 25, 2021
- 1,567
- 3,203
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I’ve avoided posting here because I don’t see the point….but!!!!!
Until we make rules that are black/white the game and umpires are stuffed!!
Hands in the back….was black /white, yet it gets removed.
No other sport has majority of rules that are up to interpretation.
From the comments today, this is just another one.
Some very easy ones to fix.
HTB - rules don’t say you must dispose of it to your teammate. So 1 second is all it takes these days to dispose of it (I’d love to see prior opportunity gone all together….you kick, you handball or it’s done!! But that would render ruck and largely irrelevant!!)
In the back - don’t care when or why, you push/nudge your opponent forward it’s a free kick. Marking contest or chasing. Doesn’t matter.
Staging - be harsh with it. You duck. Bad luck,
What is wrong with paying 50 frees per game? It’s honestly what should happen given the fact the current state of affairs relies on “interpretation”!!
Until we make rules that are black/white the game and umpires are stuffed!!
Hands in the back….was black /white, yet it gets removed.
No other sport has majority of rules that are up to interpretation.
From the comments today, this is just another one.
Some very easy ones to fix.
HTB - rules don’t say you must dispose of it to your teammate. So 1 second is all it takes these days to dispose of it (I’d love to see prior opportunity gone all together….you kick, you handball or it’s done!! But that would render ruck and largely irrelevant!!)
In the back - don’t care when or why, you push/nudge your opponent forward it’s a free kick. Marking contest or chasing. Doesn’t matter.
Staging - be harsh with it. You duck. Bad luck,
What is wrong with paying 50 frees per game? It’s honestly what should happen given the fact the current state of affairs relies on “interpretation”!!
I agree like many others here with the effort to reduce or stamp out umpire abuse. It has no place in the sport and should never have had any place in the sport.
But when Brad Scott says there is no acceptable level of dissent he is being unrealistic. Basically every infringement in the game has some acceptable level. If you moved 2 inches on the mark when told to stand you wouldn’t or shouldn’t be penalised. If you brush someone’s shoulder when spoiling you wouldn’t or shouldn’t be penalised, and so on.
In cricket dissent towards and umpire can be punished, but not if it is below a certain level. If you are given out and you no you weren’t out, and you shake your head and roll your eyes, you will not be punished. If you start gesturing and talking aggressively towards the umpire you will or should be punished. There are degrees. Degrees that are acceptable and understandable. And degrees that are unacceptable.
In cricket, it works better because you are not punished by the umpire you show dissent towards. Your team is not docked 5 runs because the umpire feels compelled to penalise you for example. You are reported. In international cricket the match referee sorts it out after the game or the day’s play. In local cricket you are referred to the Tribunal.
That is all that needs to happen here. Just take it out of the umpire’s hands. He has one sanction he can apply regardless of he level of dissent so that tool is so imprecise it leads to Haris Andrews and Tom Mitchell copping a 50m penalty, the same penalty applied for a serious level of abuse or dissent towards the umpire.
Just put it in the hands of the MRO. Let him look at each case in the cold light of day. Seriously and obviously disrespectful behaviour towards umpires, sure, free kick or 50m plus MRO. Less serious, let the MRO grade them into no case, reprimand, fine, suspension according to the level. If this doesn’t work then increase the penalties until it does.
And let the matches proceed according to who competes better at footy, not according to who remembers best they cannot raise an eyebrow to question any adverse decision no matter how frustrated they are.
But when Brad Scott says there is no acceptable level of dissent he is being unrealistic. Basically every infringement in the game has some acceptable level. If you moved 2 inches on the mark when told to stand you wouldn’t or shouldn’t be penalised. If you brush someone’s shoulder when spoiling you wouldn’t or shouldn’t be penalised, and so on.
In cricket dissent towards and umpire can be punished, but not if it is below a certain level. If you are given out and you no you weren’t out, and you shake your head and roll your eyes, you will not be punished. If you start gesturing and talking aggressively towards the umpire you will or should be punished. There are degrees. Degrees that are acceptable and understandable. And degrees that are unacceptable.
In cricket, it works better because you are not punished by the umpire you show dissent towards. Your team is not docked 5 runs because the umpire feels compelled to penalise you for example. You are reported. In international cricket the match referee sorts it out after the game or the day’s play. In local cricket you are referred to the Tribunal.
That is all that needs to happen here. Just take it out of the umpire’s hands. He has one sanction he can apply regardless of he level of dissent so that tool is so imprecise it leads to Haris Andrews and Tom Mitchell copping a 50m penalty, the same penalty applied for a serious level of abuse or dissent towards the umpire.
Just put it in the hands of the MRO. Let him look at each case in the cold light of day. Seriously and obviously disrespectful behaviour towards umpires, sure, free kick or 50m plus MRO. Less serious, let the MRO grade them into no case, reprimand, fine, suspension according to the level. If this doesn’t work then increase the penalties until it does.
And let the matches proceed according to who competes better at footy, not according to who remembers best they cannot raise an eyebrow to question any adverse decision no matter how frustrated they are.
Last edited:
This is commonsense in it's absolute form, and could and should be able to be applied on game day by the officiating umpires without the involvement of the MRO (and as if we'd see any level of consistency by that body anyway).
Is putting your arms out and thinking to yourself 'WTF' worse than putting your hands to your head and thinking to yourself 'WTF'? Because according to what has been stated and reinforced by the AFL in the past 24 to 48 hours, it is...
Pie eyed
Premium Platinum
- Jun 26, 2007
- 42,720
- 23,565
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Magpies
They deserve more abuse on this years form.
Brad Scott , mmmmm.
Can we please get some video examples of Scott reacting to poor umpiring decisions as a player and as a coach.
Id like him to watch those, look us in the eye and basically admit he was a total idiot his entire footballing life and to apologise to all the umpires he has shown unreasonable decent too.
THEN the AFL should in extend this rule to coaches in the box. Yep, no more unreasonable decent from them either. No waving their arms wide asking what the free was for. No swearing or abusive language towards umpires allowed. People who lip read do watch the TV. If decent occurs it should be a 50m penalty. No arguments or its a 100m..... We will need an umpire in each box with a big red button......any decent......bang 50m.
Can we please get some video examples of Scott reacting to poor umpiring decisions as a player and as a coach.
Id like him to watch those, look us in the eye and basically admit he was a total idiot his entire footballing life and to apologise to all the umpires he has shown unreasonable decent too.
THEN the AFL should in extend this rule to coaches in the box. Yep, no more unreasonable decent from them either. No waving their arms wide asking what the free was for. No swearing or abusive language towards umpires allowed. People who lip read do watch the TV. If decent occurs it should be a 50m penalty. No arguments or its a 100m..... We will need an umpire in each box with a big red button......any decent......bang 50m.
Last edited:
Pie eyed
Premium Platinum
- Jun 26, 2007
- 42,720
- 23,565
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Magpies
Maybe you should go and follow chess, or a sport not entangled in institutional gambling and institutional match fixing.
The trouble with getting the umpires to officiate it on game day is the limited amounts of sanctions that can be opposed according to the level of the abuse or dissent. Bash an umpire, free kick or 50m. Abuse an umpire, free kick or 50m. Show major dissent about a decision, free kick or 50m. Show moderate dissent about a decision, free kick or 50m. Show minor dissent about a decision, free kick or 50m. If the ump is feeling guilty, he may let you off. If he is feeling you need to be brought under control, he may penalise you for a level that would mostly be let off.
Where you have a system where the punishments don’t fit the crimes, the person meting out the punishments is being put right in the firing line, as is the case now.
This is why I think the umps should only award free kicks or 50m penalties in obvious or serious cases of dissent or abuse or worse. And leave the rest, the more minor end of the scale - which has never been the problem anyway - to the MRO to consider with slightly less summary justice and a greater array of penalties available so he can find one that fits the crime.
That we are even discussing or debating this topic Just shows how far our great sport has fallen.
AFL = Auskick Football League
AFL = Auskick Football League
That’s good theory and I wouldn’t mind giving the umpires more penalty levers rather than just the free kick of 50m penalty. Having said that whether we introduced a wider range of penalties or set a threshold where some dissent is okay we would open up individual interpretations about the level of dissent each action rates as and we as spectators would need to be willing to accept the inconsistency that would result from it. The one advantage by going zero tolerance is that is black and white and the only inconsistency comes from incorrect decisions.
The bigger issue though is while the top levels could successfully walk that tightrope, I’d question whether the lower levels could deal with those blurred lines given that is what has created serious issues in the treatment of umpires at those levels. If you go back and listen to the podcasts of talkback on SEN the week after the Toby Greene incident and the stories of abuse and assault the umpires at those lower levels have dealt with them you can understand why there is a shortage of umpires at those levels. If creating zero tolerance at the top level leads to real change in behaviour at the lower levels is it worth it? Especially when you consider that if you don’t have umpires you can’t play.
It is a fair question and yes zero tolerance may possibly be worth the benefit you see at lower levels.
But where a fair system can as easily be put in place to achieve the same result, take the fair system over zero tolerance.
All this angst is unnecessary. There was always going to be a difficult period of adjustment and readjustment with this new 'culture shifting' rule. Having to stop the whining and influencing the ump cold turkey is not easy for some of the players. And of course the ump have to find the right balance as well. It will be a shit show for a while.
But in the end, hopefully getting rid of the reflexive and constant arguing will influence better general behavior ie staging.
Obviously, as many has already said, getting rid of most the ridiculously grey-area rules will benefit it as much or more.
But in the end, hopefully getting rid of the reflexive and constant arguing will influence better general behavior ie staging.
Obviously, as many has already said, getting rid of most the ridiculously grey-area rules will benefit it as much or more.
Totally understand that, however from a consistency approach it is a lot easier for a panel of umpires to take a hard line approach to pay each free kick that is technically there than just pay the 'obvious' ones because that gets more subjective. I can tell you players know when a free is technically there and get just as annoyed if they aren't paid and it is difficult to justify why they aren't paid.
Freoboy in Melbs
Team Captain
- Apr 7, 2010
- 368
- 992
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
I always new my post would be confronting for some, but that was partly the point. To challenge us to change. “Men being men” is a fraught statement, but I don’t wish to challenge you or others further. All the best.
- Banned
- #219
The AFL is an instrument forged to be a tool for social engineering. All the establishment built, non organic, social change weapons are championed through the AFL. eg; BLM, 'Pride' round, etc, etc.
The establishment wants less dissent of authority and more CONFORMITY to rules in society. Players having to SUBMIT to bizzare rules is part of teaching the public not to question authority no matter how bizarre the rules (see covid). The arms out rule is diabolical. Its meant to be. 'You must submit to authority'.
Watch how the footy show tip toes around how bizarre it is. Robbo making excuses to Reiwoldt when Jack became hesitant to offer an DISSENTING opinion... Robbo chimes in; 'oh, you can still discuss it' (the rule). Bizarre.
The establishment wants less dissent of authority and more CONFORMITY to rules in society. Players having to SUBMIT to bizzare rules is part of teaching the public not to question authority no matter how bizarre the rules (see covid). The arms out rule is diabolical. Its meant to be. 'You must submit to authority'.
Watch how the footy show tip toes around how bizarre it is. Robbo making excuses to Reiwoldt when Jack became hesitant to offer an DISSENTING opinion... Robbo chimes in; 'oh, you can still discuss it' (the rule). Bizarre.
The fix is in. The AFL can now control game outcomes without fear. Players can’t react, coaches can’t react, clubs can’t react. We don’t have rules we have interpretations which can be used to construct what ever outcome you desire. There should be a national “Turn Your Back on the Game” round were the fans send a clear message to AFL.
Sent from my iPad using BigFooty.com
Sent from my iPad using BigFooty.com
It's already happening.
Crowds are down, a lot.
That isn't pandemic fear. It is people walking away from the afl.
It happened 5 years ago to the NRL. They started listening to what fans want
CheapCharlie
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jun 12, 2015
- 6,416
- 7,986
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Anyone who disagrees with this rule needs to review whether they have any place participating in any type of sport at all
Congrats for nominating for the biggest sook of 2022
- Apr 29, 2016
- 11,869
- 10,248
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
i got major Ned Guy vibes from hearing Brad Scott speak yesterday. That feeling when he's talking so much dribble and you're sitting there like 'huh?'
Yep. He was talking in riddles.
All the dissent frees that were paid were correct, and there were six that were missed. What were these 6?
Dissent is to be judged by the umpires, and he stopped short of stating 'Arms out is dissent', which was interesting.
Nothing surer than a free to be paid for dissent when a player puts his arms out appealing for a free kick over the next couple of rounds, which apparently is not considered dissent.
Similar threads
