Umpiring The Umpiring Dissent Rule - Discuss Here

[Bluelegs]

That is what dissent is.

Look at the examples Scott uses here.



I think everyone would be fine if it were just paid for things like the Robinson or Papley examples with the in your face screaming and carry-on. Even the Treloar one, which had the arms out was accompanied by verbal agression. If that's what the AFL wants to get rid of then so be it. But the threshold is much much lower than those examples.

 

[CheapCharlie]

To give a 50m penalty (which is a massive penalty) for something as minor as throwing your hands out in frustration or slumping over in annoyance, will actually turn a game. I'd be happy with the player being fined after the game x amount of match payments, but for it to have such a huge impact on the outcome of the game is a disgrace. I'm watching the game worrying that players will remonstrate to the umpire instead of enjoying the game for what it is.

And yet we will see in a matter of weeks that there is almost no umpire dissent or 50 metre penalties given. The game will be better all round for the long overdue crackdown.

AFL football is an emotion-filled, controlled violence sport. It is not a situation in which being a functional adult falls under. It's a pressure filled environment where players making a single mistake can cause them to lose their place in the side, their standing in the team, their trust of coaches.

How is a player making a mistake the responsibility of an umpire? If an umpire makes a mistake, then that mistake doesn't reflect on the player who was incorrectly penalised.
If a player makes a mistake, then sure, that mistake is on the player.

Time and time again we have seen players throwing hands and shaking heads for a free against them, when replays show that the free was clearly there.

 

[Cwp14]

And yet we will see in a matter of weeks that there is almost no umpire dissent or 50 metre penalties given. The game will be better all round for the long overdue crackdown.



How is a player making a mistake the responsibility of an umpire? If an umpire makes a mistake, then that mistake doesn't reflect on the player who was incorrectly penalised.
If a player makes a mistake, then sure, that mistake is on the player.

Time and time again we have seen players throwing hands and shaking heads for a free against them, when replays show that the free was clearly there

Watching a sport of robots running around showing no emotion is really what you want?

I'm saying that is why players are emotional. Each moment in a game is massive for the player involved. Even if the decision was actually correct. Sure as hell there are some decisions which aren't. You want players to be conditioned to just be emotionless after a poor decision from an umpire? The great characters of sport and the very fabric of great sports revolve around emotion.

We can go back and forth for as long as we like, but we can agree to disagree. And mind you, I'd say there are far more people who disagree with you (and the AFL).

 

[Fadge]

I don't see a blurred line. Rolling your eyes in disbelief would be dissent. That's the purpose of an eye roll, to show dissatisfaction.

So you're happy that a player is penalised 50 metres for rolling their eyes?

Wowee.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Watching a sport of robots running around showing no emotion is really what you want?

I'm saying that is why players are emotional. Each moment in a game is massive for the player involved. Even if the decision was actually correct. Sure as hell there are some decisions which aren't. You want players to be conditioned to just be emotionless after a poor decision from an umpire? The great characters of sport and the very fabric of great sports revolve around emotion.

We can go back and forth for as long as we like, but we can agree to disagree. And mind you, I'd say there are far more people who disagree with you (and the AFL).

You can have your emotions but its doesn't include dissent to umpires. Why is that hard to grasp?

Self control isn't such a hard thing to do.

Your argument seems anchored in emotions being of a negative type which involves directing that negative sentiment towards an umpire. If it is so important to a few players to get their emotions out after a perceived poor umpiring decision, they could go up to a team mate and have a carry on, or their captain, or go and abuse the coaching staff at the break

Having a no tolerance policy on umpire dissent doesn't detract in any way at all from the game, but rather will add positives to the game from senior levels down

 

[CheapCharlie]

So you're happy that a player is penalised 50 metres for rolling their eyes?

Wowee.

I doubt we will see many, if any, 50s given for eye rolling.

Lets discuss that if and when it happens eh Fadge?

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

So what happens if an ump gives team A a free kick however players from both teams raise their arms....Team A because they dispute it should be a 50m penalty and Team B because they didnt think it was a FK in the beginning?

Do they both get 50m for showing dissent?

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

Also.....umpires **** up all the time and make bad calls. Are players supposed to just accept a wrong decision? What happens if they witness an umpire cheating in a game?

 

[Fadge]

I doubt we will see many, if any, 50s given for eye rolling.

Lets discuss that if and when it happens eh Fadge?

But hang on, you said it is black and white, and eye rolls are dissent.

Why wait until something happens?

Surely the threshold needs to be higher than that - it needs to be clearly defined in the context of the rule, and right now it isn't...

That is the core of the problem.

 

[Fadge]

Time and time again we have seen players throwing hands and shaking heads for a free against them, when replays show that the free was clearly there.

Is shaking your head regarded as dissent?

 

[KissKiss]

Is shaking your head regarded as dissent?

Depends if you are looking at the umpire or elsewhere. Looking at the sky or ground you can probably get away with emotion. Just need to ram it into the players to never address the umpires on anything but the simplest of questions (eg where is the mark, their line, etc)

 

[CheapCharlie]

Is shaking your head regarded as dissent?

It could be , depending how it is channeled. Its not difficult to work it out.

Rather than worrying about all the possible nuances of the rule, why not wait and see how things have panned in a few weeks as it settles in. Its an easy rule to follow , so should be no issues

 

[CheapCharlie]

But hang on, you said it is black and white, and eye rolls are dissent.

Why wait until something happens?

Surely the threshold needs to be higher than that - it needs to be clearly defined in the context of the rule, and right now it isn't...

That is the core of the problem.

Its not a problem until it is...relax buddy. Its a great rule and you wont notice it in a few weeks. Players can re focus all their emotional energy into the game and positive outcomes

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

Players can re focus all their emotional energy into the game and positive outcomes

And they can all hold hands afterwards and sing a happy little song together!

 

[Some Idiot]

What if we just scrap the 50m penalty and have players referred straight to the tribunal. Please Explain + fines + suspensions for repeat offenders.That way results are unaffected but players have the embarrassment of being named and shamed and the repeat offenders cop harsher penalties.

 

[Fadge]

It could be , depending how it is channeled. Its not difficult to work it out.

Rather than worrying about all the possible nuances of the rule, why not wait and see how things have panned in a few weeks as it settles in. Its an easy rule to follow , so should be no issues

You simply don't understand, do you?

It's not 'worrying about all the possible nuances of the rule', it's about ensuring the threshold is clear to all stakeholders, and most importantly the players and the umpires.

That's how rules work, and why this rule currently isn't working

 

[GOHORCS]

I suppose this is why they are taking a zero tolerance policy in the AFL. They don't want the players to be undermining the umpires decision publically because that filters down to lower leagues and juniors where players take it further cause there aren't 10 cameras on them.

And this whole personality debate is hilarious. Look at NFL where a referees decision is very rarely disputed, and I would argue a huge number of personalities come from that sport.

The yellow flag is not an immediate decision that stops the game. It is post play, discussed with central umpire and result is decided.
The emotion is taken out and replays are used. No comparison.

On SM-A205YN using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Fadge]

Tennis - Challenge System

Cricket - Decision Review System

AFL - Don't you dare show any emotion to even hint that you disagree with an umpire's decision...

 

[CheapCharlie]

You simply don't understand, do you?

It's not 'worrying about all the possible nuances of the rule', it's about ensuring the threshold is clear to all stakeholders, and most importantly the players and the umpires.

That's how rules work, and why this rule currently isn't working

I understand pretty well. No dissent towards an umpire. How much simpler could it be?

It is literally one of the simplest rules they have

 

[CheapCharlie]

And they can all hold hands afterwards and sing a happy little song together!

Yeah, you are correct
Is that now one of the most enduring traditions in the game?
The post game winners song

 

[Toump Ass]

What if we just scrap the 50m penalty and have players referred straight to the tribunal. Please Explain + fines + suspensions for repeat offenders.That way results are unaffected but players have the embarrassment of being named and shamed and the repeat offenders cop harsher penalties.

No way that idea makes too much sense.

 

[Antzzz]

Its not a problem until it is...relax buddy. Its a great rule and you wont notice it in a few weeks. Players can re focus all their emotional energy into the game and positive outcomes

Yeah you won’t notice it in few weeks because they will pull another ridiculous rule out of their arses to appease all the bleeding hearts out there that are permanently looking for things in the game to change

 

[CheapCharlie]

There is a lot of anger and hostility in this thread about a rule that is banning anger and hostility.

Delicious irony

 

[Fadge]

I understand pretty well. No dissent towards an umpire. How much simpler could it be?

It is literally one of the simplest rules they have

If it's so simple, why has it been such a clusterfk during the first two months of umpires applying it (including pre-season games)?!?

 

[danster168]

How do I start a petition to sack Brad Scott? Any sites that do a simple petition? This stubborn dictator who would prefer to massage his ego than look after the game we all love.