Umpiring The Umpiring Dissent Rule - Discuss Here

Do you agree with the zero tolerance on umpire abuse?

  • Yes, abuse has going on for far too long and zero tolerance is the way

    Votes: 47 16.8%

  • Yes I’m for a stronger line but not 50 metre penalties unless it’s serious abuse

    Votes: 73 26.1%

  • Not really, we have rules in place already about umpire contact and abuse, leave it as is.

    Votes: 101 36.1%

  • No, it’s an emotional game and players need to let it out.

    Votes: 30 10.7%

  • Boooooooo, maggots

    Votes: 29 10.4%
  • Total voters
    280

Remove this Banner Ad

Fadge said:
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)?!?
Click to expand...

New rules go through an adjustment period.
Its not easy to turn around decades of abuse overnight, so there will be some minor bumps along the way.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

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

Delicious irony
Click to expand...

This post highlights that he has been trolling you all along.


The issue with the rule is that there are going to be hundreds of borderline situations where the umpire is being put in a position to make a snap judgement call on the motivation of the player after any free kick is played. For example consider the following situation:

Player A tackles Player B, with some high contact in a high pressure close game.
Whistle is blown, free kicked paid to Player B.
When the whistle is blown Players A and B spin to face the umpire to see the result of the adjudication of play.
Player A drops their arms and shakes their head in resignation and disappointment that they have potentially cost their team mates the game, as they turn to take position on the mark.
Umpire has to decide to pay 50m for dissent.

Compare this with:

Player A tackles Player B, with some high contact in a high pressure close game.
Whistle is blown, free kicked paid to Player B.
When the whistle is blown Players A and B spin to face the umpire to see the result of the adjudication of play.
Player A drops their arms and shakes their head in disagreement with the umpires decision, as they turn to take position on the mark.
Umpire has to decide to pay 50m for dissent.


Under the rules, the first situation is just a free, the second is 50m yet from outward appearances both are identical.

Relying on the umpires ability to mindread the players thoughts and read their motivations is the key failing of the rule making it impossible to adjudicate correctly 100% of the time. In games I've dropped my dropped my arms, shaken my head when I know I've stuffed up. If the players had 16+ years to 'stop and stand up straight' on the sound of a blowing whistle as a Pavlovian response , it may work but until then the bar is impossibly high.

Pay 50's for backchat, abuse, approaching/threatening the umpire or other outwardly hostile acts. Report for fines for minor suspected infractions.
 
I reckon it should be a 25m penalty....a 50m penalty means umpires can create goals all over the place.

Will be interesting to see how they umpire during the finals when the stakes are higher and the players might react more to a call. Could win/lose a team a final.
 
CheapCharlie said:
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.
Click to expand...

And I would argue that the reason we see no 50 penalties given is because umpires relax on the interpretation like they did in rounds 1-4, not because of anything the players have done.
 
danster168 said:
If this Brad Scott ruling frustrates you the way it does me, sign the petition and forward it on to all your mates.

www.ipetitions.com

Petition Sack Brad Scott!

Brad Scott cares more about his ego than looking after our great sport. Time to go.
www.ipetitions.com
Click to expand...

If you honestly think it was Cousin Brad who was behind this crackdown of umpire abuse, you are extremely naive.

One last grenade thrown by Gil on his way out.
 
Hellbourne said:
This post highlights that he has been trolling you all along.


The issue with the rule is that there are going to be hundreds of borderline situations where the umpire is being put in a position to make a snap judgement call on the motivation of the player after any free kick is played. For example consider the following situation:

Player A tackles Player B, with some high contact in a high pressure close game.
Whistle is blown, free kicked paid to Player B.
When the whistle is blown Players A and B spin to face the umpire to see the result of the adjudication of play.
Player A drops their arms and shakes their head in resignation and disappointment that they have potentially cost their team mates the game, as they turn to take position on the mark.
Umpire has to decide to pay 50m for dissent.

Compare this with:

Player A tackles Player B, with some high contact in a high pressure close game.
Whistle is blown, free kicked paid to Player B.
When the whistle is blown Players A and B spin to face the umpire to see the result of the adjudication of play.
Player A drops their arms and shakes their head in disagreement with the umpires decision, as they turn to take position on the mark.
Umpire has to decide to pay 50m for dissent.


Under the rules, the first situation is just a free, the second is 50m yet from outward appearances both are identical.

Relying on the umpires ability to mindread the players thoughts and read their motivations is the key failing of the rule making it impossible to adjudicate correctly 100% of the time. In games I've dropped my dropped my arms, shaken my head when I know I've stuffed up. If the players had 16+ years to 'stop and stand up straight' on the sound of a blowing whistle as a Pavlovian response , it may work but until then the bar is impossibly high.

Pay 50's for backchat, abuse, approaching/threatening the umpire or other outwardly hostile acts. Report for fines for minor suspected infractions.
Click to expand...

Just to add my own 2 cents here, consider the following 2 scenarios:

Scenario 1: Quarter 4, 16:20 in Round 1 Carlton v Richmond. Umpire has just given a free kick for "... in danger" to Kennedy. However, Graham gives the ball to Edwards, which is a 50m penalty. Graham then has his arms out, which we now understand is another 50m penalty. Arguments have been made that the arms out dissent is cause a player is arguing with an umpire for making the correct call. But looking at the passage of play highlighted, Graham would be thinking that the umpire has given a freekick to Edwards for making contact below the knees, which you can't argue didn't happen and no one would bat an eye if it was called that way.​
​
So in this case, and numerous similar cases, dissent isn't shown because a player is arguing to an umpire about a correct decision, they're arguing that they saw an action that is usually a free kick, and asking why have you not paid it the way the player saw it?​
​
Scenario 2: There's a clip shown on AFL 360 last night (Tuesday) where Ralphsmith pushes Ross' arms down so a 50m wouldn't be paid. Now I might be viewing this as a biased Richmond supporter, but to me, Ross isn't having his arms out to question the decision the umpire made. He looks quizzical, and his arms are out as if asking "what are you paying the free for?". And that brings up a conversation that has been alluded to, but not explicitly fleshed out: arms out isn't always a gesture of questioning the umpire's decision.​
​
It can be used as a non-verbal question: "what just happened?", "why has a free kick been given"?​
It can be used to ask an umpire how long the player on the mark has left - we see that a lot of the times where the player on the mark has his arms out as if asking is it play on yet.​
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Fadge said:
Zero tolerance is not black and white until dissent is defined, and it is clear which actions are regarded as dissent, and which are not.

To my knowledge, dissent has not been defined in the context of this rule.
Click to expand...
This the rule about dissent in the AFL rules as found in the Laws of the Game document on the AFL website:

18.8 UMPIRES
18.8.1 Spirit and Intention
Umpires shall be protected from unreasonable contact and behaviour whilst performing their duties and their decisions should be respected and followed by Players and Officials.
18.8.2 Free Kicks - Umpires
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player or Official who:
(a) uses abusive, insulting, threatening or obscene language towards an Umpire;
(b) behaves in an abusive, insulting, threatening or obscene manner towards an Umpire;
(c) intentionally, unreasonably or carelessly makes contact with an Umpire;
(d) disputes a decision of an Umpire;
(e) fails to follow the instruction of an Umpire; or
(f) intentionally or carelessly engages in conduct which affects, interferes with or prevents an Umpire from performing their duties.

Any of the actions described in a to f would be classed as dissent I would imagine.
 
brutus76 said:
I'm in my 4th year of coaching and they've really stamped down on it in the last 2 years - was beyond a joke my first year. Umpires being assaulted in car parks or threatened, bullied by players, coaches and sideline supporters.

Now their is no tolerance and better communication between clubs, leagues and umpires it's a lot better but you still hear of the odd flare up. I'm always on the sidelines with my umpires and i'll tell a player or coach if they are out of line if the umpire is too afraid to speak up at a break.
Click to expand...
With all due respect if the umpires called the game as it should be there wouldn't be this problem, and the problem is not purely on the umpires it's their education (AFL) that is the problem, honestly the way they have trained you guys is not right, you guys go out there and look for a free kicks no matter if it affects the the play or not it's the technical ones that leads abuse in the carparks, umpires have the power to pay fingers on the back with no push as "push in the back"

A player is not going to outburst on a umpire if he knows he was in the wrong, but when your paying freekicks for fingers in the back, paying freekicks when a players have no control over their body(gravity) and accidently draws a free kick with no malice or intent, that's where the players and fans get pissed off.

Umpires should pay free kicks going off intent and the affect it has on the player with/without the ball because at the moment you blokes are paying free kicks as if you have a KPI to hit per game.

I'll say it again it's not the umpires fault it's their education source.

I reckon 80% of free kicks paid these days are technical ones that do no impact on the play nor the opposition gains advantage for breach of rules.

Too trigger happy.
 
Babylove said:
This the rule about dissent in the AFL rules as found in the Laws of the Game document on the AFL website:

18.8 UMPIRES
18.8.1 Spirit and Intention
Umpires shall be protected from unreasonable contact and behaviour whilst performing their duties and their decisions should be respected and followed by Players and Officials.
18.8.2 Free Kicks - Umpires
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player or Official who:
(a) uses abusive, insulting, threatening or obscene language towards an Umpire;
(b) behaves in an abusive, insulting, threatening or obscene manner towards an Umpire;
(c) intentionally, unreasonably or carelessly makes contact with an Umpire;
(d) disputes a decision of an Umpire;
(e) fails to follow the instruction of an Umpire; or
(f) intentionally or carelessly engages in conduct which affects, interferes with or prevents an Umpire from performing their duties.

Any of the actions described in a to f would be classed as dissent I would imagine.
Click to expand...
This is all very nice, but there is still the interpretation of the players' actions by the umpires, and as another poster has suggested, relying on umpires to read the minds of the player.

Post #288 above by TheOptimum18 is a great example of a player acting in the same manner, but with two very different intentions for the behaviour. 'Arms out is 50', which was literally quoted by an umpire on the weekend, has not and must not be written into the rules, nor be used as a threshold for awarding 50 metre penalties.
 
Brad Scott has got this so wrong!

He wants respect for umpires, which I totally agree with, but the way he is going about it is very wrong.

We all know that respect is earnt and cannot be forced upon people. When you try force people to respect you that is the action of a dictator. And eventually, as with all dictators, the people whom you were demanding respect from will happily either publicly hang you, or just shoot you in the head, and then happily tear down all the statues you demanded as part of the respect to be shown.
Yes I know a rather exaggerated analogy but you get the point.

If you want to change the view of umpires and umpiring the 1st thing that needs to happen is we need to make the umpiring a full-time professional. I've said it for years but how on earth do we have full-time professional athletes with full-time professional coaches and full-time professional staff in both clubs and the administration over-seeing the sport and yet one of the most influential people on the actual field of play are part-time, and is alot of instances is their 2nd job.
This makes no sense.

Then once you make umpiring a genuine professionals sure you pay them very well. Imagine being paid $200k per annum, which is the job of umpiring AFL football. Think you might have a few more putting their hand up for the umpiring gig? I know this wouldn't be the pay for lower levels but neither are the players paid AFL $$$ at lower levels.

Umpires can then spend time, when not umpiring games, going to clubs and doing umpire trained sessions. This would help player and umpire interaction and umpires hone their skills so they get better and players understand rules better, and naturally with interaction on a more personal level this will generate better relationships and lo and behold respect.

Umpire could even then visit schools and umpire school games. Now we have kids getting excited about an AFL umpire visiting the school and that feeds into their local clubs etc. I think you get the picture.

I just don't see the current tact as getting the result you want, especially in the lower levels of footy, and the whole paradigm needs changing to make such a major shift in such ingrained attitude towards umpires.
 
Last edited:
greatwhiteshark said:
That was a brain fade more than anything else. Keep going babe me another 20 the last 10 years ??
Dissent was removed 30 years ago, it’s like an eclipse these days. Very rare
Click to expand...
How about the two Cats running at the umpire flapping their arms clearly arguing with the umpire, or the Carlton player both incidents from the weekend just gone that they have been showing constantly during the week. How about every time a player points at the scoreboard telling the umpire to watch the replay or hearing players screaming at umpires over their effects mike or every time we see players throw their fists in the air at the umpire in anger. That’s all dissent. It hasn’t gone away it’s just been let go to the point where we’ve been conditioned that that is acceptable.

And look like you before the Toby incident I didn’t think it was an issue. Then in the week after that incident I listened to umpires’ experiences from grassroots levels and I realised it is a serious problem and the result is a serious shortage umpires which will probably grow unless something changes.
 
danster168 said:
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?'
Click to expand...
I mentioned this the other week when you start getting people involved as umpire coaches who have zero experience. How could it possibly not go wrong??
 
Ugottabjokin said:
Brad Scott has got this so wrong!.

He wants respect for umpires, which I totally agree with, bit the way he is going about it is very wrong.

We all know that respect is earnt and cannot be forced upon people. When you try force people to respect you that is the action of a dictator. And eventually, as with all dictators, the people whom you were demanding respect from will happily either publicly hang you, or just shoot you in the head, and then happily tear down all the statues you demanded as part of the respect to be shown.
Yes I know a rather exaggerated analogy but you get the point.

If you want to change the view of umpires and umpiring the 1st thing that needs to happen is we need to make the umpiring a full-time professional. I've said it for years but how on earth do we have full-time professional athletes with full-time professional coaches and full-time professional staff in both clubs and the administration over-seeing the sport and yet one of the most influential people on the actual field of play are part-time, and is alot of instances is their 2nd job.
This makes no sense.

Then once you make umpiring a genuine professionals sure you pay them very well. Imagine being paid $200k per annum, which is the job of umpiring AFL football. Think you might have a few more putting their hand up for the umpiring gig? I know this wouldn't be the pay for lower levels but neither are the players paid AFL $$$ at lower levels.

Umpires can then spend time, when not umpiring games, going to clubs and doing umpire trained sessions. This would help player and umpire interaction and umpires hone their skills so they get better and players understand rules better, and naturally with interaction on a more personal level this will generate better relationships and lo and behold respect.

Umpire could even then visit schools and umpire school games. Now we have kids getting excited about an AFL umpire visiting the school and that feeds into their local clubs etc. I think you get the picture.

I just don't see the current tact as getting the result you want, especially in the lower levels of footy, and the whole paradigm needs changing to make such a major shift in such ingrained attitude towards umpires.
Click to expand...
2 weeks ago I posted about how this will have zero benefit and you've grossly over simplified what is involved. Umpires only get to practise their skills in actual games and there will be large periods of the year in off season when they have nothing to actually do other than run (which they already do in the off season). Many will have to give up their career jobs in deciding whether to look at short term few years of full time umpiring at the detriment of their career roles taking them until retirement. All you'll do is actually lose the good umpires already there.

If you want to make the end result better, stop the incessant frigging and adjustment of the rules every 2 minutes - it's just making the game impossible to umpire - full time or part time.
 
if this is all for the benefit of grassroots footy and umpiring why don't we just outright ban any player or spectator that abuses umps at that level? Surely that'd have a bigger impact wouldn't it?
 
Fadge said:
This is all very nice, but there is still the interpretation of the players' actions by the umpires, and as another poster has suggested, relying on umpires to read the minds of the player.

Post #288 above by TheOptimum18 is a great example of a player acting in the same manner, but with two very different intentions for the behaviour. 'Arms out is 50', which was literally quoted by an umpire on the weekend, has not and must not be written into the rules, nor be used as a threshold for awarding 50 metre penalties.
Click to expand...
I think the issue might be one of communication from the AFL to media and fans. Listening to the press conference for the Pies and Bombers clash both Pendlebury and Heppell were of the opinion that players and coaches were clear on what was expected and why (basically any manner of disputing an umpires decision regardless of how you do it opens you up for a penalty so don’t do it). In the ‘Arms out is 50’ incident the one thing that hasn’t been in question is that Harris Andrews was disputing the decision. It has been argued that the action was minor and whether it was disrespectful or warranted a penalty, but why he did it has never been questioned. So it becomes an example of what Pendlebury and Heppell were talking about at their press conference. Unfortunately the communication to we the fans hasn’t been done well so we haven’t bee brought along with the change.
 
Babylove said:
I think the issue might be one of communication from the AFL to media and fans. Listening to the press conference for the Pies and Bombers clash both Pendlebury and Heppell were of the opinion that players and coaches were clear on what was expected and why (basically any manner of disputing an umpires decision regardless of how you do it opens you up for a penalty so don’t do it). In the ‘Arms out is 50’ incident the one thing that hasn’t been in question is that Harris Andrews was disputing the decision. It has been argued that the action was minor and whether it was disrespectful or warranted a penalty, but why he did it has never been questioned. So it becomes an example of what Pendlebury and Heppell were talking about at their press conference. Unfortunately the communication to we the fans hasn’t been done well so we haven’t bee brought along with the change.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the players know the rule.
For whatever reason, some of the umpires haven't been enforcing obvious player dissent the last few weeks and that might have empowered some players to go back to their old ways.
Fans watching have seen some inconsistency and then some other fans prefer to have the abuse as part of the toughness of the game.
Its such a simple fix for the payers , and the Umps have to be more consistent in calling it out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Obeanie1
Umpiring Whats with umpires not knowing or forgetting the rules of the game?
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
BomberManU
B
Purple7x08_24
Coaches discussing umpiring in conferences. Is it, or should it be allowed?
2
Replies
44
Views
1K
geelong_crazy26
G
Sentinel
Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
148
Views
3K
eddiesmith
eddiesmith
LordLucifer
Can The Umpiring Fraternity **** It Up Any Worse Than This ??
Replies
2
Views
378
maskmcgee
maskmcgee
B
Umpire stopping play if someone is injured
Replies
8
Views
427
HairyO
HairyO
Rhyys
Rules 6-6-6 rule
Replies
1
Views
95
Sentinel
Sentinel
J
Umpires having a duty of care for injured players
Replies
7
Views
351
faible
faible
Back
Top