Umpiring The Umpiring Dissent Rule - Discuss Here

[smeltitdeltit]

The irony about the contentious one today is that had the umpire not paid 50, nobody would have noticed Mitchels “dissent” today as it was so mild. They essentially magnified it to the public, which is the opposite of what they should be doing (to encourage more people umpiring in junior levels)

 

[mehow2g]

More rules the more room for corruption.

What sport changes interpretations every week?

Just like the past 2 years the umpires are now dictators "question me get punished son"

 

[Crankyhawk]

This may lead to umpires getting less backchat from players but the abuse they get from the crowd will increase ten-fold

I fear that the umpires may start to pay "abuse" on something that came from the crowd that they think came from a player

 

[Crankyhawk]

Has any decision ever been overturned by a player going off their nut at a poor decision?

I've got no issues with this rule. I thought they played it out well in the games I watched - I saw several players express their disappoint at a decision without flailing their arms in the air and carrying on like a pork chop. No 50 was paid - respectful dialogue still seems to be allowed which is a good thing.

has today changed your mind?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Absolutely farcical. Robbo was 100% correct on 360 as was Riewoldt on On The Couch. It's a ridiculous rule, the AFL needs to acknowledge it and bin it. Noone will argue that 50 should be paid for abuse but this is not abuse, it is not even "dissent" whatever you want to call that. It is displaying disagreement with the decision and there is nothing wrong with that.

The AFL as governor of the sport for 30 years after usurping the position from the ANFC has let grass roots footy rot including the umpiring - and instead of doing anything to try and actually fix it their solution is to treat professional sportsmen like kindergarteners and think this will somehow magically fix the massive issues they've allowed to fester at community level. It's just a band-aid solution/lip service.

I just saw the 50 against Andrews tonight I mean what the actual ****. The one against Mitchell today, ridiculous. The one paid against Oliver just as bad. Even the GC, Hawkins and Hewett ones that have been mentioned are not 50s they are just demonstrating frustration which is completely understandable. What's lost in all this is umpires are also being castrated taking away their ability to control the game and determine for themselves when a player has been abusive towards them. You want umpires to be respected, this is not the way to go about it. You have put them in an unenviable position of either paying 50s they don't think are actually there or being seen to be incompetent for not paying them.

I expect the AFL to double down though as the good bureaucrats they are.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Has any decision ever been overturned by a player going off their nut at a poor decision?

This is such a straw man. Umpires may not reverse decisions on the spot but they definitely second guess themselves or pay an "even-upper" down the track.

 

[Del203211]

Not sure the afl are realising the more rules and grey areas they bring in/create, are going to turn more umpires off the game.

 

[Doashuey]

This is such a straw man. Umpires may not reverse decisions on the spot but they definitely second guess themselves or pay an "even-upper" down the track.

Or in yesterday's case perhaps they do look at the screen and realise Hawkins has sucked them in again and learn from it. Mitchell wasn't trying to have the decision overturned he was trying to point out the decision was wrong so it won't happen again.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

This is such a straw man. Umpires may not reverse decisions on the spot but they definitely second guess themselves or pay an "even-upper" down the track.

My argument is more about the way it's done. Waving your arms about and stamping your foot over a decision makes you look like a fool. In the first couple of rounds, I'm sure I saw civil discourse between players and umpires which is exactly how the rule should work. At that point, I thought the rule was working fine. As has been noted by a number of posters, "dissent" needs to be better defined. I don't think a player saying "I think you got that one wrong and here's why" should be penalised.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Arms in the air and pointing to the screen is dissension. It isn't rocket science

 

[CheapCharlie]

Or in yesterday's case perhaps they do look at the screen and realise Hawkins has sucked them in again and learn from it. Mitchell wasn't trying to have the decision overturned he was trying to point out the decision was wrong so it won't happen again.

It isn't up to Mitchell to Umpire the Umpire decidions

 

[RAPPA]

An interesting point raised by Goldspink on SEN. At the grassroots level, there isn't a TV showing replays which instigates the jeering and dissension. I wonder then if they refrain from showing replays of decisions, whether that will minimise the possibility of "dissension".

 

[Del203211]

An interesting point raised by Goldspink on SEN. At the grassroots level, there isn't a TV showing replays which instigates the jeering and dissension. I wonder then if they refrain from showing replays of decisions, whether that will minimise the possibility of "dissension".

What’s replays got to do with it? Isn’t the abuse (or arms up) already done before a replay is shown anyway? Usually they are watching the replay 5-6 seconds after the free is paid.

 

[juss]

Absolutely farcical. Robbo was 100% correct on 360 as was Riewoldt on On The Couch. It's a ridiculous rule, the AFL needs to acknowledge it and bin it. Noone will argue that 50 should be paid for abuse but this is not abuse, it is not even "dissent" whatever you want to call that. It is displaying disagreement with the decision and there is nothing wrong with that.

The AFL as governor of the sport for 30 years after usurping the position from the ANFC has let grass roots footy rot including the umpiring - and instead of doing anything to try and actually fix it their solution is to treat professional sportsmen like kindergarteners and think this will somehow magically fix the massive issues they've allowed to fester at community level. It's just a band-aid solution/lip service.

I just saw the 50 against Andrews tonight I mean what the actual fu**. The one against Mitchell today, ridiculous. The one paid against Oliver just as bad. Even the GC, Hawkins and Hewett ones that have been mentioned are not 50s they are just demonstrating frustration which is completely understandable. What's lost in all this is umpires are also being castrated taking away their ability to control the game and determine for themselves when a player has been abusive towards them. You want umpires to be respected, this is not the way to go about it. You have put them in an unenviable position of either paying 50s they don't think are actually there or being seen to be incompetent for not paying them.

I expect the AFL to double down though as the good bureaucrats they are.

Why is the AFL incapable of applying some common sense rules?

"**** off umpire that's bullshit" - 50.

"What did i do?" With arms out - not 50.

Stamp out abuse, don't stamp out general emotion on a sporting field.

 

[staffonly]

Ruining the game.

Umpire need to get Hawthorn back into a dangerous spot. No way was that 50.

 

[DazzaTys]

Geeze just saw the replay from the Hawkins 50. Firstly, he should be auditioning for the Australian diving team. Come on, the guy is 100+kg and also a gun footballer. He shouldn’t be falling over like that. Secondly, for the AFL to be endorsing that decision making by the umpires is diabolical. WTF is the commission doing to this great game.

 

[Outback Footy]

Exactly - it only becomes an issue when it impacts clubs that arent Richmond.

Richmond 8 x 50s against Carlton = Undisciplined Tigers, great game by the young up and coming Blues
Bulldogs 2 x 50s against Richmond = The reason the Bulldogs lost, need to look at these rules, are they being adjudicated correctly?

You do realise those 2 50s awarded against the dogs were both for the stand rule, not u,pire abuse (ie this thread)?

 

[brutus76]

As an umpire coach and a former umpire and player the rule I find too controlling.

Footy is an emotional game. Players are not robots. Rule needs to be binned. If a player is frustrated angry or emotional and just vents let it be (it's not personal in that circumstance)

If they get in an umpires face and it does get personal with their verbage then let's take a 50 metre walk down the field champ.

It's all about context. Most players will have the class or courtesy to discuss the matter at a break or after a game seek out an umpire and make peace or show some respect.

At grassroots level it's more the vitriol from sideline supporters or coaches of kids with no emotional stability or maturity that sees them drive umpires away.

Parents and coaches take note. NO UMPIRES means no footy for your kids

 

[Demonic Ascent]

An interesting point raised by Goldspink on SEN. At the grassroots level, there isn't a TV showing replays which instigates the jeering and dissension. I wonder then if they refrain from showing replays of decisions, whether that will minimise the possibility of "dissension".

So we should just ignore reality now? It is a professional sport FFS the umpires are part of that and will/should be held accountable for their decisions.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

My argument is more about the way it's done. Waving your arms about and stamping your foot over a decision makes you look like a fool. In the first couple of rounds, I'm sure I saw civil discourse between players and umpires which is exactly how the rule should work. At that point, I thought the rule was working fine. As has been noted by a number of posters, "dissent" needs to be better defined. I don't think a player saying "I think you got that one wrong and here's why" should be penalised.

That's all well and good but the players are playing in a highly charged environment and are held up to scrutiny by supporters, coaches and the media. It is a results based and highly scrutinised industry so of course if a free goes against you in the dying seconds of a close match there is a high likelihood of a player having an emotional reaction (ala Hewett on Sunday) regardless of whether the decision is right or wrong. In that instance he did not abuse the umpire and no 50 was paid although to the letter of the law it definitely should have been.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

As an umpire coach and a former umpire and player the rule I find too controlling.

Footy is an emotional game. Players are not robots. Rule needs to be binned. If a player is frustrated angry or emotional and just vents let it be (it's not personal in that circumstance)

If they get in an umpires face and it does get personal with their verbage then let's take a 50 metre walk down the field champ.

It's all about context. Most players will have the class or courtesy to discuss the matter at a break or after a game seek out an umpire and make peace or show some respect.

At grassroots level it's more the vitriol from sideline supporters or coaches of kids with no emotional stability or maturity that sees them drive umpires away.

Parents and coaches take note. NO UMPIRES means no footy for your kids

Good sensible post. Do you think this rule in the AFL will in any way alter the behaviour of lunatics at junior/community matches? The AFL has an obligation to sort out the issues at lower levels but what they have implemented doesn't seem to really address this in any tangible way. If anything it will create greater frustration and anger towards the umpires who are only enforcing the rules as they have been told to. It seems to be making things worse not better, even if players don't show "dissent" the crowd surely will.

 

[Del203211]

If I was considering becoming an umpire at grassroots level, I’d legit be thinking right now, is it really worth it?

And the questions in my mind right now would be - are they going to bring the dissent 50 rule in? Am I going to have to monitor the stand rule? Will they bring the protected area into local footy?

Seriously what a turn off.

So many balls up in the air. I feel for anyone in this position.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

Arms in the air and pointing to the screen is dissension. It isn't rocket science

So was Heenys “poster boy” efforts then

 

[aCunningPlan]

Good sensible post. Do you think this rule in the AFL will in any way alter the behaviour of lunatics at junior/community matches? The AFL has an obligation to sort out the issues at lower levels but what they have implemented doesn't seem to really address this in any tangible way. If anything it will create greater frustration and anger towards the umpires who are only enforcing the rules as they have been told to. It seems to be making things worse not better, even if players don't show "dissent" the crowd surely will.

Up until the whole arms in the air thing crept up this week (which I think will make many lose faith in the rule), the recent crackdown on umpire abuse has had a great impact on grassroots footy from what I have seen.
When umpiring the other weekend, clubs that have had reputations for constant backchat and abuse really kept a lid on it. Heading into the rooms before the game I let them know that respectful exchanges are fine but any aggression towards any umpire field/goal/boundary will result in a free. Coaches interpret that as they will, some leave it at that, some don't trust the kids so said all communication to umpires goes through the captain.
I tell you what though it worked! Some kids had natural reactions to decisions but either caught themselves and quickly shut up or had one of their teammates calm them down. I wasn't paying 50's if they settled down quickly. When the rule is spelt out clearly, and common sense is used the players police it themselves.
Hell, even the stand rule is really easy to officiate now we are all used to it.
Seniors are always generally good so I haven't noticed a difference, but juniors was always trouble for abuse with parents and players getting hot headed.
It has been a huge help so far, I did a under 17's game by myself and I had four parents I hadn't met come up after the game saying I had great control over the game and it was a good clean hit out. I also had two young boundary umpires do their very first game and they loved it. The abuse rule massively contributed to that positive experience.

 

[brutus76]

Good sensible post. Do you think this rule in the AFL will in any way alter the behaviour of lunatics at junior/community matches? The AFL has an obligation to sort out the issues at lower levels but what they have implemented doesn't seem to really address this in any tangible way. If anything it will create greater frustration and anger towards the umpires who are only enforcing the rules as they have been told to. It seems to be making things worse not better, even if players don't show "dissent" the crowd surely will.

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.