Umpiring The Umpiring Dissent Rule - Discuss Here

[Mofra]

Dissent rule working beautifully in the Pies v. Doggies game last night.

Ridiculous 50m penalty to Quaynor to give the Magpies a sniff, and another ridiculous 50m penalty against De Goey to snuff out any chance.

I guess it was one all, so noone can complain.

The Quaynor one was worse that Harris Andrews' 50m penalty.

Then the de Goey one took the crown as the worst 50m penalty of the year. It's possibly the worst 50m penalty I've seen. Absolutely no way anyone wants umpires paying that.

 

[Looney]

Is the AFL the only sporting competition in the world where it's illegal to question the umpiring decisions?

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Is the AFL the only sporting competition in the world where it's illegal to question the umpiring decisions?

Turning into MLB.

Waiting to see the first player projection.

 

[archereleven]

Two of the worst for the year.

They are all the worst unless a player is actually spitting the dummy...

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[archereleven]

The answer is 'no'. It is ALL about interpretation, or 'the vibe'.

Why define something clearly when it is easier for the AFL to introduce grey areas where the interpretation can change week to week, game to game, umpire to umpire or minute by minute?

Dennis Denuto was on board to word the legislation.

NMs Larkey had a run in with this idiotic rule today. He wasn't paid a mark that was a mark in any league across Australia, put his arms out and was called for dissent and a free against paid.

The u.pire basically compounded a ahit decision with an even worse decision.

Happy days

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[HairyO]

Is the AFL the only sporting competition in the world where it's illegal to question the umpiring decisions?

Rugby union would be the only one with similar strict rules.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Rugby union would be the only one with similar strict rules.

Players have to address the refs as “Sir”. This will be next.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Ridiculous rule.

 

[Fadge]

Good conversation about this on 'The First Crack' tonight.

• Came to the fore 4 weeks ago, when for the first time, in one specific instance, we learnt that 'arms out is dissent'.
• Poor starting point initially, and has caused problem after problem after problem.
• Players are now internalising their anger, which is exactly what players have been asked of them.
• Tom Lynch asking the umpire to keep an eye on the chopping of his arms = dissent?
• Every 3 weeks it's costing a handful of 50m penalties, whilst it lay idle for the two weeks in between.
• You can't just see a cue (e.g. arms out) and be obligated to pay a free kick/50m penalty.
• Requires a commonsense approach (asking a lot from the AFL)

 

[CheapCharlie]

Good conversation about this on 'The First Crack' tonight.

• Came to the fore 4 weeks ago, when for the first time, in one specific instance, we learnt that 'arms out is dissent'.
• Poor starting point initially, and has caused problem after problem after problem.
• Players are now internalising their anger, which is exactly what players have been asked of them.
• Tom Lynch asking the umpire to keep an eye on the chopping of his arms = dissent?
• Every 3 weeks it's costing a handful of 50m penalties, whilst it lay idle for the two weeks in between.
• You can't just see a cue (e.g. arms out) and be obligated to pay a free kick/50m penalty.
• Requires a commonsense approach (asking a lot from the AFL)

I don't see what all these supposed problems are. Players just have to shut their gob about decisions and the problem is dealt with
Let the players shoulder the blame for their actions rather than an Umpire who adjudicates it.
Take the action off the table and the issue is solved.

It was always going to take a short while to iron things out but its just about there.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

I have no problem with the dissent rule at all. When I watch a game I don't want to see grown men carrying on like pork chops. Seriously - just grow up.

Do the umps get it wrong sometimes? Probably, although I don't think it's as cut-and-dry terrible as lots here suggest. Is your view and your hearing from your armchair better than the umpire's view on the ground?

As an aside, I used to get annoyed by what I perceived as umpiring mistakes but in recent years I've begun to ask myself "that looked like it should have been HTB. I wonder why it wasn't paid - perhaps there was something I didn't/couldn't see or hear". It's no longer a case of "I'm right, the umpire was wrong" but rather "I may not have all the information need to make that decision". I enjoy the footy even more now.

ps. I've always been impressed by the respect rugby players pay to referees (and no, they don't have to call them "sir").

 

[Fadge]

I have no problem with the dissent rule at all. When I watch a game I don't want to see grown men carrying on like pork chops. Seriously - just grow up.

Do the umps get it wrong sometimes? Probably, although I don't think it's as cut-and-dry terrible as lots here suggest. Is your view and your hearing from your armchair better than the umpire's view on the ground?

As an aside, I used to get annoyed by what I perceived as umpiring mistakes but in recent years I've begun to ask myself "that looked like it should have been HTB. I wonder why it wasn't paid - perhaps there was something I didn't/couldn't see or hear". It's no longer a case of "I'm right, the umpire was wrong" but rather "I may not have all the information need to make that decision". I enjoy the footy even more now.

ps. I've always been impressed by the respect rugby players pay to referees (and no, they don't have to call them "sir").

So you don't have an issue with 'interpretation' changing week to week, game to game, and umpire to umpire?

 

[Fadge]

I don't see what all these supposed problems are. Players just have to shut their gob about decisions and the problem is dealt with
Let the players shoulder the blame for their actions rather than an Umpire who adjudicates it.
Take the action off the table and the issue is solved.

It was always going to take a short while to iron things out but its just about there.

What action needs to be taken off the table?

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

So you don't have an issue with 'interpretation' changing week to week, game to game, and umpire to umpire?

Correct - it's no different to other 'interpretations' that change over time.

 

[CheapCharlie]

What action needs to be taken off the table?

Churlishness towards the umpires in any form.
Its such a simple fix for the players. Don't question a decision on field once a decision has been made. It wont be overturned, so move on with the game

 

[bc27]

Joke of a rule.

Embarrassing really.

 

[Fadge]

Churlishness towards the umpires in any form.
Its such a simple fix for the players. Don't question a decision on field once a decision has been made. It wont be overturned, so move on with the game

What you mean is 'don't show any emotion'.

 

[Toump Ass]

If only the umpires weren't so incredibly stupid, this rule might work.
Clearly some umpires cannot tell the difference between a player dissenting, and a player displaying frustration at a free kick being awarded.

campaignerpires continue to make s**t decisions while fans and supporters turn off from the game, and make umpiring even more difficult and less appealing. Good Job Mr. Scott!!!!

How was McGovern in the Eagles/Demons game. Two to three straight minutes of gobbing off at an umpire because he was caught HTB. And the umpire just took it, sat there and smiled and said "yes sir mr. macgovern please keep ripping into me for being a campaigner".

No 50 metre penalty. It's outrageous.

 

[CheapCharlie]

What you mean is 'don't show any emotion'.

There is showing emotion and there is showing restraint. At times of an umpires decisions that goes against you that's a time for restraint.
Is that difficult to do?

 

[Fadge]

There is showing emotion and there is showing restraint. At times of an umpires decisions that goes against you that's a time for restraint.
Is that difficult to do?

Players showed restraint on the weekend and got penalised 50m.

The AFL are asking players not to show any emotion, because if they do, they will occasionally be penalised 50m.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Players showed restraint on the weekend and got penalised 50m.

The AFL are asking players not to show any emotion, because if they do, they will occasionally be penalised 50m.

No, the players who got penalized didn't show restraint, hence the 50.
Maybe focus on the other several several hundred penalties given where the players did show restraint and there was no 50. Use those examples as your baseline

 

[archereleven]

I see chumpcharlie is back telling everyone how a stupid and ridiculously adjudicated rule is good for the game...



On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[CheapCharlie]

I see chumpcharlie is back telling everyone how a stupid and ridiculously adjudicated rule is good for the game...



On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

Maintain the rage brother

 

[flyinghi64]

If only the umpires weren't so incredibly stupid, this rule might work.
Clearly some umpires cannot tell the difference between a player dissenting, and a player displaying frustration at a free kick being awarded.

campaignerpires continue to make s**t decisions while fans and supporters turn off from the game, and make umpiring even more difficult and less appealing. Good Job Mr. Scott!!!!

How was McGovern in the Eagles/Demons game. Two to three straight minutes of gobbing off at an umpire because he was caught HTB. And the umpire just took it, sat there and smiled and said "yes sir mr. macgovern please keep ripping into me for being a campaigner".

No 50 metre penalty. It's outrageous.

Yep saw an article on this as well.
Just love how the utter ineptness of the officiating umpire wasn't brought into question.
Should have been a 50m penalty EVERY day of the week against Petracca but no, instead he gets a free and a goal.
If there ever is/was a good reason for a player to rip an ump a new one that was it.
Campaigner? yeah there were a couple involved in that little incident.

 

[Toump Ass]

Should have been a 50m penalty EVERY day of the week against Petracca but no, instead he gets a free and a goal.
If there ever is/was a good reason for a player to rip an ump a new one that was it.

Viney can't king-hit a bloke without penalty because the umpire missed a HTB a minute before.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

Petracca may have had "lucky free" but he also should have been given a 50 metre penalty.
Probably lucky he didn't though, he's pretty s**t straight in front from a set shot.