Rules The 'Dissent' rule

[Carringbush2010]

So big debate on the footy shows tonight on this being dissent to an umpire and awarded 50m against.



Also the other big debate going around which includes this is the inconsistency of umpires applying the rules.

I think it's probably a bridge too far for HQ to expect players to quell their emotional responses and ask questions of the ruling at the time. This will not help the umpires it will hamper them and will not get the public onside.

First thing to fix is the inconsistency, if HQ want to make umpires popular be rigidly consistent in the calls. Have a clear set of rules that will / will not be paid and relay that to all and sundry. Starting with the umpires so they know exactly what to pay and what not to. Inform the public as well.

Second thing to fix is not bring in rules that look petulant and toy throwing. 'Wah, don't raise your arms at me, that's 50' I'm sure the umpires don't want to be seen as too easily offended and come across as meek.

Well HQ if you want the umpires viewed as precious and easily offended you're going the right way about it.

Yeah I get verbal abuse of umpires is not on, but legitimately asking a question without profanity is surely not worthy of punishment. Literally no player outwardly abuses umpires anymore, 'ya gotta be kidding ump' is not dissention and labelling that as dissention will only portray the umpires as too easily offended.

The players are not robots, sure penalise dissent but ensure what defines dissent passes the pub test. Raising arms does not pass that test.

 

[chopflop]

Pretty obvious one. Dissent penalised and disappointment allowed.

Someone tell that Egg at AFL house to get a grip

 

[TheOptimum18]

The word 'dissent' is defined as an action "to differ in opinion", as provided by Merriam-Webster.

The AFL needs to be very clear on what their definition is.

When Jon Ralph was brought onto The Couch tonight, he said that an action that was 'demonstrative' is considered as dissent. I think we all agree that the Andrews' FK wasn't demonstrative, nor was the Gunston/Mitchell one today.

But if a simple, non-disrciminate raise of the arms is dissent and demonstrative, are we going to penalise player who throw their head back in disagreement with the ump? What if a player put both hands to their head to indicate shock in response to a decision - that is also a disagreeance of opinions? What if an umpire catches a player doing an eye-roll when a free kick is paid?


Extrapolating the 'arms out free kick' thing:

When the ball is bouncing towards the boundary line and out of play, and players throw their hands out to ask for a deliberate out of bounds/insufficent attempt free kick, will a free kick be paid for dissent instead?

When we see a player in any situation have their arms out when an ump isn't paying a free-kick:

• players asking for deliberate free-kicks from rushed behinds
• player's asking for holding the ball in contest situations when the ump is going to ball it up
• player's playing for holding the man free kicks and have their arms out to exaggerate the hold
• etc.

are those going to be considered dissent, since player's are disagreeing with the umpire's decision to pay the rush behind, have a ball up, pay an in-the-back free kick, or whatever the orignal decision was going to be?

This opens up a whole can of worms.

 

[Underarm]

Supporters trust players when the players think they haven't given away a free kick. They'd rather blame the umpires than they're own players.

I'd the players stop over reacting to correct calls, the AFL wouldn't have to crack down so hard when they over react to the incorrect ones.

 

[V_23]

How about fines instead of a 50m penalty? That'd sort it out pretty quickly and not annoy the fans. $1,500 fine for demonstrative conduct towards an umpire. The money generated from these fines can go straight towards support for grass roots umpiring.

 

[TheOptimum18]

Supporters trust players when the players think they haven't given away a free kick. They'd rather blame the umpires than they're own players.

I'd the players stop over reacting to correct calls, the AFL wouldn't have to crack down so hard when they over react to the incorrect ones.

Good idea in theory, but very, very hard to implement.


Look at the Graham 50m penalty vs Carlton in RD1 this season, where he gave the ball to Edwards after the umpire paid a free kick to Kennedy:

From the umpire's view, he sees Edwards making high contact to Kennedy who is low and trying to pick the ball up. From Jack's view, he sees Kennedy barrel into Edward making below the knee contact. Is Graham in the wrong to think that a free kick was paid to Edwards for below the knees contact?

I mean, keep in mind that I believe in the same game, the roles were reversed and Bolton was on the ground picking the ball up, but was paid a free kick against after making contact below the knees to a Carlton defender.

So again, nice theory, but very hard to implement consistently in game.

 

[citizen-erased]

How about fines instead of a 50m penalty? That'd sort it out pretty quickly and not annoy the fans. $1,500 fine for demonstrative conduct towards an umpire.

Yup

I think fines are a great idea.
The 50s for dissent is doing the ultimate goal of umpire respect no favours.

 

[Vincent Hanna]

Competitive sport is a highly emotional experience for both participants and spectators, it's a massive part of the allure that draws us in in the first place as kids (in my experience anyway.) Verbally and/or physically abusing match officials should absolutely be penalised with enough of a penance that it deters players from doing so however, expecting them (in the heat of the moment) to act like emotionless robots is quite frankly insanity. Paying a 50m penalty for simply gesturing in a very common way (which can articulate not just anger/dissent but also bemusement, confusion and seeking clarification) is several bridges too far imo.

 

[Plugger35]

Once again the AFL have brought in a new rule or interpretation that is poorly thought through, has been inconsistently applied and created more problems than it solves.

Players verbally abusing umpires shouldn't be tolerated and should be penalised but getting penalised 50 metres for harmless gestures like a player holding his arms out is going way too far and will just infuriate players and supporters and lead to less respect for umpires rather than more respect.

 

[Coops93]

I think generally speaking most people would be on board protecting the umpires given it's probably the hardest game to umpire in the world and the lack of participation at local level

I don't think giving 50m penalties for players non-aggressively raising their arms to in bewilderment is going to help the cause. An instinctive motion for a confused human. You're asking players to quell human instinct.

In fact it's going to go vastly in the other direction, as it already has.

The booing of umpires is a booing of the AFL, as the umpires are only enforcing the rules the AFL has given them.

In fact I'd say they've done well to not call as many 50m penalties as they have given the AFL has said that actually all the ones not called were the wrong decision - Not that anyone will actually give them credit for it - but I say good on them for not following the AFLs ridiculous directive to the letter as often as they apparently should have.

 

[Plugger35]

If the umpires actually start paying 50 metre penalties every time a player holds their arms out or for other similarly harmless gestures they will be paying 50 metre penalties constantly throughout the game turning it into a complete farce.

Is that really what the AFL wants? It's certainly not what the supporters want going by their reaction to the ones that have been paid so far.

 

[Nutsngum]

You cant force someone to respect you and trying erodes what good faith already exists. Its a tough of s**t game to umpire by their own admission so players WILL get frustrated with the calls that are grey or 50/50 at the time. IF the AFL wants leniency in trying to get the game adjuticated correctly then it has to come both ways. Players WILL get used to treating the umpires differently and soon will genuinely have no issue with it but you cannot expect them to be robots when you get it wrong.

Also the general public's opinion of the quality of umpiring, whether correct or not, is at an incredible low right now and this is only going to make it worse. Players may fall in line but the crowds sure as hell wont.

 

[scottyt2]

The AFL are desperate to increase scoring in the game..the interchange cap, 666, kick out rules didn't work so now they've given the umpires any excuse to pay more 50 metre penalties (stand rule + "abuse") not to mention a record number of free kicks being paid so there are less repeat stoppages. Umpire abuse is just a convenient cover to achieve this goal. I can't see it lasting though as crowds are going to drop off even more than they have been if umpires continue to have such a big impact on games.

 

[Kappa]

The AFL are desperate to increase scoring in the game..the interchange cap, 666, kick out rules didn't work so now they've given the umpires any excuse to pay more 50 metre penalties (stand rule + "abuse") not to mention a record number of free kicks being paid so there are less repeat stoppages. Umpire abuse is just a convenient cover to achieve this goal. I can't see it lasting though as crowds are going to drop off even more than they have been if umpires continue to have such a big impact on games.

So you don't think the critical umpire shortage around the country has anything to do with it.....??????????

 

[kriles76]

If the AFL wants more umpires, they have to fund paying them more money at grassroot levels. It’ll attract more umpires, some of who may go onto elite levels.

I think they get paid something like $90 a game by the local league. The AFL should match it using money from a fund.

Money talks.

 

[Boppo]

Players often thump the ground or grab their head in frustration when they give away a free (especially when an overzealous htb tackle gets in the players back and gives away a free) and an umpire is going to wrongly assume the remonstration is aimed at him.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The word 'dissent' is defined as an action "to differ in opinion", as provided by Merriam-Webster.

The AFL needs to be very clear on what their definition is.

When Jon Ralph was brought onto The Couch tonight, he said that an action that was 'demonstrative' is considered as dissent. I think we all agree that the Andrews' FK wasn't demonstrative, nor was the Gunston/Mitchell one today.

But if a simple, non-disrciminate raise of the arms is dissent and demonstrative, are we going to penalise player who throw their head back in disagreement with the ump? What if a player put both hands to their head to indicate shock in response to a decision - that is also a disagreeance of opinions? What if an umpire catches a player doing an eye-roll when a free kick is paid?


Extrapolating the 'arms out free kick' thing:

When the ball is bouncing towards the boundary line and out of play, and players throw their hands out to ask for a deliberate out of bounds/insufficent attempt free kick, will a free kick be paid for dissent instead?

When we see a player in any situation have their arms out when an ump isn't paying a free-kick:

• players asking for deliberate free-kicks from rushed behinds
• player's asking for holding the ball in contest situations when the ump is going to ball it up
• player's playing for holding the man free kicks and have their arms out to exaggerate the hold
• etc.

are those going to be considered dissent, since player's are disagreeing with the umpire's decision to pay the rush behind, have a ball up, pay an in-the-back free kick, or whatever the orignal decision was going to be?

This opens up a whole can of worms.

Weirdly though, they let a couple go over the weekend.

I was actually whining on Sunday Arvo that the AFL has for some reason, relaxed this rule and are letting it go. I personally like the rule.

As frustrating as the awful umpiring is, I like that the players just ignore it and get on with the game.

But then on Monday they were red hot on it!

To be fair, throwing your hands up in the air, whether it be through despair or frustration - is clearly dissent.

It's not abuse, which the rule used to be about, but it's definitely dissent.


In my opinion, any action that revs up anti-umpiring sentiment from the crowd is what they should penalise. Not because I give a s**t about the umpire's feelings, but because the rule was brought in to stop the rabid raging at umpires from crowds at all levels.

Throwing your hands up in the air, or any physical demonstration should be penalised. It becomes a like on, with the emotional crowd following the lead of their player.

The added bonus is that AFL players now appear like mature adults, compared to pretty much all other sports where the refs are fair game.
I'm a mad NBA fan, but their whining after every single call really stands out to me now. It looks pretty pathetic.

 

[Schwarzes_Goal]

Another Narrow-minded rule/interpretation change from the geniuses at AFL house.
The crack down on demonstrative behaviour towards umpires is a great initiative. But the way it's currently being handled is a joke.
I seriously doubt anyone sitting in the outer yesterday was thinking becoming an AFL umpire seemed like a good gig.

The fact that this is the way the dissent rule has supposedly been meant to be officiated all along would seem to suggest the AFLs own umpires aren't on board with their interpretation of dissent either considering how many instances have been ignored so far this season.

 

[Power Raid]

Like all rule changes, there will always be issues but the concept is the right direction.

I would like to see it taken further to including all dissent and all appealing including "arms out" and "throwing the head back" during tackles.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The other point I would add, is that this rule should align with the AFL turning off the umpires microphones, and making them more invisible.

The AFL have started a culture shift where players, and subsequently spectators are being taught to have a 'ignore the umpire' mentality.

If you can't argue or complain about the decision, then why do we even give a s**t about what it was for, or why it was paid? And even more importantly, who paid it.

The logic and reasoning behind why the umpire paid it is now completely and utterly irrelevant.


The umpire is an authority figure. Australian's culturally, hate authority. Particularly when you feel they're picking on you and taking something away from you, and you're helpless to do anything about it.

That's how many view umpires.

IMO, putting a face to that authority makes it worse. It gives you a target to aim your frustration and resentment at.

I don't think stopping players from showing dissent alone will stop crowds from raging against umpires. I think you need to make them as invisible as you can also.

I think continuing to raise umpires' profiles and make them a bigger part of the game, whilst also making them a protected species to extreme levels could actually be counter productive.

I think the dissent rule is great, but I think it will be more effective in the bigger scheme of things if it coincides with a lowering of the profile of umpires.

The best way to get the public to stop abusing and hating umpires is to make them as invisible as possible. Anonymize them.

I also think this would make it a more appealing job, particularly at grass roots levels, for many people.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Standing over an umpire - not on
Contact with an umpire - not on
Swearing at an umpire - not on

Calling out a crap decision by saying "look at the screen" is fine though.

 

[BigFrizz36]

Find it funny that Brad Scott is the man implementing this rule. Maybe the Cats can be penalised on ground every time that Chris Scott

Chris Scott

Age

47

Ht

182cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.6

4star

K

11.2

4star

HB

5.4

4star

M

5.1

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

0.4

3star

No current season stats available

D

13.2

4star

K

10.2

4star

HB

3.0

3star

M

2.2

3star

T

2.8

5star

G

0.4

3star

throws his arms out in the box and does that "what the f" look?

 

[Roogene]

AFL is a game that evokes passion on the field and off. On field, the AFL is taking the passion out of the game. Crowds are down in Victorian and not by small numbers either. You cannot blame Covid, the Grand Prix just set a world record and the Oz open pulled big numbers even with restrictions.

The respect rule is a joke. Players are not robots, its an emotional game with a lot on the line. And we have the stupid AFL not understanding that and bringing in yet another rule to dumb the game down. We might all get annoyed with Razor Ray at times but at least you have to respect that he took it and in some cases gave it.

The respect rule is just another blight on the game and the crowds are voting with their feet.

PS stop allowing forwards to blatantly push defenders in the back. Seems like its simply to fit more ads in for the broad casters.

 

[Roogene]

The other point I would add, is that this rule should align with the AFL turning off the umpires microphones, and making them more invisible.

The AFL have started a culture shift where players, and subsequently spectators are being taught to have a 'ignore the umpire' mentality.

If you can't argue or complain about the decision, then why do we even give a s**t about what it was for, or why it was paid? And even more importantly, who paid it.

The logic and reasoning behind why the umpire paid it is now completely and utterly irrelevant.


The umpire is an authority figure. Australian's culturally, hate authority. Particularly when you feel they're picking on you and taking something away from you, and you're helpless to do anything about it.

That's how many view umpires.

IMO, putting a face to that authority makes it worse. It gives you a target to aim your frustration and resentment at.

I don't think stopping players from showing dissent alone will stop crowds from raging against umpires. I think you need to make them as invisible as you can also.

I think continuing to raise umpires' profiles and make them a bigger part of the game, whilst also making them a protected species to extreme levels could actually be counter productive.

I think the dissent rule is great, but I think it will be more effective in the bigger scheme of things if it coincides with a lowering of the profile of umpires.

The best way to get the public to stop abusing and hating umpires is to make them as invisible as possible. Anonymize them.

I also think this would make it a more appealing job, particularly at grass roots levels, for many people.

Bingo. The AFL seems to want to make them part of the game and the conversation. If we don't notice them they have done their job. Remember how grand finals used to be umpired, whistle away and let them play. These days the whistle seems to blow non stop.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Well what the afl fail to understand.At afl level the umpires are well protected.
Imagine the poor umpire in a sub/country comp rewarding a 50 for a player flapping his arms.That umpire has no protection afforded to the afl umpires.
Thats what these morons in afl fail to grasp.
Band aid solutions that don't cost anything.
Its not actually solving the problem.Its making it worse.