Rules The 'Dissent' rule

[Osho]

What a wonderful rule. Player behaviour has never been so good. Good to see thevAFL get one right.

And the fans can still wave their arms about and make shrill complaints.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Tim Watson comes out strongly in favour of cracking down on umpire dissent. Following the leaked report into the abuse of junior female umpires and female umpires in general, he has used his SEN show to give a broadside to the recalcitrant few who see umpire abuse and dissent as acceptable.
As he says, the new rule is working with frees the last coupe of weeks right down, so player attitudes can be adjusted.
It's over time that standards of respect have slipped, time for the current crop of player and fans to bring back the respect.

“It has to be stronger”: AFL great’s impassioned plea for improved umpire respect after damning report

“We’ve allowed it to be acceptable behaviour and it shouldn’t be.”

www.sen.com.au

 

[staffonly]

Tim Watson comes out strongly in favour of cracking down on umpire dissent. Following the leaked report into the abuse of junior female umpires and female umpires in general, he has used his SEN show to give a broadside to the recalcitrant few who see umpire abuse and dissent as acceptable.
As he says, the new rule is working with frees the last coupe of weeks right down, so player attitudes can be adjusted.
It's over time that standards of respect have slipped, time for the current crop of player and fans to bring back the respect.

“It has to be stronger”: AFL great’s impassioned plea for improved umpire respect after damning report

“We’ve allowed it to be acceptable behaviour and it shouldn’t be.”

www.sen.com.au

Gone stupid at local level. Belt a bloke nothing to see put your arms out after a free and it's 50.

 

[Back One Out]

I just knew this would be another way for Hawthorn to be reamed by the umpires.

Yep, after a few weeks of watching Hawthorn players being penalised with fifties every time they raise an eyebrow and opposition players waving their arms and not being penalised, my fears have materialised.

I agree in principle with rules against umpire dissent. I just think we have some of the most inconsistent horrible umpiring in world sport... and this latest rule is just another example of how the AFL can f**k up our great game.

Congratulations Brad Scott, you muppet. You're no better than that Steve Hocking idiot.

 

[Dan26]

It's a bit like currently getting a speeding fine for doing 106 in a 100 zone (they normally give you 5-6 kms margin of error)

And then without warning you start getting a speeding fine for doing 101

 

[Carringbush2010]

So apart from the obvious, who in here actually believes this rule was applied as Brad Scott wanted it to be or said it should be?

For mine it's pretty obvious the umpires stuck the middle to the moron AFL footy boss.

Funny even that nimrod knows not to keep pushing his bs rule, coz the umps will go 'fk you, get someone else'

 

[CheapCharlie]

For mine it's pretty obvious the umpires stuck the middle to the moron AFL footy boss.

Wacky conspiracy theory of the month.

Carry on

 

[scoman]

Wacky conspiracy theory of the month.

Carry on

I'm with Carringbush on this one. We haven't seen a 50m penalty for dissent over the last couple of weeks. The talking heads are saying its because the players have adapted. Nonsense, they are still throwing the arms out, pleading with umps that the ball hit the ground, they touched it first, the player ducked etc. Only now they are not being penalized. Sure there has been some improvement in the players interactions, but if the umpires listened to the directive from Brad Scott we would have seen dozens of frees given over the last couple of weeks. We were told there was zero tolerance, arms out, question a decision and its instant 50m. The umpires are not following that interpretation anymore and good on them.

 

[CheapCharlie]

I'm with Carringbush on this one. We haven't seen a 50m penalty for dissent over the last couple of weeks. The talking heads are saying its because the players have adapted. Nonsense, they are still throwing the arms out, pleading with umps that the ball hit the ground, they touched it first, the player ducked etc. Only now they are not being penalized. Sure there has been some improvement in the players interactions, but if the umpires listened to the directive from Brad Scott we would have seen dozens of frees given over the last couple of weeks. We were told there was zero tolerance, arms out, question a decision and its instant 50m. The umpires are not following that interpretation anymore and good on them.

There has only been a few missed.
You are noticing some hands out, and that's mainly players appealing for a player diving on the ball or intentionally targeting the boundary line.
It can be said those players are appealing before any umpire decision has been made.
Once the umpire says Ball up, or Play On, Or boundary throw in, or it's a Free, then the players would be dissenting if the arms are out after that.
I don't see it as any issue of note myself

To say the umpires are intentionally not paying dissent frees to shove it to Brad Scott is loopy. The players are self regulating and the dissent frees are not there to be paid

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Dissent rule is already dead.
Players are back to screaming at umpires

 

[Plugger35]

I just knew this would be another way for Hawthorn to be reamed by the umpires.

Yep, after a few weeks of watching Hawthorn players being penalised with fifties every time they raise an eyebrow and opposition players waving their arms and not being penalised, my fears have materialised.

I agree in principle with rules against umpire dissent. I just think we have some most inconsistent horrible umpiring in world sport... and this latest rule is just another example of how the AFL can f**k up our great game.

Congratulations Brad Scott, you muppet. You're no better than that Steve Hocking idiot.

We usually cop the rough end of the stick too when it comes to these soft inconsistent 50 metre penalties.

We had that ridiculous 50 metre penalty paid against McKenzie for dissent against GWS when he just indicated that the ball had bounced, that cost us a goal but thankfully didn't cost us the game. Similar incidents to that or worse have since been ignored by the umpires,

Then we had another one paid against Steele for apparently encroaching on the protected zone against Port which cost us a goal and the game, again that's something that the umpires ignore most of the time but then pull one out every now and again whenever they feel like it.

The problem with giving 50 metre penalties for minor indiscretions is that they aren't applied consistently so one team can get penalised and punished for something while other teams get away with it and this can lead to the results of games being unfairly manipulated by the umpires.

 

[scoman]

There has only been a few missed.
You are noticing some hands out, and that's mainly players appealing for a player diving on the ball or intentionally targeting the boundary line.
It can be said those players are appealing before any umpire decision has been made.
Once the umpire says Ball up, or Play On, Or boundary throw in, or it's a Free, then the players would be dissenting if the arms are out after that.
I don't see it as any issue of note myself

To say the umpires are intentionally not paying dissent frees to shove it to Brad Scott is loopy. The players are self regulating and the dissent frees are not there to be paid

What Brad Scott said at the end of round 5 to the media is not being followed by the umpires. Perhaps he said something different to them? I'm not sure which is worse?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Wacky conspiracy theory of the month.

Carry on

Ok I'll have to drum it into you, because clearly you're not watchin the footy coz you are Brad Scott

Read this bit and let it sink in.

What Brad Scott said at the end of round 5 to the media is not being followed by the umpires.

Now read this bit

What Brad Scott said at the end of round 5 to the media is not being followed by the umpires.

Now this bit

What Brad Scott said at the end of round 5 to the media is not being followed by the umpires.

Now if you're STILL going to continue to argue that this rule is working- even though clearly it is not being applied like Brad Scott said it would and should be, you're either an idiot or you just won't accept you're wrong.

Or you're Brad Scott, which'd make you an idiot.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Ok I'll have to drum it into you, because clearly you're not watchin the footy coz you are Brad Scott

Read this bit and let it sink in.

What Brad Scott said at the end of round 5 to the media is not being followed by the umpires.

Now read this bit

What Brad Scott said at the end of round 5 to the media is not being followed by the umpires.

Now this bit

What Brad Scott said at the end of round 5 to the media is not being followed by the umpires.

Now if you're STILL going to continue to argue that this rule is working- even though clearly it is not being applied like Brad Scott said it would and should be, you're either an idiot or you just won't accept you're wrong.

Or you're Brad Scott, which'd make you an idiot.

Repeat the following three times: Players are not dissenting decisions given

Remember, repeat three times, out loud, say it slow.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Repeat the following three times: Players are not dissenting decisions given

Remember, repeat three times, out loud, say it slow.

Now if you're STILL going to continue to argue that this rule is working- even though clearly it is not being applied like Brad Scott said it would and should be, you're either an idiot or you just won't accept you're wrong.

Or you're Brad Scott, which'd make you an idiot.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Now if you're STILL going to continue to argue that this rule is working- even though clearly it is not being applied like Brad Scott said it would and should be, you're either an idiot or you just won't accept you're wrong.

Or you're Brad Scott, which'd make you an idiot.

It isn't an argument though, is it?
The rule is clearly working, its just a few people like yourself who see conspiracy where there is none.

 

[Carringbush2010]

It isn't an argument though, is it?
The rule is clearly working, its just a few people like yourself who see conspiracy where there is none.

Well it's obvious you can't comprehend and are not watching games. I don't need to debate this as it's clear the rule is not being applied as it was going to be applied and therefore is not the reason for good player behaviour.

I'll leave it there.

 

[CheapCharlie]

and therefore is not the reason for good player behaviour.

Finally, you make the concession that player behavior has significantly improved. It has taken you a while to get there but congrats.

This has happened since the threat of 50metre penalties. Is there any other reason that can be presented for the abrupt switch in player attitudes?
Nothing else has happened to make players change, just the rule enforcement
That is the rule working as it should...

Whether or not a couple of dissent frees haven't been paid is irrelevant. Umps miss multiple rule infringements across every aspect of the game every week.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Finally, you make the concession that player behavior has significantly improved. It has taken you a while to get there but congrats.

This has happened since the threat of 50metre penalties. Is there any other reason that can be presented for the abrupt switch in player attitudes?
Nothing else has happened to make players change, just the rule enforcement
That is the rule working as it should...

Whether or not a couple of dissent frees haven't been paid is irrelevant. Umps miss multiple rule infringements across every aspect of the game every week.

You really really do have trouble comprehending, that is not a criticism, merely an observation.

'Finally, you make the concession that player behavior has significantly improved.'

No, I haven't just had an epiphany like it just happened last minute. I and everyone else keep telling you

The improvement is NOT a result of the wish of Brad Scott.

Brad Scott DID clearly state that the umpires ARE to umpire to the rules, not to their own discretion.

That equals arms out is 50 metres penalty.

IF everyone of those would've been paid like Brad said they should, we'd have over 100 50's a game.

So for the last time, concede it is NOT the rule that is working, because it is not being applied as wished.

OR, you can continue to look like an idiot. Your choice.

 

[CheapCharlie]

That equals arms out is 50 metres penalty.

IF everyone of those would've been paid like Brad said they should, we'd have over 100 50's a game.

First we had your conspiracy theory with umpires banding together to give Brad Scott the finger and ignoring the dissent rule. Somehow the umpires were dissatisfied with Brad Scott, despite him fully supporting their safety, but to you, the umpires must be out to publicly disrespect him.
Then we magically had by your account, the players all behaving better, but nothing to do with the dissent rule. Yet , you can't quantify how this magical improvement happened
Now, your claim is over 100 x 50s a game NOT being paid!! OVER one hundred of them not being paid PER GAME! Not even 100 per round, which would have been funny in itself, but 100 PER GAME!!
You are claiming there is over 900 arms out frees not being paid per round?? NINE HUNDRED Arms out Dissent frees NOT being paid PER ROUND!! That is your claim?

And still , with claims such as these, it is me you call the idiot?

Come on old mate, where do you come up with this stuff?

No, I haven't just had an epiphany like it just happened last minute. I and everyone else keep telling you

The improvement is NOT a result of the wish of Brad Scott.

We all know that. You and your crew are the only ones beating that drum about Brad Scott. Brad Scott is interchangeable with anyone doing his job. It is you who is fixated with Brad Scott leading some counter revolution against the fabric of the game.

The improvement is a result of the enforcement and future promise of enforcement about giving away a 50 for dissent.

 

[Carringbush2010]

First we had your conspiracy theory with umpires banding together to give Brad Scott the finger and ignoring the dissent rule. Somehow the umpires were dissatisfied with Brad Scott, despite him fully supporting their safety, but to you, the umpires must be out to publicly disrespect him.
Then we magically had by your account, the players all behaving better, but nothing to do with the dissent rule. Yet , you can't quantify how this magical improvement happened
Now, your claim is over 100 x 50s a game NOT being paid!! OVER one hundred of them not being paid PER GAME! Not even 100 per round, which would have been funny in itself, but 100 PER GAME!!
You are claiming there is over 900 arms out frees not being paid per round?? NINE HUNDRED Arms out Dissent frees NOT being paid PER ROUND!! That is your claim?

And still , with claims such as these, it is me you call the idiot?

Come on old mate, where do you come up with this stuff?




We all know that. You and your crew are the only ones beating that drum about Brad Scott. Brad Scott is interchangeable with anyone doing his job. It is you who is fixated with Brad Scott leading some counter revolution against the fabric of the game.

The improvement is a result of the enforcement and future promise of enforcement about giving away a 50 for dissent.

'Yet , you can't quantify how this magical improvement happened '

Well the improvement hasn't happened because the umps have paid it by the letter of the law, as the AFL footy boss said it should be, but you won't concede that.

I've been saying that all along, like the majority have in this thread.

You just keep saying 'BuD Da RooL is wERkin' - when it isn't the rule that's doing the good work.

The threat of the rule worked, not the rule itself. No one has argued against that.

Probably should report you for trolling, coz you know you've been wrong all along and now trying to back pedal and twist your conversation to deflect what you've said at the beginning. You just can't concede you're wrong, and everyone can see it. Your cred is zero.

 

[CheapCharlie]

'Yet , you can't quantify how this magical improvement happened '

Well the improvement hasn't happened because the umps have paid it by the letter of the law, as the AFL footy boss said it should be, but you won't concede that.

I've been saying that all along, like the majority have in this thread.

You just keep saying 'BuD Da RooL is wERkin' - when it isn't the rule that's doing the good work.

The threat of the rule worked, not the rule itself. No one has argued against that.

Probably should report you for trolling, coz you know you've been wrong all along and now trying to back pedal and twist your conversation to deflect what you've said at the beginning. You just can't concede you're wrong, and everyone can see it. Your cred is zero.

You are the one claiming that the umps are turning a blind eye to 100+ hands out frees PER GAME, that's 900+ hands out frees PER ROUND you claim are not being paid

Who is trolling and lacks credibility here?