Umpiring The Umpiring Dissent Rule - Discuss Here

[slackboy72]

I haven't seen one actual instance of umpire abuse or dissent this year.
I've seen plenty of appeals and confused looks regarding 50/50 calls and blatantly wrong calls.
Which ones get called for 'dissent' is a complete crap shoot.

 

[archereleven]

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.

There was a classic in Hobart last weekend.

Larkey marks the ball about 15m out dead in front, and it was a mark all day long. The maggot calls play on, Larkey raises his hands in disbelief, then said maggot pays a free against for dissent. First time it's happened I believe.

So according to Bard Scott's and the AFL two wrongs indeed do make a right...



On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Blues177]

Let's hope the dissent rule doesn't cost a team the premiership in a close grand final if a player gets angry with himself for a sloppy act and the umpire takes it the wrong way.

 

[flyinghi64]

Papley abuses one of his team mates for whatever reason and the ump told him off.
Can't even spray your own team mate nowadays.
We are certainly headed the wrong way.

 

[Some Idiot]

The ones against Khamis, Harris Andrews

31

Harris Andrews

Age

27

Ht

202cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.8

3star

K

7.4

3star

HB

5.4

4star

M

5.6

5star

T

1.6

4star

MG

151.7

2star

D

17.0

4star

K

9.0

4star

HB

8.0

4star

M

4.0

4star

T

2.0

3star

D

9.8

3star

K

5.0

2star

HB

4.8

4star

M

3.4

4star

T

1.6

4star

MG

94.0

2star

and De Goey were too harsh. Most of the ones that have been paid have been there.
Overall the consistency has been better than holding the ball and push in the back, so it's not that big a deal.

 

[TheOptimum18]

The ones against Khamis, Harris Andrews and De Goey were too harsh. Most of the ones that have been paid have been there.
Overall the consistency has been better than holding the ball and push in the back, so it's not that big a deal.

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion. Over the past 3 weeks, I would say only about 5% of these kind of decisions have been paid, based on what we have seen. 5% might be even generous as a number.

The consistency of this rule is probably even worse than holding the ball and push in the back.

Larkey marks the ball about 15m out dead in front, and it was a mark all day long. The maggot calls play on, Larkey raises his hands in disbelief, then said maggot pays a free against for dissent. First time it's happened I believe.

Think the Khamis free kick and the Tom Lynch free kick were similar as well. Khamis arms out wondering why the opposition still has possession of the bal when he feels (rightly imo) that there was a push in the back - paid 50m. Tom Lynch indicating to the umpire that he's being held in marking contests, has a free kick paid against him (only event that would've resulted in the free kick being paid).

 

[HairyO]

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.

So appealing for a free and being disappointed and waving your arms should also be dissent.

NFL has crowd noise penalties so lets penalise crowds for booing.

And the rule says officials so lets ping coaches while we are at it.

Or grow the * up and let the players show emotion.

 

[CheapCharlie]

So appealing for a free and being disappointed and waving your arms should also be dissent.

NFL has crowd noise penalties so lets penalise crowds for booing.

And the rule says officials so lets ping coaches while we are at it.

Or grow the duck up and let the players show emotion.

There is a difference between emotion and petulance/abuse.

Seems like the players have understood the assignment

 

[HairyO]

There is a difference between emotion and petulance/abuse.

Seems like the players have understood the assignment

Being disappointed or shocked isnt petulance.

Umpires * up constantly. The AFL want to institutionalise the * ups. And you do too.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Being disappointed or shocked isnt petulance.

Umpires duck up constantly. The AFL want to institutionalise the duck ups. And you do too.

Okay bro

 

[CheapCharlie]

He's spot on.

You're a bell end and I'm spot on too.

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

You don't have any self control do you?
Now resorting to your familiar ad hominem attacks.
Maintain the rage against respect bro!!

 

[Makka]

It is one of the most f****d rules I have ever seen put in place by the AFL. They just need to remove it ASAP and the stupid c**t that even thought of the idea needs to never be involved with the AFL again!

 

[terrybull]

So appealing for a free and being disappointed and waving your arms should also be dissent.

NFL has crowd noise penalties so lets penalise crowds for booing.

And the rule says officials so lets ping coaches while we are at it.

Or grow the duck up and let the players show emotion.

Who pays the crowd noise fine?

Home club? Both clubs? Patrons when they are leaving the stadium?

 

[Rodney Dangerfield]

Nobody wants umpire abuse.
If players abide them absolutely take them to the cleaners but this rule is horrendous at the minute.
Footy is not in good shape. Last night was the worst game and flattest atmosphere for a 70,000 crowd I’ve ever been to.
And it’s all because the focus was on the umpiring.

 

[Some Idiot]

David Noble: I'll be making a phone call about a few decisions this week.

He will not be punished because he is taking the correct approach to disputing free kicks.
Complete myth that umpiring decisions can't be questioned, it just needs to be done professionally.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

I'm with CheapCharlie on this one.

Rule came in. Players aren't acting like spoiled brats any more. That is an excellent result.

Do the umps get it wrong sometimes? Sure - just like every other rule in the game, but seriously - how would we know?

Player gets pinged for dissent. No reason that is obvious TO TV VIEWERS, but we can't see what the umpire sees. We can't hear what the umpire hears.

The idea that they're paying it for no reason at all is laughable.

Have a little self-reflection - maybe you don't know EVERYTHING that happened on the field just prior to the umpire paying a 50 for dissent.

 

[TheOptimum18]

Do the umps get it wrong sometimes? Sure - just like every other rule in the game, but seriously - how would we know?

Player gets pinged for dissent. No reason that is obvious TO TV VIEWERS, but we can't see what the umpire sees. We can't hear what the umpire hears.

The idea that they're paying it for no reason at all is laughable.

Have a little self-reflection - maybe you don't know EVERYTHING that happened on the field just prior to the umpire paying a 50 for dissent.

Saying the umpires gets this rule wrong "sometimes" is like saying ScoMo is sometimes a good PM. Just no.

And to suggest that TV viewers don't know why dissent is paid is absolutely bs. The only thing viewers wouldn't know is what abuse is given from players, but you would know the free kick is paid cause of abuse anyways cause umps shout that into the mic. But when you see Khamis, Andrews and Mitchell all penalised for "arms out" (direct quote from umpires paying the freekick), and about another hundred arms out situations not penalised, people who doesn't think there's something wrong with he current interpretation of the rule is quite clearly f'ed in the head.

People like CheapCharlie would agree wholeheartedly that the 50m penalties against Khamis, Mitchell and Andrews are justified and say that the rule is great and is working perfectly and as intended, but goes missing and would refuse to respond when someone mentions that another hundred odd similar situations aren't treated similarly.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

First things first - I would never suggest Scomo has been a good PM. Ever. Glad he's gone.

But, to my assertion that TV viewers don't see and hear what the umpire sees and hears, I stand by that. I just watched the Khamis one. Very stiff indeed.
But again, when I ask myself "I wonder how the umpire could have got that so wrong?", there are still some reasonable possibilities. Perhaps a team-mate let loose with some pretty fruity language at the umpire. Perhaps the ump incorrectly attributed someone else's comments. Players don't wear mics. The point is we don't know.

If I acknowledge I don't/can't see and hear everything an umpire sees/hears, and respect them enough to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'm not sure that makes me "clearly f'ed in the head".

 

[TheOptimum18]

But, to my assertion that TV viewers don't see and hear what the umpire sees and hears, I stand by that. I just watched the Khamis one. Very stiff indeed.
But again, when I ask myself "I wonder how the umpire could have got that so wrong?", there are still some reasonable possibilities. Perhaps a team-mate let loose with some pretty fruity language at the umpire. Perhaps the ump incorrectly attributed someone else's comments. Players don't wear mics. The point is we don't know.

Come off it mate. You're just embarrassing yourself now. If you're going to persist with the Khamis one, then here. You can quite clearly hear the umpire say "had his arms out" when explaining the reason as to why dissent was paid. Let's not try and give the umpire the benefit of the doubt here when their mics are picking up reasons as to why free kicks are being paid.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/disaster-afls-controversial-umpire-dissent-rule-slammed-for-inconsistency/news-story/380764630c3b4a3ec0578fb8661f2cc4

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Come off it mate. You're just embarrassing yourself now. If you're going to persist with the Khamis one, then here. You can quite clearly hear the umpire say "had his arms out" when explaining the reason as to why dissent was paid. Let's not try and give the umpire the benefit of the doubt here when their mics are picking up reasons as to why free kicks are being paid.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/disaster-afls-controversial-umpire-dissent-rule-slammed-for-inconsistency/news-story/380764630c3b4a3ec0578fb8661f2cc4

I hear "paid 50 metres, umpire dissent" and then seems to say "umpire dissent" again (at the 10 second mark of the clip). At no stage in that audio can I hear "had his arms out". You're talking about the Khamis one at the top of the page, yeah?

 

[TheOptimum18]

I hear "paid 50 metres, umpire dissent" and then seems to say "umpire dissent" again (at the 10 second mark of the clip). At no stage in that audio can I hear "had his arms out". You're talking about the Khamis one at the top of the page, yeah?

11 second mark. It's faint, but still very clear that the ump paid it for arms out.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

11 second mark. It's faint, but still very clear that the ump paid it for arms out.

Fair enough - just put my audio up to ear-blasting level and you're right - there's a very faint comment that could well be "had his arms out". Apologies - I couldn't hear it at normal volume.

It doesn't change my view though, that more happens on the field than we TV viewers are aware of, and in general I don't have a problem with the rule as it is being administered. I feel for Khamis - that was a rough one, but on balance I still think overall the good outweighs the bad.

 

[TheOptimum18]

Fair enough - just put my audio up to ear-blasting level and you're right - there's a very faint comment that could well be "had his arms out". Apologies - I couldn't hear it at normal volume.

It doesn't change my view though, that more happens on the field than we TV viewers are aware of, and in general I don't have a problem with the rule as it is being administered. I feel for Khamis - that was a rough one, but on balance I still think overall the good outweighs the bad.

The general rule, I agree. Mitch Robinson throwing his mouth guard at the umpire is not something we want to see. Papley shouting and walking aggressively towards an umpire is not something we want to see. But how many of those situations have we seen in the AFL over the past couple of weeks? From the games I've watched, I can only recall 1 incident, which wasn't paid dissent. Yet they pay the insignificant actions that, let's be honest, has no impact on umpire retention at lower levels.

Arms out isn't the deciding factor that will suddenly make umpires want to umpire lower levels. In fact, fans are probably more frustrated, more abusive and less respectful towards umpires than they were before.

I don't know if it came across on TV last night, but fans in the stadium booed the umpires off the ground at the end of the Dreamtime game. People around me shouting that they're not respecting umpires any more than they were previously. So clearly, the new interpretation on dissent has done jack all.

It is a horrible interpretation of the rule, which shouldn't exist at all.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Fair enough - just put my audio up to ear-blasting level and you're right - there's a very faint comment that could well be "had his arms out". Apologies - I couldn't hear it at normal volume.

It doesn't change my view though, that more happens on the field than we TV viewers are aware of, and in general I don't have a problem with the rule as it is being administered. I feel for Khamis - that was a rough one, but on balance I still think overall the good outweighs the bad.

Khamis thought the free was his for a push - should have been - and was asking for the ball to be thrown to him.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

The general rule, I agree. Mitch Robinson throwing his mouth guard at the umpire is not something we want to see. Papley shouting and walking aggressively towards an umpire is not something we want to see. But how many of those situations have we seen in the AFL over the past couple of weeks? From the games I've watched, I can only recall 1 incident, which wasn't paid dissent. Yet they pay the insignificant actions that, let's be honest, has no impact on umpire retention at lower levels.

Arms out isn't the deciding factor that will suddenly make umpires want to umpire lower levels. In fact, fans are probably more frustrated, more abusive and less respectful towards umpires than they were before.

I don't know if it came across on TV last night, but fans in the stadium booed the umpires off the ground at the end of the Dreamtime game. People around me shouting that they're not respecting umpires any more than they were previously. So clearly, the new interpretation on dissent has done jack all.

It is a horrible interpretation of the rule, which shouldn't exist at all.

I hear you, and you make some good points.

I accept a lot of fans don't like it. The reason I spoke up was simply to say that there are some fans that actually see it as a net positive.
Personally I love the way rugby is officiated, and I'd love to see the same respect given to aussie rules umpires at all levels.

I know a couple of young umpires doing local footy in my area who really struggle with abuse from players and fans and may soon give it up. Umpiring is a good little earner for a capable teenager, but it's line-ball for them now as to whether the money is worth the stress.

I hope we get to a point where "the line" of disrespect is better defined, and called in a more uniform way, but until that happens I'm supportive of efforts to get there.

ps. As for the fans booing the umpires, that's appalling, and I blame in no small part the media circus who whip up controversy for their own ends, but that's probably a topic for another thread.