Umpiring The Umpiring Dissent Rule - Discuss Here

[Required]

Anyone who disagrees with this rule needs to review whether they have any place participating in any type of sport at all

.
Exhibit 'A'. Here is a pure establishment apologist.

.

 

[Fadge]

I think the issue might be one of communication from the AFL to media and fans. Listening to the press conference for the Pies and Bombers clash both Pendlebury and Heppell were of the opinion that players and coaches were clear on what was expected and why (basically any manner of disputing an umpires decision regardless of how you do it opens you up for a penalty so don’t do it). In the ‘Arms out is 50’ incident the one thing that hasn’t been in question is that Harris Andrews was disputing the decision. It has been argued that the action was minor and whether it was disrespectful or warranted a penalty, but why he did it has never been questioned. So it becomes an example of what Pendlebury and Heppell were talking about at their press conference. Unfortunately the communication to we the fans hasn’t been done well so we haven’t bee brought along with the change.

Yeah, the players know the rule.
For whatever reason, some of the umpires haven't been enforcing obvious player dissent the last few weeks and that might have empowered some players to go back to their old ways.
Fans watching have seen some inconsistency and then some other fans prefer to have the abuse as part of the toughness of the game.
Its such a simple fix for the payers , and the Umps have to be more consistent in calling it out

The players know the rule about Umpire dissent, but they do not know the thresholds under which it will be applied.

We had players last weekend in disbelief that a 50 metre penalty had been applied against them for holding out their arms.

CheapCharlie has said in this very thread that an eye roll should also be considered dissent - is that what the players have been told?

I didn't see the Pendlebury and Heppell interview, but I did see the Sicily interview after the Monday game, and he said he had no idea as to when the dissent rule would be applied, and when it wouldn't.

I don't recall any posters in this thread, nor any callers to talkback radio having said they 'prefer the abuse as part of the toughness of the game' - this is absolute nonsense. We simply want a clear rule that is consistently applied - it is currently unclear and impossible to consistently apply.

 

[iameviljez]

How many games of football have you played? Just curious.

Not the original commenter, but I play soccer (far too small and slow for footy) and the referee abuse there is another level.

Seemingly the combination of extremely high stakes (given what a goal is worth) and very low permissible contact (which encourages diving) makes for an awful experience for referees. And that’s without mentioning parents.

 

[iameviljez]

if this is all for the benefit of grassroots footy and umpiring why don't we just outright ban any player or spectator that abuses umps at that level? Surely that'd have a bigger impact wouldn't it?

Because the umpire at that level is a 19yo skinny spotty kid and we are talking about a pack of half a dozen grown men shouting abuse. It’s extremely difficult to police.

 

[CheapCharlie]

The players know the rule about Umpire dissent, but they do not know the thresholds under which it will be applied.

We had players last weekend in disbelief that a 50 metre penalty had been applied against them for holding out their arms.

CheapCharlie has said in this very thread that an eye roll should also be considered dissent - is that what the players have been told?

I didn't see the Pendlebury and Heppell interview, but I did see the Sicily interview after the Monday game, and he said he had no idea as to when the dissent rule would be applied, and when it wouldn't.

I don't recall any posters in this thread, nor any callers to talkback radio having said they 'prefer the abuse as part of the toughness of the game' - this is absolute nonsense. We simply want a clear rule that is consistently applied - it is currently unclear and impossible to consistently apply.

Seems to me you are trying to complicate a very simple task.
Dissent from a player is obvious and doesn't need a committee to figure that out
There are several teething issues to be ironed out, all of which are easily fixed

• The adjudication of dissent needs to be consistently enforced across games and umpires. There has been some confusion there but I believe that it will become consistent very quickly
• Dissent is easily identified , so no committee needed to work on sub clauses of situations that are non issues
• Players need to manage themselves, like they do in other aspects of the game. This is one of the easier rules they can adhere to throughout a game
• Coaches need to re-wire the brains of some recalcitrant. For years coaches have looked for the 1% advantage, and that includes questioning in umpiring decisions b players, in the hope the next decision might be influenced. So yeah, coaches are also to blame and have to take responsibility
• Dissent needs to be viewed as a player responsibility and not an umpires adjudication responsibility. If an umpire misses one , so be it. But if the player doesn't dissent, then they can't be penalized. Its very simple

 

[Fadge]

Seems to me you are trying to complicate a very simple task.
Dissent from a player is obvious and doesn't need a committee to figure that out
There are several teething issues to be ironed out, all of which are easily fixed

• The adjudication of dissent needs to be consistently enforced across games and umpires. There has been some confusion there but I believe that it will become consistent very quickly
• Dissent is easily identified , so no committee needed to work on sub clauses of situations that are non issues
• Players need to manage themselves, like they do in other aspects of the game. This is one of the easier rules they can adhere to throughout a game
• Coaches need to re-wire the brains of some recalcitrant. For years coaches have looked for the 1% advantage, and that includes questioning in umpiring decisions b players, in the hope the next decision might be influenced. So yeah, coaches are also to blame and have to take responsibility
• Dissent needs to be viewed as a player responsibility and not an umpires adjudication responsibility. If an umpire misses one , so be it. But if the player doesn't dissent, then they can't be penalized. Its very simple

So what constitutes dissent?

You've already said an eye-roll should be penalised with a 50 metre penalty, what about a glare back at an umpire?

Where is the line drawn? Because currently, it lays with the interpretation of the umpires, each of whom may interpret it differently.

 

[CheapCharlie]

So what constitutes dissent?

You've already said an eye-roll should be penalised with a 50 metre penalty, what about a glare back at an umpire?

Where is the line drawn? Because currently, it lays with the interpretation of the umpires, each of whom may interpret it differently.

See point 2 of the post you quoted

 

[TheOptimum18]

Seems to me you are trying to complicate a very simple task.
Dissent from a player is obvious and doesn't need a committee to figure that out
There are several teething issues to be ironed out, all of which are easily fixed

• The adjudication of dissent needs to be consistently enforced across games and umpires. There has been some confusion there but I believe that it will become consistent very quickly
• Dissent is easily identified , so no committee needed to work on sub clauses of situations that are non issues
• Players need to manage themselves, like they do in other aspects of the game. This is one of the easier rules they can adhere to throughout a game
• Coaches need to re-wire the brains of some recalcitrant. For years coaches have looked for the 1% advantage, and that includes questioning in umpiring decisions b players, in the hope the next decision might be influenced. So yeah, coaches are also to blame and have to take responsibility
• Dissent needs to be viewed as a player responsibility and not an umpires adjudication responsibility. If an umpire misses one , so be it. But if the player doesn't dissent, then they can't be penalized. Its very simple

So where's the line between dissent and asking why the umpire made a certain decision?

I've bought this example up many times, but I think it's the perfect example of why this rule doesn't work and makes no sense.

Jack Graham vs Carlton, 4th quarter. Free kick to Kennedy for what I assumed was high contact, but it's clear from the vision that it looks like Edwards' has his legs taken out, which is usually a free kick for below the knees contact.

If Graham questions the umpire why a free kick was given to Kennedy and not Edwards, does the umpire pay a 50m penalty for dissent? Graham is clearly disagreeing with the umpire, I'm not going to deny that. But clearly in Graham's view, a free kick should've been given to Edwards for below the knees contact. Going by your post, a 50m penalty should be awarded because it's clear that Graham disagrees with the umpire's call, but wuld it be right to pay a 50m penalty if the reason why Graham is disagreeing is because he, correctly, thinks that Edwards should've been given a free kick?

We saw in the Mitchell incident that even if you ask an umpire to explain their decision, there's a likelihood of 50 being paid.

Is that really what we want the game to get to?

 

[Party Gull]

Because the umpire at that level is a 19yo skinny spotty kid and we are talking about a pack of half a dozen grown men shouting abuse. It’s extremely difficult to police.

Yeah fair point. I suppose I was thinking more about some sort of governing body they could be reported to but that's probably just.as bad of an idea.

 

[CheapCharlie]

So where's the line between dissent and asking why the umpire made a certain decision?

I've bought this example up many times, but I think it's the perfect example of why this rule doesn't work and makes no sense.

Jack Graham vs Carlton, 4th quarter. Free kick to Kennedy for what I assumed was high contact, but it's clear from the vision that it looks like Edwards' has his legs taken out, which is usually a free kick for below the knees contact.

If Graham questions the umpire why a free kick was given to Kennedy and not Edwards, does the umpire pay a 50m penalty for dissent? Graham is clearly disagreeing with the umpire, I'm not going to deny that. But clearly in Graham's view, a free kick should've been given to Edwards for below the knees contact. Going by your post, a 50m penalty should be awarded because it's clear that Graham disagrees with the umpire's call, but wuld it be right to pay a 50m penalty if the reason why Graham is disagreeing is because he, correctly, thinks that Edwards should've been given a free kick?

We saw in the Mitchell incident that even if you ask an umpire to explain their decision, there's a likelihood of 50 being paid.

Is that really what we want the game to get to?

Is there any reason during a game to ask why an umpire has made a certain decision? Its been made and it wont be reversed.
Mitchell and (Gunston?) both pointing at the replay...clear dissension. Jeez, it isnt hard to work that out.

If a player HAS to ask why the decision was awarded he can just ask "what was that Free for?" . That's the only question he needs to ask he doesn't need to remonstrate or throw arms in the air for that

 

[TheOptimum18]

Is there any reason during a game to ask why an umpire has made a certain decision? Its been made and it wont be reversed.
Mitchell and (Gunston?) both pointing at the replay...clear dissension. Jeez, it isnt hard to work that out.

If a player HAS to ask why the decision was awarded he can just ask "what was that Free for?" . That's the only question he needs to ask he doesn't need to remonstrate or throw arms in the air for that

But arms out isn't throwing your arms out in the air. Looking at the Mitchell/Gunston incident, did anyone at any point "throw" their arms in the air to ask the question? The only thing in the air was Mitchell pointing at the board, which hasn't been a 50m penalty at all this season.

If a player HAS to ask why the decision was awarded he can just ask "what was that Free for?"

This statement in itself is a contradiciton to the dissent rule that you think is so easy to umpire. I'll ask again, do you pay a 50m for someone asking the question? The fact a player needs to ask this is in itself an indication that they disagree with the umpire.

Is there any reason during a game to ask why an umpire has made a certain decision?

Of course there is. We all know that game to game, umpire to umpire, different rules are going to be umpired differently regardless what the AFL wants to say. For example, the push in the back rule over the last 2 weeks. No one knows how an umpire is going to umpire that rule in any specific game. What players and fans think is an obvious push in the back, the umpires see differently, and what fans and players think is play on, the umpire can somehow find fault to pay a free kick.

The only way the player can find out how an umpire is umpiring is by asking them on field why they make certain decisions.

 

[javaguice]

I cant wait until someone gives away 50 for rolling their eyes at the umpire.

 

[CheapCharlie]

But arms out isn't throwing your arms out in the air. Looking at the Mitchell/Gunston incident, did anyone at any point "throw" their arms in the air to ask the question? The only thing in the air was Mitchell pointing at the board, which hasn't been a 50m penalty at all this season.



This statement in itself is a contradiciton to the dissent rule that you think is so easy to umpire. I'll ask again, do you pay a 50m for someone asking the question? The fact a player needs to ask this is in itself an indication that they disagree with the umpire.



Of course there is. We all know that game to game, umpire to umpire, different rules are going to be umpired differently regardless what the AFL wants to say. For example, the push in the back rule over the last 2 weeks. No one knows how an umpire is going to umpire that rule in any specific game. What players and fans think is an obvious push in the back, the umpires see differently, and what fans and players think is play on, the umpire can somehow find fault to pay a free kick.

The only way the player can find out how an umpire is umpiring is by asking them on field why they make certain decisions.

Q. Player. "Sir, Can I ask what that Free was for?"
A . Umpire. "Push in the back/high tackle/Holding..etc"
End of interaction

 

[TheOptimum18]

Q. Player. "Sir, Can I ask what that Free was for?"
A . Umpire. "Push in the back/high tackle/Holding..etc"
End of interaction

Clearly from the Mitchell/Gunston incident, that is not allowed.

Like I said, gestures in a conversation is natural and impossible to completely remove from human nature for 120 minutes. I can gurantee you that in a high pressure, high stress situation, that interaction between player and umpire would involve some sort of gesture that would, by the AFL's admission, result in a 50m peanlty. A 50m penalty that shouldn't exist by human nature.

 

[Babylove]

The players know the rule about Umpire dissent, but they do not know the thresholds under which it will be applied.

We had players last weekend in disbelief that a 50 metre penalty had been applied against them for holding out their arms.

CheapCharlie has said in this very thread that an eye roll should also be considered dissent - is that what the players have been told?

I didn't see the Pendlebury and Heppell interview, but I did see the Sicily interview after the Monday game, and he said he had no idea as to when the dissent rule would be applied, and when it wouldn't.

I don't recall any posters in this thread, nor any callers to talkback radio having said they 'prefer the abuse as part of the toughness of the game' - this is absolute nonsense. We simply want a clear rule that is consistently applied - it is currently unclear and impossible to consistently apply.

To the letter of the law any dispute of an umpires decision no matter how minor can draw a penalty. If you don’t do it you won’t have anything to worry about it. If you want to try and push the boundaries then you open yourself up for penalty. And that is basically what Pendlebury and Heppell said. And I think we’ve seen over the last few weeks if you start giving players wiggle room they’ll keep pushing the boundaries.

And based on the communication from the AFL this week the threshold is zero.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Clearly from the Mitchell/Gunston incident, that is not allowed.

Like I said, gestures in a conversation is natural and impossible to completely remove from human nature for 120 minutes. I can gurantee you that in a high pressure, high stress situation, that interaction between player and umpire would involve some sort of gesture that would, by the AFL's admission, result in a 50m peanlty. A 50m penalty that shouldn't exist by human nature.

No, Mitchell and Gunston flapped their arms and pointed to the screen.

 

[TheOptimum18]

No, Mitchell and Gunston flapped their arms and pointed to the screen.

No they didn't. No one would describe what they did as "flapping" their arms.

 

[Obeanie1]

Maybe you should go and follow chess, or a sport not entangled in institutional gambling and institutional match fixing.

I have no idea what point your are trying to make with this statement.

 

[Obeanie1]

New rules go through an adjustment period.
Its not easy to turn around decades of abuse overnight, so there will be some minor bumps along the way.

Minor bumps?

What is minor about penalising some players and then letting others off scott free after doing the exact same thing?

I wouldn't call that a minor bump. And the reason why its happenning is some umpires interpret things differently and the rule isn't well defined.

And asking a question of any umpire of 'what was that for' with your arms extended with open palms is not decent. It just isn't.

The league yet again have run a total root on yet another change of interpretation / new rule.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The big story coming out of AFL house is the impact it has on grassroots footy.

So can someone inform us how many games of Australian Football were called off last weekend due to not having an umpire for the game? Based on what the AFL are telling us it must of been hundreds of games that get cancelled every weekend.
Be good if they told us.

 

[GOHORCS]

AFL have just given examples of dissent and arms raised. All 50 metres.

View attachment 1379714View attachment 1379712View attachment 1379710View attachment 1379711

On SM-A205YN using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Obeanie1]

Seems to me you are trying to complicate a very simple task.
Dissent from a player is obvious and doesn't need a committee to figure that out
There are several teething issues to be ironed out, all of which are easily fixed

• The adjudication of dissent needs to be consistently enforced across games and umpires. There has been some confusion there but I believe that it will become consistent very quickly
• Dissent is easily identified , so no committee needed to work on sub clauses of situations that are non issues
• Players need to manage themselves, like they do in other aspects of the game. This is one of the easier rules they can adhere to throughout a game
• Coaches need to re-wire the brains of some recalcitrant. For years coaches have looked for the 1% advantage, and that includes questioning in umpiring decisions b players, in the hope the next decision might be influenced. So yeah, coaches are also to blame and have to take responsibility
• Dissent needs to be viewed as a player responsibility and not an umpires adjudication responsibility. If an umpire misses one , so be it. But if the player doesn't dissent, then they can't be penalized. Its very simple

So is it dissent in a ruck contest for both rucks to look at the umpire with open arms asking what was the free for?

What about a forward pointing out that his opponent is constantly holding his jumper but the umpire isn't paying attention to what happens behind play? Dissent?

Your statement that dissent is 'obvious' is crap. It isn't obvious at all because some umpires pay frees and others dont...........for the exact same action.

 

[CheapCharlie]

So is it dissent in a ruck contest for both rucks to look at the umpire with open arms asking what was the free for?

What about a forward pointing out that his opponent is constantly holding his jumper but the umpire isn't paying attention to what happens behind play? Dissent?

Your statement that dissent is 'obvious' is crap. It isn't obvious at all because some umpires pay frees and others dont...........for the exact same action.

What about!? What about!?
What about if a pig is let loose on the field and a player points at it...
The rules are clear, players understand them. They just need to exert some self control

 

[J Shuttlesworth]

The big story coming out of AFL house is the impact it has on grassroots footy.

So can someone inform us how many games of Australian Football were called off last weekend due to not having an umpire for the game? Based on what the AFL are telling us it must of been hundreds of games that get cancelled every weekend.
Be good if they told us.

Not to go off topic too much but,

They have done heck all to actually promote playing and/or being involved grassroots footy for so long. The whole thing is in a terrible state, more needs to be done to promote it, how good it is and what it does for communites, the doors it can open for young people etc.

The lack of umpires in my opinion is more so just another part of the overall decline in grassroots footy.

Did something have to be done to stop them copping abuse, yeah absolutely, but they need to open there eyes at the state of the grassroots leagues as a whole. Junior participation in particular is terrible.

 

[TheOptimum18]

What about!? What about!?
What about if a pig is let loose on the field and a player points at it...
The rules are clear, players understand them. They just need to exert some self control

All the ifs, buts and maybes raised in this thread are actions you would see hundreds of times over a week of footy. They're not isolated, rare events that we're talking about.

The rules aren't clear cause no one knows how far you can go with dissent.

Like it's been stated and asked multipe times with no straight answer using what we know of the rules: Will dissent be paid for rolling the eyes? For showing any frustration? Will any and every sign of dissent be punished with a 50m penalty? This includes questioning (even politely) an umpire, since the motivation to ask a question is because you think the umpire got something wrong, which is the definition of dissent. Holding back frustation, even visibly, is still a sign of disagreement with the umpire. Are we saying that that falls under the term 'dissent' as well?

How many of those questions can you answer with what we know about the rules and with what the AFL has said?