Umpiring The Umpiring Dissent Rule - Discuss Here

[Fadge]

Haha that's where you are completely wrong. Breaking of the law comes down to interpretation. The victim may be dead but did the accused 100% without shadow of a doubt commit the murder? You need to provide the evidence then make an educated guess.

Otherwise if it is a black and white objective truth why can't there only be One jury member delivering the decision? If it's an objective
law and ruling, all jury members should end up making the same decision right?

No, because they're human not computers.

The conclusion may be considered objective, but the decision making process is not. Just like the umps decision on dissent, whether it's given or not the final outcome is objective, but the decision was made subjectively.

You'll find that in murder cases, mens rea and actus reus are both clearly defined, with jury members instructed accordingly to enable them to make an informed, objective judgement on the case at hand.

The law is not 'subjectively interpreted', it is 'objectively judged'.

Frig me, thank God our legal system does not operate in the same manner as the AFL Laws of the Game.



You should do Legal Studies when you get to Year 11, it's good fun.

 

[zyzzbruh]

You'll find that in murder cases, mens rea and actus reus are both clearly defined, with jury members instructed accordingly to enable them to make an informed, objective judgement on the case at hand.

The law is not 'subjectively interpreted', it is 'objectively judged'.

Frig me, thank God our legal system does not operate in the same manner as the AFL Laws of the Game.



You should do Legal Studies when you get to Year 11, it's good fun.

The final judgement is objective, the decision-making process is 100% subjective because it is upto the person making judgement to look at the evidence at hand and have the ability to find the objective truth using it. Their interpretation of emotion and intent of the accused will be subjective. It doesn't matter how educated they are their final judgement might not always match with the actual truth - hence incorrect umpiring decisions.

The only time you can consistently deliver 100% correct decisions, is if you develop a computer system that analyses the play and make decisions. Until then you are going to occasionally have umps making incorrect decisions despite them being the most educated for the job.

 

[Fadge]

The final judgement is objective, the decision-making process is 100% subjective because it is upto the person making judgement to look at the evidence at hand and have the ability to find the objective truth using it. Their interpretation of emotion and intent of the accused will be subjective. It doesn't matter how educated they are their final judgement might not always match with the actual truth - hence incorrect umpiring decisions.

The only time you can consistently deliver 100% correct decisions, is if you develop a computer system that analyses the play and make decisions. Until then you are going to occasionally have umps making incorrect decisions despite them being the most educated for the job.

I don't recall anyone saying they expect 100% correct decisions in AFL.

But a clearly defined rule would be a good start if consistently accurate decision making was a goal in the AFL world.

As for those accepting of and justifying 'subjective interpretations' by umpires - wowee...

 

[my name was taken]

No, I think you have stopped replying because you predicted chaos and an unworkable rule, but what you got was a smooth and easy transition.

It was a smooth transition this week because it wasn't applied to the same extent as 7days earlier. And in direct contrast to Scotts interpretation. And therein is the issue.

Can't wait for the last round when there is a possibility that one game applies the lenient view and another the stricter version and teams miss out on finals because of it. Pay none or pay them all (I'm purely talking arms out here)

 

[archereleven]

It's crystal clear the umpires do not agree with the AFLs definition of what constitutes dissent


There is no more to say is there?

A few in here were stroking their collective wads in favour of a s**t rule the AFL were trying to force upon an already maligned group, and they flat out refused.

Posters advocating for this rule are simply flogs who allegedly enjoyed being locked down and double masked to drive to the milk bar.

Posters against this rule are bonafide hero's, who always fight the good fight and wear their undies on the outside...

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

I think you just need to get over it mate. There's no point arguing over the technicalities of it. The inherent reason for the dissent rule is to release some pressure off the umps so that they can continue doing what they do with some positivity and passion, from grassroots through to AFL. Umps who do it for the love of the game are going to take accountability and strive to improve, which in turn will increase the number of umps in all levels, and thus improve the quality of umpiring overall. If everyone who is spitting the dummy at the umps realises that not doing it is going to actually give them what they want (improved umpiring) then they might shut up and get on with it.

Having your arms up at the ump is an issue just as much as throwing a mouth guard. Imagine trying to do your job and every single decision you make is criticised. Imagine you're an ump and literally every time you blow the whistle you have players flapping their arms about and a crowd of thousands directing their disagreement at you, and most of the time in a feral manner. Imagine your own staff, manager and random people on the street hanging s**t on every single thing you did on your shift, you'd be out of there. So if you want better more passionate umpires who strive to get better then stop berating them.

You can talk about the technicalities of flapping arms about but at the end of the day in the last 150 years has an ump ever overturned a decision because a players flapped about? No. So what's the point? Whether it's slight or not the connotation is negative towards the ump. So just get rid of it there's no point.

There's no need for any more context about dissent, players have adjusted within a week and it'll probably be non existent by the end of the year. Players play the game and they understand the difficulty of it enough to hide their frustration and just get on with it unlike fans. I get there's passion involved but it's time we as fans take accountability instead of joining into the new age Australian finger pointing culture. Not complaining will result in better umpiring, so you're only shooting yourself in the foot by complaining about it if better umpiring is what you want. If you accept it and get on with it it is a win win situation.

Great post. Spot on!



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[RAPPA]

There was a lot more dissent occurring in the 80s and 90s and whilst I can't comment on the 80s, I definitely don't recall issues with the umpires in the 90s to the extent of the concerns we see today that have given rise to this rule and the backlash. In the 90s, Diesel was appropriately reprimanded for pushing the umpires. In 2004 IIRC, Hird was fined for his public scrutiny of Goldspink.

Why then, particularly in the last 10 years, is there an increased spotlight on umpires - is it because there's more media attention on their decisions? Is it because a plethora of confusing rules have been introduced which are giving rise to arbitrary interpretations? Is it because they are paying more free kicks nowadays than what they were previously doing for the same infringement(hands in the back, holding the ball etc)? is it because of the inconsistency in the application of the rules in the same game and across games? Is it because we are accustomed to them having more involvement and paying more frees in the game, meaning there's added frustration resulting from a 'non-call'?

This dissent rule is again going to have inconsistent and arbitrary application. Players will and have started to adjust, but we'll see how this goes in the context of a final, or even next year when it perhaps is no longer the flavour of the month and it begins to creep back in.

 

[Osho]

Yet another successful game for Brad Scott's new rule. Hats off to him, round of applause. Thank you.

The fabricated outrage and " you'll see" finger pointers are nearly as satisfying.

 

[archereleven]

Yet another successful game for Brad Scott's new rule. Hats off to him, round of applause. Thank you.

The fabricated outrage and " you'll see" finger pointers are nearly as satisfying.

I didn't watch it.

How many arms out did the umpires not pay against Bards wishes in this game?



On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Osho]

I didn't watch it.

How many arms out did the umpires not pay against Bards wishes in this game?



On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

So the counter argument is reduced to a steely focus on irrelevance and detritus? No admission of the universal improved behaviour of players? It's like complaining about dirt on your carpet left by the police who busted in and caught the home invader.

 

[archereleven]

So the counter argument is reduced to a steely focus on irrelevance and detritus? No admission of the universal improved behaviour of players? It's like complaining about dirt on your carpet left by the police who busted in and caught the home invader.

Why didn't you answer the question?

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Osho]

Why didn't you answer the question?

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

Why would one answer a redundant and irrelevant question?

 

[archereleven]

Why would one answer a redundant and irrelevant question?

Is the umpires dissendence redundant and irrelevant or asking how many times they defied the AFL in a Friday night game?

The AFL stated with zero ambiguity that any sign of dissent will be a 50 metre penalty. I didn't watch the game, how many 50s were paid?

Do you not care when rules arnt adhered to in organised sports, or is it just this rule?

It's just this rule isn't it?

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[danster168]

I love how the AFL have already relaxed on the umpire dissent rules. This round I saw about 20-30 arms out/dissent frees PER GAME that warranted 50's but weren't paid. which is good but the Brad Scott stance has been relaxed so WHERE ARE YOU NOW SCOTTY? Where is your 'no level of dissent is tolerated' stance gone? This is why it's a BS rule and it's only got to a point of inconsistency now. just wait until an important dissent free gets paid in the next couple of rounds despite the umpires not paying it this week.

 

[scoman]

It's crystal clear the umpires do not agree with the AFLs definition of what constitutes dissent


There is no more to say is there?

A few in here were stroking their collective wads in favour of a s**t rule the AFL were trying to force upon an already maligned group, and they flat out refused.

Posters advocating for this rule are simply flogs who allegedly enjoyed being locked down and double masked to drive to the milk bar.

Posters against this rule are bonafide hero's, who always fight the good fight and wear their undies on the outside...

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

I usually make sure my undies contrast my pants so everyone can see, that's how bonafide I am.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

I love how the AFL have already relaxed on the umpire dissent rules. This round I saw about 20-30 arms out/dissent frees PER GAME that warranted 50's but weren't paid. which is good but the Brad Scott stance has been relaxed so WHERE ARE YOU NOW SCOTTY? Where is your 'no level of dissent is tolerated' stance gone? This is why it's a BS rule and it's only got to a point of inconsistency now. just wait until an important dissent free gets paid in the next couple of rounds despite the umpires not paying it this week.

Did you really think the AFL would introduce a well thought out rule and implement it successfully, and maintain the enforcement level to the mark of zero tolerance (arms out is 50m every time) over more than a few weeks?

They can't umpire any of the rules consistently so why would they bother with this one now even though it is the most clear-cut definition of a rule ever described in a press conference.

 

[danster168]

Did you really think the AFL would introduce a well thought out rule and implement it successfully, and maintain the enforcement level to the mark of zero tolerance (arms out is 50m every time) over more than a few weeks?

They can't umpire any of the rules consistently so why would they bother with this one now even though it i the most clear-cut definition of a rule ever described in a press conference.

True. lol. You got me there. I just got massive Ned Guy vibes from Brad Scott. Talking rubbish and expecting people to believe it.

 

[archereleven]

True. lol. You got me there. I just got massive Ned Guy vibes from Brad Scott. Talking rubbish and expecting people to believe it.

We had 10 years of the campaigner.

We know he can bullshit with the best of them...

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Fadge]

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.

 

[CheapCharlie]

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

Except for you Fadge

 

[BarryMorgan]

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.

Two of the worst for the year.

 

[HairyO]

Two of the worst for the year.

Once again we get rule of the round. This time paying 50s for what wasnt paid in previous weeks.

And by umpires not directly involved.

Maybe we need a 4th central umpire. The Dissent Decider. Their sole job to adjudicate arm motions and decide which are dissent and which are player introspection. If they stand in the middle of the ground they dont need to be fit so maybe it can be an academic with some bullshit humanities PhD.

 

[kickthething]

What is the actual rule, how is it written in the laws of the game. I can see 18.8.2 but there is not a strong indication and no mention of arms out for example. As it is an interpretation, it will remain so and be a source of confusion for ever more.

Is there specific reference to this in the laws of the game?

 

[Fadge]

Is there specific reference to this in the laws of the game?

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?

 

[Bird Man]

this game is in a dire state