Umpiring The Umpiring Dissent Rule - Discuss Here

[TheOptimum18]

Surprising how quiet yourself and a couple of others, such as Fadge and TheOptimum18 have been since the completion of the round.

What's not surprising is how simple the new rule is to follow for players and how it made for a better viewing experience , not having to watch grown men carry on like toddlers at daycare.

It's okay to admit you got it wrong

I've stopped replying cause there's no point interacting with people like you who seems to think fans are blind.

Nick Riewoldt is spot on. What we saw in the games just gone is a clear disconnect between the AFL/Brad Scott and the umpires. What Brad Scott told us in the press conference that we all can watch, did not occur.

Do I think the umpires got it right this weekend? 95% of the time yes.

But again, it comes back to the question I've asked multiple times within this thread that you seem to be purposelly ignoring:

What is dissent? How is it going to be umpired?

As of right now, no one would be able to give a consistent answer as to what the AFL deems dissent.

 

[CheapCharlie]

I've stopped replying cause there's no point interacting with people like you who seems to think fans are blind.

I think fans are blind? 95% of fans are happy with the rule, it is you who is part of the 5% of outliers

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.

Do I think the umpires got it right this weekend? 95% of the time yes.

It was never going to be difficult, was it?

What is dissent? How is it going to be umpired?

What is dissent? Well, I think the players last round answered that for you, by behaving reasonably and accepting the Umpires call and moving on with the game.
The players self regulated and classed their past manner of querying decisions as falling into the dissent mode.

It's not that hard , is it?

 

[TheOptimum18]

I think fans are blind? 95% of fans are happy with the rule, it is you who is part of the 5% of outliers

Nope. Fans agree that actions like Robinson throwing his mouthguard at the ump, or Hewett showing physical and verbal intimidation at the umpire should be removed from the game through this rule. Fans DON'T agree that a simple arms out should be treated the same.

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.

I would think I know myself better than you do mate.

What is dissent? Well, I think the players last round answered that for you, by behaving reasonably and accepting the Umpires call and moving on with the game.
The players self regulated and classed their past manner of querying decisions as falling into the dissent mode.

It's not that hard , is it?

You're either being deliberatly ignorant, or just a complete idiot.

If you showed someone who has never watched AFL before Brad Scott's interview from last week and the umpiring from the games just gone, they would think that Brad Scott was talking about umpires in a different game.

The biggest problem you're (deliberatly) avoiding to talk about is the disconnect between the message from the AFL and what the umpires are doing on the field.

The focus isn't on the players, its what the AFL WANT umpires to do, and what the umpires are (aren't) doing.

 

[Bostonian]

I think fans are blind? 95% of fans are happy with the rule, it is you who is part of the 5% of outliers

Stop lying.

There's a poll up above that suggests your 95% claim is rubbish.

Seems just under 20% seem to think the new rules are good.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Stop lying.

There's a poll up above that suggests your 95% claim is rubbish.

Seems just under 20% seem to think the new rules are good.

If this thread was reflective of general public attitudes we would have had fans storming the grounds and marching on AFL house .

Outside of this thread, 95% of fans embrace the rule

 

[Bostonian]

If this thread was reflective of general public attitudes we would have had fans storming the grounds and marching on AFL house .

Outside of this thread, 95% of fans embrace the rule

Ok then, source for your claim of 95% then

Otherwise you're just making up bullshit.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Nope. Fans agree that actions like Robinson throwing his mouthguard at the ump, or Hewett showing physical and verbal intimidation at the umpire should be removed from the game through this rule. Fans DON'T agree that a simple arms out should be treated the same.



I would think I know myself better than you do mate.


You're either being deliberatly ignorant, or just a complete idiot.

If you showed someone who has never watched AFL before Brad Scott's interview from last week and the umpiring from the games just gone, they would think that Brad Scott was talking about umpires in a different game.

The biggest problem you're (deliberatly) avoiding to talk about is the disconnect between the message from the AFL and what the umpires are doing on the field.

The focus isn't on the players, its what the AFL WANT umpires to do, and what the umpires are (aren't) doing.

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.

 

[Fadge]

Having your arms up at the ump is an issue just as much as throwing a mouth guard.

So why weren't these instances on the weekend penalised with 50 metres, as Brad Scott alluded they would be when he 'clarified' the 'interpretation' of the rule early last week?!?

 

[Fadge]

Ok then, source for your claim of 95% then

Otherwise you're just making up bullshit.

It's 95% of their 'safe bubble'.

They don't engage with those who view the world differently to themselves.

 

[zyzzbruh]

So why weren't these instances on the weekend penalised with 50 metres, as Brad Scott alluded they would be when he 'clarified' the 'interpretation' of the rule early last week?!?

Because they didn't feel like it. Instead of trying to constantly find someone culpable and argue about who said what and how and the AFL's interpretation blah blah - how about the players who give away a freekick just turn around and stand the mark without flapping. That's the issue done and dusted there. If every player did that there would be no such instances or grey area for you to try and dig at with tooth and nail. Footy will never be perfect, umpiring will never be perfect, interpretations will never be perfect, so stop wrecking your brain wanting it to be perfect.

 

[TheOptimum18]

Because they didn't feel like it. Instead of trying to constantly find someone culpable and argue about who said what and how and the AFL's interpretation blah blah - how about the players who give away a freekick just turn around and stand the mark without flapping. That's the issue done and dusted there, there would be no more grey area for you to try and dig at with tooth and nail. Footy will never be perfect, umpiring will never be perfect, interpretations will never be perfect, so stop wrecking your brain wanting it to be perfect.

I'm sorry, but the AFL is the one that want things to be perfect here. Have you forgotten what Brad Scott has said? "No dissent is acceptable" and "doesn't matter what the umpires think, they need to umpire the game the AFL wants it to" and all that waffle?

Well clearly, none of that is true, and it makes things even more confusing than it needs to be.

 

[zyzzbruh]

I'm sorry, but the AFL is the one that want things to be perfect here. Have you forgotten what Brad Scott has said? "No dissent is acceptable" and "doesn't matter what the umpires think, they need to umpire the game the AFL wants it to" and all that waffle?

Well clearly, none of that is true, and it makes things even more confusing than it needs to be.

No it's you who wants it to be perfect. You want an exact ruling and interpretation from the AFL that somehow encompasses all levels of human emotion in that situation, and then you want every ump to adjudicate that rule like a computer program. Every umpire ruling is a subjective interpretation, whether it's holding the ball or whether it's dissent. If the ump doesn't believe it to be dissent then it isn't, play on. Again, there is a way this rule can be avoided and that is if every player turns around and man's the mark without flapping about. Confusion will be 0 if every player decided to turn around instead of having to express their disagreement. It's not that hard - if you express any sort of disagreement toward the ump doesn't matter how minimal it is, you run the risk of him interpreting it as dissent.

 

[TheOptimum18]

No it's you who wants it to be perfect. You want an exact ruling and interpretation from the AFL that somehow encompasses all levels of human emotion in that situation, and then you want every ump to adjudicate that rule like a computer program. Every umpire ruling is a subjective interpretation, whether it's holding the ball or whether it's dissent. If the ump doesn't believe it to be dissent then it isn't, play on. Again, there is a way this rule can be avoided and that is if every player turns around and man's the mark without flapping about. Confusion will be 0 if every player decided to turn around instead of having to express their disagreement. It's not that hard - if you express any sort of disagreement toward the ump doesn't matter how minimal it is, you run the risk of him interpreting it as dissent.

Sure. Just ignore the quotes from the AFL that quite literally embody what you've just described and act as if I'm the one wanting perfection.

Again, my question has been consistently the same: What is the AFL's definition of dissent. I don't care what the players have or haven't done in response. I just want that very simple, very uncomplicated question answered.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Sure. Just ignore the quotes from the AFL that quite literally embody what you've just described and act as if I'm the one wanting perfection.

Again, my question has been consistently the same: What is the AFL's definition of dissent. I don't care what the players have or haven't done in response. I just want that very simple, very uncomplicated question answered.

It seems very simple and uncomplicated for nearly everyone else and almost of all the players (lets call it 95% of people and players get it).
Why is it so difficult for you ?

 

[zyzzbruh]

Sure. Just ignore the quotes from the AFL that quite literally embody what you've just described and act as if I'm the one wanting perfection.

Again, my question has been consistently the same: What is the AFL's definition of dissent. I don't care what the players have or haven't done in response. I just want that very simple, very uncomplicated question answered.

You're only confused because there have been instances this week where taking what the AFL have said, you interpreted as dissent. The ump did not interpret them as dissent. So you are now confused. I'm telling you stop expecting every umps decision to be perfect in accordance with your interpretation of the rule, because interpretations differ. Hence why AFL and umpiring will never be perfect. This is why the rule was brought in, because people like you keep expressing your frustrations and it inevitably ends up on the umps.

Like I said initially. Who cares about the technicalities of this rule, instead look at what it is fundamentally trying to do - which is to reduce umpire abuse and improve umpiring quality. That's all that should be focused on. Players will adjust and so will the umps.

 

[Fadge]

No it's you who wants it to be perfect. You want an exact ruling and interpretation from the AFL that somehow encompasses all levels of human emotion in that situation, and then you want every ump to adjudicate that rule like a computer program. Every umpire ruling is a subjective interpretation, whether it's holding the ball or whether it's dissent.

If you can't see the issue with 'subjective interpretation' when applying rules, you can't be helped.

 

[archereleven]

I think this thread is done.

Clearly Bard and Chris' views can't be changed so it's left to the sane posters to argue the semantics.

Fact -

the AFL said 'no dissent is acceotable'
the umpires agree.

Fiction -

Dissent is being penalised.

We dont know yet as didn't see any dissent over the weekend as umpires do not consider putting arms out as dissent, unlike Bard and Chris above and the AFL.

You shot your wad early. Its understandable you feel you need to double down on your bullshit.

Dissent isn't dissent, if you know what I mean




On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[zyzzbruh]

If you can't see the issue with 'subjective interpretation' when applying rules, you can't be helped.

Name a single rule other than a computerised speeding fine which isn't open to interpretation? Every single human emotion and decision is based on subjective interpretation. The largest jail sentences even comes down to the interpretation of a jury.

This isn't AFL live on PlayStation where you have computerised umpires. Only a computer code can interpret a rule objectively. If a human is making a decision on a rule it will always be subjective.

 

[TheOptimum18]

It seems very simple and uncomplicated for nearly everyone else and almost of all the players (lets call it 95% of people and players get it).
Why is it so difficult for you ?

The matches from the gameweek just past in conjunction with what Brad Scott said last week directly contradicts this.

You're only confused because there have been instances this week where taking what the AFL have said, you interpreted as dissent. The ump did not interpret them as dissent. So you are now confused. I'm telling you stop expecting every umps decision to be perfect in accordance with your interpretation of the rule, because interpretations differ. Hence why AFL and umpiring will never be perfect. This is why the rule was brought in, because people like you keep expressing your frustrations and it inevitably ends up on the umps.

Like I said initially. Who cares about the technicalities of this rule, instead look at what it is fundamentally trying to do - which is to reduce umpire abuse and improve umpiring quality. That's all that should be focused on. Players will adjust and so will the umps.

And this is the issue. I'm asking a question as to what dissent is as defined by the AFL. You can not give me an answer. When we were told no dissent is acceptable, and that arms out was considered dissent, at no point during the weekend was a single arms out paid as dissent. We were told it was, but none were paid.

This isn't me being angry at the AFL over my own interpretation of dissent. This is confusion between what the AFL has said, and what we saw on the weekend.

 

[zyzzbruh]

The matches from the gameweek just past in conjunction with what Brad Scott said last week directly contradicts this.



And this is the issue. I'm asking a question as to what dissent is as defined by the AFL. You can not give me an answer. When we were told no dissent is acceptable, and that arms out was considered dissent, at no point during the weekend was a single arms out paid as dissent. We were told it was, but none were paid.

This isn't me being angry at the AFL over my own interpretation of dissent. This is confusion between what the AFL has said, and what we saw on the weekend.

Dissent has a meaning. The AFL didn't make it up. Google it.

I think the only reason why you want an absolute exact interpretation on it is so you can point out the actions that border on dissent but can get away with. That goes against what the rule is fundamentally trying to achieve. It's not hard to avoid it altogether by turning around and standing on the mark. You're complicating it for yourself so unnecessarily.

The AFL said no level of dissent is acceptable. Therefore you are not allowed to express disagreement towards the ump even 0.001%. If that's not black and white I dunno what is. If the umps didn't think those actions were dissent then we have to accept them as not dissent.

 

[Fadge]

Name a single rule other than a computerised speeding fine which isn't open to interpretation? Every single human emotion and decision is based on subjective interpretation. The largest jail sentences even comes down to the interpretation of a jury.

This isn't AFL live on PlayStation where you have computerised umpires. Only a computer code can interpret a rule objectively. If a human is making a decision on a rule it will always be subjective.

No. A decision as to whether someone has broken a rule (or the law), is based on whether they breached a clearly defined rule (or law) as adjudged by an OBJECTIVE reasonable person test.

'Sir, you are guilty of murder.'
'Hang on, the person isn't even dead!'
'Doesn't matter, it's our subjective interpretation...'

 

[zyzzbruh]

No. A decision as to whether someone has broken a rule (or the law), is based on whether they breached a clearly defined rule (or law).

'Sir, you are guilty of murder.'
'Hang on, the person isn't even dead!'
'Doesn't matter, it's our subjective interpretation...'

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 the black and white objective truth was guaranteed why can't there only be One jury member delivering the decision? If it's an objectivel 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.

 

[TheOptimum18]

The AFL said no level of dissent is acceptable. Therefore you are not allowed to express disagreement towards the ump even 0.001%. If that's not black and white I dunno what is.

So last week, arms out 50m was correct. This week, arms out no 50m is correct. That by itself is already a mockery this idea.

If the umps didn't think those actions were dissent then we have to accept them as not dissent.

Really now?

AFL/Brad Scott: "...challenge for some umpires who probably prefer not to pay freekicks but again, that's not their decision to make. They need to adjudicate the rules the way the AFL decide they should be adjudicated and whether an umpire actually agrees with that or not is irrelevant"

AFL/Brad Scott: arms out is dissent

Umpires: arms out? play on.

 

[CheapCharlie]

So last week, arms out 50m was correct. This week, arms out no 50m is correct. That by itself is already a mockery this idea.



Really now?

AFL/Brad Scott: "...challenge for some umpires who probably prefer not to pay freekicks but again, that's not their decision to make. They need to adjudicate the rules the way the AFL decide they should be adjudicated and whether an umpire actually agrees with that or not is irrelevant"

AFL/Brad Scott: arms out is dissent

Umpires: arms out? play on.

I think its the way you view watching the games.

The last round you watched the games and saw a few dissent frees not paid. That to you is the system not working

When I watched the last round, what I saw was a hundred or more occasions where players would have complained and carried on in the past, now not doing those actions.
That to me is the system working

 

[zyzzbruh]

I think its the way you view watching the games.

The last round you watched the games and saw a few dissent frees not paid. That to you is the system not working

When I watched the last round, what I saw was a hundred or more occasions where players would have complained and carried on in the past, now not doing those actions.
That to me is the system working

Exactly. People are more focused on finding issues in everything and making sure someone is culpable rather than looking at the fundamental reason the rule was deployed.

It's not a gameplay rule, it's a behaviour rule. People don't need to dig so deep into it. The idea isn't to push the boundaries of what is acceptable, it's about doing what's right and being respectful. You don't have to be given an interpretation for that. I'm sure the leniency this week came down to not wanting to pay a 50 every 2 seconds. It gives the chance for players to adjust without making the game look like a circus act. The adjustment will be very quick and it is clearly working so there is no need to go up in arms about the non decisions.