Out... this ridiculous showing dissent 50 rule. What is this??? It is the stuff of fifties and sixties schoolyard discipline. A player not even on the mark throws his hands up in mild frustration and gets pinged for 50?? Come on. I understand and agree to have a verbal 50 rule, but this is an outrageous, overreaction. IMO the AFL need to get rid of this blight on the game. Are we trying to take the human element of frustration totally away? Its 1984 Orwellian Prophesy at its finest. What next? DREAM POLICE pinging blokes for facial expressions depicting dissent?? Get rid of it!

17 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Out... this ridiculous showing dissent 50 rule. What is this??? It is the stuff of fifties and sixties schoolyard discipline. A player not even on the mark throws his hands up in mild frustration and gets pinged for 50?? Come on. I understand and agree to have a verbal 50 rule, but this is an outrageous, overreaction. IMO the AFL need to get rid of this blight on the game. Are we trying to take the human element of frustration totally away? Its 1984 Orwellian Prophesy at its finest. What next? DREAM POLICE pinging blokes for facial expressions depicting dissent?? Get rid of it!

Agree Picket.

A player frustrated at himself gets pinged for dissent. It is ridiculous.

Demonstrative or verbal dissent is fair enough, but they have gone mad and it is so arbitrary.

I agree with Sheedy it is ruining the game.

How many sportspeople can say something to themselves during their sport and this is now dissent to an umpire. 

Yet others are allowed far more latitude on an arbitrary basis. It is inconsistent and easily open to misuse.

Love this post. So many supporters outraged by this non rule.  It’s designed to help the umps BUT actually leads to more frustration and confusion.  
 

Tom McDonald complained about the Giants knocking the ball out of bounds.  Free kick to Giants for arguing.  
 

Lever disappointed the Hill slipped into his arm and gets a 50 for showing disappointment.  
 

Himmelberg complains that he reckoned he touched the ball when Petty marked it.  Nothing. 
 

Himmelberg complains when he tackles Hunt and it’s a ball up.  Nothing. 
 

What’s the rule ?? 
 

And the “stand” rule for players on the mark.  It’s completely inconsistent.  Some umpires take 3-4 seconds after the player has played on, leaving the player on the mark helpless like they’re in concrete boots. 

The problem is that there’s so much scope for interpretation and inconsistency. The examples above are a case in point.

1 minute ago, Whispering_Jack said:

The problem is that there’s so much scope for interpretation and inconsistency. The examples above are a case in point.

I also feel as premiers, the MFC are being made examples of.

Last night the lady umpire seemed to have a much shorter fuse than the bloke up the other end….  
 

ya got put your arm out to guard the mark, but then you can’t turn toward the umpires with arms out to see if one of them is signalling play on….

 

 

2 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

The problem is that there’s so much scope for interpretation and inconsistency. The examples above are a case in point.

Another BS rule reliant on the umpire’s mood. 
Sensitive souls punishing players they don’t like but would never give that sort of free to Hawkins. 

AFL house continues to find new and innovative way to ruin the game and make us hate umpires even more. 

9 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Tom McDonald complained about the Giants knocking the ball out of bounds.  Free kick to Giants for arguing. 

Do you know for certain that's what it was for? TMac was acting like a pork chop all game, sooking about every umpire decision, I reckon it may have been cumulative after a few warnings.

 

9 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Lever disappointed the Hill slipped into his arm and gets a 50 for showing disappointment. 

That one was against Oliver, not Lever if we're thinking of the same one.

Don't love the rule, but it's 'settled' somewhat since first coming in and will eventually find it's place.

Edited April 17, 20223 yr by Lord Nev

27 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Out... this ridiculous showing dissent 50 rule. What is this??? It is the stuff of fifties and sixties schoolyard discipline. A player not even on the mark throws his hands up in mild frustration and gets pinged for 50?? Come on. I understand and agree to have a verbal 50 rule, but this is an outrageous, overreaction. IMO the AFL need to get rid of this blight on the game. Are we trying to take the human element of frustration totally away? Its 1984 Orwellian Prophesy at its finest. What next? DREAM POLICE pinging blokes for facial expressions depicting dissent?? Get rid of it!

Couldn't agree more Picket.  There's a difference between disapointment, dissent and abuse.

Gee GWS are lucky Tobby Green has been suspended this season so far, he would have given away 5 x 50m penalties before half time, were he on the field, but then again, GWS are one of the AFL's golden love child's, so maybe not.

It’s yet another rule involving interpretation that drives me mad.

Case in point - when Gawn tackles and it slips high. He will cop the free against, and you often see him on the replay standing on the mark gently shaking his head. 

How does the umpire interpret this action? Is it dissent with the decision that was made? Is it disappointment with himself for making that decision in the first place?

With Maxy I've always interpreted it as the latter - but how long until an ump interprets it as the former?

Umpire #1 might have thicker skin and respond to a player who turns around and tells ‘what was that for?’ with ‘Mate I know he spun and ducked as he picked it up, but you still smashed him in the nose with your elbow, you need to show more duty of care, it’s a free kick, stand’

Umpire #2 might say ‘it doesn’t matter what it’s for, dissent, that’s 50’

I turned the game off last night because of the Umpiring. It was disgraceful 

I didn’t want to smash my TV

The AFL have gone too far on this one

34 minutes ago, picket fence said:

DREAM POLICE pinging blokes for facial expressions depicting dissent??

It's a Cheap Trick.

4 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Another BS rule reliant on the umpire’s mood. 
Sensitive souls punishing players they don’t like but would never give that sort of free to Hawkins. 

AFL house continues to find new and innovative way to ruin the game and make us hate umpires even more. 

And there is the problem - Joe Citizen watching the game is very unlikely to take it out on the rules committee or AFL house or whoever is going to be wearing Gil’s shoes in the future. 

only the umpires will receive the heat, which is wrong. 

IMO if this nonsense continues it will lead to more disrepect for umpires.  We already are frustrated by bad decisions, but at least we understand how hard the game is to umpire AND we can see what happened. (I don't know how many times I have had to eat my words when the replay of a free is shown, as well as vice versa.) 

But with respect to 'respect', we have no idea if the player called the ump a [censored] or just expressed disappointment, verbally or otherwise and with whom.     How is continuing to ask for a free which the umpire says is not there less respectful than indicating you thought a free was wrongly given.    And so inconsistent. I just can't see this settling down to something even vaguely preceived as consistent.

Net result - less respect for umpires from the public.

Policing human emotions is madness. There’s not much more to say really. I’m all for moderating abuse towards umpires, but this several steps too far. 

8 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

It's a Cheap Trick.

GOLD! MAY "THE FLAME" burn brightly for the DEES 

17 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Do you know for certain that's what it was for? TMac was acting like a pork chop all game, sooking about every umpire decision, I reckon it may have been cumulative after a few warnings.

 

That one was against Oliver, not Lever if we're thinking of the same one.

Don't love the rule, but it's 'settled' somewhat since first coming in and will eventually find it's place.

I thought it was against Sparrow actually, who seemed to remonstrate demonstrably. 

Glad someone started this thread. I lost the plot at the start of the third when Hill was handed another goal via a 50m penalty. I think that one was for us playing on as we thought the decision went our way and we were taking advantage. 
Thankfully Kossie scored his third just after and we went on a run from there. But I’m a tighter game some of these stupid decisions could of cost us the game. 
 

I get that abuse of the umps needs to be cut out but this rule has gone way too far. 
If the AFL want to makes the umps job easier why do they keep making the game so difficult to call with so many incidents being a coin flip as to which way it goes. 
Instead of trying to turn the players into emotionless robots they should focus on making the rules simpler and look at making the umps full time employees. 

Edited April 17, 20223 yr by Colm

I actually supported this rule when it was first bought in and made something of a pledge to go easy on the umps as a supporter, but the mind blowing free kick differential and then these crazy 50m that so consistently seem to exclusively go against us have seen me throw that pledge to the wind in games this season to date.

I recall in an interview he did with Robbo that Razor Ray noted the MFC as being one of the most disiplined teams in terms of arguing with the umps, so I really strughle to understand how it is we're so consistently on the wrong end.

Edited April 17, 20223 yr by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

I don’t personally mind the rule. After watching Under 10s play you can see afl behaviour trickles down. Children at that age are very impressionable and so you want to set a good example for them.
 

But as with most, in here it’s the inconsistency and interpretation of this and many other rules that ruin it. we seem to be on the opposite side of the ruling in most cases. There is a pattern developing and I think we just need to get used to the idea that we are going to get the short stick again this year. 

41 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I thought it was against Sparrow actually, who seemed to remonstrate demonstrably. 

If we're thinking of the same one, where May ended up standing on the goal line, the umpire could be heard telling him it was against Oliver, cos Maysie was pretty confused!

There is a massive difference between showing frustration/emotion and even some venting to abusing umpires. This rule doesn't allow for the former. Despite it being an emotional game for the players the clubs and the fans. 

Somehow head office and the umpires need to learn the difference between human emotion and dissent. They are vastly different 

I’ve always thought that 50 metres is too punative, in many cases where the offence is fairly trivial, as well as being an ‘‘interpretation “ by the umpire. Now they are interpreting emotions as well. 
Brings to mind the story about the player in the nineties who asked the ump if he could be reported for what he was thinking. Of course not said the ump. Well, i think you’re a #$%& !

On a bit of a tangent, I still can't believe how that Tom Hawkins mark last week was allowed to stand.  While I wouldn't want to turn the AFL into a NRL style video review system that continuously interrupts play and disrupts the flow of play, but that Hawkins push in the back was so obvious and given the standard 30 seconds he had to go back and take his kick, there was soo much time and oppertunity for a third/video umpire to make the correct decision and overturn the mark.  The difficulty does somewhat become when to and not to over turn line ball infringements, but I don't think there was any risk of that in the Hawkins case.

It's this kind of stubbornness and sloth like inaction from the AFL to make sensible rule changes to improve the officiating of the game that infuriates players and fans alike and makes the umpires jobs harder.  Plus there's that old chestnut the AFL likes to go on about, regarding the integrity of the game - what if a final or finals place hinged on that goal to Hawkins?

Edited April 17, 20223 yr by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

...while we're on topic of umpires critique, has anyone else noticed that the 'protected areas rule is either being officiated differently / significantly relaxed?

Has there actually been a rule change or is it just something that's being let go until an umpire finds an inopportune time to decide to pay one and artificially change the momentum of a game.

To some extent I think I've also noticed a shift in what actions players take from a mark/free kick situation that could also be influencing things - less handball to a runner going past and more of just playing on taking on the man on the mark directly and why effectively waste a number at the source of the ball when they are better positioned to advantage elsewhere, but while the rule is there, it needs to be played consistently or else it has the potential to randomly create chaos and unfairness at some point.