8 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:Lever disappointed the Hill slipped into his arm and gets a 50 for showing disappointment.  

Watched the replay.  3rd qtr.  Hill slips into Levers arm. Lever puts his hands on his head. May does a very quick shake of the head and is confused why it’s 50. Oliver is seen to slightly raise his hands in a somewhat questioning manner.  “50. Umpire dissent” .  Umpire 9 Stevic proclaims.  In Summary - Matt Stevic is a tool.  That happened countless other times by both sides last night and again today in Blues v Port but no penalty.  Dissent should be saved for actually persistent questioning verbally or through an excessive physical remonstrating action.  Stevic got it wrong again.  

AFL basically allowing umps to manipulate results with this. Hewett today was no different to Harris Andrews but HQ want Rapetank in the finals.

When Gil finally goes back to his other life, hopefully we can get someone in with out the brain trauma he obviously sustained somewhere and revoke this crud ruling.

4 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Watched the replay.  3rd qtr.  Hill slips into Levers arm. Lever puts his hands on his head. May does a very quick shake of the head and is confused why it’s 50. Oliver is seen to slightly raise his hands in a somewhat questioning manner.  “50. Umpire dissent” .  Umpire 9 Stevic proclaims.  In Summary - Matt Stevic is a tool.  That happened countless other times by both sides last night and again today in Blues v Port but no penalty.  Dissent should be saved for actually persistent questioning verbally or through an excessive physical remonstrating action.  Stevic got it wrong again.  

Isn't Stevic the umpire we had problems with last year?

Edited April 17, 20223 yr by Left Foot Snap
Forget an e

Never thought I would ever say this but with the standard of umpiring going backwards I wouldn’t be against a captains challenge rule. Each team 2 per game and keep it if successful. Classic example captains challenge the free kick to Cody Weightman against Joel Smith. 

This is a [censored] disgrace and inexcusable 

completely agree we should not allow abuse directly at umpires, thus should not have not have been left to go on for so long

however - raising your arms in disappointment/ frustration is not abuse and has nothing to do with this rule. WTF are the umpires thinking?!?

They arent!! Law unto themselves

1 hour ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Watched the replay.  3rd qtr.  Hill slips into Levers arm. Lever puts his hands on his head. May does a very quick shake of the head and is confused why it’s 50. Oliver is seen to slightly raise his hands in a somewhat questioning manner.  “50. Umpire dissent” .  Umpire 9 Stevic proclaims.  In Summary - Matt Stevic is a tool.  That happened countless other times by both sides last night and again today in Blues v Port but no penalty.  Dissent should be saved for actually persistent questioning verbally or through an excessive physical remonstrating action.  Stevic got it wrong again.  

Did you hear what Clarry said though?

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

Did you hear what Clarry said though?

That is part of the problem. The spectator has no way to know what the decision was based on. For other penalties we do have at least something to go on. 

1 minute ago, sue said:

That is part of the problem. The spectator has no way to know what the decision was based on. For other penalties we do have at least something to go on. 

Totally agree, but that's why I think labeling someone 'a tool' without all the information might not be a great move.

If Gil has created this rule then his legacy to our great game is a joke where the punchline is S??t

This rule has become farcical and turning the game into a laughing stock.

50 meters for lifting your arms up in a questioning palms up gesture shouldn’t be 50 meters at all.

Verbal assault is fair enough but not for simply putting your palms up and moving your arms.

No wonder crowds are down with these clowns running the show.

 

9 hours ago, Sideshow Bob said:

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 

Common sense is in short supply at the AFL.

The umpires are on a hiding to nothing because whatever decision they make, 50 % of the crowd will disagree with them. But, give me strength ...... !!!!!! Umpire dissent.  ?????? The most hideous and ludicrous rule ever introduced , by a country mile. !!!!!!!

If a players says to an umpire " Go and FFF yourself !!! " ok that's not on. 

Even something like " That was a s@&$ decision"  is not ok

 But shaking your head in frustration or putting your arms out as if to say " Turn it up " without uttering a syllable is not dissent 

You can't prevent players from showing any emotion and you will never convince the spectators that this 'dog's breakfast ' of a rule  is something that will ever be applied even handedly or consistently, a point other posters have made in this very thread.

For that very reason, spectators will turn on umpires with even greater vigour than ever before. 

I admire the umpires for their efforts to officiate a game with incredibly complex and nuanced rules, but this rule will make umpires' lives on game day a living hell. 

This is the rule which is the straw that breaks the camel's back 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Did you hear what Clarry said though?

So, what did Clarry said? I doubt any umpire could decipher his gibbersih anyway...😁😂🤣

4 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

How would you feel seeing this as a Brisbane fan?

Andrews cops it for doing arguably less than Hewett does here. The spotlight's been on this exact thing since Friday night. But this umpire doesn't pay it against Hewett.

Probably has a soft spot for Carlton.

12 hours 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.

The problem also is that it was basically non existent for a couple of weeks and then it gets pulled out for random games/moments (no surprise it's against us!)

Edited April 17, 20223 yr by Dr. Gonzo

3 hours ago, Dee Viney Intervention said:

Never thought I would ever say this but with the standard of umpiring going backwards I wouldn’t be against a captains challenge rule. Each team 2 per game and keep it if successful. Classic example captains challenge the free kick to Cody Weightman against Joel Smith. 

Absolutely no chance whatsoever. The game moves too quickly. It can't be stopped because a team doesn't like a decision.

This isn't cricket or NFL where there is down time between plays and a chance to review discrete decisions.

The umpiring was poor last night, and I am of the view the AFL needs to pump significantly more money into investing in better umpires, better conditions for them (i.e. make them FT and pay them well enough to attract new umpires) and better training. Simplifying some rules and removing others altogether would assist. 

But a captain's challenge is wholly unworkable and at any rate would turn into a tactic - captains would call it at a strategic moment to stop the game.

6 hours ago, Gorgoroth said:

When Gil finally goes back to his other life, hopefully we can get someone in with out the brain trauma he obviously sustained somewhere and revoke this crud ruling.

I don't think it's Gil, it's Brad Scott and previously Steve Hocking

You can’t have a rule based on an individuals feelings, it’s ridiculous.

Edited April 17, 20223 yr by Ethan Tremblay

De-rail slightly…… what do we think about Harry Petty’s spoil on Jesse Hogan that gifted his only goal on Saturday night? Was a perfect spoil in an impossible situation for me…running back, punched the ball and didn’t touch the player. Umpire knee-jerked to the fact he was running face onto Hogan to spoil, assumed it was ‘front-on contact’ because he didn’t mark it. I was a teeny bit ropable. 

It wasn't a free kick.  The ball bounced off Hogan's head which made it look like Petty had hit him.

4 minutes ago, Webber said:

De-rail slightly…… what do we think about Harry Petty’s spoil on Jesse Hogan that gifted his only goal on Saturday night? Was a perfect spoil in an impossible situation for me…running back, punched the ball and didn’t touch the player. Umpire knee-jerked to the fact he was running face onto Hogan to spoil, assumed it was ‘front-on contact’ because he didn’t mark it. I was a teeny bit ropable. 

I thought he marked it, just before the Petty spoil which I don't think he infringed with. It was close but I thought he clunked the mark just before the spoil. That is the only way I vould justify it to my kids on the night.

9 minutes ago, Webber said:

De-rail slightly…… what do we think about Harry Petty’s spoil on Jesse Hogan that gifted his only goal on Saturday night? Was a perfect spoil in an impossible situation for me…running back, punched the ball and didn’t touch the player. Umpire knee-jerked to the fact he was running face onto Hogan to spoil, assumed it was ‘front-on contact’ because he didn’t mark it. I was a teeny bit ropable. 

Isn't part of the angst the fact that many umpires have no feel for the game probably coz many have not ever played themselves. This could be a reason why the second guess element of decision making leads to errors.Similarly the hands up display that has lead to fifties being paid, is frivolous, unwarranted and displays limited empathy for the players for exactly the same reason

I thought Pettys spoil almost perfect and could, but wasn't to have been, play on.

Edited April 17, 20223 yr by picket fence