The very, very contentious 50 for Dissent Rule

[fr_ap 2,193]

6 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Why is it an either/or?

Why not do both? 

Why not improve umpiring as a profession whilst also reducing the level of disrespect shown towards umpires?

 

1) arms out is not a sign of disrespect. I'd be staggered if any of the current umpires really think so and if they do, I'd argue they are in the wrong profession, and 

2) they won't get respect until they can do their job appropriately. Improving the standard is CRITICAL to the respect situation. 

Save for a small minority, players do not go out of their way to openly disrespect umpires. They are educated on this from an early age and you would find most would in fact acknowledge how important umpires are and how difficult their job can be.

Players are also educated on rules and rule changes extensively. 

On that basis, it is fair to deduce that most of the time, accounting for players personal biases and emotional state, if a player gets angry and expresses his frustration towards an umpire, it reflects his confusion or frustration with the umpires decision. This is very different to disrespect. 

IF however that confusion/frustration is going to be badged as disrespect, then do something about the confusion/frustration. This starts and ends with improving the standard of umpiring.

[Freddy Fuschia 666]

1 hour ago, Axis of Bob said:

So the only way to create respect for umpires is to create perfect umpires that don't make mistakes? 

Where are these perfect umpires coming from? Because there aren't many umpires coming through the ranks.

Stunningly it turns out that teenagers don't enjoy being abused and belittled in games when they are learning how to be umpires.

How do you intend to encourage more people to take up umpiring in lower levels?

I get what you’re saying but we all know what abuse is because it can be clearly defined. Dissent is a different kettle of fish, especially if putting out your arms is automatically an expression of abuse when the same action could easily be interpreted as an expression of disappointment or frustration at the player’s actions rather than umpire abuse. By penalizing emotion and passion the AFL is emasculating the game. 

[sue 8,514]

49 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Bit of conflating of issues going on here.

Umpires 100% should be fully paid, full time employees of the AFL. It's utterly bizarre a billion dollar industry has part time employees, picked from a dwindling talent pool, in positions of such importance to the game. This would obviously improve the standard of umpiring, there's no argument there.

But...

No matter the standard of umpiring, there should be more respect towards them. It's completely stupid to imply 'well they wouldn't get abused if they got more calls right'. There is no excuse, let alone such a flimsy one. Plus, doesn't matter how much you offer to pay them; coping abuse every week from thousands of people (let alone what they must get on social media etc) will mean they won't stay around long; and less and less people will choose it as a profession.

Yet again you conflate things like arm raising with abuse.   Everyone here seems to be against abuse. Some of us see a big gap between raising arms or rolling eyes and abuse.   Making them equivalent makes umpires look ridiculous which is hardly a recipe for increasing respect. 

[Mincho Mania 530]

Think the players have a bit to answer for here. How many times over the years have we seen players carry on at Umps for what is a blatant and obvious free kick?

Fits in with my 3rd Law of Human behavior   " For every over reaction there is an equal and opposite over reaction"

[monoccular 16,513]

12 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Why is it an either/or?

Why not do both? 

Why not improve umpiring as a profession whilst also reducing the level of disrespect shown towards umpires?

 

Axis - one cannot enforce respect.  Respect is earned …. and not by ridiculous over the top demands, like banning holding one’s arms out or shaking the head which are natural human reactions to confusing situations.  
Sure don’t  shout at or swear at an umpire or get in his face, but showing exasperation??  This only drives a wedge rather than what is intended. 

[bush demon 1,921]

Yes, farcical rule, farcical application. I would prefer a clampdown instead on players who convey their dissent with dead-pan straight-faces, perhaps (also) sneakily coupled with a total absence of gestures or arm movements.  These players are the true villains and such nasty, albeit well-concealed sarcasm/dissent should not be tolerated in the modern age. Surely we do not want a grand final decided in this fashion.

Edited April 18, 2022 by bush demon
Fixed it up.

[Supermercado 2,650]

Good luck to the local umpires who are going to have to pay 50s for this. I suspect they'll be making their decision based on how likely the player is to deck them.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

11 minutes ago, sue said:

Yet again you conflate things like arm raising with abuse.   Everyone here seems to be against abuse. Some of us see a big gap between raising arms or rolling eyes and abuse.   Making them equivalent makes umpires look ridiculous which is hardly a recipe for increasing respect. 

You've got to go hard to make cultural change. I don't like where the rule is at the moment, but I also understand where it's come from, where it's going, and that it will settle in eventually and do it's job.

I hated the 666 rule and the stand rule when they first came in, but now that they've settled into the game I think they've made it better and more exciting.

Something had to change with how umpires were treated.

Also - "Yet again"? What? I didn't even mention 'arm raising'.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Lord Nev

[Axis of Bob 10,437]

13 minutes ago, Freddy Fuschia said:

I get what you’re saying but we all know what abuse is because it can be clearly defined. Dissent is a different kettle of fish, especially if putting out your arms is automatically an expression of abuse when the same action could easily be interpreted as an expression of disappointment or frustration at the player’s actions rather than umpire abuse. By penalizing emotion and passion the AFL is emasculating the game.

I don't see how dissent is more difficult to define than abuse.

If I wave my hands in exasperation at a decision then I am clearly indicating to everyone that can see that I disagree with the decision. Kids see that and the culture is perpetuated.

Dissent and abuse are clearly different. But the fact that we now agree that umpire abuse is a no-no demonstrates that penalising this at AFL level (20 years ago) has had a positive impact. Doing the same for overt dissent at umpiring decisions will seem weird in the short term but in 20 years will seem normal. In fact the main thing we're likely to be upset about in such a situation is that a penalised player was undisciplined not that the umpire penalised it.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Axis of Bob

[Axis of Bob 10,437]

17 minutes ago, Go the Biff said:

You start with education at junior & club level. You educate parents. You make it clear to junior coaches that they are not just coaching to win & coaching skills but coaching football from a broader perspective. You make respect for umpires a key part of any coach accreditation.

Like I said .... why can't we do both?

[Go the Biff 3,211]

6 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Like I said .... why can't we do both?

We can. But as I said earlier, the AFL is putting out a fire with gasoline
Talkback radio, social media etc indicate that the level of respect for umpires has fallen further as a result of this approach. And as I also said earlier it's not their fault. I suspect the nett effect will be to drive more umpires from the game at local & junior level. @Supermercado makes a very good point a few posts above yours.

Given the AFL has taken over the sport rather than just its own league, I'd be interested to know what they are doing of a practical nature to attract, retain & develop umpires at local level

[picket fence 15,698]

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Penalise abuse, swearing aimed at the umpire etc but don’t penalise a player who simply throws their arms up or out. It’s essentially an instinctive behaviour that people do in their everyday life when questioning something. I personally dislike the AFL and umpires even more now. 

EXACTLY MY PIONT! 

PENALISING INSTINCTIVES IS LUDICROUS

[Axis of Bob 10,437]

26 minutes ago, Supermercado said:

Good luck to the local umpires who are going to have to pay 50s for this. I suspect they'll be making their decision based on how likely the player is to deck them.

If this isn't an argument for the need for cultural change towards umpires then I don't know what is.

Also, the rules usually take a few years to filter down the leagues after the AFL introduces it (if at all). The cultural change starts with what is seen at the highest level, and after that it is the passage of time that allows it to filter through to the public.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Axis of Bob

[Freddy Fuschia 666]

18 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

I don't see how dissent is more difficult to define than abuse.

If I wave my hands in exasperation at a decision then I am clearly indicating to everyone that can see that I disagree with the decision. Kids see that and the culture is perpetuated.

Dissent and abuse are clearly different. But the fact that we now agree that umpire abuse is a no-no demonstrates that penalising this at AFL level (20 years ago) has had a positive impact. Doing the same for overt dissent at umpiring decisions will seem weird in the short term but in 20 years will seem normal. In fact the main thing we're likely to be upset about in such a situation is that a penalised player was undisciplined not that the umpire penalised it.

But you’ve missed my point completely. I said that waving hands in exasperation could be something other than dissent which means that players would be penalized for expressing disappointment in themselves - not for umpire abuse or dissent.

[Axis of Bob 10,437]

1 minute ago, picket fence said:

EXACTLY MY PIONT! 

PENALISING INSTINCTIVES IS LUDICROUS

It used to be that telling an umpire that he was "a f#&_ing disgrace" was an instinctive action after getting a dodgy decision. 

But, it isn't any more. Players changed those instincts.

[Jjrogan 1,273]

Hawkins 50m was clearly there. 

The rule is if you ask the umpire to look at the scoreboard (replay), that is dissent.  Made clear as mud in the preseason. Tom Mitchell looks at the scoreboard and ask the umpire to look. 

50 metres under the new rule all day long.  Players, especially captains and senior players, would do well to learn the rules of the game.  

Edited April 18, 2022 by Jjrogan

[Dr. Gonzo 22,697]

50 for abuse is fine

50 for questioning a decision or expressing frustration is embarrassing

The AFL trying to equate a professional sport with umpiring at grass roots is laughable. The AFL usurped governance of the sport from the ANFC and has allowed grass roots footy including umpiring to fester and rot for 3 decades. Now they think some lip service in treating professional sportsmen like preschoolers is going to fix the problem? It's a band-aid solution and they are a farce of an organisation.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,697]

What's lost in all this is umpires are also being castrated, taking away their ability to control the game and determine for themselves when a player has been abusive towards them. You want umpires to be respected, this is not the way to go about it. You have put them in an unenviable position of either paying 50s they don't think are actually there or being seen to be incompetent for not paying them.

[deespicable me 1,439]

9 minutes ago, Jjrogan said:

Hawkins 50m was clearly there. 

The rule is if you ask the umpire to look at the scoreboard (replay), that is dissent.  Made clear as mud in the preseason. Tom Mitchell looks at the scoreboard and ask the umpire to look. 

50 metres under the new rule all day long.  Players, especially captains and senior players, would do well to learn the rules of the game.  

Come on, it wasn't even a free. Then 50. No-one wants to see that. That was bad umpiring. And everyone is meant to sit in their seats and shut up. 

[Dr. Gonzo 22,697]

21 minutes ago, deespicable me said:

Come on, it wasn't even a free. Then 50. No-one wants to see that. That was bad umpiring. And everyone is meant to sit in their seats and shut up. 

Noone would've even seen it if the 50 wasn't paid. They just brought attention to it. Could also make a similar argument for the Oliver one. The Andrews one was a complete joke, just embarassing.

[Jjrogan 1,273]

24 minutes ago, deespicable me said:

Come on, it wasn't even a free. Then 50. No-one wants to see that. That was bad umpiring. And everyone is meant to sit in their seats and shut up. 

It was a bad decision pay the free. But stiff shizzle. People make mistakes.  It was the correct decision to pay 50.  There's a difference.  

How many times in history has an umpire overturned his or another's decision based on viewing the replay? (Not video replay). 

Its a dissenting act to ask an umpire to look at a replay.  Mitchell nodded his head when told. I'm tipping he wont do it again.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Jjrogan

[Macca 16,174]

At first I thought the waving of the arms (in exasperation) may have been harmless and only a misdemeanour but it could get out of hand (so stamp it out)

If players are strongly disciplined enough so as to be able to stand on the mark and not move, they should be able to not wave their arms in exasperation as well

Of course, the players need to be able to man the mark with their arms outstretched and vertical but doing that in comparison is easily identifiable

Edited April 18, 2022 by Macca

[Jjrogan 1,273]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Noone would've even seen it if the 50 wasn't paid. They just brought attention to it. Could also make a similar argument for the Oliver one. The Andrews one was a complete joke, just embarassing.

Well now we're venturing into what can players see v media v crowds.  Thats a very subjective lens to apply.  He did it, it was paid. He wont do it again.  

I agree the Andrews one was the harshest of the lot. But the point here is in 5 weeks time, the majority of players will probably just stop doing it. Lets see

[titan_uranus 22,922]

I am very, very torn on this. 

I am 100% supportive of both the need to drastically improve the way umpires are treated by players, and the basic concept of legislating to make it happen. 

But a blanket rule that says “arms out is 50” just doesn’t fit. Are we saying that in no circumstances, ever, should a footy player raise his/her arms in response to a free?

if they do it whilst mouthing off (eg Clarry this weekend, from reports), fine, pay 50. If they do it whilst walking towards the umpire as if to intimidate, pay 50 (eg Holman and Hewett this weekend). But if they’re doing it in the context of a lack of understanding of a decision, in downtime (eg Andrews and Mitchell), that IMO is not dissent nor behaviour we need to eradicate. It’s a player trying to understand a decision. 

[Dr. Gonzo 22,697]

11 minutes ago, Jjrogan said:

Well now we're venturing into what can players see v media v crowds.  Thats a very subjective lens to apply.  He did it, it was paid. He wont do it again.  

I agree the Andrews one was the harshest of the lot. But the point here is in 5 weeks time, the majority of players will probably just stop doing it. Lets see

Whether they stop or not is irrelevant. Putting your arms out or pointing to the screen is not worthy of a 50. Abuse of an umpire should be 50 no doubt, this is Mickey Mouse stuff.