The very, very contentious 50 for Dissent Rule

[ding 5,126]

Fear and loathing are not respect. No matter how hard you try, respect cannot be forced on someone against their will.

Handing out 50's for such frivilous reasons as we have seen in this round is certain to increase a negative view of umpires as thin-skinned crybabies.

They absolutely MUST find a middle ground here or this will backfire severely.

[Macca 16,174]

43 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

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. 

One thing that we will probably all agree on ... we don't need another adjudication with grey area attached

So whatever the ruling is, it needs to be clear cut ... and zero tolerance eliminates doubt

And it looks like the AFL could double down on the ruling as well so the chat about the ruling will continue

Edited April 18, 2022 by Macca

[Dr. Gonzo 22,843]

17 minutes ago, Jjrogan said:

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.

The old "umpires don't overturn their calls" is the biggest strawman. Of course they won't but they may be more inclined to be skeptical next time Hawkins takes a dive and not pay the free, theyve also been known to pay the square up the other way.

[chook fowler 18,609]

Very ironic that this is coming from Brad Scott who, when in the coaches box, was notorious for waving his arms and dropping his jaw when decisions didn’t go his way.

[Lucifers Hero 37,524]

2 hours ago, chook fowler said:

Very ironic that this is coming from Brad Scott who, when in the coaches box, was notorious for waving his arms and dropping his jaw when decisions didn’t go his way.

Must now be seen to support his twin bro; the AFL rule maker.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Lucifers Hero

[Demonland 66,985]

 

[dee-tox 4,831]

It's a farce.

A 50-metre penalty should only be given if a player mouths off or is aggressive in their demeanour towards an umpire.

Raising one's arms or shaking one's head is not worthy of a 50 metre penalty. 

It is a poor reflection on Brad Scott and the umpires department that this has been so inconsistently applied and poorly interpreted. 

 

 

 

[Demonland 66,985]

5 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Must now be seen to support his twin bro.

[picket fence 15,804]

11 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

The players will learn quickly.

Cultural change across the game will happen more slowly but it has to start somewhere.

Its not Cultural change, its Social engineering at its most dangerous. Taking the emotion out of the game hurts the fabric of the game. If thats what the AFL want I dont agree with the way the rule is now being interpreted. Punish umpire verbal abuse but never ever hands out.

[durango 1,985]

When new rules are brought in the umpires tend to go overboard with their interpretation and the AFL then should to step in and get this rule right because it is making a farce of the game when a umpire abuse is the reason a team wins games when a player throws his head back or raise his arm without any verbal comments.

Players are human beings who get frustrated when the lose a contest, so long as players don't rush up to the umpire in a threatening manner or verbally it should be ok.

[WalkingCivilWar 35,234]

To think that our own Tommo was pinged in the practice match vs. Carlton for ‘laughing at the umpire’ and making him feel ‘belittled’. Relative to some of this round’s penalties, he should’ve been given 50 and fined $2000 and a prison sentence (for good measure).🙃

[BDA 20,895]

Players need to keep their mouths shut when it comes to the umpires. I will 100% support a zero-tolerance policy in this regard

Trying to police reactions is futile and counter productive. Frustration, disappointment etc will always be apparent in a players demeanour. You can’t fake or curtail it. It will be written all over their face.

Rugby Union is as an example where referees are respected no matter what. And it’s a sport full of interpretations. Players will shake their head and show obvious disappointment when decisions go against them. But they never back chat. I think this is the standard we should aim for

[sue 8,635]

9 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

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'.

My use of the term 'arm raising' was just shorthand to describe reactions to an umpire's decision or non-decision that is non-abusive.  You have been consistently using the term abuse to cover any reaction at all by a player.   Hence my 'yet again'.    One can disagree without being abusive in life and on the sports field too. 

[SPC 3,070]

Aggression and frustration are very easy to differentiate. Walking towards and umpire with arms out is different than appealing while on the the mark. 

[Lucifers Hero 37,524]

The arm raising is in the 'dissent' part of the rules rather than the 'abuse' part. 

'Abuse' is relatively clear.

'Dissent' needs to be defined, communicated and then applied consistently. 

Laughingly, the AFL term for penalising Andrews, Oliver, Mitchell et al and not other and more demonstrative arm raising/glaring at the umpire this weekend, is saying it was 'slippage'. Grammatically correct but it just looks like more AFL excuses. 

LOL, AFL call it for what it is:  The 'dissent' rule isn't working and its application is badly affecting the 'optics' of the game both the on-field play and off-field enjoyment/perceptions. 

The mistake isn't that of umpires and to say it is 'slippage' is making it their issue.  The problem is lack of definition and communication by the AFL to umpires and to players. 

Edited April 18, 2022 by Lucifers Hero

[deespicable me 1,445]

8 hours ago, Jjrogan said:

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.

Okay. So I'll give you an analogy. A bad one I'll admit but something akin to what you're saying.

Son comes into the room and poops on the floor. Father says "son, that was wrong, I'm going to rub your nose in it to teach you a lesson!"

Son says "no Father, don't tell me what is and isn't wrong, I'm now going to rub your nose in it"

See. Now we've got a situation where umpires are doing doo doos all over the place, then whenever a player says maybe you should stop defecating all over the place the umpire says "no, Don't tell me I'm stinking it up! Now I'm going to rub your nose in it so as to teach you a lesson."

Clearly the game has turned to sh*t.

[Lucifers Hero 37,524]

My favourite

 

 

Umpire abuse?

Edited April 18, 2022 by Lucifers Hero

[daisycutter 28,728]

it's going to turn into a game of 50m rules

will need a new name

[John Crow Batty 8,377]

5 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

it's going to turn into a game of 50m rules

will need a new name

50 metre penalties will win the Coleman Medal this season. 

[leave it to deever 16,592]

Umpires dont deserved to be abused. (well some of them).

Worst case scenario try having a 25 m penalty as well.

Big difference to a player being flattened off the ball and a player throwing up his arms in frustration over a bad call.

Edited April 18, 2022 by leave it to deever

[DeeSpencer 23,689]

1 hour ago, BDA said:

Players need to keep their mouths shut when it comes to the umpires. I will 100% support a zero-tolerance policy in this regard

Trying to police reactions is futile and counter productive. Frustration, disappointment etc will always be apparent in a players demeanour. You can’t fake or curtail it. It will be written all over their face.

Rugby Union is as an example where referees are respected no matter what. And it’s a sport full of interpretations. Players will shake their head and show obvious disappointment when decisions go against them. But they never back chat. I think this is the standard we should aim for

Yep when the ball is live in play in Rugby there's plenty happening and the refs don't start plucking penalties for players reactions. Then if the game is stopped the ref will interact with offending players or the captain and that interaction is always done with respect for the official.

I think the player on the mark for a set shot can have some interaction with the umpire and it doesn't have to be as formal as rugby as long as it's respectful. The only other player speaking to umps should be the captain, but the umps should just tell all the other players he's not listening, rather than be looking to punish them ala the Hawthorn one yesterday.

I can't believe they've made such a mess of this.

[Demonland 66,985]

16 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

My favourite

 

 

Umpire abuse?

That would be 200m

[Ethan Tremblay 28,851]

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

 

The last sentence is absolutely common sense, which unfortunately, isn’t all that common. 

[Nasher 33,246]

16 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

My favourite

 

 

Umpire abuse?

In all seriousness, this is a legitimate question that should be asked. If the goal is to change the culture of the sport regarding treatment of umpires from the top down, then senior coaches are just as responsible as the players. Chris Scott should be heavily fined every time he gets busted doing this.

[sue 8,635]

7 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

Umpires dont deserved to be abused. (well some of them).

Worst case scenario try having a 25 m penalty as well.

Big difference to a player being flattened off the ball and a player throwing up his arms in frustration over a bad call.

An excellent point.