1 hour ago, dee-tox said:

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. 

 

 

 

Players have always been allowed to ask what a decision was for, this penalising raising of the arms is such an over reaction. To me raising raising the arms in itself only implies" what was that for" it does not imply dissent or abuse. Should only be penalised if the player mouths off or becomes overly demonstrative. Current situation is a complete farce and will cause the umpires and the AFL more derision.

Just now, Nasher said:

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.

Agreed.

And what happens when that is replayed on the big screen at the ground, which broadcasts will do as it is part of the theatre.  The next time a player on that field 'dissents' what is the umpire to do.  Damned if he penalises and damned if he doesn't. 

5 minutes ago, Nasher said:

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.

I’m not sure if this is tongue in cheek or not. You can’t punish someone for being emotional, Scott’s not being abusive here. It’s quite scary to me that people are calling for instinctive emotions (not abuse) to be punished. You can’t bottle up the frustration/emotions in such a high-intensity environment. 

Edited April 18, 20223 yr by Ethan Tremblay

2 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I’m not sure if this is tongue in cheek or not. You can’t punish someone for being emotional, Scott’s not being abusive here. It’s quite scary to me that people are calling for instinctive emotions (not abuse) to be punished. 

Robbo gave the solution, do away with all the players and use robots.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend I have no idea why this has been made a point of focus. We all know that there needs to be a level of respect for umpires, with a shortage of qualified umpires at all levels of the game we need to stamp out the disrespectful behaviour towards these men and women and make this an attractive option for kids choosing a sport to pursue.  

However, and this is a big however because it is driving me absolutely nuts at the moment. Is it necessary to teach professional footballers to suck eggs? I get that we're trying to condition new behaviour but do we really have to turn the football field into a classroom from the early 20th century where you get the strap if you look sideways at the teacher? In my opinion players are well within their rights to ask the question behind a decision made, yes the umpire's decision is final but there needs to continue to be dialogue between official and player.

I don't know who came up with the theory that raising the arms in surprise is bad and punishable by 50 but it's ridiculous. Players are not robots. They train themselves into the ground then come game time they go into battle and I feel like we're asking them to be perfect in the heat of the moment, get off the grass! 

If they want to persist with this attitude, then go for it. But that means penalising everything. I've seen A LOT of players with 'arms out' appealing for a deliberate out of bounds and honestly going pretty over the top but nothing happening, ping them for that. I've seen players wait 2 seconds before not throwing the ball perfectly to the recipient of the free kick, ping that. I've seen Jack Reiwoldt joke with the umpire last week that he was going to go the Torp right before he did, ping that (ok bit over the top). 

It's just becoming a hard game to watch when substantial penalties are given for what the eyeballs are seeing is very little to nothing at all. 50s for dissent, 50s for breaching the stand rule and taking 1 step backwards on the mark. Our game is supposed to be about execution, athleticism and toughness. Right now it feels like mime or charades or whatever. 

18 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.

Not to mention moving his toe when told to 'stand'!  Or following opponent who has led you near the no-go zone of his teammate ready to kick.

You make a very good point.  If there was a 25m penalty their would be less outrage over these 'lesser' sins even if there is a rare 'slippage'. 

Edited April 18, 20223 yr by Lucifers Hero

9 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

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.

Definitely happened to us on Saturday night I’ve got no doubt on it. We’d got so badly screwed by the umpires with almost all the 50/50’s going GWS’s way, and suddenly in the third quarter 50/50’s started to sway our way as well as some just simply bad decisions (a couple of HTB’s in which the GWS did actually dispose of it properly). 

I think the intention behind the rules against dissent is good, as we don’t want disrespectful behaviour such as what happens in the round ball game. But there needs to be a middle ground because it’s actually causing fans to dislike the umpires even more, if it’s direct abuse or aggression then it should be punished. If a player is putting their arms up and asking (even if a little emotionally) what the free kick was for, then just grow a thick skin and remember it’s an emotional game. 

I also think that while they are working this out it should be reduced to a 25m penalty, the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. 

EDIT: below is the sort of behaviour they’re trying to prevent and it’s a good thing.

Edited April 18, 20223 yr by Pates

3 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I’m not sure if this is tongue in cheek or not. You can’t punish someone for being emotional, Scott’s not being abusive here. It’s quite scary to me that people are calling for instinctive emotions (not abuse) to be punished. You can’t bottle up the frustration/emotions in such a high-intensity environment. 

Nobody has said players aren’t allowed to be emotional. That’s a strawman argument.

The reason players can’t control their frustration is because they’ve been conditioned that they don’t have to. I’m betting by round 15, players have magically figured the secret and will pull off the impossible (according to you), and won’t be arguing with the umpires at all.

There was one moment early in the game that was picked up on the mic. Trac gave away a (soft) free and just said to the umpire, “can you watch it?”, to which the umpire said “I’ll watch it”. I suppose Trac should have just flapped his wings and stomped his foot.

5 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Nobody has said players aren’t allowed to be emotional. That’s a strawman argument.

The reason players can’t control their frustration is because they’ve been conditioned that they don’t have to. I’m betting by round 15, players have magically figured the secret and will pull off the impossible (according to you), and won’t be arguing with the umpires at all.

There was one moment early in the game that was picked up on the mic. Trac gave away a (soft) free and just said to the umpire, “can you watch it?”, to which the umpire said “I’ll watch it”. I suppose Trac should have just flapped his wings and stomped his foot.

It’s human behaviour to be emotional and question what you perceive as a poor judgement. Raising or putting your arms out is an automatic response. You can’t just tell people to stop doing it all of a sudden, it’s an instinct. 

According to the new ‘dissent’ rule, asking an umpire to watch the screen is a 50m penalty. Additionally, the player doesn’t have to stomp his foot or even carry on, simply raising the arms is a 50m penalty. We don’t want the players to be robots, but….. 

Edited April 18, 20223 yr by Ethan Tremblay

2 minutes ago, Nasher said:

There was one moment early in the game that was picked up on the mic. Trac gave away a (soft) free and just said to the umpire, “can you watch it?”, to which the umpire said “I’ll watch it”. I suppose Trac should have just flapped his wings and stomped his foot.

Honestly a different umpire will take that as dissent, they’ll take that as “questioning the decision, thus disrespecting the umpire”. That’s my issue, there needs to be a middle ground that allows the player in the moment to be able to question the decision and even disagree with the call. 

11 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Robbo gave the solution, do away with all the players and use robots.

or just do away with umpires

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

I appreciate your comment BDA and I do agree that we need to strive for a standard of behaviour from players. The one thing I will point out with Rugby Union refs is that there is an avenue for players to ask questions about decisions and why they were made. Only the captain can do this and it's usually a very short explanation but I would hope there is some scope for this in AFL where players can ask the question and learn from decisions.

1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

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).🙃

Maggots have become a protected species.

Ill probably be visited by  a posse of them soon for this post.

12 minutes ago, Nasher said:

The reason players can’t control their frustration is because they’ve been conditioned that they don’t have to. I’m betting by round 15, players have magically figured the secret and will pull off the impossible (according to you), and won’t be arguing with the umpires at all.

Given that raising the arms up or outward when questioning an umpires call is penalised, I’ll happily take that bet. As much as people don’t want them to be, players are humans, not robots. 
 

People also raise their arms instinctively when confused or puzzled. To police this is bordering cruel. There’s plenty of articles on arm body language, feel free to have a read or don’t.

Edited April 19, 20223 yr by Ethan Tremblay

17 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Not to mention moving his toe when told to 'stand'!  Or following opponent who has led you near the no-go zone of his teammate ready to kick.

You make a very goTx Lod point.  If there was a 25m penalty their would be less outrage over these 'lesser' sins even if there is a rare 'slippage'. 

Thanks LH

the problem with just the one penalty (I know they can double up) but its a one size sentence for all infractions.

A few different penalties ie 20...40...60....would allow for a  little creativity and fairness  and possible make the game more interesting and less devastating on the scoreboard for players throwing their arms up.

I wonder how these umpires manage peak hour traffic abuse or dealing with call centres.

Edited April 18, 20223 yr by leave it to deever

1 minute ago, leave it to deever said:

Thanks LH

the problem with just the one penalty (I know they can double up) but its a one size sentence for all infractions.

A few different penalties ie 20...40...60....would allow for a  little creativity and fairness  and possible make the game more interesting,

Sometimes, umpires struggle to count the 50m correctly so too many penalties might generate a different sort of umpire outrage from fans.

I like your first suggestion best:  25m and 50m.

2 minutes ago, Nasher said:

...The reason players can’t control their frustration is because they’ve been conditioned that they don’t have to. I’m betting by round 15, players have magically figured the secret and will pull off the impossible (according to you), and won’t be arguing with the umpires at all.

...

You are probably right that the players can in time be terrified into almost any behaviour by penalising the team.  But arguing with the ump is not the same as expressing disagreement/frustration or asking for clarification in a non-abusive way.

 But that is what the AFL's 'rules' are trying to equate.   And umps will still be abused by the crowd.  Only more so if players get 50m penalities for rolling their eyes.

If this is all driven by the lack of junior umpires, how about making umpiring a career path by paying them generously at many levels.  Young kids who can run but know they will never be good players will be attracted to the possibility of making it in the bigger leagues as umpires.

Just now, leave it to deever said:

Thanks LH

the problem with just the one penalty (I know they can double up) but its a one size sentence for all infractions.

A few different penalties ie 20...40...60....would allow for a  little creativity and fairness  and possible make the game more interesting,

Good luck getting umps to judge all those distances. They have enough trouble with 15m. (Sorry, that was disrespectful.)  25m and 50m makes sense.

22 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Robbo gave the solution, do away with all the players and use robots.

"It does not compute"

Thats 50 for Dissent

On 4/17/2022 at 9:30 AM, picket fence said:

DREAM POLICE pinging blokes for facial expressions depicting dissent?

 

impure thoughts won't be far off now

43 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

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

Why? What did you think would happen?

Appointment of Brad Scott was just another out-of-work clubland person deemed to be suitable for this type of role in the AFL. 

Need to identfy better strategic implementation- types to take on the football ops roles at senior level in the AFL.

How on earth could Scott have signed off on the arms waving interpretation. He of all people should know better.

But the AFL is a club in itself and won't improve in this regard.

 

Edited April 19, 20223 yr by Demon17
spelling mistakes

The consensus here seems to be that players need to be able to react to a free kick paid against them ... I disagree.  Habits can be changed especially with a zero tolerance approach as a punishment

Players will adapt and they will need to do so quickly.  The coaches will be in their ears with "Accept the umpires decision, don't react, shut up and man the mark.  Don't punish the team any further, you've already given away the free kick, right or wrong"

And if you think the coaches won't be instructing the players that way, you'll be wrong

Eventually the spectator ire will be pointed towards the offending player (not the penalty) ... and that's already happening with a few here pointing out the player error (with regards to exasperated reactions)

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

impure thoughts won't be far off now

I wouldn’t be surprised if facial expressions are punished in the near future 

Edited April 19, 20223 yr by Ethan Tremblay

I think after Toby Green walked through an umpire late last year, this crack down on players “venting” in the direction of umpires was both coming and necessary. 
sometimes, to prevent more serious actions (ie umpire assault), you need to crack down in the earlier and seemingly innocuous incidents that led to it.

I’m not a huge fan of it, but happy to endure it so the players stop venting at the umpires. 

It's blatantly obvious that the AFL, itself, has a real problem with respect for the umpires! Otherwise they would have appointed a retired VFL/AFL umpire to the position of 'rules maker', laws of the game committee!