1 minute ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

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

with facial detection software and umps mic'ed up it's probably available now

i'm tipping yellow/red card next cab off the rank. afl and broadcasters would love the theatre of it 

I suggest, if we must go down this road, that players/teams be given a warning before being penalised, as is the case with 666.

4 minutes ago, waynewussell said:

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!

And maybe they could show their respect of umpires by paying them properly!

They could even pay $500 a year to all those 6000 missing junior umpires by taking a few paycuts.  

1 minute ago, sue said:

And maybe they could show their respect of umpires by paying them properly!

They could even pay $500 a year to all those 6000 missing junior umpires by taking a few paycuts.  

afl have shown scant regard for junior and grass roots football

they happily spend as little as they can get away with

it's not just a shortage of umps at junior level, it's also players

46 minutes ago, layzie said:

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.  

Agree with what you've said. It's not just a problem for this sporting code,  recently seen articles about hockey/netball/soccer all having referee shortages. I'm involved in a local soccer club and dread the Friday afternoon email saying no referee assigned to certain games.

How can it be fixed though? They're trying this method (over-punishing dissent )which may get the players in line but not going to stop someone from the crowd getting lippy. In the rugby codes the players have more respect for the referee, but not always from the crowd. Respect/lack of dissent from the players won't stop the issue of referee/umpire -shortages at local level, especially post covid when lots of people may have dropped out of these roles.

 

4 minutes ago, sue said:

They could even pay $500 a year to all those 6000 missing junior umpires by taking a few paycuts.  

You'd want a lot more than $500 a year to umpire at junior level ... more like $5k as umpires at junior level often have to umpire 3 or 4 games per weekend (due to the lack of numbers)

That's if you'd want to do it anyway ... who would want to cop abuse left, right & centre just because you're trying to umpire a sport with more grey areas than a Melbourne winter?  And that abuse often comes from parents.  How pathetic is that?

It's any wonder there is such a shortfall of umpires (at all levels)

So it starts at the top ... the AFL needs to set a real example with regards to respect for umpires

 

40 minutes ago, Macca said:

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)

 

 

 

Players should always be able to ask what a decision was for as long as they do it with respect.

5 minutes ago, Macca said:

You'd want a lot more than $500 a year to umpire at junior level ... more like $5k as umpires at junior level often have to umpire 3 or 4 games per weekend (due to the lack of numbers)

That's if you'd want to do it anyway ... who would want to cop abuse left, right & centre just because you're trying to umpire a sport with more grey areas than a Melbourne winter?  And that abuse often comes from parents.  How pathetic is that?

It's any wonder there is such a shortfall of umpires (at all levels)

So it starts at the top ... the AFL needs to set a real example with regards to respect for umpires

 

I don't know enough about the age profiles of junior to more senior umpires, and thus what the wage scale should be to be attractive at each level, but I reckon a lot of young kids would be keen to get $500 or less. 

And your argument is circular - if we had the 6000 missing umpires, no one would need to umpire 3-4 games per weekend.

As for starting at the top, how about the AFL showing some respect to umpires by paying them professionally FT. 

The abuse from parents can be dealt by other means, eg. if you abuse an umpire, your kid is suspended for the day, week whatever.  Sadly the AFL can't improve the weather.

2 minutes ago, loges said:

Players should always be able to ask what a decision was for as long as they do it with respect.

Why?  I would have thought that nearly all players know what the indiscretion is when they transgress

Take the Lever example (and I'm not taking sides) ... he clipped the GWS player high.  A soft free kick yes, but that's the way the game is umpired

And Lever would have known what he did too.  So under the new ruling Lever must accept the umpires decision, shut up and get on with it

Now, I'm not blaming Lever for the 50 ... for all we know another player might have reacted the wrong way

The issue for the spectators is that the players aren't mic'd up so we have to accept the decision not knowing what might have been said or done

 

Just now, sue said:

And your argument is circular - if we had the 6000 missing umpires, no one would need to umpire 3-4 games per weekend.

The reason we don't have enough umpires at junior level is because of the abuse

It's not rocket science

Circular argument?  What a load of rot.  I'm pointing out what the issue is

 

10 minutes ago, loges said:

Players should always be able to ask what a decision was for as long as they do it with respect.

There is no reason why players can't still ask an umpire to explain a decision for them respectfully when the play has stopped. I've done it many times myself because the conversation is genuine, not dissenting. It could be as simple as saying "In the back?" which then is responded with "Yeah" or "Nah, it was high". Was the decision right or wrong? It doesn't matter.

Throwing your arms up in the air, turning to the umpire and yelling "What for?!?!" is not respectful, it's a way of trying to tell the umpire (and everyone that can see/hear) that you think they're wrong. 

As Macca says, by round 15 the players will be self policing it in the same way that rugby players do. You can even see it happening now. How many times will you overtly complain about decisions when the last time you did it you got a 50 m penalty and 21 team mates giving you the death stare?

33 minutes ago, Macca said:

The reason we don't have enough umpires at junior level is because of the abuse

It's not rocket science

Circular argument?  What a load of rot.  I'm pointing out what the issue is

 

My apologies if circular is not be exactly the right word, but you said the junior umps had to do 3 to 4 matches per weekend.  I was simply saying if we had the missing 6000 umpires, they would not have to do so many matches each.  So you were being inconsistent/circular/over-egging the problem/whatever is the right word for the logical error you were making. Nothing to do with rocket science or rot or indeed the issue.

This is a concerning thought.  What are the odds that in a pressure cooker Grand final that a (or more likely several) controversial interpretations of the umpire’s dissent rule determines who wins the premiership?

Answer- BIG!!!!!

This issue needs to be resolved sooner than later.

1 hour ago, roy11 said:

Agree with what you've said. It's not just a problem for this sporting code,  recently seen articles about hockey/netball/soccer all having referee shortages. I'm involved in a local soccer club and dread the Friday afternoon email saying no referee assigned to certain games.

How can it be fixed though? They're trying this method (over-punishing dissent )which may get the players in line but not going to stop someone from the crowd getting lippy. In the rugby codes the players have more respect for the referee, but not always from the crowd. Respect/lack of dissent from the players won't stop the issue of referee/umpire -shortages at local level, especially post covid when lots of people may have dropped out of these roles.

 

Roy11, I've watched a fair amount of grass roots footy. I certainly don't disagree with what you say. From my observation, the one thing that does seem to have a significant impact is the selection of coach. 

Strong coaches have the capacity to be incredibly influential. Even the idiots will follow the lead of a coach who leads by positive example. 

I remember watching two matches involving Frankston Pines. Their reserves coach at the time should never have been allowed to coach. Abusive, volatile and, of course, the crowd dutifully followed his lead in behaving in a threatening manner towards the umpire. In contrast, the senior coach was all that you would want in a coach of a team. And players and supporters alike followed suit re their own behaviour.

It wasn't a one off. I've seen it time and again.

 

 

Edited April 19, 20223 yr by Return to Glory

i'm really hating the umpiring standards this year, the contentious and technical, non-consequential 50m penalties and now the new baffling umpire dissent adjudications

it is all so frustrating and ruining my enjoyment of the game

and i don't think i'm alone

53 minutes ago, Macca said:

 

Now, I'm not blaming Lever for the 50 ... for all we know another player might have reacted the wrong way

The issue for the spectators is that the players aren't mic'd up so we have to accept the decision not knowing what might have been said or done

 

I thought the umpire (or one of them) said that the 50 was awarded against Clayton Oliver for something he said when the free was paid 

I don't think it was awarded for simply having arms outstretched or raised 

30 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

There is no reason why players can't still ask an umpire to explain a decision for them respectfully when the play has stopped. I've done it many times myself because the conversation is genuine, not dissenting. It could be as simple as saying "In the back?" which then is responded with "Yeah" or "Nah, it was high". Was the decision right or wrong? It doesn't matter.

Throwing your arms up in the air, turning to the umpire and yelling "What for?!?!" is not respectful, it's a way of trying to tell the umpire (and everyone that can see/hear) that you think they're wrong. 

As Macca says, by round 15 the players will be self policing it in the same way that rugby players do. You can even see it happening now. How many times will you overtly complain about decisions when the last time you did it you got a 50 m penalty and 21 team mates giving you the death stare?

The basic difference bewteen the 2 sides in this debate is that some of us do not see what is wrong with telling everyone that you think the umpire is wrong as long as you don't do it abusively.  I don't feel disrespected when you disagree on this with me, and I trust you feel the same. 

At bottom the only argument for stamping all emotion out of it seems to be that we can't recruit junior umpires because they get abused.    Has the AFL examined all ways of fixing that? Or even respecting senior umpires by paying them like they pay themselves at Head Office?  No, they have put bugger-all effort into junior footy because there is no short-term money in it.

1 hour ago, Macca said:

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)

You can’t punish an emotional response where there’s no abuse/swearing included. It’s an absolute joke, sport is emotional. Think about the rule, raising the arms in confusion, without any verbalisation, is a 50m penalty. If anyone agrees with that, thinks the game is better for it and that all players will stop doing it, would have survived well in Nazi Germany. Speak up, don’t suppress your feelings, it’s not good for mental health. But don’t instinctively raise your arms in confusion.. far out. 

Edited April 19, 20223 yr by Ethan Tremblay

2 minutes ago, Sydee said:

I thought the umpire (or one of them) said that the 50 was awarded against Clayton Oliver for something he said when the free was paid 

I don't think it was awarded for simply having arms outstretched or raised 

Probably sounded like Ahhhhh &8^%90k

Why not get the designers of the Goal Review system and have an Ump Respect Review system. Average out 2 minutes per review (based on Goal Review)Then we could reduce games to 5 minutes and be like Grid iron and take 4 hours to play.

22 minutes ago, sue said:

My apologies if circular is not be exactly the right word, but you said the junior umps had to do 3 to 4 matches per weekend.  I was simply saying if we had the missing 6000 umpires, they would not have to do so many matches each. 

And the clear reason why we have a shortfall of umpires is because of the levels of abuse

So cut out the levels of abuse (at all levels)

Do you agree?

12 minutes ago, Sydee said:

I thought the umpire (or one of them) said that the 50 was awarded against Clayton Oliver for something he said when the free was paid 

I don't think it was awarded for simply having arms outstretched or raised 

Fair enough

If that is what happened then we need to cop it (the team that is)

I didn't have a problem with the decision at the time as I was assuming that one of our players had transgressed

I don't agree with the notion some are running with that "oh well, whatever the rule is, players will adjust".

The rule does matter. Let's say there is a new rule that when lining up for a set shot, it doesn't count unless you close your eyes. Well, guess what, players will adjust to that too and will start taking set shots closing their eyes (otherwise the score won't count).

So it's not simply a case of saying the players will adjust. The rule matters and has to be based in reasonableness and the look of the game. And the "arms out" automatic 50 rule is a horrendous look for the game. We are asking human beings giving their all in a brutal, physical sport, to not show any emotional body language of surprise or disappointment or frustration. A player may have just run his guts out all game to help win the game for his club and is not meant to show any body language response to a crucial last-quarter decision when mentally and physically fatigued?

It is absolutely ridiculous. Arms out can be abusive if it's combined with swearing or yelling at an umpire. That should be punished. But simply holding your arms out in a non-threatening and non-abusive way is a human body language reaction. We don't want to strip the emotion and passion out of the game and have critical 50s paid for absolutely trivial incidents.

10 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

You can’t punish an emotional response where there’s no abuse/swearing included. It’s an absolute joke, sport is emotional. Think about the rule, raising the arms in confusion, without any verbalisation, is a 50m penalty. If anyone agrees with that, thinks the game is better for it and that all players will stop doing it, would have survived well in Nazi Germany. Speak up, don’t suppress your feelings, it’s not good for mental health. But don’t instinctively raise your arms in confusion.. far out. 

That's your opinion ET and fair enough.  Each to their own

I believe that the players will eventually learn how to just get on with it

We're going to have some teething issues and it might take all season to sort it all out.  And some tweeking might be required

None of us are experts on the outcomes here.  Why?  Because it's a new rule and we're not sure where it will end up

However, the new ruling needs to be clear cut and in our sport, zero tolerance can often work quite well (but not always)

In my view, the umpires need to be respected a lot more so I welcome the new ruling

In my experience at local level nearly every player had the utmost respect for umpires & their decisions.  In footy you would be sent off for dissent (and weeks) and in cricket you got weeks on the sidelines for the same sorts of indiscretions

And that's at pure amateur level

I rarely even heard of a player crossing the line.  We all knew the consequences

5 minutes ago, Macca said:

Fair enough

If that is what happened then we need to cop it (the team that is)

I didn't have a problem with the decision at the time as I was assuming that one of our players had transgressed

That's one of the many problems with this.  With most frees and other 50m penalties, the spectator has some basis on which to form an opinion (however wrong) on why it was paid or not.    

4 hours 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. 

 

 

 

Typical jerk AFL knee jerk reaction. 

2 hours ago, PaulRB said:

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. 

Venting  verbally or confronting - absolutely yes;  questioning, looking confused or exasperated - no.