The very, very contentious 50 for Dissent Rule

[sue 9,096]

30 minutes ago, Supermercado said:

I'd love to cop a rubbish free in the goalsquare and go right off.

You can go ahead and mouth off whenever a 50m penalty is given within the 50m arc.  Though I'm sure the AFL will wise up to that and allow the umps to award a second kick at goal from zero metres out.

[sue 9,096]

Another person who is not happy:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/stricter-respect-rules-putting-more-pressure-on-umpires-goldspink-20220419-p5aeir.html

Goldspink is in “no doubt” that respect towards umpires has improved since his time in the job, and he does not classify a player putting his arms in the air as dissent or abuse.

He also felt Hawthorn players were justified in expressing their disapproval of the dubious in-the-back free kick that Geelong forward Tom Hawkins received on Easter Monday.

“That decision was terrible,” he said.

[Jaded No More 68,835]

1 hour ago, rjay said:

"As to what that level (of Dissent) looks like, that's up to the umpire to decide, but we've been really clear on this. We have unanimous support from all the clubs, all the leaders of clubs, and in fact, they want us to pay these free kicks. 

That is seriously a dumb comment from Scott...and a total cop out.

For the players and clubs to be totally clear then how about the AFL be totally clear and transparent. Spell it out Brad...that's not clear, it's a clear cop out.

And this is precisely why this rule is a big mistake, because it relies on individual interpretation and that means inconsistency and inconsistency is the biggest problem with umpiring right now. 

[Yarra Valley Demon 127]

Brad Scott is an A-grade fool.  Hocking was bad, but this rubbish takes the cake.  He literally said as I was listening on SEN this afternoon that questioning an umpire's decision was dissent and should have a free/50 paid.  I can't believe the world we are living in. 

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,772]

4 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

And this is precisely why this rule is a big mistake, because it relies on individual interpretation and that means inconsistency and inconsistency is the biggest problem with umpiring right now. 

Didnt AFL say decisions paid were correct, and there had been some "slippage" being decisions not paid (that should have been)

How can Scott then say it can be up to umpires interpretation? 

It can't be both wrong (missed decisions) amd up to umpires to decide... 

Inconsistency is what infuriates people... this is designed for inconsistency, irrespective of whether you like the underlying rule or not.

[Left Foot Snap 2,383]

Scott is an absolute cloth eared Muppet. He never thinks he is wrong - which is dangerous arrogance. This will not be last thing he stuffs up, and let's hope he doesn't leave the game in as bad a state as he left North!

On the dissent rule, if they want to go hard then fine. But it needs to be applied CONSISTENTLY and not just when they feel like it.

[Bitter but optimistic 22,218]

12 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

And this is precisely why this rule is a big mistake, because it relies on individual interpretation and that means inconsistency and inconsistee biggest problem with umpiring right now.ncy is th 

12 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

And this is precisely why this rule is a big mistake, because it relies on individual interpretation and that means inconsistency and inconsistency is the biggest problem with umpiring right now. 

 

...and has been since I've been watching football!!!!!

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,772]

6 minutes ago, Left Foot Snap said:

Scott is an absolute cloth eared Muppet. He never thinks he is wrong - which is dangerous arrogance. This will not be last thing he stuffs up, and let's hope he doesn't leave the game in as bad a state as he left North!

On the dissent rule, if they want to go hard then fine. But it needs to be applied CONSISTENTLY and not just when they feel like it.

Agree

Consistency is far more important than where you set the threshold for the decision to be paid

Problem is, when you set the threshold really low the individual interpretation of dissent (which has element of subjectivity/feelings) will vary a lot  -  leading to worse inconsistency 

Edited April 19, 2022 by Graeme Yeats' Mullet

[The heart beats true 18,084]

This entire thing is a classic example of how the AFL ignores it’s stakeholders.

They sent out a memo to clubs after round 3, but did absolutely nothing to inform the millions of people who watch the game about how the rule was going to be adjudicated. It seems incredibly arrogant. Seeing a smug Scott brother explain to us that we should have known it was going to be like this only makes it much, much worse.

[picket fence 16,982]

3 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

This entire thing is a classic example of how the AFL ignores it’s stakeholders.

They sent out a memo to clubs after round 3, but did absolutely nothing to inform the millions of people who watch the game about how the rule was going to be adjudicated. It seems incredibly arrogant. Seeing a smug Scott brother explain to us that we should have known it was going to be like this only makes it much, much worse.

Touché, but guess what... The supporters, us, the Die hards aren't even in the equation, it is the Corporate Conglomeration of money moguls that this rule has been framed for. SANITISATION OF THE GREAT GAME!

BULLTISH 😱

[Macca 16,900]

53 minutes ago, sue said:

Don’t look for offence where none was meant. I simply meant that you will continued to be annoyed by forums being full of criticisms of umpire decisions even if the players behave as you wish. 

I wouldn't be the only one annoyed at the constant abuse of umpires here

As previously stated, the amount of time spent here yapping about inconsequential umpiring decisions is mind boggling

And lost amongst all the junk are some very intelligent evaluations

And you can bet London to a brick that our football department will be hammering home the message to all the players to accept the umpires decisions

In a close game, our players need to be highly disciplined towards any umpiring decision

That's the new landscape ... like it or lump it

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by Macca

[illbarto 373]

I for one shall be taking up the slack!

 

[Sir Why You Little 36,894]

On 4/18/2022 at 11:40 AM, Lord Nev said:

This old chestnut gets dragged out about every single rule change.

Has a Grand Final ever been decided by a 50 meter penalty?

It will be…

[Macca 16,900]

1 hour ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Did you see Frost? He was fair dinkum ready to burst.

Ha!

Just about every rule change introduced over the years has been met with huge waves of derision

From the Diamond/Square, interchange, 666, standing still on the mark, 50 metre penalties (before the latest incarnation) 2 umpires then 3 umpires, the original out on the full ruling etc etc

Waverley was mocked for years and then became a favourite ... there are numerous other examples

If the new rule has the desired effect we'll get used to that as well ... as previously stated, the 50m penalty often results in a goal scoring opportunity so it's a terrific deterrent

All the players need to do is keep their emotions in check once or twice a game.  How is that a big ask? 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

3 minutes ago, Macca said:

All the players need to do is keep their emotions in check once or twice a game.  How is that a big ask? 

"All" they need to do?

Big word, that "all".

When your direct opponent blatantly cheats and is rewarded for it and scores what is potentially the sealer? Not a big ask at all! It's next to nothing! Anyone would swallow it with a rueful smile and admiration for the guy who hoodwinked the umpires right under their very noses.

 

6 minutes ago, Macca said:

Waverley was mocked for years and then became a favourite ...

Show me someone who considered Waverley a favourite and I'll show you someone whose brain was addled from frostbite.

[Go the Biff 3,412]

1 hour ago, Macca said:

If someone could come up with a blueprint on how the game can be umpired correctly, they would deserve a medal

Many here think that I've given up - not so.  I genuinely believe the sport has so many grey areas (that will probably remain grey) that it's impossible to get even most of the decisions right

Think about GtB, have we not complained in the same way for our entire lives?  I stopped in my teens as I could see the futility in it all but most just continue on

It's fair to say that the conflict is a huge part of the sport but maybe it needs that conflict to remain highly interesting

Save me from what?

Having a strong opinion contrary to yours?

Macca you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I'm posting about umpiring in general. I'm not - my posts are entirely on the subject of this thread. I believe my views are supported in the article & statistics posted by @sue and the Darren Goldspink interview posted by @John Crow Batty.
 

In short, the AFL have created a situation which has backfired & umpires are being viewed with greater disdain as a result. And they are quoting a shortage of umpires as justification for their ham-fisted approach. And that on field abuse is the driver for this shortage.To pinch a line from Dennis Pagan "don't [censored] down my leg and tell me it's raining"

Umpiring in general, rules, grey areas etc would be a fine topic for a different thread which could generate some decent debate (in amongst some emotive tripe). Happy to chuck in my two 'penneth worth there should that eventuate

[rjay 24,811]

6 minutes ago, Macca said:

Just about every rule change introduced over the years has been met with huge waves of derision

I think the rule change is fine 'Macca', the image of the player back in the day giving the umpire a mouth full had to go.

What I don't like is the inconsistency of this particular rule and that Scott did nothing today to fix it, he in fact just made it worse.

As said earlier by another poster the fault isn't with the umpire it is fairly with HQ.

[rjay 24,811]

2 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Did you see Frost? He was fair dinkum ready to burst.

 

57 minutes ago, sue said:

Another person who is not happy:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/stricter-respect-rules-putting-more-pressure-on-umpires-goldspink-20220419-p5aeir.html

Goldspink is in “no doubt” that respect towards umpires has improved since his time in the job, and he does not classify a player putting his arms in the air as dissent or abuse.

He also felt Hawthorn players were justified in expressing their disapproval of the dubious in-the-back free kick that Geelong forward Tom Hawkins received on Easter Monday.

“That decision was terrible,” he said.

Poor old Frosty, he did well to hold it together.

It was a poor decision but again the umpires haven't been helped by HQ.

They've talked the talk for years about cutting out staging yet you see the Cats players (Danger & Hawkins) regularly doing it and Joe up in Brisbane making himself look like a goose...

An occasion wet lettuce leave won't stop it.

Get serious and hand out weeks on the sidelines, it will soon stop.

[loges 6,767]

3 hours ago, sue said:

Here is a report on the reasons for lack of umpires commissioned by the AFL in 2021.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-12/afl-umpire-shortage-in-community-australian-rules/100903628

Looks like abuse is the 8th (yes, eighth) biggest reason at 6%

• Work and study commitments (18 per cent)
• Health/injury/age related (14 per cent)
• Inadequate support/pay (13 per cent)
• Lack of enjoyment (10 per cent)

Abuse, at 6 per cent, was eighth on the list and half of inadequate support and pay (which is the one thing the AFL could actually fix).  Even if you argue the lack of enjoyment is entirely due to abuse (which is a dubious assumption) and should be added to the 6%, it is still not dominant.

Read that article and you will see all sorts of reasons for the lack of umpires, including a big drop off due to Covid possiby causing the AFL to hit the panic button.

So what is the point of all this over-reaction about abuse?   The AFL finds it easier to fiddle with the rules than do anything that requires some hard work.

This doesn't surprise me at all and upon thinking about it surely most of the abuse at lower levels surely comes from over the fence and not on the ground and there's a good reason for this, lower leagues have the yellow/red card system. So we're trying to fix the over the fence abuse problem by stronger rules towards on field behaviour. typical AFL logic.

[Macca 16,900]

1 hour ago, picket fence said:

Yeah, I did it for about 5 years eons ago. I loved it, the crowd getting into me, got called some really funny names, but always tried to be impartial and fair. You gotta remember I played 10 years of Amo footy and thought I had a good feel for the game.

One funny incident stands out. This big lumbering center half forward who thought he was Wayne Carey keep infringing in marking contests time and again. He would mouth of , shake his fist and threaten me with all sorts of inhumane tortures at the end of the game. Anyway at three quarter time he wanders over and asked what he had to do to get a free. I said play in front son. Anyway he said I'll tell you what If you start giving me some frees I could set you up with a beaut sort after the game........... I proceeded to pay the next 5 free kicks against him but mercifully gave him a couple late coz he played in front and slotted a couple.  He was my Best mate after the game and I still see him around and he tells his mates this ame story over and over again. My Umpiring career ended when this bloke decided it was a wise move to verbally abuse me and chest me coming of the ground at half time..I gave him more than he bargained for and then reported him. Not surprisingly he never fronted the Tribunal to get his 10 weeks. The league although supportive suggested that I take a break. I never went back after that!

That's a great story Picket! Good on ya!

I played until I dropped but never entertained the thought of umpiring ... and I don't know anyone else that ever did either

I've always admired those who chose that path though.  To last the distance you'd need a hide as thick as a rhino and a mindset like no other

Always remember my first game live ... at the Lake Oval in the late 60's.  Demons won but the thing I most remember was the full Police escort surrounding the umpires as they walked out on the ground.  There were a total of 5 umpires and about 8 policemen (and a couple of clydesdales)

And then the umpire holding the ball aloft in triumphant style!  (as if to say ... "I'm in Charge")

Not long after the Swans crowd started screaming at the umpire for the entire game (and afterwards) It was non-stop and quite an eye-opener for a young lad! I got out alive

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by Macca

[Macca 16,900]

14 minutes ago, Go the Biff said:

Macca you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I'm posting about umpiring in general. I'm not - my posts are entirely on the subject of this thread. I believe my views are supported in the article & statistics posted by @sue and the Darren Goldspink interview posted by @John Crow Batty.
 

In short, the AFL have created a situation which has backfired & umpires are being viewed with greater disdain as a result. And they are quoting a shortage of umpires as justification for their ham-fisted approach. And that on field abuse is the driver for this shortage.To pinch a line from Dennis Pagan "don't [censored] down my leg and tell me it's raining"

Umpiring in general, rules, grey areas etc would be a fine topic for a different thread which could generate some decent debate (in amongst some emotive tripe). Happy to chuck in my two 'penneth worth there should that eventuate

There's a connection between how the game is umpired and the possible umpire abuse ... for instance, the abuse might come about from a questionable umpiring decision

So nothing can be viewed in isolation in my view ... that's why I brought up the grey areas

So you might want to keep it at the dissent/abuse level bit I like broadening arguments so as to explain the big picture

As an example, if all the umpiring decisions were absolutely clear-cut, would we have any need to come down on abuse?

I'm a great believer in cause and effect ... as well as cutting out all the abuse & 'unnecessary' dissent the league also needs to make the game easier to umpire (with more clearly defined rules)

I've suggested doing something about the plethora of high contact frees (which are often soft) but with the new concussion protocols, what are the chances?

Apologies for going sideways but that's how I operate

In summary, I can't see much changing with regards to the supporter frustration from an overall perspective but the new ruling has my support (as long as we don't get another grey area!)

 

[Macca 16,900]

29 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

"All" they need to do?

Big word, that "all".

When your direct opponent blatantly cheats and is rewarded for it and scores what is potentially the sealer? Not a big ask at all! It's next to nothing! Anyone would swallow it with a rueful smile and admiration for the guy who hoodwinked the umpires right under their very noses.

 

Show me someone who considered Waverley a favourite and I'll show you someone whose brain was addled from frostbite.

I know a lot of people who loved Waverley ... a great big ground and some great footy played there as well

We obviously move in different circles.  Show me someone who didn't like Waverley and I'll show you a blinkered .....

As for accepting the umpires decision, those who transgress will be ridiculed eventually for giving away a needless 50 (and that might happen sooner than people think)

I'm tipping that this thread will be an interesting read in a years time ... or even in a few months time

Time will tell

 

 

[Macca 16,900]

35 minutes ago, rjay said:

I think the rule change is fine 'Macca', the image of the player back in the day giving the umpire a mouth full had to go.

What I don't like is the inconsistency of this particular rule and that Scott did nothing today to fix it, he in fact just made it worse.

As said earlier by another poster the fault isn't with the umpire it is fairly with HQ.

But of course the umpires will be blamed because blaming the rule-setters isn't very satisfying ... but that's if the ruling isn't clear-cut

If they get it right, the storm in the teacup will dissipate quickly

Right now, we need to stop talking as spectators ... do we want the players to yap on our behalf? Hmmmm

It's up to the players to behave and not overreact over a contentious decision.  Otherwise the penalty can be a big one

[daisycutter 29,596]

5 minutes ago, Macca said:

 

Time will tell

 

just like your predictions on never changing the predominately white away strip, eh macca

[Macca 16,900]

Just now, daisycutter said:

just like your predictions on never changing the predominately white away strip, eh macca

You're clutching at straws now, dc haha

Deep down you know I'm right but you're unable to switch ... hard to change a habit of a lifetime isn't it?