I hope we tell our players not to appeal for frees, verbally or with hands out, as that will have to be a free and 50 against us. If the umpire didn’t award a free, appealing will be against his decision and obviously under the rules dissent.

My anger is with the AFL, not the umpires, as I have posted previously. This is a pathetic and unnecessary rule.

It has always been a rule that dissent is penalised and we should have left it at that. Clearly former umpire Goldspink agrees, as does nearly every ex player in the media. 

watch from 00:21 - this is the bloke lecturing the league on dissent. It should be broadcast on every network. Hypocritical tool bag

let's also mention tht he tried to run through David King on the field whilst King was working as a broadcaster, and also started a fight with Damian Barrett in a pub. The bloke was one of the game’s greatest hot heads and so is his brother

Edited April 19, 20223 yr by Kick_It_To_Pickett

12 minutes ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

watch from 00:21 - this is the bloke lecturing the league on dissent. It should be broadcast on every network. Hypocritical tool bag

let's also mention tht he tried to run through David King on the field whilst King was working as a broadcaster, and also started a fight with Damian Barrett in a pub. The bloke was one of the game’s greatest hot heads and so is his brother

Clearly it’s do as I say, not as I do.

You can’t have rules that are subjective and based on how a person (the umpire) ‘feels’. Yes, absolutely stamp out abuse, verbal or otherwise (a clenched fist, middle finger etc), but penalising a player for simply raising their arms, demonstrating confusion or appealing for a free kick, is ludicrous. It’s beyond me how a rational person can support that part of the rule. It’s bordering scary that an organisation has the power to stop someone from raising their arms in that manner. 

Brad Scott is already doing a far worse job than his predecessor SHocking, and Gil is equally culpable.

It is absolutely out of control and will only get worse.

IF they thought it would result in less booing of umpires then they can't read a crowd, and have thrown the umpires under the bus in the process.  I don't really see how it can now be undone.  

Could be the beginning of the end of AFL as a prime spectator sport (or as "an experience" as the marketing types would put it).

Mark Robinson is confused and steadfastly against this rule interpretation.

That should be enough for all of us to reflect and see the benefits of the new interpretation and it’s necessity for the game’s future.

Just don’t tell the umpire to look at the screen and whine like a little [censored] when you give away a free.

5 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Mark Robinson is confused and steadfastly against this rule interpretation.

That should be enough for all of us to reflect and see the benefits of the new interpretation and it’s necessity for the game’s future.

Just don’t tell the umpire to look at the screen and whine like a little [censored] when you give away a free.

Do you agree with a player being penalised 50m for raising their arms when appealing for a free or when confused by a decision? 

1 minute ago, rpfc said:

Just don’t tell the umpire to look at the screen and whine like a little [censored] when you give away a free.

Think you have missed the point. That is clear dissent and has always been.

We are now penalising players who STAND on the mark, don’t say anything to the umpire, or even look at the umpire, but merely put their arms out.

Too bad if they put their arms out, merely to put the player having the kick off his kick.

The rule is arms out 50. That is a joke, except nobody is laughing.

2 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Do you agree with a player being penalised 50m for raising their arms when appealing for a free or when confused by a decision? 

How do you ‘APPEAL for a free AFTER the decision’?

Its just whining to the umpire and if it universally applied then it makes it easier to officiate. 

If you GESTICULATE, the umpire won’t EQUIVOCATE.

7 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Think you have missed the point. That is clear dissent and has always been.

We are now penalising players who STAND on the mark, don’t say anything to the umpire, or even look at the umpire, but merely put their arms out.

Too bad if they put their arms out, merely to put the player having the kick off his kick.

The rule is arms out 50. That is a joke, except nobody is laughing.

I have had coaches say (and have said myself) - “just don’t say anything to the umpires” for yeeaaarrrrrssss… 

But of course the next thing said was ‘unless you are standing around, then you can quietly whinge like a [censored] in their direction - now get out there and get the footy!!’

3 minutes ago, rpfc said:

How do you ‘APPEAL for a free AFTER the decision’?

Its just whining to the umpire and if it universally applied then it makes it easier to officiate. 

If you GESTICULATE, the umpire won’t EQUIVOCATE.

well in round 4 i saw an umpire reverse a decision - can't remember which game

umpire 1 paid a free against a player. player appealed, no fifty

a good 5-10 seconds later umpire 2 runs in and indicates the free should have been to the other team, as all the players were setting up for the first free.

they decided on a ball-up 

just saying..... i thought it a good resolution and wished it happened more often when different umpires see it differently, as i'm sure probably happens reasonably often 

6 minutes ago, rpfc said:

How do you ‘APPEAL for a free AFTER the decision’?

Its just whining to the umpire and if it universally applied then it makes it easier to officiate. 

If you GESTICULATE, the umpire won’t EQUIVOCATE.

If a player raises their arms during play and advocates for a free, the umpires have been instructed to penalise via way of a free-kick against the player who has raised their arms. It doesn’t matter if they’re appealing a free or for a free. I’ve attempted to explain this as simply as possible, it’s an absurd rule. 

20 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

You can’t have rules that are subjective and based on how a person (the umpire) ‘feels’. Yes, absolutely stamp out abuse, verbal or otherwise (a clenched fist, middle finger etc), but penalising a player for simply raising their arms, demonstrating confusion or appealing for a free kick, is ludicrous. It’s beyond me how a rational person can support that part of the rule. It’s bordering scary that an organisation has the power to stop someone from raising their arms in that manner. 

The abuse aspect is self explanatory but the remonstration with the arms needs defining.  The players need to know what they can and can't do

Unacceptable would be the player moving towards the umpire with arms oustretched in a threatening manner as per the video above

At the other end of the scale would be self disappointment with a slight shoulder shrug or absolute minimum movement of the arms ... that can't be penalised

Anything inbetween needs clarity

Do the clubs still get instructional videos?

3 minutes ago, Macca said:

The abuse aspect is self explanatory but the remonstration with the arms needs defining.  The players need to know what they can and can't do

Unacceptable would be the player moving towards the umpire with arms oustretched in a threatening manner as per the video above

At the other end of the scale would be self disappointment with a slight shoulder shrug or absolute minimum movement of the arms ... that can't be penalised

Anything inbetween needs clarity

Do the clubs still get instructional videos?

Yes, understood. But you’re asking the umpire to officiate based off how they felt. Personally, I would never feel threatened by a player raising their arms and looking or walking towards me. It’s a subjective rule. It’s beyond me that people can’t comprehend this.

I’m sure any instructional videos released by the AFL would just confuse the players and everyone even more. “This is a threatening arms raise” “this isn’t”. Seriously? 

Edited April 19, 20223 yr by Ethan Tremblay

Spreading ones arms and shaking a head is a very normal human reaction and may well be in many cases actually berating oneself.  Ever see a golfer who hits a shank or a duck hook and shakes his head or spreads his arms?  

Now, thanks to the infinite wisdom of AFL HQ that sort of reaction is automatically deemed to be abuse, or disrespectful.

Like the mindreaders in yellow, who call "insufficient intent", they now apparently KNOW what the player is thinking.

11 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

If a player raises their arms during play and advocates for a free, the umpires have been instructed to penalise via way of a free-kick against the player who has raised their arms. It doesn’t matter if they’re appealing a free or for a free. I’ve attempted to explain this as simply as possible, it’s an absurd rule. 

That’s not what I have read/heard. Appealing is different to remonstrating, and remonstrating is demonstrating dissent. 

Umpiring is in an awful state up and down the leagues and something had to be done. 

Bit of discussion on the impact of abuse on umpires. I umpired around 150 junior and senior games. I used to do it on Sundays after playing on Saturdays. Yes, you tended to be a bit sore afterwards but it was a good freshen up and great pocket money!

Getting abuse is par for the course as an umpire. It mainly came from the drunken bogans in the crowd rather than the players. With the players, they always knew you were the one in control. So, ridiculous threatening or abusive language was always met by a 50-metre penalty. Players are quick learners and if you had a reputation for not putting up with crap, the players quickly adjusted. 

Also the fact that you played the game to a decent standard is a big factor in how umpires are treated. I found the umps that struggled most were those who never really had an affinity for the game. Believe me there were a few who took it up just for the money! We were always available after the game to have a a beer and a chat and i think that helped as well. I found after a while that the players became very supportive of your efforts on field and actually helped keep everyone in line. A two way respect, if you like.

The one thing I will say now is how difficult it is to umpire with all the grey area interpretations. This dissent rule is going the same way.

We were always taught to pay the first free kick you saw. That way you set the standard for the whole game and you kept it relatively simple. 

20 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Yes, understood. But you’re asking the umpire to officiate based off how they felt. Personally, I would never feel threatened by a player raising their arms and looking or walking towards me. It’s a subjective rule. It’s beyond me that people can’t comprehend this.

A better way would be clearly defined actions either penalised or not penalised.  Abuse gets automatically penalised

I've said right throughout that I like the ruling in principle with the caveat that we can't have another grey area

The grey area could be that the benefit of the doubt goes to the player manning the mark if that's players actions are deemed to be quite harmless

I reckon I could be able to differentiate the difference and I've never umpired a game of footy

Edited April 19, 20223 yr by Macca

2 hours ago, Macca said:

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? 

So long as it is applied consistently.

2 minutes ago, Left Foot Snap said:

So long as it is applied consistently.

That's the tricky bit ... in a post above I indicated that the grey area has to be minimal and that small portion of grey area possibly could see the benefit of the doubt go to the player manning the mark

But it's early doors ... the teething problems will remain whilst the new ruling sorts itself out

We've already had the AFL admitting that 6 indiscretions were missed on the weekend (6 were enforced)

And 5 'clear' examples of transgressions (in video form?) have been sent to the clubs to peruse

So they are treating the whole thing quite seriously ... that's why I'm so interested.  Could be a real game-changer

22 minutes ago, Macca said:

That's the tricky bit ... in a post above I indicated that the grey area has to be minimal and that small portion of grey area possibly could see the benefit of the doubt go to the player manning the mark

But it's early doors ... the teething problems will remain whilst the new ruling sorts itself out

We've already had the AFL admitting that 6 indiscretions were missed on the weekend (6 were enforced)

And 5 'clear' examples of transgressions (in video form?) have been sent to the clubs to peruse

So they are treating the whole thing quite seriously ... that's why I'm so interested.  Could be a real game-changer

Consistency will enable acceptance. No excuses. Players infringe, umpires adjudicate. If they want to make wholesale change then they need to get their ducks in row before they start. Not  excuses as to why some were or were not paid. Brief the umpires and be consistent in the application. Otherwise there will be contention rather than success. 

If I'm correct, the germinal incident which caused this over-reaction regarding players being able to say, Che?, was Tobias Green walking through an umpire. I fail to understand how a question or an arm wave is even remotely related.

That there is a problem recruiting umpires in most forms of Football is an issue related to more than on field player dissent: rather, it is a reflection of how deeply aggressive and troubled our society has become.

16 minutes ago, Left Foot Snap said:

Consistency will enable acceptance. No excuses. Players infringe, umpires adjudicate. If they want to make wholesale change then they need to get their ducks in row before they start. Not  excuses as to why some were or were not paid. Brief the umpires and be consistent in the application. Otherwise there will be contention rather than success. 

Yep ... one things for sure, the next month will be an interesting watch with regards to what is deemed to be an indiscretion (and what isn't)

Every week we'll have 9 games with a total of 27 umpires officiating.  I'm not expecting perfection but I'm hoping they get it right most of the time with a view to getting it right 85% - 90% of the time by round 15

I'm tipping that it won't be an assault on the senses that others are forecasting. Brad Scott today said that the clubs had shown a really good response to the 5 examples shown to the clubs so we'll soon find out

We've got the Tigers and they don't seem to mind giving away a free kick (-38 on the free kick differential) ... but how are they at reacting to those free kicks given away?

We might get a few freebies!