The very, very contentious 50 for Dissent Rule

[daisycutter 29,604]

16 minutes ago, dee-tox said:

You could argue they are currently paid as professionals but only work part time.

I'm not 100 percent sure, but I think AFL umpires get around 5K per game depending on experience, so around 120K for six months work. Decent money but of course no where near what the top players get.

I don't think money is what is holding back every fitness fanatic who wasn't quite good enough...

true, but if they were full time professionals they could better hone their decision making and rule interpretation (as well as many other useful activities)

So, for at least improving umpire standards and consistency at the AFL level it should work 

[Wodjathefirst 2,632]

I watched the St Kilda / GWS game last night. There were two moments for potential ‘dissent’. The first one was a player upset and clearly showing a form of dissent and then immediate obvious remorse for his action.  No 50 given, a logical outcome, move on.

 
Second incident, pretty much a player suggesting that the ball had touched the ground and was not a mark. There was no malice, no disrespect, at worst some emotion but definitely nothing bordering on being over the top. No reasonable person would say he was being disrespectful to the umpire. 50 metres was given!

Classic example of subjective nature of decision making process of two different umpires.  I am now convinced that the AFL will succeed implementing this rule but at an incredible price.  The price being that they will strangle any emotion being shown on the field. Players will become very wary about showing any passion whatsoever.  It is slowly sterilising and killing the game.
Fans will become increasingly frustrated and vent even more frustration at the umpires. My reaction last night was exactly that and that was watching a game that I had relative little interest in. It is ripping the heart out of the game.

I just can’t see how what happened last night will encourage anyone to want to umpire at a junior level. 

I feel sorry for the umpires, players and fans. I am really (censored) off at the AFL.

 

 

Edited April 22, 2022 by Wodjathefirst
Self censored!

[picket fence 17,059]

On 4/19/2022 at 10:58 PM, picket fence said:

Watch this descend into an absolute farce this weekend. The AFL will be under more pressure than a one legged prawn in a flock of hungry seagulls. Watch this space!

As predicted this has already with just one game played been farcically enforced or not enforced. Absolute Basket case of AFL design. The Saints 50 was Rubbish, dissent? No way known. Then Pruess gets away with two worse examples. It this wasn't so serious it would be laughable. Wait till a final or even a GF is won or lost on this and watch the mayhem ensue. There will be a riot!

Edited April 22, 2022 by picket fence

[Wodjathefirst 2,632]

I’m still totally annoyed about what happened with the interpretation of the dissent rule in last nights game St Kilda v GWS.  How am I going to be when I attend our game against Richmond!

If that St Kilda player was deemed to be showing dissent for questioning and suggesting to the umpire that the ball touched the ground and was not a mark, logic suggests that if and when a player or players dare to ‘suggest’  to an umpire that the that the opposition purposefully kicked the ball towards the boundary and that should be a free, that they too should be pinged for showing dissent? How dare they try and tell an umpire what they should be doing.

I would suggest that when they do this, they would be showing a lot more emotion both verbally and with arm gestures than what the poor St Kilda bloke did.

What is the difference? If it is bad enough to be given 50 for disputing a decision in a non hostile manner, surely it must be equally bad if not worse to suggest to them that they should make a decision in a somewhat more emotional manner !

Madness.

[sue 9,096]

1 hour ago, Wodjathefirst said:

I’m still totally annoyed about what happened with the interpretation of the dissent rule in last nights game St Kilda v GWS.  How am I going to be when I attend our game against Richmond!

If that St Kilda player was deemed to be showing dissent for questioning and suggesting to the umpire that the ball touched the ground and was not a mark, logic suggests that if and when a player or players dare to ‘suggest’  to an umpire that the that the opposition purposefully kicked the ball towards the boundary and that should be a free, that they too should be pinged for showing dissent? How dare they try and tell an umpire what they should be doing.

I would suggest that when they do this, they would be showing a lot more emotion both verbally and with arm gestures than what the poor St Kilda bloke did.

What is the difference? If it is bad enough to be given 50 for disputing a decision in a non hostile manner, surely it must be equally bad if not worse to suggest to them that they should make a decision in a somewhat more emotional manner !

Madness.

I've been asking the same thing for a while . There are 4 situations:

1. Umpire pays free and player shows dissent clearly 'disrepectably'. (in fact you may as well be abusive - the penalty is the same.)

2. Umpire pays a free or mark and player indicates verbally or with gestures the decision was wrong in a respectful way- eg. last night's 'ball hit the ground' gesture (and presumably non-disrespectful words).

3. Players 'demand' a decision should be made by waving arms and shouting 'ball' or 'deliberate' etc. before the umpire would normally blown the whistle or say play on.

4. Players indicate that a free should have been made as per #3 but after it is clear the umpire is not going to pay the free.

#1, 3, and 4 show disrespect to the umpire.  I'd argue #2 does not. #1 and #4 are more serious, but even #3 implies the umpire is incapable of deciding for himself.  And the degree of disrespect of #3 and #4  will depend on timing.

The AFL should produce examples of what consitutes disrespect for both players and spectators and enforce them consistently. 

OR it should state the players can say or indicate absolutely NOTHING relating to free kicks or disputed marks, paid or not paid or potentially payable. The extreme option.

The extreme option is at least clear and can be more consistently applied.  Doubtless players would in time adapt to it - though good luck with #3.  (We can argue seperately about the loss to the game or if it is the main solution to umpire shortages.)

As has been argued before,  if the AFL won't go for the extreme option, then the penalties should be graded fines (and worse for repeat offenders) penalised AFTER the game.  Disrespect does not affect the flow of the game in contrast to other things which lead to 50m penalties.  Therefore why penalise it during the game and why 50m?

Edited April 23, 2022 by sue

[daisycutter 29,604]

39 minutes ago, sue said:

I've been asking the same thing for a while . There are 4 situations:

1. Umpire pays free and player shows dissent clearly 'disrepectably'. (in fact you may as well be abusive - the penalty is the same.)

2. Umpire pays a free or mark and player indicates verbally or with gestures the decision was wrong in a respectful way- eg. last night's 'ball hit the ground' gesture (and presumably non-disrespectful words).

3. Players 'demand' a decision should be made by waving arms and shouting 'ball' or 'deliberate' etc. before the umpire would normally blown the whistle or say play on.

4. Players indicate that a free should have been made as per #3 but after it is clear the umpire is not going to pay the free.

#1, 3, and 4 show disrespect to the umpire.  I'd argue #2 does not. #1 and #4 are more serious, but even #3 implies the umpire is incapable of deciding for himself.  And the degree of disrespect of #3 and #4  will depend on timing.

The AFL should produce examples of what consitutes disrespect for both players and spectators and enforce them consistently. 

OR it should state the players can say or indicate absolutely NOTHING relating to free kicks or disputed marks, paid or not paid or potentially payable. The extreme option.

The extreme option is at least clear and can be more consistently applied.  Doubtless players would in time adapt to it - though good luck with #3.  (We can argue seperately about the loss to the game or if it is the main solution to umpire shortages.)

As has been argued before,  if the AFL won't go for the extreme option, then the penalties should be graded fines (and worse for repeat offenders) penalised AFTER the game.  Disrespect does not affect the flow of the game in contrast to other things which lead to 50m penalties.  Therefore why penalise it during the game and why 50m?

and what about when players claim a goal was touched and the umpire hasn't called it

this happens a lot and generally umpires will call for the video review

but surely this is dissent under the new rules. so what should happen? a free kick for a second goal?

[forever demons 2,220]

Next step supporters tossed out of the ground for booing the ump ,that has to be dissent

[Olgreybeard49 239]

I've been wondering which Melbourne player is most likely to fall foul of this rule / interpretation and my vote is TMac.

Over many years I have seen him suggest what the decision should be, remonstrate against the decision made etc. .

It will take some retraining and I hope doesn't cost a 50 in a critical match. No problem for this week obviously.

[forever demons 2,220]

I wonder what  an umpire like Jeff Crouch would make of this.He umpired some the toughest players of all time and would told them straight up to get [censored] and get on with game

[Whispering_Jack 29,807]

Why not do away with the goal umpire’s score review because, after all, is that not a sign of disrespect to those officiating by implying that they’re not capable of making decisions about what their own eyes are telling them? 

[Lord Travis 10,698]

https://www.afl.com.au/video/746178/saint-pinged-for-umpire-dissent-after-this-gesture?videoId=746178&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1650625574001
 

That right there is the reason there’s so much heated discussion around this topic. IMO it’s an absurd umpiring decision. I turned off and switched over to Netflix after seeing that and I’d consider myself a footy die hard.

AFL is an entertainment product designed to draw in customers and if the customer doesn’t like the product then the product is a failure. They need to fix this rule or the product will continue to go backwards as more and more customers switch off.

Players don’t like it. Coaches don’t like it. Supporters don’t like it. Customers don’t like it. Umpires surely don’t like it. I can’t imagine anyone would want to pick umpiring as a job/career with what we’re seeing now. Fix the rule you dimwits.

[Macca 16,923]

I saw a more than a dozen soft high contact incidents last night ... some were paid, some weren't.  As viewers, we don't really know if the whistle is going to be blown (or not) for that type of incident

So we have a far bigger problem with that type of decision ... which, by the way, leads to player frustration and possible dissent or abuse.  Holding the ball - similar issues.  In the back - similar issues.  Infringements in marking contests - similar issues. Etc etc etc

As for the non applying and the applying of the 50 last night.  One player got off the hook and can count his lucky stars (although if he was pinged, the player he infringed against (if  awarded the 50) wouldn't have had a shot at goal)

Whilst the other player got rightfully pinged and cost his team with his selfish act.  His act resulted in a goal. Don't react at all and there's no penalty

You can bet he won't be doing it again and if he does, his coach will be furious with him (again)

So the coaches are instructing their players to clam up if a free kick is awarded against the player.  Eventually, the reacting players will have the finger pointed at them

And that might happen more quickly than people think

The rule is going to be applied and there will be the odd inconsistency (as there was last night) Just as there is with nearly every other type of footy incident

Edited April 23, 2022 by Macca

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

This is what happens when you appoint a coach to run the umpiring.

The coaches have been responsible for many distasteful rule changes over the years. Since when have they had the good of the game in mind? Their mindset is far removed from what's required.

Scott doesn't know what he's doing and even less idea of what he should be doing.

[Wodjathefirst 2,632]

Believe it or not I actually like the intent behind the dissent rule.  What I am totally annoyed about is the way it is being applied.  Appalling.  The missing ingredient is ‘reasonable’.  

Just imagine if a similar militant principled approach was taken in relation to pack marks. I would suggest that most marks would have to be called ‘touched- play on’ particularly when marked from back of the pack.

But funnily enough, there doesn’t seem to be any real issue with the umpires in the vast majority of pack marks because they are allowed to take a ‘reasonable’ and practical approach in assessing and adjudicating on the mark rule in these circumstances.

Why can’t they be allowed to have the same level of  discretion in applying the reasonableness test when assessing the level of dissent shown by players and whether it warrants a 50 metre penalty being applied (rule of thumb being if it looks, feels and is offensive, it most likely is so penalise the player, if not don’t impose a penalty ).  I reckon it’s about as difficult to adjudicate on this as it is whether to call play on in a pack mark situation.

I again can only conclude it is the AFL that is the principal culprit in this saga.  All they have managed to do is make the umpires job harder and (self censored) off a lot of fans of the game like I’ve never seen before.

[sue 9,096]

36 minutes ago, Macca said:

I saw a more than a dozen soft high contact incidents last night ... some were paid, some weren't.  As viewers, we don't really know if the whistle is going to be blown (or not) for that type of incident

So we have a far bigger problem with that type of decision ... which, by the way, leads to player frustration and possible dissent or abuse.  Holding the ball - similar issues.  In the back - similar issues.  Infringements in marking contests - similar issues. Etc etc etc

As for the non applying and the applying of the 50 last night.  One player got off the hook and can count his lucky stars (although if he was pinged, the player he infringed against (if  awarded the 50) wouldn't have had a shot at goal)

Whilst the other player got rightfully pinged and cost his team with his selfish act.  His act resulted in a goal. Don't react at all and there's no penalty

You can bet he won't be doing it again and if he does, his coach will be furious with him (again)

So the coaches are instructing their players to clam up if a free kick is awarded against the player.  Eventually, the reacting players will have the finger pointed at them

And that might happen more quickly than people think

The rule is going to be applied and there will be the odd inconsistency (as there was last night) Just as there is with nearly every other type of footy incident

Macca, rather than all these grey areas in the current situation, would it not be simpler for you to support what I referred to as the extreme option in an earlier post, ie.  players can say or indicate absolutely NOTHING relating to free kicks or disputed marks, paid or not paid or potentially payable?   If you don't support that extreme option I would be interested to know what  is you argument against it compared to the current situation?

In any case, I would be interested to know your reasons for apparently not supporting the alternative of AFTER the game penalties.  (I say apparently because I don't think I have seen a post where you address it despite it being raised a few times).  

It seems to me that that is the best option -  the penalties could be graded fines (and worse for really bad examples and repeat offenders).  Disrespect does not affect the flow of the game in contrast to other things in a game which lead to 50m penalties.  Therefore why penalise it during the game?

Won't that have the same effect unltimately on player behaviour without affecting the actual game dramatically? And be less frustrating to spectators. And make the punishment fit the crime rather than a single fixed penalty regardless of degree of disrespect.

[Macca 16,923]

1 minute ago, sue said:

Macca, rather than all these grey areas in the current situation, would it not be simpler for you to support what I referred to as the extreme option in an earlier post, ie.  players can say or indicate absolutely NOTHING relating to free kicks or disputed marks, paid or not paid or potentially payable?   If you don't support that extreme option I would be interested to know what  is you argument against it compared to the current situation?

In any case, I would be interested to know your reasons for apparently not supporting the alternative of AFTER the game penalties.  (I say apparently because I don't think I have seen a post where you address it despite it being raised a few times).  

It seems to me that that is the best option -  the penalties could be graded fines (and worse for really bad examples and repeat offenders).  Disrespect does not affect the flow of the game in contrast to other things in a game which lead to 50m penalties.  Therefore why penalise it during the game?

Won't that have the same effect unltimately on player behaviour without affecting the actual game dramatically? And be less frustrating to spectators. And make the punishment fit the crime rather than a single fixed penalty regardless of degree of disrespect.

On another thread I have talked about retrospectively pinging players for staging & flopping (or anything else like that for that matter)

And over the years here I have made many other such references ... especially when it comes to the biggie - the contentious high contact free kick (which is getting worse)

I distinctly remember having a long discussion many years ago about that type of free kick with dc

But I'm also a realist so if those sorts of actions were to happen, public opinion and the media would be talking about it (at least) And they aren't, not on this site either

But we are creatures of habit and we don't like change

My view on the 50 (paid or not paid) keeps leading me back to the overall and the big picture.  In other words, we can sweat the small stuff as long as we address all the issues that are in fact, in my view, bigger issues

So 2 x 50 metre incidents last night vs 15-20 high contact (possible) incidents ... it has to be remembered that players flop about and stage for free kicks but they are not always awarded the free.  Our players do it from time to time

So if you were to ask me what is (by far) the biggest issue it's the high contact free ... miles ahead of player abuse & dissent, which by the way, we can still curtail at the same time

There's probably 10 issues to address if the truth be known as holding the man, in the back and marking infringements are missed or paid too

There is a simple solution for the players with regards to the 50 ... don't argue the point or question the decision and you won't get pinged

And all this 'robot' talk is nonsense ... for instance, there were 47 free kicks paid last night and on 45 occasions the infringing players all managed to control their emotions

45 from 47 is a decent result

So I saw last night as a positive ... if I was a perfectionist, maybe not

[sue 9,096]

16 minutes ago, Macca said:

On another thread I have talked about retrospectively pinging players for staging & flopping (or anything else like that for that matter)

And over the years here I have made many other such references ... especially when it comes to the biggie - the contentious high contact free kick (which is getting worse)

I distinctly remember having a long discussion many years ago about that type of free kick with dc

But I'm also a realist so if those sorts of actions were to happen, public opinion and the media would be talking about it (at least) And they aren't, not on this site either

But we are creatures of habit and we don't like change

My view on the 50 (paid or not paid) keeps leading me back to the overall and the big picture.  In other words, we can sweat the small stuff as long as we address all the issues that are in fact, in my view, bigger issues

So 2 x 50 metre incidents last night vs 15-20 high contact (possible) incidents ... it has to be remembered that players flop about and stage for free kicks but they are not always awarded the free.  Our players do it from time to time

So if you were to ask me what is (by far) the biggest issue it's the high contact free ... miles ahead of player abuse & dissent, which by the way, we can still curtail at the same time

There's probably 10 issues to address if the truth be known as holding the man, in the back and marking infringements are missed or paid too

There is a simple solution for the players with regards to the 50 ... don't argue the point or question the decision and you won't get pinged

And all this 'robot' talk is nonsense ... for instance, there were 47 free kicks paid last night and on 45 occasions the infringing players all managed to control their emotions

45 from 47 is a decent result

So I saw last night as a positive ... if I was a perfectionist, maybe not

Yes I get all that and agree there are bigger things that need adressing etc, and lots of other contentious frees paid or not,  but I still don't know:

1. Do you support 100% silence and absolutely no gestures? Sounds like you do.

2. What about penalties instead applied after the game for disrespect in particular?   Just because it is not on everyone's lips, I would have thought you'd have a view.  Sounds like a geat idea to the few people I've discussed this with.

 

[Macca 16,923]

 

 

 

28 minutes ago, sue said:

 

1. Do you support 100% silence and absolutely no gestures? Sounds like you do

 

Just about ... any sort of chat can't be about questioning an umpires decision, or abuse, or dissent

The players are best off saying nothing ... otherwise they run the risk of being pinged

And penalties applied as they happen for dissent or abuse so I don't support your idea

For instance, the offending player last night had no need to question the impire ruling regardless of whether he was right or wrong.  The decision had been made and he just had to wear it.  So the player let his team down

In the end, he cost his team a goal

And I regard any questioning of umpiring decisions as contemptable.  Clam up, show respect and and accept the decisions

So maybe the infringing players can get pinged on the field as well as having to front the tribunal afterwards.  That might have a bigger effect

Just like when the flopping for high contact should have been addressed over a decade ago ... they con the umpire (and the fans) and get away with it.  So ping them retrospectively after the game because they can't necessarily get pinged during a game

But as a realist I can't see that happening until the problem gets so out of control that they are forced to take action

A question for you

What would you do about players flopping around for high contact frees? 

And where do see that type of decision going? (worse?)

As previously stated, there is a direct connection between that type of decision and all the frustration we see.  As well as the dissent & abuse

Cause & effect

 

[forever demons 2,220]

11 minutes ago, Macca said:

 

 

 

Just about ... any sort of chat can't be about questioning an umpires decision, or abuse, or dissent

The players are best off saying nothing ... otherwise they run the risk of being pinged

And penalties applied as they happen for dissent or abuse so I don't support your idea

For instance, the offending player last night had no need to question the impire ruling regardless of whether he was right or wrong.  The decision had been made and he just had to wear it.  So the player let his team down

In the end, he cost his team a goal

And I regard any questioning of umpiring decisions as contemptable.  Clam up, show respect and and accept the decisions

So maybe the infringing players can get pinged on the field as well as having to front the tribunal afterwards.  That might have a bigger effect

Just like when the flopping for high contact should have been addressed over a decade ago ... they con the umpire (and the fans) and get away with it.  So ping them retrospectively after the game because they can't necessarily get pinged during a game

But as a realist I can't see that happening until the problem gets so out of control that they are forced to take action

A question for you

What would you do about players flopping around for high contact frees? 

And where do see that type of decision going? (worse?)

As previously stated, there is a direct connection between that type of decision and all the frustration we see.  As well as the dissent & abuse

Cause & effect

 

total crap ,let the players play the game ,the umps are important to the game but not at the expense of the game its self,which is the players

[sue 9,096]

26 minutes ago, Macca said:

...

A question for you

What would you do about players flopping around for high contact frees? 

And where do see that type of decision going? (worse?)

As previously stated, there is a direct connection between that type of decision and all the frustration we see.  As well as the dissent & abuse

Cause & effect

 

I would pay it on the spot because unlike even abusing an umpire, let alone showing some minor disrespect,  it affects the play.  (and is cheating besides).  

Ed to add: and happy to see the tribunal review it as well, eg. Hawkins. $#%^@

Edited April 23, 2022 by sue

[Macca 16,923]

51 minutes ago, forever demons said:

Let the players play the game ,the umps are important to the game but not at the expense of the game its self,which is the players

 

And that can happen if all the players can behave themselves

Oddly enough, if the players behave we'll be hearing a lot less from the umpires

But if you know your footy,  you'll know that the players do behave in large numbers.  Nearly all the time

For instance, there were 47 free kicks last night with the infringing players able to control their emotions on 45 occasions

2 players decided to go against team rules ... one let his team down badly and one got lucky

So the issue is not about all the players ... more so those who do not want to accept the umpires decisions

A small minority and that small minority are going to have to tow the line

46 minutes ago, sue said:

I would pay it on the spot because unlike even abusing an umpire, let alone showing some minor disrespect,  it affects the play.  (and is cheating besides).  

You'd pay it on the spot but you'd be conned into awarding free kicks to players who have flopped

So the players who are doing the conning would get away with it

Which is the same issue that we have now

Problem not solved

And if you reckon that you'd get every decision right, I'm not going to believe you

Edited April 23, 2022 by Macca

[sue 9,096]

8 minutes ago, Macca said:

 

And that can happen if all the players can behave themselves

And if you know your footy,  you'll know that the players do behave in large numbers.  Nearly all the time

For instance, there were 45 of 47 free kicks last night with the infringing players able to control their emotions

2 decided to go against team rules ... one let his team down badly and one got lucky

So the issue is not about all the players ... more so those who do not want to accept the umpires decisions

A small minority and that small minority are going to have to tow the line

You'd pay it on the spot but you'd be conned into awarding free kicks to players who have flopped

So the players who are doing the conning would get away with it

Which is the same issue that we have now

Problem not solved

And if you reckon that you'd get every decision right, I'm not going to believe you

I don’t see how this relates to whether the dissent should be paid on the spot or after the match.   At least doing it after does not affect the game in progress and does not add yet another area for contentious decisions during a game. 

[Macca 16,923]

19 minutes ago, sue said:

 

Got another question for you

We often carry on and want umpires to be sent to the bush for not getting decisions right (which I don't agree with by the way)

So should the umpire last night who didn't enforce the 50 be sent to the bush?  Or at least be cautioned or disciplined by his superiors?

After all, according to the new rules, he did make an obvious error

[sue 9,096]

Just now, Macca said:

Got another question for you

We often carry on and want umpires to be sent to the bush for not getting decisions right (which I don't agree with by the way)

So should the umpire last night who didn't enforce the 50 be sent to the bush?  Or at least be cautioned or disciplined by his superiors?

After all, according to the new rules, he did make an obvious error

Each umpire should be reviewed. One mistake does not mean an immediate sacking is required. 
since we are questioning each other here’s another 

you repeatedly say if a player doesn’t want to give away a50m then he should just play on. Could you not just as easily say if he doesn’t want a big fine (or ban) he should just play on. So where is the advantage of penalties during a game rather than a tribunal afterwards?  Seems afterwards is better to me for reasons I’ve given. 

the umps could note offences into their mike and all the audio and vision could be reviewed later. 

[Macca 16,923]

2 minutes ago, sue said:

I don’t see how this relates to whether the dissent should be paid on the spot or after the match.   At least doing it after does not affect the game in progress and does not add yet another area for contentious decisions during a game. 

The relationship between questionable decisions and player dissent is obvious.  That's why the dissent happens

As I said, if we can improve the rulings, there would be way less dissent.  So flopping is by far the bigger issue

Cause & effect

We can either try and fix the A-end of the problems or try and fix what is causing those A-end issues

If nothing is done, flopping will get completely out of control and then everyone will be wanting to do something about it

As it stands, I see the flopping as a major issue - right now

But at the moment there is nothing but crickets