1 minute ago, sue said:

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. 

Pay the 50 on the spot is my view ... for the reasons that I outlined earlier

It's probably time we agreed to disagree Sue, we are getting nowhere with this debate

Lets face it ,its crap rule and everybody can see it.Umps cant read minds of the players and call dissent.Try and use it in court

jeebus,  it must be hard to not show dissent when you watch such an incompetent umpiring display today at the mars stadium

53 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

jeebus,  it must be hard to not show dissent when you watch such an incompetent umpiring display today at the mars stadium

Yes the Bulldogs being expert at playing for free kicks and the league not addressing the rules that could put a stop to it all

The lopsided free kick count in favour of the Bulldogs has been going on since 2015 (coincidentally, when Beveridge took over)

And there's no such thing as a coincidence when it comes to transgressing or taking advantage.  It's been a well planned exercise to a point where players like Weightman openly talks about how he plays for frees and how good he is at it

Multiply that by every player on their list and that's a systemic issue

Got a solution?

Edited April 23, 20223 yr by Macca

43 minutes ago, Macca said:

Yes the Bulldogs being expert at playing for free kicks and the league not addressing the rules that could put a stop to it all

The lopsided free kick count in favour of the Bulldogs has been going on since 2015 (coincidentally, when Beveridge took over)

And there's no such thing as a coincidence when it comes to transgressing or taking advantage.  It's been a well planned exercise to a point where players like Weightman openly talks about how he plays for frees and how good he is at it

Multiply that by every player on their list and that's a systemic issue

Got a solution?

Well that 1911 version of the rule that Mazer R posted would do it. Though I doubt anyone would like it.

2 minutes ago, sue said:

Well that 1911 version of the rule that Mazer R posted would do it. Though I doubt anyone would like it.

I'm with most here ... something needs to be done but I'm coming from a different direction and heading in a different direction

We've probably narrowed it down to 2 real reasons ... either all the umps are all in it together in deliberately favouring the Bulldogs (for what reason?) or we have an issue with a team exploiting the rules or 'playing' the rules with the umpires just paying what they see (according to the rules)

I heavily favour the latter argument so we could wait for all the other teams to 'catch up' or address the rules

The Bulldogs have been doing what they are doing for a long time now.  And that includes their premiership year

I'm seeing more people in the media (and a few here on this site) state that the Bulldogs are just very adept at winning free kicks.  So once that recognition is established, there might be some action taken

The question is what can be done and what is being done?  As far as I can see, nothing

And there can't be a sour grapes approach ... the best time is a day like today when they have actually lost the game

But until the league addresses the issue, we can expect more of the same.  And the issue will probably get worse

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em could easily be what the other clubs do

And, it's not off topic as there is a direct connection re 'questionable' decisions and dissent or abuse

Can you imagine if we're still talking about the lopsided free kick count (In the Bulldogs favour) in 2 or 3 years time?  How about 5 years?

A question.

In Q4 of Bulldogs v Crows, Weightman clearly ran through the protected area. Even the commentators pointed that out.

Needless to say, no 50 metre penalty.

Had a crows player simply pointed to Weightman running, would that have constituted umpire disrespect?

2 minutes ago, Winners at last said:

A question.

In Q4 of Bulldogs v Crows, Weightman clearly ran through the protected area. Even the commentators pointed that out.

Needless to say, no 50 metre penalty.

Had a crows player simply pointed to Weightman running, would that have constituted umpire disrespect?

Dont be silly ....of course Adelaide would have been pinged. Its Foootascray bleedin hearts lost dogs home who the Umps just LUUURVE

39 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Dont be silly ....of course Adelaide would have been pinged. Its Foootascray bleedin hearts lost dogs home who the Umps just LUUURVE

a very good chance it would have ended up a double 50

59 minutes ago, Winners at last said:

Had a crows player simply pointed to Weightman running, would that have constituted umpire disrespect?

In that specific game, yes. Free kick to Bulldogs, 50m penalty and Crows player sent straight to tribunal.

9 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

1911 official rules:
Law 12.
What constitutes, a throw? Answer : When there is any doubt that the ball has not been hand-balled fairly it must be considered a throw, and a free kick awarded accordingly. Handball is when the ball is clearly held in one hand and knocked with the other hand.

1925 amendment:
Handball rule clarified. Ball to be punched out not just struck. (Flick pass was permitted previously.)

1928 official rules:
Handball
(6) Handball is where the ball is clearly held in one hand and punched with the closed fist of the other hand.

1934 amendment:
Handball rule altered. The ball could be held in one hand and knocked with the other (ie the flick pass was again permitted).

1944 official rules:
Handball.
(6) Handball is where the ball is clearly held in one hand and knocked with the other hand.

1966 amendment:
Flick pass outlawed. Ball had to be struck with a clenched fist.

2015 official rules:
Handball: the act of holding the football in one hand and disposing of the football by hitting it with the clenched fist of the other hand.

(2022 rules same definition as 2015.)

 

 

 

The rules from 1911 show how much the modern game has degenerated with respect to handball.

Don't forget the more recent amendment:  Dogs and Cats can just. throw it - no penalty.

6 hours ago, forever demons said:

Lets face it ,its crap rule and everybody can see it.Umps cant read minds of the players and call dissent.Try and use it in court

According to the idiots at AFL HQ, the umpires can read the minds NB "insufficient intent".

3 hours ago, Winners at last said:

A question.

In Q4 of Bulldogs v Crows, Weightman clearly ran through the protected area. Even the commentators pointed that out.

Needless to say, no 50 metre penalty.

Had a crows player simply pointed to Weightman running, would that have constituted umpire disrespect?

Weightman career stats:  FF 36. FA 14

But none of these stats show the missed frees against Footscray, especially the ignored blatant throws.

 

Ok, is it just me or has this completely been removed from the game? I can’t recall seeing one in the last few rounds.

On 4/19/2022 at 9:39 AM, Redleg said:

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

A better solution might be to replace all the footy journalists with robots.

On 4/23/2022 at 6:41 PM, Winners at last said:

A question.

In Q4 of Bulldogs v Crows, Weightman clearly ran through the protected area. Even the commentators pointed that out.

Needless to say, no 50 metre penalty.

Had a crows player simply pointed to Weightman running, would that have constituted umpire disrespect?

Players are trained to be dobbers??

On 4/23/2022 at 10:09 PM, monoccular said:

Don't forget the more recent amendment:  Dogs and Cats can just. throw it - no penalty.

According to the idiots at AFL HQ, the umpires can read the minds NB "insufficient intent".

Weightman career stats:  FF 36. FA 14

But none of these stats show the missed frees against Footscray, especially the ignored blatant throws.

 

Look at Carltonpoo as well..

51 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

A better solution might be to replace all the footy journalists with robots.

I thought that had happened already. 

4 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

Ok, is it just me or has this completely been removed from the game? I can’t recall seeing one in the last few rounds.

Correct. Every week we see numerous examples of players questioning a decision, and the umpire seems fine with explaining it.

Just goes to prove what a nob Brad Scott is for bringing in the strict interpretation of dissent, and how idiotic he came across when he tried to justify it.

6 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

Ok, is it just me or has this completely been removed from the game? I can’t recall seeing one in the last few rounds.

It has disappeared the past fortnight. Multiple times players have raised arms and yelled at umpires again recently with no penalty. Thank god they backtracked the pathetic over-officiating of the rule.

"Arms up, that's 50". 😆

6 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

Ok, is it just me or has this completely been removed from the game? I can’t recall seeing one in the last few rounds.

Dying minutes of our game last week, Hill called HTB by Harmes. Hill first disputes the decision then gestures towards the scoreboard after viewing the replay. No 50.

This is the problem, umpires will rarely pay it now because it is a stupid rule but it is in the book so at some stage some over officious umpire will pull one out and it will cost a team points (and hopefully not a final!) Same with the protected area rule there would be 50 each round that are missed and one or two paid across 9 games. It's amateur.

Edited May 13, 20223 yr by Dr. Gonzo

A little left field of this thread but another 50 metre penalty that annoys the hell out of me is when a player who takes a mark or gets a free feigns a handball to try and draw a 50 metre penalty.  To me that is not football, it is milking the system ….. you go to do a handball…play on!

With a few exceptions, the players have adapted and frivolous infringements are not being penalised

Edited May 13, 20223 yr by Macca

Looks like it's rule of the week again. Two paid tonight that I saw which are laughable including the one against De Goey just now which pretty much iced the game. That's what we want to see I guess, games being decided by petty umpiring decisions.

What frustrates me is that by definition dissent literally means to hold or express a differing opinion to a commonly or officially held view. Throwing arms in frustration isn't giving a different opinion it's simply remonstrating - hence this rule has zero merit. Just as ridiculous as the stupid stand rule. Did I just give away 2 50s 

Still troubles me this rule. Dare I say it I felt for DeGoey in the Pies V Dogs. He pulled his head in real quick, so what’s the big deal? Move on.

Still think this could decide a GF when the heat and emotions are hot.  If it was a factor in say helping Melbourne win a GF, it would take some of the gloss of the win….unless of course it was against the Pies 😎

Edited May 13, 20223 yr by Wodjathefirst
Typo

So the intention of this rule was originally to stop abuse at local level football because umpiring numbers were falling away. Don't see how this works as 90% of abuse at those levels comes from over the fence. They're tackling the problem with the wrong solution.