The game is riddled with difficult decisions for the long suffering  umpires.  More so than any other game i know of.  Why  introduce an extra 'rule' where the umpire has to decide if the action of a player was dissent, confusion or mere frustration with either the decision or with themselves or even calling for a free not given (which is dissent, but seems not to be penalised).  Abuse is another matter.

Now these extra umpiring difficulties and the repression of normal human emotions might have been justified if the stated goal of helping recruit junior umpires had been carefully analysed and compared to other solutions.  But that does not appear to be the case.

18 minutes ago, sue said:

The game is riddled with difficult decisions for the long suffering  umpires.  More so than any other game i know of.  Why  introduce an extra 'rule' where the umpire has to decide if the action of a player was dissent, confusion or mere frustration with either the decision or with themselves or even calling for a free not given (which is dissent, but seems not to be penalised).  Abuse is another matter.

Now these extra umpiring difficulties and the repression of normal human emotions might have been justified if the stated goal of helping recruit junior umpires had been carefully analysed and compared to other solutions.  But that does not appear to be the case.

Have it on good authority this was put to the umpires before the season and they weren't too keen on the idea, then several rounds into the season Scott just decided they were going with it.

1 hour ago, loges said:

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.

The abuse at local levels of football is a blight on our game and society. I can’t take my kids to the local football because it’s so bad. The last time I took them a man in his 40’s called the umpire a black cant and then proceeded to abuse those around him who told him off. It wasn’t an isolated incident. The leagues are short umpires and it’s no wonder. Time to remove the scumbags from the crowd. It’s upto the local clubs to call this out and move these people on.

1 minute ago, Roost it far said:

The abuse at local levels of football is a blight on our game and society. I can’t take my kids to the local football because it’s so bad. The last time I took them a man in his 40’s called the umpire a black cant and then proceeded to abuse those around him who told him off. It wasn’t an isolated incident. The leagues are short umpires and it’s no wonder. Time to remove the scumbags from the crowd. It’s upto the local clubs to call this out and move these people on.

Yes that's exactly how it should have been handled.

I thought Khamis was appealing for an ITB free (which looked like it was there) not dissent per se.

2 minutes ago, loges said:

Yes that's exactly how it should have been handled.

The 50m rule for dissent is an imperfect solution

According to the strict way they have instituted this rule, they were both there yesterday and that is exactly why it is a ridiculous rule.

Not one former player or media person agrees with the rule. It is also being inconsistently umpired. Umpire 13 Gavine  will pay it for a grin or glance, others ignore comments and arms out.

The rule is a blight on the game and it is best to leave it to umpires to deal with abuse or over the top dissent. It was working pretty well up to this year.

The problem we have is that the AFL doesn’t like to admit mistakes. 

25 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

The abuse at local levels of football is a blight on our game and society. I can’t take my kids to the local football because it’s so bad. The last time I took them a man in his 40’s called the umpire a black cant and then proceeded to abuse those around him who told him off. It wasn’t an isolated incident. The leagues are short umpires and it’s no wonder. Time to remove the scumbags from the crowd. It’s upto the local clubs to call this out and move these people on.

You want local clubs run by volunteer people, parents and grandparents to remove an abusive and potentially violent person from the ground? Can’t see that going well for the volunteer, can you?

Really really good (albeit very long) piece here that covers this issue and many aligned with it. Gives some great context and background to the issue as well as umpires in general. Highly recommend it, particluarly in the context of the discussion around local clubs.

‘It was tolerated back then – and it won’t be now’: The umpires fighting back

 

2 hours ago, loges said:

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.

And besides this nuffie rule what are the AFL ACTUALLY doing to support umpiring at community level?

27 minutes ago, —coach— said:

You want local clubs run by volunteer people, parents and grandparents to remove an abusive and potentially violent person from the ground? Can’t see that going well for the volunteer, can you?

First of all you would heavily publicise that that sort of abuse would not be tolerated amongst your members/supporters and I'm sure you would send more than one person to deal with it.

57 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

The abuse at local levels of football is a blight on our game and society. I can’t take my kids to the local football because it’s so bad. The last time I took them a man in his 40’s called the umpire a black cant and then proceeded to abuse those around him who told him off. It wasn’t an isolated incident. The leagues are short umpires and it’s no wonder. Time to remove the scumbags from the crowd. It’s upto the local clubs to call this out and move these people on.

I'm always amazed to hear these stories, obviously just angry people with a few screws loose. But I've been to plenty of local footy games in the NFNL and EDFL in recent years and haven't seen or heard any of this. Maybe it's just the club's/grounds I've been at

31 minutes ago, —coach— said:

You want local clubs run by volunteer people, parents and grandparents to remove an abusive and potentially violent person from the ground? Can’t see that going well for the volunteer, can you?

Maybe they need to hire security for local games or ensure a police presence.

30 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Maybe they need to hire security for local games or ensure a police presence.

Good luck in your quest to “ensure a police presence” when they can’t even attend all crime scenes. 
And maybe you could ask Gill to fund private security?  Perhaps transferring some of the token wand wavers from the MCG gate - has anyone ever seen them detect anything at all?

Edited May 14, 20223 yr by monoccular

I hate umpire abuse.

Here in the BFNL 3 years ago, we had a past player and long time club member barred from the ground for 2 weeks by the club for umpire abuse and foul language. It was a great move by the club. It is a lot better than it has ever been and other people in the crowd are beginning to clamp down on the idiots. May I say, it is actually parents in the U16 and U18 competition that are the worst. Parents can be vile at times about perceived injustices to their little Johnny or Jenny.

But I hate the new rule. It should be held in place for abuse and/or physical remonstrations that make the umpire feel disrespected or unsafe. But asking the umpire "what was that for?" with your arms extended is a rational, reasonable response to either a) a carp umpiring decision or b) not knowing what the free kick was paid for or who to give the ball to.

I thought de Goey's response was excellent. He began to let off steam, caught himself, and swallowed it. The umpire should have actually said "well done". And the Khamis one is a howler for the simple fact a blatantly obvious free kick was missed. 

57 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Maybe they need to hire security for local games or ensure a police presence.

Would definitely agree that the police could do the rounds a little more, many clubs won’t have the $ for security.

2 hours ago, —coach— said:

You want local clubs run by volunteer people, parents and grandparents to remove an abusive and potentially violent person from the ground? Can’t see that going well for the volunteer, can you?

In country footy in SA the police would attend the games. While that is a huge drain on resources for every game, I would like to see the leagues work with Govt and the police on a program where the club/volunteers can call the police to have the offending scumbags removed in a timely manner. May need the introduction of additional fines or charges etc, but a move has to be made in the right direction. AFL should also lead a nation wide campaign against abuse at all levels.

2 hours ago, —coach— said:

You want local clubs run by volunteer people, parents and grandparents to remove an abusive and potentially violent person from the ground? Can’t see that going well for the volunteer, can you?

I want local clubs with funding provided by the AFL to heavily publicise the issue, talk to clubs and supporters and isolate the farkwits. I’m pretty sure most clubs have volunteers who could help remove, fine and ban the trouble makers. 
Or we could continue to stick our heads in the sand and allow umpire numbers to further decline and our kids to continue to be exposed by this toxicity 

Edited May 14, 20223 yr by Roost it far

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

And besides this nuffie rule what are the AFL ACTUALLY doing to support umpiring at community level?

And there you have it. 

3 hours ago, —coach— said:

You want local clubs run by volunteer people, parents and grandparents to remove an abusive and potentially violent person from the ground? Can’t see that going well for the volunteer, can you?

Sonetimes it depends upon the support around the volunteers.

In my child's league there is a parent from each team that escorts the umpires wherever they go outside of the changerooms, even to their cars if needed. We are told by the league to report abusive parents as a matter of urgency. And we do: one parent got a life ban last year

You'll always get idiots. Unfortunately they need calling out

4 hours ago, —coach— said:

You want local clubs run by volunteer people, parents and grandparents to remove an abusive and potentially violent person from the ground? Can’t see that going well for the volunteer, can you?

As a society we need to stamp out this sort of behaviour which means letting the person know their behaviour won't be tolerated. All it takes is for a few people to tell them they will have to leave and then the majority of people backing those who stand up and it will make a huge difference.

The idea that you shouldn't tell someone to pull their head in to avoid conflict is not what we need. I'd even go further by saying that when teachers punish kids for engaging on conflict when they are being bullied adds to this problem, rather than encouraging the kids to say they are not going to tolerate being bullied and of it continues there will be a problem. As a society we are too conditioned to avoid conflict and it is not a good thing.

Edited May 14, 20223 yr by chookrat

19 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

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.

I think that's a bit of an overstatement. I have sympathy for De Goey but exactly when were the Bulldogs in danger of losing the game? The 2 earlier decisions against the Western Bulldogs were potentially much more significant regarding game outcome. 

8 hours ago, Redleg said:

According to the strict way they have instituted this rule, they were both there yesterday and that is exactly why it is a ridiculous rule.

Not one former player or media person agrees with the rule. It is also being inconsistently umpired. Umpire 13 Gavine  will pay it for a grin or glance, others ignore comments and arms out.

The rule is a blight on the game and it is best to leave it to umpires to deal with abuse or over the top dissent. It was working pretty well up to this year.

The problem we have is that the AFL doesn’t like to admit mistakes. 

I agree with you about the AFL. They adopt the Donald Trump (ScoMo?) approach. The only time the AFL will admit a mistake is when it's too late to have any effect (as with Adam Goodes).

The problem with this rule is that it needs to be interpreted consistently. I don't like the rule but if the rule is waving your hands in the air by you or one of your teammates is 50m after a free kick against you then It needs to be applied in every circumstance. It seems to me it would be much easier for the AFL to say that pure hands in the air is not 50m ever!

I had a chat to the umpires at 1/4 time at the local footy today. I complimented them on a good job. Then I said even when I disagreed with them they were probably right. They laughed and said I probably put the mozz on them. It's a tough job, they get it right most of the time, but that free kick late in the 3rd, what were they thinking? We'd be stuffed without them. Thanks umpires.

2 hours ago, Sydney_Demon said:

I think that's a bit of an overstatement. I have sympathy for De Goey but exactly when were the Bulldogs in danger of losing the game? The 2 earlier decisions against the Western Bulldogs were potentially much more significant regarding game outcome.

Not saying that Collingwood would've won but that decision made sure of it. The game was finished after that.

One of the things I think is difficult about junior umpiring is that in a lot of the leagues the system is designed as a ‘pathway’ - like it is for players. In reality what this means is you often have a 16 year old umpiring under 15’s by themselves. In a lot of the footy I’ve seen the umpires are heavily influenced by the crowds (of mostly parents) - mainly because they want to get out alive. This perceived, and often literal, bias detracts from the respect the players and clubs have for umpiring.

To manage this the umpires are given no support, which honestly is a disgrace.  Anyone under 18 should be supported by an adult umpire who can guide, and if needed step in and help. What 16 year old wants to be abused by everyone around? I think the industry needs to completely rethink umpire pathways, and ways to effectively support umpires with boots on the ground. It’s very different to player pathways, and it’s not helping anyone treating it similarly.