The very, very contentious 50 for Dissent Rule

[Demons11 7,006]

2 hours ago, picket fence said:

Out... this ridiculous showing dissent 50 rule. What is this??? It is the stuff of fifties and sixties schoolyard discipline. A player not even on the mark throws his hands up in mild frustration and gets pinged for 50?? Come on. I understand and agree to have a verbal 50 rule, but this is an outrageous, overreaction. IMO the AFL need to get rid of this blight on the game. Are we trying to take the human element of frustration totally away? Its 1984 Orwellian Prophesy at its finest. What next? DREAM POLICE pinging blokes for facial expressions depicting dissent?? Get rid of it!

100% agree, it’s absolutely ridiculous 

[daisycutter 29,613]

we live in a world now where grievance and offence are king, so it is little wonder that a rule that requires an umpire to read the minds of players was doomed to be a disaster from the start. it ends up having the effect that umpires become even more disrespected now.

unfortunately the afl will just double down supporting the umpiring decisions come hell or high water, rather than admit they got another rule change based on interpretation and social engineering, wrong 

[#11-TonyAnderson 774]

I'm fine if it is for verbally abusing an umpire and they are consistent with its application. Unfortunately, they are not and that's where the problem lies, particularly when there are televised games where a player questions the decision and no penalty is applied.

[titan_uranus 24,993]

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

If we're thinking of the same one, where May ended up standing on the goal line, the umpire could be heard telling him it was against Oliver, cos Maysie was pretty confused!

Ok interesting, will have to try to see it on replay. At the ground it is sometimes impossible to tell. I saw Sparrow lose it but he may have been sledging Hill for exaggerating the contact. 

[rjay 24,916]

10 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Ok interesting, will have to try to see it on replay. At the ground it is sometimes impossible to tell. I saw Sparrow lose it but he may have been sledging Hill for exaggerating the contact. 

Yeah, it was against Oliver and in a funny way I think it started our run on.

Oliver was really p...off and went for it at the centre bounce.

The team went up a couple of levels from then on.

[Little Goffy 14,520]

I agree but please leave poor old George out of it.

[Deeoldfart 8,016]

2 hours ago, Smokey said:

Policing human emotions is madness. There’s not much more to say really. I’m all for moderating abuse towards umpires, but this several steps too far. 

100% agree.  Whoever came up with this ridiculous rule / interpretation, has absolutely no understanding or feel for the game itself.
Emotion is an integral part of our great game.  Take it away, and you tear it out part of what makes the game so great.  The authorities need to understand that players don’t have an ‘on / off switch’ to instantly temper their emotions back to ‘zero’ in the heat of a game.

[Redleg 40,894]

10 minutes ago, Deeoldfart said:

100% agree.  Whoever came up with this ridiculous rule / interpretation, has absolutely no understanding or feel for the game itself.
Emotion is an integral part of our great game.  Take it away, and you tear it out part of what makes the game so great.  The authorities need to understand that players don’t have an ‘on / off switch’ to instantly temper their emotions back to ‘zero’ in the heat of a game.

I could imagine, that famous dummy spit of BT, where he was shaking his fist in the face of the umpire and ranting and raving, would today earn him life imprisonment from the AFL.

[radar 1,865]

Paddy crashing into that Hawthorn bloke - that’s fifty

[Guest]

Does the wording of the rule include 'dissent'? If so, that's ridiculous and doesn't make any sense. There's nothing inherently discourteous about dissenting. The etymology is basically 'differing in sentiment' i.e. disagreeing. Nine out of ten free kicks would result in 50-metre penalties if that was the case. I'm pretty sure there was already a rule about abuse towards an umpire - why not just crack-down on that? I think most fans would be fine and agree with it, and while still subjective, I think most people also understand what is truly abusive and isn't (those on the internet withstanding). Don't denigrate or directly swear at umpires or get up in their space. It's pretty simple. 

[Rod Grinter Riot Squad 5,654]

The theory of the rule is good in my opinion, it is the wildly inconsistent interpretation that is so infuriating. The Andrew’s one was just appalling. Bit like the in the back on the same player was appalling and if the umpiring department want some respect the umpire should have been publicly dropped, not for a mistake but for a fabricated excuse for ignoring an obvious free kick.

 

I have done umpiring in the past, understand that it’s not an easy gig, but I also don’t think that being consistent in your interpretation and implementation of the rules is difficult. For the life of me, I can’t understand how the AFL and the umpires get it so wrong, so consistently 

[Wodjathefirst 2,632]

I get and agree with the logic behind the rule but wow, what a stuff up. Players and fans are baffled.

It doesn’t have to become a complex issue to interpret and manage. Keep it simple!

 If a player expresses verbal dissent, ping him. That’s pretty simple. 

 If its not verbal (eg shaking his head in frustration, etc), umpires get real, it should not be considered disrespectful.  The player can only be considered to be respectfully expressing his frustration at either himself for stuffing up or on a decision that has been made that he disagrees with. What the hell is wrong or offensive with that?

Get real!…… and GO DEES!!!

 

[daisycutter 29,613]

1 minute ago, Wodjathefirst said:

I get and agree with the logic behind the rule but wow, what a stuff up. Players and fans are baffled.

It doesn’t have to become a complex issue to interpret and manage. Keep it simple!

 If a player expresses verbal dissent, ping him. That’s pretty simple. 

 If its not verbal (eg shaking his head in frustration, etc), umpires get real, it should not be considered disrespectful.  The player can only be considered to be respectfully expressing his frustration at either himself for stuffing up or on a decision that has been made that he disagrees with. What the hell is wrong or offensive with that?

Get real!…… and GO DEES!!!

 

all very good but you didn't define "verbal dissent" which is another of the contentious interpretations

the old "abuse" and time-wasting rules were fine but just not being enforced

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Wodjathefirst said:

I get and agree with the logic behind the rule but wow, what a stuff up. Players and fans are baffled.

It doesn’t have to become a complex issue to interpret and manage. Keep it simple!

 If a player expresses verbal dissent, ping him. That’s pretty simple. 

 If its not verbal (eg shaking his head in frustration, etc), umpires get real, it should not be considered disrespectful.  The player can only be considered to be respectfully expressing his frustration at either himself for stuffing up or on a decision that has been made that he disagrees with. What the hell is wrong or offensive with that?

Get real!…… and GO DEES!!!

 

As above. Dissent basically means disagreeing, so verbal dissent would include a simple question to the umps such as 'what was that free for?' Would you want that eradicated from the game? 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

59 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Does the wording of the rule include 'dissent'? If so, that's ridiculous and doesn't make any sense. There's nothing inherently discourteous about dissenting. The etymology is basically 'differing in sentiment' i.e. disagreeing. Nine out of ten free kicks would result in 50-metre penalties if that was the case. I'm pretty sure there was already a rule about abuse towards an umpire - why not just crack-down on that? I think most fans would be fine and agree with it, and while still subjective, I think most people also understand what is truly abusive and isn't (those on the internet withstanding). Don't denigrate or directly swear at umpires or get up in their space. It's pretty simple. 

No, the word dissent does not appear in the rules.

And there already was a rule about abusing umpires, disputing decisions,etc. A free kick is the penalty.

Not a 50 metre penalty.

In the 50 metre penalty section there is no mention of abuse, disputes, etc. Nor is there mention of players making faces, waving their arms, showing disappointment, or anything else that might bring down the guillotine.

So the AFL have basically made up and are enforcing (if random application of it can be called enforcing) a "rule" which isn't in the rule book.

It's so sloppy and amateurish. The AFL are the only major comp in the world that are so casual about their own rules, to the point where even they don't really know what the rule is.

 

And in another "how AFL is that" situation, the 2022 rules are not on the AFL web site. The 2021 rules are, under a video explaining the 2017 rules. The 2022 rules I found on a Qld Aussie Rules site.

 

To end on an up note, each year's rules show pictures of the previous year's premiers. Max is immortalised in the 2022 AFL rules. GO DEMONS!!

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

37 minutes ago, Skuit said:

As above. Dissent basically means disagreeing, so verbal dissent would include a simple question to the umps such as 'what was that free for?' Would you want that eradicated from the game? 

Nothing in the rules about asking for clarification. So no free kick or 50 can be awarded!

[picket fence 17,139]

The umpires would do well to totally ignore a arms and hands out in frustration and not pay a fifty m penalty. IMV. It may promote more tolerance and therefore respect. The fifty metre penalty against Clarry was a disgrace.

Edited April 17, 2022 by picket fence

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

The "rule" was invented out of thin air introduced to address situations like Greene banging into an ump, Riewoldt viciously unloading on umps, and of course the missing 6000 umps ... gone missing because of the examples set by Riewoldt, Greene, and their ilk.

And there were already rules to handle those situations: free kicks, reports. It's the AFL's own fault that they sat wringing their hands for long about these situations. One free kick in a tight game, one report of a Riewoldt ... the coaches would eradicate such dissent immediately.

So typically AFL to bring in a "rule" for a situation already covered by the existing rules, only to be unable to enforce it because they hadn't thought ahead of time how to handle the different ways players might respond. So they've gone scorched earth, except for the incidents when they've let players from various teams whine and groan without penalty.

They AFL have lost control of the officiating of the game.

No wonder the umps have such a hard time of it when the ship they're on has lost its rudder.

[titan_uranus 24,993]

How would you feel seeing this as a Brisbane fan?

Andrews cops it for doing arguably less than Hewett does here. The spotlight's been on this exact thing since Friday night. But this umpire doesn't pay it against Hewett.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,745]

2 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

 

It's so sloppy and amateurish. The AFL are the only major comp in the world that are so casual about their own rules, to the point where even they don't really know what the rule is.

 

And in another "how AFL is that" situation, the 2022 rules are not on the AFL web site. The 2021 rules are, under a video explaining the 2017 rules. The 2022 rules I found on a Qld Aussie Rules site.

 

To end on an up note, each year's rules show pictures of the previous year's premiers. Max is immortalised in the 2022 AFL rules. GO DEMONS!!

Shout out to cricket which allows illegal bowling actions to be called legal if the player who throws happens to be good at it.

[kryton101 395]

7 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

How would you feel seeing this as a Brisbane fan?

Andrews cops it for doing arguably less than Hewett does here. The spotlight's been on this exact thing since Friday night. But this umpire doesn't pay it against Hewett.

Yep, watched this live it defs would have been paid in the melb game, Tom Mac does less , but not here - it’s the inconsistencies 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

14 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Shout out to cricket which allows illegal bowling actions to be called legal if the player who throws happens to be good at it.

True. Cricket lost a bit of its soul when it legalised the chucker's action.

 

22 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

How would you feel seeing this as a Brisbane fan?

Andrews cops it for doing arguably less than Hewett does here. The spotlight's been on this exact thing since Friday night. But this umpire doesn't pay it against Hewett.

The umps don't know what they're supposed to be doing. And I don't blame the umps. What kind of direction are they getting? The kind you get when you wave a magnet at a compass.

[daisycutter 29,613]

9 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

True. Cricket lost a bit of its soul when it legalised the chucker's action.

 

The umps don't know what they're supposed to be doing. And I don't blame the umps. What kind of direction are they getting? The kind you get when you wave a magnet at a compass.

waving a magnet.....that'll be 50 metres, mazer

[Kit Walker 225]

I've no issue with the intention of the rule. The equivalent basically works in rugby union but it's going to take time for player's responses to change.

Umpires do need to get a lot better at consistency in enforcing it too - I don't know why they don't have some sort of published list saying these are examples of obvious dissent?

I watch a lot of European soccer too, and that is so far the other way that it can be a disgrace.

[picket fence 17,139]

Kane Cornes bought it up today on the Sunday Footy show, and I would like to see a few more Media personalities bring it to attention ,account to the AFL for the Basket case rule interpretation, opinion, that obviously is judged differently depending on volition and feel for the game.