NON-MFC: Round 6, 2022

[Rab D Nesbitt 7,203]

14 minutes ago, loges said:

Cold place near Scotland ?

Cold place in Scotland. 

[Jaded No More 58,112]

7 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Don't complain about umpiring decisions. It doesn't matter how justified you think you are in telling the umpire that he is wrong, just don't do it. 

Simple.

But that was not how the rule was explained by Scott this week. So are the rules changing on the fly? 
The rule was brought in to reduce umpire abuse and disrespect. Why not just say the rule is don’t talk to the umpire? Because that is a very simple rule to follow.

I don’t see what he did as complaining. You do. This is where the rule is too grey and personal and can’t be consistently umpired. 
 

Edit: do you think that players should be penalized if they ask the umpire for a holding the ball or a deliberate out of bounds free? 
Because often players put their arms out/up and question if there is a free to be paid. 
Is that dissent if the umpire chooses not to pay it? 

Edited April 22, 2022 by Jaded No More

[daisycutter 28,578]

so wierd......

a game with zero tolerance to dissent played in a city where dissent is an expected way of life

[Sir Why You Little 34,579]

The Saints are too static. They need to run at all costs in the 2nd Half

[shoguner 99]

Jack Hayes has torn his ACL. So unfortunate, I feel for the poor bloke. Hopefully he recovers well and continues his AFL career.

[Axis of Bob 10,247]

7 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

But that was not how the rule was explained by Scott this week. So are the rules changing on the fly? 
The rule was brought in to reduce umpire abuse and disrespect. Why not just say the rule is don’t talk to the umpire? Because that is a very simple rule to follow.

I don’t see what he did as complaining. You do. This is where the rule is too grey and personal and can’t be consistently umpired. 

The rule is not about not being able to talk to the umpire. The rule is about complaining about decisions.

The umpire abuse rule already exists and has been strongly enforced for 20 years.

The rule is intended to improve players respecting the umpire's decision. It was done by players really well in the first half, with one obvious exception.

Edited April 22, 2022 by Axis of Bob

[monoccular 16,120]

8 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Don't complain about umpiring decisions. It doesn't matter how justified you think you are in telling the umpire that he is wrong, just don't do it. 

Simple.

Axis ….. it, like the statue on mark rule, is just counter to human nature.

I guess the statue on the mark rule was just stage 1 of dehumanizing the game and turning players into robots.  

[sue 8,444]

7 minutes ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

Cold place in Scotland. 

Up there they think they’re a part of Norway. 

[Engorged Onion 9,343]

7 minutes ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

Cold place in Scotland. 

Yes, the scots tend to think that. However, having spent around 6 months in the Orkney’s they’d say they’re  Orcadian first and then drift to Caithness/Sutherland next and Scottish third… must be an island thing 😎

[Nasher 33,068]

2 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Axis ….. it, like the statue on mark rule, is just counter to human nature.

I guess the statue on the mark rule was just stage 1 of dehumanizing the game and turning players into robots.  

My son plays in under 10s team and I see very little arguing with the umpires at that age. Basically none.

That’s because arguing with the umpire isn’t human nature, it’s human conditioning.

[Axis of Bob 10,247]

1 minute ago, monoccular said:

Axis ….. it, like the statue on mark rule, is just counter to human nature.

I guess the statue on the mark rule was just stage 1 of dehumanizing the game and turning players into robots.  

If that's the case I hope you never try to play netball! 

It's not counter to human nature, it's counter to the current culture of the game. 

[Jaded No More 58,112]

Just now, Axis of Bob said:

 

The rule is intended to improve players respecting the umpire's decision. It was done by players really well in the first half, to with one obvious exception.

I actually have no issues with the reasoning behind the rule. My only issue is how grey the interpretation is. 
If a player is saying “it hit the ground it hit the ground” one umpire will think “fair enough maybe it did bad luck” and one umpire will think “he’s questioning my ability to umpire it’s a 50m penalty”. 
That one comment would be interpreted differently by every single umpire, because as humans we all have varying responses to things being said to us. 
I don’t care if the rule was actually as black and white as, nobody speaks to an umpire unless it’s a captain and it’s at a break. The only thing you can say to an umpire is “where is my mark” if you’re standing on the mark or “who has the free” if you’re handing the ball back. That is an easy rule to umpire and an easy rule to follow. 

[Chook 14,557]

6 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

The rule is not about not being able to talk to the umpire. The rule is about complaining about decisions.

The umpire abuse rule already exists and has been strongly enforced for 20 years.

The rule is intended to improve players respecting the umpire's decision. It was done by players really well in the first half, with one obvious exception.

Is there a difference between appealing vs dissent, in your opinion?

Because the body language and even words can be identical across both, even if the message is completely different.

[leave it to deever 15,642]

5 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

I actually have no issues with the reasoning behind the rule. My only issue is how grey the interpretation is. 
If a player is saying “it hit the ground it hit the ground” one umpire will think “fair enough maybe it did bad luck” and one umpire will think “he’s questioning my ability to umpire it’s a 50m penalty”. 
That one comment would be interpreted differently by every single umpire, because as humans we all have v

Spot on Jaded.

Just like players , some umpires are more reactive. Unless it's clear abuse or a massive tantie....dont enforce it.

[Axis of Bob 10,247]

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

I actually have no issues with the reasoning behind the rule. My only issue is how grey the interpretation is. 
If a player is saying “it hit the ground it hit the ground” one umpire will think “fair enough maybe it did bad luck” and one umpire will think “he’s questioning my ability to umpire it’s a 50m penalty”. 

Nah, both umpires would say that he's complaining about the decision. Even the umpire that said "maybe it did hit the ground" is being complained to about the decision, which is an obvious free. 

It doesn't matter if he's questioning his abilities, it only matters if he doesn't respect the umpire's decision ... no matter how right or wrong he thinks it is.

[Axis of Bob 10,247]

2 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

 

Just like players , some umpires are more reactive. Unless it's clear abuse or a massive tantie....dont enforce it.

Just don't complain about the decision. 

Put your ego away and stand the mark like a good team mate, rather than be a selfish individual.

[Rab D Nesbitt 7,203]

8 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

Yes, the scots tend to think that. However, having spent around 6 months in the Orkney’s they’d say they’re  Orcadian first and then drift to Caithness/Sutherland next and Scottish third… must be an island thing 😎

Curiously along with Shetland they are the only constituency in Scotland that always votes Liberal Democrat at every election, resulting in absolute fannies like Alistair Carmichael representing us at Wasteminster. 

[Bitter but optimistic 21,286]

BT all over the goal call.  FMD

[Chook 14,557]

3 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Nah, both umpires would say that he's complaining about the decision. Even the umpire that said "maybe it did hit the ground" is being complained to about the decision, which is an obvious free. 

It doesn't matter if he's questioning his abilities, it only matters if he doesn't respect the umpire's decision ... no matter how right or wrong he thinks it is.

You can dissent without respect, you can disrespect without dissent, so clearly respect has nothing to do with it.

[3183 Dee 2,608]

Preuss getting a lot of hit-outs, but is static afterwards - makes you appreciate our incredibly mobile ruck duo!

[Jaded No More 58,112]

5 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Nah, both umpires would say that he's complaining about the decision. Even the umpire that said "maybe it did hit the ground" is being complained to about the decision, which is an obvious free. 

It doesn't matter if he's questioning his abilities, it only matters if he doesn't respect the umpire's decision ... no matter how right or wrong he thinks it is.

So you think that every umpire pays that as a 50m penalty? 

Maybe I missed it but I never heard the AFL say that players can’t question decisions. They said players can’t be demonstrative or abusive and it’s about respect. But respect to some is disrespect to others. 
You can love and respect someone and still disagree with them. Expressing disappointment or disagreement in my opinion is not disrespectful, but in your opinion it is. Hence the core problem with this rule. 
Which is why we will either watch this rule slowly die or we will just get to a point where we encourage players not to talk to umpires at all. 

Edited April 22, 2022 by Jaded No More

[Sir Why You Little 34,579]

The only way this umpire rubbish will be sorted out, is if Players are not allowed to speak to Umpires during play. 
the rule is either On or off

[Chook 14,557]

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The only way this umpire rubbish will be sorted out, is if Players are not allowed to speak to Umpires during play. 
the rule is either On or off

Also don't put your arms out, even in silence.

[loges 6,094]

Couple of mistakes by GWS has let Saints in.

[BDA 20,175]

St Kilda have lifted this quarter. Pressure gauge well up