Axis of Bob

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.

He could tell the umpire he is short and ugly too. It's not a defence.

What if a player is spin 350 degrees, but it takes a while to happen? Was the opponent balancing his hands on a player's back in a marking contest or pushing them out of the contest? What if both players grab each other but one is doing it much more than the other? What if a player brushes against the lower leg when they're laying a tackle around the hips? The game requires so much interpretation because pretty much every contest is technically a free kick if you look hard enough at it. It's impossible to have supporters happy about the umpiring because a decision involves so much interpretation by umpires. If you want proof of that, just listen to how many opposition supporters you disagree with when they scream about umpiring at a Melbourne game!

To my knowledge, they don't pay that rule in the VAFA. Clarke's comment would have been of a general nature (ie, AFL level), rather than specific to his umpiring or VAFA crowds. However the VAFA has had several other rules for a long time that are similar to this, such as an automatic sending off for audible obscenities, that aren't applied at AFL level. In fact the only time I've ever been sent off has been for dissenting an umpire's decision, and that was 20 years ago!

It is. He is very passionate about the need to improve umpire numbers and thinks that what the AFL is trying to do is fair enough. He also bemoans umpires having to do 5 games a week because there aren't enough umpires. There aren't enough umpires. Even the VAFA umpire quoted in the article umpired over 100 games in the season before COVID, and there are fewer umpires now!

Yeah, the article doesn't really support your point. It has a single VAFA umpire saying that he shouldn't umpire the way AFL umpires do, which is entirely true. Nor do they umpire at that standard, which applies to standing the mark, deliberate out of bounds, interchange number, among other rules which are interpreted differently at lower levels than AFL. The other two examples are of AFL umpires, one of whom fully agrees with the rule, and another who agrees with the intent of the rule because of the effects of umpire abuse at lower levels.

There is no reason why players can't still ask an umpire to explain a decision for them respectfully when the play has stopped. I've done it many times myself because the conversation is genuine, not dissenting. It could be as simple as saying "In the back?" which then is responded with "Yeah" or "Nah, it was high". Was the decision right or wrong? It doesn't matter. Throwing your arms up in the air, turning to the umpire and yelling "What for?!?!" is not respectful, it's a way of trying to tell the umpire (and everyone that can see/hear) that you think they're wrong. As Macca says, by round 15 the players will be self policing it in the same way that rugby players do. You can even see it happening now. How many times will you overtly complain about decisions when the last time you did it you got a 50 m penalty and 21 team mates giving you the death stare?

It used to be that telling an umpire that he was "a f#&_ing disgrace" was an instinctive action after getting a dodgy decision. But, it isn't any more. Players changed those instincts.

If this isn't an argument for the need for cultural change towards umpires then I don't know what is. Also, the rules usually take a few years to filter down the leagues after the AFL introduces it (if at all). The cultural change starts with what is seen at the highest level, and after that it is the passage of time that allows it to filter through to the public.

Like I said .... why can't we do both?

I don't see how dissent is more difficult to define than abuse. If I wave my hands in exasperation at a decision then I am clearly indicating to everyone that can see that I disagree with the decision. Kids see that and the culture is perpetuated. Dissent and abuse are clearly different. But the fact that we now agree that umpire abuse is a no-no demonstrates that penalising this at AFL level (20 years ago) has had a positive impact. Doing the same for overt dissent at umpiring decisions will seem weird in the short term but in 20 years will seem normal. In fact the main thing we're likely to be upset about in such a situation is that a penalised player was undisciplined not that the umpire penalised it.

The umpires do, and they're voting with their feet.

Why is it an either/or? Why not do both? Why not improve umpiring as a profession whilst also reducing the level of disrespect shown towards umpires?

And junior umpires? Those that are struggling and developing their skills, sometimes making mistakes, or even just correct decisions that players disagree with? How do we deal with the respect for junior umpires (and those at lower levels that are clearly worse than AFL umpires) when you say that the only way we can achieve this is by these umpires simply being good umpires? I am heavily involved with lower level football and umpire respect is a massive issue. Without them we don't have a game ..... and we have far fewer nowadays than we have had in the past. How do we fix the issue of umpire numbers and the attractiveness of umpiring at all levels of football?

So the only way to create respect for umpires is to create perfect umpires that don't make mistakes? Where are these perfect umpires coming from? Because there aren't many umpires coming through the ranks. Stunningly it turns out that teenagers don't enjoy being abused and belittled in games when they are learning how to be umpires. How do you intend to encourage more people to take up umpiring in lower levels?

Interestingly we are having the same discussion now as when the AFL first started to crack down on the abuse of umpires in matches. They started paying 50m penalties for it more often and everybody lost their minds about it (for mostly similar reasons as are being given now). It's interesting that we are all now very comfortable that this behaviour is unacceptable some 20 years later.

You said that it wasn't needed to achieve the aim. I was hoping for clarification on that aim, since you believed the changes wouldn't achieve it. What do you believe would "eliminate the air of enmity that exists around the supporters and the umpires"?

What's the aim?

That is a ridiculous and reductive comment. Arms out is one action among a range of things that an umpire can penalise. Giving the umpire the finger or telling them they are a moron are also actions that can be penalised. The intent is the same and the message is the same .... accept the decision of the umpire and stop complaining. Just because you've spent your life complaining about umpiring doesn't mean that juniors have to follow in those footsteps.

The players will learn to quickly accept the decision and move on. That will accomplish the demonstration to the public that players should accept the decision of umpires. Kids who grow up knowing that complaining about umpiring is destructive (rather than 'passionate' or 'not robotic') will treat umpires differently than their parents and grandparents did/do. They'll think that complaining about umpires is something that old people people do because they 'don't get it'. The change will take time but it has to start somewhere.

The players will learn quickly. Cultural change across the game will happen more slowly but it has to start somewhere.

Players will learn. And then, much, much, much later, supporters finally will too. There is a culture of umpire abuse in AFL football at all levels. It's not only accepted but often encouraged as 'passion'. Umpires are scapegoats because there will always be bad decisions in 2 hours of chaos. It needs to stop. At lower levels of football many teams are having to sacrifice a player to umpire the game .... and those players nearly always say how much more difficult it is than they thought it would be. I suspect they also come out of it far more respectful of umpires.

Everything else, other than this phrase and the Day head injury, is irrelevant to the tribunal. If you choose to bump and the other player injures their head, it doesn't matter how much power it has, how unlucky it was or how unforeseeable the other events are, you are gone. He was unlucky, it had very little power and Day didn't do a good job of protecting himself. Ryder could consider himself unfortunate and he clearly didn't mean to hit him in the head (look at his reaction) .... but 2 weeks is what you'd expect. He grew up in a time where those bumps were part of the game and he's having to unlearn those habits. Hopefully the next generation will grow up with different habits.

If you elect to bump you are responsible for whatever head injury occurs to the person you bump. Ryder bump + Day concussion = weeks. It is only controversial if you don't know the rule. The players know the rule.

If someone can see a relationship between free kicks and results, then they're doing better than me.