sue

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.

I don’t see how this relates to whether the dissent should be paid on the spot or after the match. At least doing it after does not affect the game in progress and does not add yet another area for contentious decisions during a game.

All the more reason to barrack for the Dogs now.

I would pay it on the spot because unlike even abusing an umpire, let alone showing some minor disrespect, it affects the play. (and is cheating besides). Ed to add: and happy to see the tribunal review it as well, eg. Hawkins. $#%^@

Yes I get all that and agree there are bigger things that need adressing etc, and lots of other contentious frees paid or not, but I still don't know: 1. Do you support 100% silence and absolutely no gestures? Sounds like you do. 2. What about penalties instead applied after the game for disrespect in particular? Just because it is not on everyone's lips, I would have thought you'd have a view. Sounds like a geat idea to the few people I've discussed this with.

Macca, rather than all these grey areas in the current situation, would it not be simpler for you to support what I referred to as the extreme option in an earlier post, ie. players can say or indicate absolutely NOTHING relating to free kicks or disputed marks, paid or not paid or potentially payable? If you don't support that extreme option I would be interested to know what is you argument against it compared to the current situation? In any case, I would be interested to know your reasons for apparently not supporting the alternative of AFTER the game penalties. (I say apparently because I don't think I have seen a post where you address it despite it being raised a few times). It seems to me that that is the best option - the penalties could be graded fines (and worse for really bad examples and repeat offenders). Disrespect does not affect the flow of the game in contrast to other things in a game which lead to 50m penalties. Therefore why penalise it during the game? Won't that have the same effect unltimately on player behaviour without affecting the actual game dramatically? And be less frustrating to spectators. And make the punishment fit the crime rather than a single fixed penalty regardless of degree of disrespect.

I've been asking the same thing for a while . There are 4 situations: 1. Umpire pays free and player shows dissent clearly 'disrepectably'. (in fact you may as well be abusive - the penalty is the same.) 2. Umpire pays a free or mark and player indicates verbally or with gestures the decision was wrong in a respectful way- eg. last night's 'ball hit the ground' gesture (and presumably non-disrespectful words). 3. Players 'demand' a decision should be made by waving arms and shouting 'ball' or 'deliberate' etc. before the umpire would normally blown the whistle or say play on. 4. Players indicate that a free should have been made as per #3 but after it is clear the umpire is not going to pay the free. #1, 3, and 4 show disrespect to the umpire. I'd argue #2 does not. #1 and #4 are more serious, but even #3 implies the umpire is incapable of deciding for himself. And the degree of disrespect of #3 and #4 will depend on timing. The AFL should produce examples of what consitutes disrespect for both players and spectators and enforce them consistently. OR it should state the players can say or indicate absolutely NOTHING relating to free kicks or disputed marks, paid or not paid or potentially payable. The extreme option. The extreme option is at least clear and can be more consistently applied. Doubtless players would in time adapt to it - though good luck with #3. (We can argue seperately about the loss to the game or if it is the main solution to umpire shortages.) As has been argued before, if the AFL won't go for the extreme option, then the penalties should be graded fines (and worse for repeat offenders) penalised AFTER the game. Disrespect does not affect the flow of the game in contrast to other things which lead to 50m penalties. Therefore why penalise it during the game and why 50m?

That would very much depend on tone of voice. So unless said sarcastically it would be said with respect. And you might point at the ground in a noisy environment to ensure your question was heard. I think this is a serious problem for the rule as it is and can’t be swept under the rug.

What about asking “didn’t that hit the ground?”

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

Yes I was there with the advantage of not having to listen to BT

A lot of the time most of the balls momentum comes from the hand holding the ball not the fist.

One minor positive from Lever being out with covid protocols is that he has an extra week to get completely over his rolled ankle or whatever it was.

Agree. I'm guessing about 3 in 4 such frees are for minor touches of the shoulder or head, not grasps around the neck. Just how dangerous to players health would it be to abolish over the shoulder completely and just pay dangerous ones as dangerous tackles/contact?

Also the AFL would have to allow the unnamed players to play.

I don't know anyone who doesn't believe that the best teams in terms of talent etc will triumph overall. But I don't think that should preclude supporters from discussing umpiring decisions or the AFL's management of rule/interpretations etc. critically. Sometimes that may get over-emotional, but to me it's part of the interest in being a spectator.

When Brown was standing on the mark recently with his legs apart and his arms stretched out (not in a disrespectful way of course) it looked to me like his arms were as long as his legs. (Yes, I probably need new glasses.)

Are players to be allowed to abuse their opponents in the shared workplace?

After listening to Goody (twice) I have no idea if he was pumping up Weid because he is in, or because he was trying the lessen the blow of leaving him out.

Geat idea. I reckon the idea of fining (or worse for repeat offenders) AFTER the game makes a lot of sense. Other 50m penalties are for things that affect the play - eg infringing protected zone,, delaying tactics, etc.. Whereas umpire dissent or even abuse has no effect on the play. So the penalty shouldn't either. Furthermore, the 50m penalty will be a joke when the game is at a stage that players don't give a flying fig about being punished. Eg if the Hawks were 10 goals ahead or behind when Hawkins did that dive, a lot of youngsters would still see some poor role models.

Who knows what the match committe knows that we don't, nor what long term plans they might have. But I'd ask those who say Brown should work back and prove himself in the VFL like any other player, would they apply that if the other player was Trac or Max or Oliver? Barring reasons related to recovery from injury, I'd have them straight in. Personally I think Brown is in that class (though probably at the bottom of that class).

I’m not trying to be misleading. Maybe I could have been clearer but I think what I said was in line with the general thrust of the post. Those comments about falling interest were made in the context of the current issue.

Someone posts that the new rule will cause them to lose interest and that is supposedly countered by stating there were record numbers viewing in Round 1. Presumably if it does cause a loss of interest (which I doubt even as an opponent of a strict interpretation) it won’t happen immediately. In fact people may probably be watching more matches currently just to see what the rule is doing.

thanks. On the AFL site the most recent case under MRP is that of Preuss and 'latest' stuff from years ago, sigh. But Prof Google pointed me to the news section.

What if you keep your arms down but roll your eyes?