sue

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?

Is there any vision of the incident other than the couple of stills?

What I said was that Macca had made assertions about me that were wrong. Read the original posts rather than researching into old posts that are irrelevant to the unwarranted and wrong assumptions he made about me. As a mater of fact I often say to my spouse: "lucky we got away with one there". But since I neither post in the MFC game day thread, nor sit next to Macca, I found the assumptions he made in his post and wording a bit rude. Surely we can disagree on the issue of this thread without doing so. I don't see that I have ever been rude to him or categorised him in any way. If I have I will apologise. But to change the subject to where you have moved it to: I have never claimed I haven't posted negative things about umpiring decisions. Yes, I do post in non-MFC games threads about umpiring decisions. At least there I am not biased by team loyalties. And sometimes umpires do not appear to have read the rules when they get things blatantly wrong, though to be fair to them the rules are so badly written/interpreted that Solomon wouldn't be able to apply them without generating controversy. I don't think discussing/whinging/whatever about umpiring decision should be beyond the pale just because it sometimes gets emotional. To be clear, I think the umpires have an extremely difficult job. They deserve more respect than they get, and a lot more from the AFL. But I don't think the new 'respect' rules/interpretions are the solution to the lack of junior umpires. Nor do I think all reactions by players to decisions (or non-decisions which seem to be being ignored) amount to disrespect. Funnily enough I respect you and Macca even though I am expressing disagreement with you on this issue. And I fear that it may be impossible, especially given the incompetent way they have been introduced, for the 'respect' rules to be consistently applied, even by year's end, leading to more frustration by players and spectators. I hope a reasonable position will be arrived at. Time will tell.

You are getting a bit rude with people who disagree with you about the issue of this thread. And you are increasingly misinterpreting what people say or attributing to them views they don't have. How do you know that I am "certainly not one of those people"? You don't sit next to me when watching a match. I don't even read the match day thread once a match starts as a firm matter of policy, let alone post there, so you won't be able to find any such posts by me. I doubt you post there every time we get away with something, nor that I will get an apology from you.

In a game like ours, even of the AFL tidied up the rules, there will always be contentious umpiring decisions. So yapping about umpiring will always be part of the actual game (from a spectator point of view). Sure some will get over emotional or think there is some conspiracy against their team, but there will always be legitimate discussion. BTW, you aren't the only one who is noble enough to notice free kicks we shouldn't have got or things we got away with. But I'm sure you know enough about human nature to expect they wouldn't dominate discussion.

Still people here assuming disagreement/questioning is the cause of a lack of umpires when the AFL's own review found that even abuse was not the cause, let alone non-abusive arm lifting. Daisycutter is right - a line has to drawn but in a sensible and consistent place. Seems to me the AFL would prefer to meddle with the rules (in their usual incompetent way even if you supported the changes) rather than make umpiring well paid and solve the actual problems fo'und in their own review.