Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!

[RoarEmotion]

So let’s just take the emotion out of the game….simples! Second most ridiculous rule after the stand rule.

It’s not taking emotion out. It’s using it. Use it the way Cotchin does - absolutely ferocity and intent to win the ball / create a contest / move It forwards.

Saying players have no choice to not vent frustration towards an umpire is *smile*. I’ve done it plenty of times myself but it’s absolutely a choice. When an umpire at basketball tells me to stop it or it will be a tech foul I stop it so I don’t hurt my team and stop engaging in selfish behaviour.

It’s the same slippery slope of domestic violence - if your partner pisses you off you have a choice in how you deal with it - in the moment - where emotions are high. Brain science does say we are often develop this executive function until our late 20s / early 30s but in a professional AFL environment you can do it a lot earlier im sure.

I still think the rule is poor though - way too inconsistently applied. Ridiculously inconsistent.

 

[DavidSSS]

If the player with the ball is outside the boundary line (from a mark/free kick) and chooses to play on surely he has to come onto the field. There’s been plenty of players recently (stand rule meaning the man on the mark has his foot in the line) who’ve chosen to play on and run past the man on the mark outside the boundary. Why is that not ruled out of bounds? Obviously different to actually taking your kick from over the line.

I think they changed that a while ago, you can play on from outside the boundary, which makes no sense but them's the rules.

DS

 

[Brodders17]

It’s not taking emotion out. It’s using it. Use it the way Cotchin does - absolutely ferocity and intent to win the ball / create a contest / move It forwards.

Saying players have no choice to not vent frustration towards an umpire is *smile*. I’ve done it plenty of times myself but it’s absolutely a choice. When an umpire at basketball tells me to stop it or it will be a tech foul I stop it so I don’t hurt my team and stop engaging in selfish behaviour.

It’s the same slippery slope of domestic violence - if your partner pisses you off you have a choice in how you deal with it - in the moment - where emotions are high. Brain science does say we are often develop this executive function until our late 20s / early 30s but in a professional AFL environment you can do it a lot earlier im sure.

I still think the rule is poor though - way too inconsistently applied. Ridiculously inconsistent.

Sorry, but DV is a terrible analogy.

on the bball, the point you make about stopping once the refs tells you to is apt, and how it should be applied in footy- punish real abuse, and punish sustained back chat, let the immediate reaction/frustration go.

 

[Brodders17]

If the player with the ball is outside the boundary line (from a mark/free kick) and chooses to play on surely he has to come onto the field. There’s been plenty of players recently (stand rule meaning the man on the mark has his foot in the line) who’ve chosen to play on and run past the man on the mark outside the boundary. Why is that not ruled out of bounds? Obviously different to actually taking your kick from over the line.

i dont think they can run past the mark outside the boundary, but they do give them room to stay outside the boundary to kick once play on has been called. technically it should be out of bounds, but it was cause a lot of angst if the started throwing the ball in whenever the ump calls play on if someone is just standing there.

 

[MD Jazz]

Sorry, but DV is a terrible analogy.

on the bball, the point you make about stopping once the refs tells you to is apt, and how it should be applied in footy- punish real abuse, and punish sustained back chat, let the immediate reaction/frustration go.

Yeh, not approrpiate at all to bring up DV in this context.

And again, you nail it B17. Players can vent in BB but go too far and you get a tech. Exactly what the rule was in AFL. An unnecessray change.

 

[pete and tys]

The issue is not about abuse..and not about current social agendas ...it is about demostrating frustration or questioning a decision.
These are normal and non confrontational human behaviours. They bear no relationship to a perceived shortage of umpires .
All other sports accept this as normal and rightly so...it is normal.

No one has a problem with penalizing abuse. Lets be clear and not cloud this with semantics or agenda driven emitional views.

Penalize abuse yes.
NOT legitimate frustration or reasonable enquiry.

It is simple.

 

[mrposhman]

I'm not even sure of the purpose of the no dissent rule anyway.

You hear from umpires either in the AFL or outside, and it seems that player abuse is not really that big of a deal, but its abuse from the crowd / parents etc at lower levels.

This rule does the opposite of what it is attempting to do in both instances.

1 - The players - Get more frustrated because they are not being heard and treated like grown men - take the Lynch one. He wasn't going to get a free, but wanted Ray to know that he had been held so he can look for it more, nope, there goes a 50. Its a childish approach

2 - The fans / parents - All evidence from this is that umpire abuse from this section will get WORSE not better. Its ludicrous to think that bringing in a childish rule like this will have the response that they wanted. Only the AFL with the heads pushed so far up their own arses could think that it could.

 

[Redford]

Even the basketball reference isn't apt.

I watch the NBA regularly - watching the playoffs now - and those guys vent and get frustrated at the officiating (including "waving" their arms) all the time. The refs, sensibly, only apply tech fouls when it goes over the top.

To expect there's not going to be some level of frustration and a bit of jawing in top flight, high intensity sport is naive.

 

[tigerlandishome]

Pretty sure this was about cracking down on 'so-called' umpire abuse, however the umpires themselves took it too far (most likely at the instruction of the AFL) and caused an uproar. Rather than pull back a bit and only penalise actual instances of abuse, they instead changed the wording to 'dissent'. Very weasely. Technically dissent is anything the umpire wants it to be, very convenient. I won't be surprised to see a player penalised for giving the umpire a dirty look. You can't abuse (upset their frail sensibilities) the umpires!

 

[mrposhman]

Pretty sure this was about cracking down on 'so-called' umpire abuse, however the umpires themselves took it too far (most likely at the instruction of the AFL) and caused an uproar. Rather than pull back a bit and only penalise actual instances of abuse, they instead changed the wording to 'dissent'. Very weasely. Technically dissent is anything the umpire wants it to be, very convenient. I won't be surprised to see a player penalised for giving the umpire a dirty look. You can't abuse (upset their frail sensibilities) the umpires!

It was interesting how different umpires are dealing with this. Those more grown up ones (like Stevic) take an element of common sense into account, those junior umpires just do it because they are told to, and then you have the peacocks like Chamberlain that want everyone to look at them.

 

[TT33]

I'm not even sure of the purpose of the no dissent rule anyway.

You hear from umpires either in the AFL or outside, and it seems that player abuse is not really that big of a deal, but its abuse from the crowd / parents etc at lower levels.

This rule does the opposite of what it is attempting to do in both instances.

1 - The players - Get more frustrated because they are not being heard and treated like grown men - take the Lynch one. He wasn't going to get a free, but wanted Ray to know that he had been held so he can look for it more, nope, there goes a 50. Its a childish approach

2 - The fans / parents - All evidence from this is that umpire abuse from this section will get WORSE not better. Its ludicrous to think that bringing in a childish rule like this will have the response that they wanted. Only the AFL with the heads pushed so far up their own arses could think that it could.

Well made points MrP. Unfortunately the AFL can't/won't address the "issue" that they've created.

 

[King Kong]

Lets face it Gilligan has completely f'd the game. That's what happens when you get a corporate suit with no real sense for the game or what the fans want running it.

If an internal AFL appointment gets the gig then I'll be done with it.

More than 80% of club members want the GF left at 2.30pm. So what is Gilligan going to do? Sure as *smile* this years will be a 5.45pm start time. He has always prioritized his pocket over the best interests of the game

 

[RoarEmotion]

Yeh, not approrpiate at all to bring up DV in this context.

And again, you nail it B17. Players can vent in BB but go too far and you get a tech. Exactly what the rule was in AFL. An unnecessray change.

No problem.

My point is when you are emotional you still have a choice so pick any emotionally charged situation. Professional players we can still adapt to a crap rule and control their reaction. Agree a warning then 50m would be a much better way to approach it - but if that change doesn’t happen then the players have to adapt.

 

[MD Jazz]

This is brilliant

pic.twitter.com/8tr3IAxPPc

 

[tommystigers]

I'm with TBR. the rules are crystal clear. My favourite crystal clear rule is the deliberate out of bounds.
Every player and coach knows that this one is not subjective. Fans are completely wrong in their interpretation of it.

 

[tigertough]

If the rules are subject to interpretation, then that interpretation is subjective and therefore the rule is subjective.

 

[TigerForce]

This is brilliant

pic.twitter.com/8tr3IAxPPc

Funny but too scarily realistic.

 

[Sintiger]

@The Big Richo is right though - just be smarter and don’t risk it. Especially with razor. That is stupid as you can almost guarantee he will pay it. Emma has her work cut out. This kind of *smile* kills us.

I’m pissed at the rule but also pissed at our players who can’t control themselves. Have the emotion but channel it into desire/effort and not frustration.

The way I look at it is when I am watching a game how hard is it for me to not respond at all to any decision made? It is incredibly hard and for a player on the field it is much harder.
Try it, watch a game and not respond to any decision.
That’s what we are asking players to do .

 

[tigermouseau]

The way I look at it is when I am watching a game how hard is it for me to not respond at all to any decision made? It is incredibly hard and for a player on the field it is much harder.
Try it, watch a game and not respond to any decision.
That’s what we are asking players to do .

I start watching every game saying to myself “today I won’t get upset with umpires decisions”. To date I don’t think I have ever been able to get through a whole game (let alone a quarter)….it is not humanly possible.

 

[The Big Richo]

It is incredibly hard and for a player on the field it is much harder.

I'd actually argue it's a lot easier for players. I think most fans are more emotionally invested, and players have a lot more on their minds than umpires.