Imagine this: there’s one minute to go in the grand final.
Melbourne lead the Bulldogs by five points, and there’s a contest just outside the Bulldogs’ forward 50.
Marcus Bontempelli takes possession and is tackled but is given a free kick for a high tackle in a contentious call.
In the heat of the moment and with the pressure gauge at its absolute maximum, a desperate Clayton Oliver cannot believe the decision and throws his hands out in pure disbelief, as any fierce competitor in the heat of battle would.
Suddenly, a 50-metre penalty is paid for umpire dissent, and Bontempelli now has a shot on goal from 20 metres out to win the premiership for the Bulldogs.
But is that really how the AFL wants a premiership to be won or lost?
It may be easier for the AFL to tell players to make futile attempts to control their emotions in the early rounds of the season, but later in the season when the pressure is well and truly on, do they really expect players to be emotionless when a decision is paid against them?
One thing is for sure: a rule so subjective was also going to cause controversy.
(Photo by Michael Willson/AFL Photos via Getty Images)
We are six rounds into the season and only now does it seem that the AFL is realising they need to be clearer about the interpretation of the new dissent rule.
But even then, the general consensus is that no one really knows what’s going on.
I was playing local footy on the weekend, and there were several decisions paid by the umpire for dissent, which weren’t explained to players, leaving most people on and off the ground perplexed, as well as confused as to what the rules even were.
The AFL does not have a good history of introducing subjective laws into the game.
No one wants to see a situation like the one a few years ago when the holding-the-ball rule was seemingly being changed on a week-to-week basis, while the deliberate-out-of-bounds rule also caused upheaval when the AFL chose to make it a bigger issue.
Not only is it a poor look for the game, but in the end, it has the potential to disengage some fans entirely.
What other sport in the world has a rule where you are penalised for opposing an umpire’s decision?
(Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
I’m sure there must be one, but you understand my point.
A rule so cringeworthy to watch from an outsider’s point of view cannot be good for growing the game, and from the inside, it is simply not how people want to see the game played.
AFL players are some of the most competitive athletes on the planet. Expecting them to be virtually emotionless when a decision is paid against them is ludicrous, as it directly contrasts the ‘win at all costs’ mentality held by so many within the industry.
Not only are they trying to control players’ basic human instincts, but they are also seemingly trying to implement the old, eye-rolling adage ‘as long as everyone has fun’ at the highest level.
Australian rules football is a game perpetually associated with passion and emotion, so it’s baffling to see a rule introduced that attempts to curb these aspects of the game.
Don’t get me wrong, in no way am I condoning umpire abuse (that is a separate issue and one that needs to be stamped out of the game immediately).
But showing dissent to a decision is rarely malicious, and I feel as though questioning an umpire’s decision should actually be encouraged.
(Photo by Steve Bell/AFL Photos/via Getty Images)
Jack Riewoldt mentioned on AFL 360 that being able to converse with an umpire about a decision was something he valued, and I completely agree.
At the very minimum, a line needs to be drawn between having a conversation with an umpire about a decision and showing dissent towards a decision, or else there will be an exponential increase in the number of misinformed players and fans regarding the rules of the game.
Will the AFL simply scrap the new rule mid-season?
Of course not. The AFL is notoriously stubborn about these sorts of issues.
However, easing the rules and only enforcing the dissent rule in more serious cases could ease tensions across the board, with umpires likely to cop less backlash from fans, and players less inclined to act against their natural instincts.
Making the umpires’ jobs easier doesn’t need to be difficult, as I feel most fans want the umpires to put the whistle away more often anyway, and simply just let the game flow without too much umpire interference.
Yet now it feels as though the umpires are more involved than ever.
Angela
Roar Rookie
Take that on advisement - didn't know tennis players had points awarded against them for bad behaviour.
PeterCtheThird
Guest
Actually, Angela, yes they do. From having a point awarded against them, then the game, the set, the match. Sorry, your informant is incorrect.
Daffyd
Roar Rookie
What other sport in the world has a rule where you are penalised for opposing an umpire’s decision? Rugby. Unfortunately, it's not as strict as it used to be, (and for Rules 50m is far too severe, 20 m more like it) -- but the refs used to dish out 10m consecutively if necessary. (on a 100 metre field it added up). I was playing in a game when an opponent bitched about the decision and the ref pinged him he continued and the ref pinged him again -- twice for 10 metres. Bang Bang. As he was about to bitch once again, one of his team mates grabbed him by the throat and said " if you don 't *%&ing shut up, I'm going to knock you *%&ing out." He shut up. Much to the amusement of us all. (and to the ref!) But those were the amateur days. But generally players need to STFU and get on with the game. And the umps need to HTFU and save the 50s for real dissent!
Angela
Roar Rookie
Note the question mark in front of Kyrios… And perhaps read the whole post instead of taking a few phrases out of context to comment on.
Dusty does Danger
Roar Rookie
Prez I agree, I think it should be 25m and so should the stand rule. But spot on, my boys gave up umpiring because of the stress of parents yelling and the odd low grade adult player intimidating them.
ChuckIt
Roar Rookie
Champions are sportsmen/women people like Federer, Nadal etc. Kyrgios is definitely not a champion. It appears you have a much lower definition of what is a champion. How a person conducts themselves as well as their achievements defines a champion. So whingers are not champions no matter how good they are at their sport.
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
Way to miss the point.
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
Was against Richmond.
RT
Roar Rookie
Was that against Adelaide? I saw one a couple of weeks ago too. Other times players are told to stand well past the mark. Why should they? Not only a bad rule, but they have changed the interpretation (putting it kindly) to make it worse.
Nick
Roar Guru
Stand still then.
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
It's worse than the dissent rule. A Dogs player actually got a 50m penalty against him for trying to back off the mark! Away from the player with the ball! That's just nuts.
RT
Roar Rookie
The stand is a terrible rule. Probably the worst rule ever introduced.
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
I'll give you a tip Marty, these new rules just make it harder for umpires. The AFL needs to wind back the rules if they want umpire dissent to reduce.
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
The Essendon Collingwood game was killed off yesterday with a "stand" 50m penalty resulting in a goal with 2 minutes to go. The player on the mark took one step, didn't impede anyone, but that was game over. Talk about an anticlimax. There's a fundamental problem with the rules if a player is penalised for doing something that doesn't impede the opposition. That's not how rules are meant to work.
Angela
Roar Rookie
Thanks for clarification. I do wonder though if taking the umpire abuse/dissent/disrespect to such a degree is necessary. It will be interesting to see how much difference it makes to volunteer umpiring and if there is a way of checking by a survey whether the rules written about in this article (arms out, pointing at the ground, questioning umpires politely as opposed to abuse and disrespect, eg the Toby Green incident) are, in fact, part of the equation or, as many think, a bridge too far that will end up having their own negative impact.
Spanner
Roar Rookie
Its all about umpires these days overpaid drama queens afl lost plot nothing more needs be said
Marty
Roar Rookie
Not nearly as depressing as the thought of amateur footy teams in well established leagues having to umpire their own games because there’s no volunteer umpires. The difference between those two scenarios is that the one you have mentioned is hypothetical, the one I’ve highlighted is actually happening.
Angela
Roar Rookie
'The Champions in all sports just play the game rather than complain.' Umm, ?Kyrios, Serena, Djokovich et al. As far as I'm aware, arguementative, abusive tennis players get fined and maybe suspended from future tournaments but their opponents are never given a point advantage at the time of the game that might mean the difference between winning and losing. The thought that a future premiership might be won on a 50 metre free kick because an opposing player rolled their eyes or half raised their arms is depressing.
ChuckIt
Roar Rookie
If there is only 1 min to go and 5 points difference then it doesn't matter if 50 metre given as both teams deserve to win. There would have been many poor decisions or non decision during the whole game. It's very simple stop arguing with the umpires. The Champions in all sports just play the game rather than complain.
Michael Podger
Guest
"AFL players are some of the most competitive athletes on the planet. Expecting them to be virtually emotionless when a decision is paid against them is ludicrous" Except, a significant proportion of AFL players don't dispute umpire calls. If they can do it, so can the others - it's simply a question of maturity.