Geez, umpire dissent is just about the stupidest penalty that the AFL has ever brought in.
Just about.
There have been so many kneejerk reactions to problems of aesthetics rather than problems of substance that it’s hard to separate them. About all they show is if there’s one thing the AFL’s great at, it’s overreacting.
So now apparently it’s an issue for players to throw their arms up in disgust or in frustration or even in disappointment (in themselves) after an umpire’s made a decision.
Penalise them 50 metres.
This penalty ignores that a lot of these responses are reflexive. In the heat of the moment the AFL is asking players to exercise censorship on themselves. A tense period in the game, the match in the balance, a decision – or, God forbid, a bad decision – goes against a player, and they’re meant to remain clinically cool?
Really?
And we qualify that by giving the umpires licence to respond like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum who’s given validation rather than education.
Somebody might throw out a spurious comparison, like, “You wouldn’t talk back to a cop, would you?”. Well, you might ask for clarification for a ticket. And you have recourse to challenge any offence through the courts.
I throw this out there because this needs to be looked at in isolation. This is the death penalty of penalties – you have no recourse. No appeal. No stay of execution.
Rules are essential in any game, I’ll grant you that. But there should be a reward or penalty for an act that affects the game. We have holding the man, incorrect disposal, push in the back, too high et cetera. But umpire dissent? This is tantamount to penalising a player for glowering at an opponent.
How does a player throwing their arms up affect the game? Does it get in the way of an opponent? Does it stop the ball carrier from taking action? Does it in any way influence the momentum of the contest?
No. The issue is it’s a bad look. We can’t have umpires opposed, can we?
(Photo by Michael Willson/AFL Photos via Getty Images)
Because it’s such an epidemic in AFL, players rebelling against umpiring decisions. We’re nearing the stratum of how pro wrestlers treat referees. We can only be one act from a player striking an umpire or hitting them with a chair or throwing them out of the arena.
Well, no.
Even the worst incidents are only a speck of defiance that umpires have repeatedly shown they can de-escalate.
We actually used to pride ourselves on the fact we were allowed backchat. The old AFL promo has been doing the rounds on social media showing John McEnroe – legendary for his on-court tantrums – marvelling that AFL players could talk back to umpires.
If we no longer want that level of discourse, fine; penalise players who are overt. Although, in truth, even this is redundant. Just as umpires were instructed to throw the ball up immediately to dispel melees, getting on with the game would abruptly silence any protest.
Think about that: on the flip side, it’s only an issue if the umpire engages. If a player is complaining, the umpire could simply ignore him and get on with the game. What? Too controversial? Too simplistic? But it’s exactly what we’re asking players to do – get on with the game.
There is absolutely no issue with players’ relationship with umpires, and vice versa. It’s just the latest bugbear.
(Photo by Dylan Burns/AFL Photos via Getty Images)
The biggest concern for the AFL is the aesthetic: how such demonstrations filter through lower levels and discourage prospective umpires coming through the ranks. You wouldn’t want to umpire if you got shouted at, would you? Geez. I wasn’t aware umpires were made of twigs and straw.
I can’t speak to whether Australian rules is short on umpires, particularly umpires who could graduate to AFL and AFLW ranks.
But if this is a genuine concern, the answer would seem to be simpler than asking players to become mindless, emotionless, mute automatons.
Money.
If umpiring were professional and they were paid obscene amounts, it would entice people to choose it as a career.
If umpires were professional – if they studied rules and interpretations every day (it remains an aberration that interpretations vary from not only game to game but also quarter to quarter), if they practised centre bounces, maybe we’d actually get some consistency and uniformity not only through a game but through a season.
Surely, just as players do, they could also perform clinics promoting the game and their vocation. You want the public to have a better relationship with umpires? This is the way.
This whole thing about players being disallowed from expressing any emotion in the direction of the umpire is a horrible overreaction to a problem that didn’t exist.
What it has done is introduce yet another unwanted rule that will be applied haphazardly, have an unwanted impact on games and potentially influence, if not decide, an outcome.
That’s the primary worry. However well intentioned this is conceptually, it’ll just be a matter of time before it becomes idiosyncratic – a novelty that’s there one moment, then not there the next three. How long until that occurs? It’s already happening, just as it always has with so many kneejerk reactions.
That’s something the AFL should truly weigh up. What is the bigger problem: that players occasionally vent their frustration or that we have yet another interpretation that’ll exasperate everybody with its inconsistency and selectivity?
Ed
Guest
Woke Woke Woke.Your right.With Brad Scott now in charge you can expect "Professicorial Woke".By the end of the year should be dogs breakfast.Feel sorry for the Umpires.This games hard enough to Umpire without being controlled by Company executives with theoretical degree's of grandeur Ed
Willie
Roar Rookie
Well said.
PeterCtheThird
Guest
Congratulations on being this week’s designated idiot. “Woke”, “PC culture”, “rammed down our throats”, “medal for participating”, all in your lead sentence. Well done! A 17-year old female umpire should just smile and get on with it when some over-testosteroned fknuckle says “get a dog up ya ya ****.” Just good-humoured banter. Save the penalties for the serious stuff. Oh wait, there wouldn’t be any, would there?
Marty
Roar Rookie
Well that’s an interesting perspective on the situation. ‘Look, you’re going to cop either way so we’ve decided to allow players to give it to you on the ground because it won’t be as bad as the crowd rioting’. Why would some 15 year old kid volunteer to put themselves in the middle of that? It’s very difficult to control crowd behaviour, thats one of the main reasons we are in this a mess. The fact is the crowd often takes it’s cues from the players. If they see the players remonstrate they join in. If you stop the payers remonstrating you remove one of the triggers for poor behaviour by the crowd.
dab
Roar Rookie
I would like to see an additional statistic. Umpire metres gained.
David Armstrong
Guest
As a senior AFL state league umpire, I am totally against the new dissent law. We already have in place more than adequate tools to deal with any type of inappropriate action from players during games. What umpires cannot control, and where 99% of the issues lie, is with sideline behaviour at junior level. Abuse towards umpires from local crowds at junior games results in young umpires leaving - there is ample data to support this. Feedback from players (which sometimes comes emotionally charged) allows an umpire to reflect on a decision (usually post game, but sometimes immediately). You cannot reverse a decision, but you might consider the decision - did I get it right? Actually, that was probably a 50/50, or that was probably only incidental contact (and not a free kick). It's one way we get to improve. One of the great attractions of being an umpire is that you are right in the mix, front row to all the fantastic action of an emotionally charged, highly skillful and combative game. The interaction between players and umpires is part of the game, and good umpires master the skills of effective and assertive communication. Taking this from the game, will create even more aggressive sideline behaviour as spectators will see no protest around clangers (yes, we all make them - just like players make mistakes), and then with protest, a second penalty. Umpires will eventually lose their skill set and adjudicate without restraint. We need our checks and balances, and we need emotion and theatre, and we need humanity in this great game. Address crowd behaviour first but don't take away the thrill of being an umpire in a challenging environment.
Knackaz
Roar Rookie
This is symptomatic of the whole woke PC culture being rammed down everyone’s throats (which most people don’t want), where everyone gets a medal just for participating. I agree with not having players stand there swearing their heads off etc on the mark at the umps, but just a second of frustration for a 50 like De Goey exhibited last weekend when the game was on the line, that ostensibly killed the contest is way too harsh. It’s insane. He managed to quickly control himself but was still punished. Appalling, frustrating for all fans and downright embarrassing. AFL = nanny state. Get rid of GWS and Gold Coast and make the umps full time if that’s what it takes to get a better standard of umpiring …
George Apps
Roar Rookie
Excellent point you've made Danger - the public watching the game are worse than animals! I feel sorry for the players. I've been a footy follower since 1956 and I've never seen a worse rule!
dargerovitch
Roar Rookie
I doubt Gill's departure will solve the problem. Same as i doubt this dissent rule will help umps at junior / suburban/ country level where it's the spectators not the players who come out with dissent and abuse. I gave up umpiring U.17's due to abuse from over the fence by parents and Senior players arriving for their later game. No problems with the boys, none. All the probs were with the "adults." Also i got $25 a game which just covered my petrol seeing it was in the country and i'd have to travel anywhere between 40 and 150 kms each week.
Chanon
Roar Rookie
Completely nuts like the Pies paying Treloar 300K to play for the dogs & to add salt to the wound he kicks 3 goals against them & possibly his best game, thanks Ned :laughing:
pablocruz
Roar Rookie
Crazy, hey?
Chanon
Roar Rookie
And to think Ned Guy works for Brad Scott the world has gone bonkers :silly:
PeteB
Roar Rookie
Totally agree with you Les and it has also amplified the issue of the 50 metre penalty. A 50 metre penalty given in the forward half of the ground is a far greater penalty than one given in the back half. Gimme goals awarded by umpires from a soft infringement such as waving the arms or “entering the protected zone” is a blight on our game. The penalty really should be reduced to only 10 or 15 metres once within or on the 50 metre arc.
Chanon
Roar Rookie
Procam attached to forehead of Ump might mitigate mistakes, ‘ just pause gimme a sec play on’ :stoked:
Guy Mitchell
Guest
I left a comment in a FB thread immediately after the Pies v Bulldogs discussing the dissent rule & could see this article two ways…… (1) The author has used my thoughts. (2) The author thinks along the same lines as me & honestly cares about the game. I’m thinking it’s # 2 & really enjoyed reading this article.
Boo
Guest
Personally I think the blanket 50 metre penalty is the problem .Umpire abuse , moving off the mark , handing the ball back incorrectly are all assessed as the same .Give the umpire discretion to make it 25 metres or send player to sorry school if necessary .
pablocruz
Roar Rookie
A Scott backing down? Admitting they were wrong? Won't happen in this world.
dab
Roar Rookie
Yeah. Free brain transplants for all umpires!
Chris Lewis
Roar Guru
I think problems will always remain due to pace game and angle each umpire views incidents.
CT
Guest
Too right. Pay them more to make them smarter so we can go back to abusing them when they’re dumb again. It’s the only solution that makes sense!