The impact of ‘umpire dissent’ rules on game results is a hot topic. And rightly so. But the real question should be about the ever-increasing influence that umpires have on all aspects of matches.
It is fair and right to protect umpires from abuse. But when that starts to interfere with the spirit of the game, you have to question the logic. Do players, fans, critics respect umpires more today than they did, say, 20 years ago? I doubt it.
The ridiculous irony following a dissent call that sealed a Carlton win against GWS in Round 3 was how AFL Head of Umpiring Dan Richardson defended the controversial call by likening umpires to players who sometimes respond in the heat of the moment.
“Just like we have some players or coaches who occasionally get emotional, or become overly expressive when under pressure, we also have umpires with differing levels of temperament.”
So, players are being told to keep their mouths shut, ignore their instincts to gesticulate and basically play without human emotions, yet we’re expected to cut temperamental umpires some slack.
It’s a bit rich. And combined with the ‘stand’ rules, constant referrals to the ARC review and other so-called innovations, spectators get the sense they are watching three entities on the field. The two playing teams ‘and’ the umpires themselves who play an ever-increasing role thanks to rule changes.
So much so that we might as well start adding a third score up on the board… points directly attributed to umpire ‘calls’.
What do I mean by that? Free kicks close to goals are a match-winning decision. We know that and thankfully umpires use some discretion to avoid swaying tightly contested games, especially in the dying stages.
But in the mid-field, fewer infractions get that benefit of the doubt. That is a big problem because a 50m penalty puts long kickers well within range and/or exposes defenders setting up for a counter-punch.
Even if umpires were to show more restraint, 50m is still way too long and is being used beyond its original remit. It was introduced in 1988 when the AFL felt the 15m penalty was not enough to deter time-wasting and scragging.
Compare that to the average AFL field length of around 150m – 15m represents a tenth of the pitch length while 50m jumps to a third – and these umpire calls become game-changers. What’s more they are being applied to more and more infringements.
For the sake of players’ sanity and to keep fans from completely turning against umpires it is time to review rules that stand in the way of the game’s natural spirit. A game of passionate athletes, not programmed automatons.
And a good place for the AFL to start is with the ‘dissent’ and ‘stand’ rules in view of the 50m penalty. My bid would be to go back to 15m for dissent, time-wasting and scragging-like behaviour, 35m for more serious offences, and to scrap the 50m and overly strict stand rules altogether.
Extreme aggression against the umpire and cases of dangerous and deliberate rough play get reported to the tribunal and earn the player a stretch in the sin bin.
That punishes the whole team on the day and in future matches, setting clear boundaries without driving fans mad with frustration. What do people think?
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
I could easily understand if for example Stephenson for North cracked it on Friday when called for running too far after about 8 1/2 steps...........me thinks the umpire (Donlon) missed the 2nd bounce??? To me that's the only possible explanation. Awful - actually disgraceful umpiring because ideally with 4 field umpires then the controlling umpire should be paying MORE attention to the ball carrier and not less. Could also easily understand Zurhaar getting worked up over the most blatant high tackle; all players stopped waiting for the free............and umpire Donlon again calls a ball up!?! Footage after the subsequent goal (Powell from the stoppage) shows Zurhaar query Donlon who makes an action which looked like he thought Zurhaar had shrugged his shoulder to bring the tacklers arm over his shoulder............clearly that's not what happened and the umpire got it totally wrong. The restraint of the players..........was admirable however the errors by the umpire were certainly not what professional footballers should be subjected to. The 4 umpire system now arguably puts just an extra layer of inconsistency and arguably ineptitude out on the field. And the players just have to cop it. The most inconsistent element so far too - probably the 'insufficient intent' calls. Some umpires are 'hanging judges' who don't seem to comprehend the concept of 'pressure' on the kick and 'intent' vs pressured skill error.
Teuton
Roar Rookie
It's semantics on what you reckon 'dissent' means. Do you watch Union? I see it on TV and live in Europe weekly. Players not only respect the refs but hang on their words. There are genuine discussions between players (admittedly, mostly captains or senior players) and the umpire. The situation is explained, and the player is allowed to ask what's happening. In AFL, that's forbidden now. It's as though teacher has decided players are naughty if they dare to speak up. It's unbalanced power.
scrum
Roar Rookie
The thing about match officials, you can say at professional levels they are paid so they can suck it up. Now I do not agree with that but even so it’s the example that is being set. If you kids are playing junior sport the match officials are basically volunteers , certain to make mistakes and maybe teenagers themselves is it OK for them to be shouted at and abused from the sideline. If it was your boys out in the middle how would you feel if they were copping it. My advice, if you take your boys to big matches please do not be a parent shouting at the match officials or abusing the opposition, think of the example you are setting. I know all of this is unfortunately commonplace but it is not that hard to be better than that. And as for your example of chasing someone down and showing emotion well that is a positive emotion. I guess I am very old school, just make the tackle and get onto the next play but I understand society is far more demonstrative today. But please understand if giving it to match officials at elite level is not kept under control it all spirals down to community sport . How many kids ( or adults) are either going to take up the whistle or continue if they are subjected to constant abuse. And my point still stands, why should sport get a free card on bad behaviour especially when it markets itself as being good for personal development.
Teuton
Roar Rookie
Sure in an supermarket, office or driving… self-control is expected. Civilised society. But when you’ve just chased down the quickest guy or girl on the team, dragged them to ground in what you (and probably half the stadium) thought was a great tackle; it’s hard to then switch off the adrenalin. It’s a very physical contact sport so I get that people need protecting, but I’m not sure the umpire’s feelings qualify in the same way for ‘protection status’. Anyway, I get your point about raising kids in general though. I have well-behaved and, yes, gentle lads who happen to play contact sports – rugby, karate – where the discipline side does not interfere in the physical/emotional side. Cheers for the debate – helps to clarify what is a tricky topic, I appreciate.
Teuton
Roar Rookie
Yeah, makes sense and probably easier to measure than 35m using the field markings or something.
Teuton
Roar Rookie
I didn't know that they're not full-time/professional. That's a good point then. Cheers
Simoc
Roar Rookie
I'm with the umpires. 50m is game changing. When you're playing you get to know the umpires. So the players need to adjust to them. Its pretty much the same in all umpired sport. Dissent has never worked in any sport to date but I dislike the way players rush the soccer ref. I reckon he should be handing out yellow cards to all of them.
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
30m penalty should be enough. Double it for egregious breaches
AdamDilligafThompson
Roar Rookie
Weather people and umpires best two jobs in the world, where you can constantly get things wrong yet still have a job as nobody questions you.lol.
The Iron Dingo
Roar Rookie
I agree - a penalty as severe as a 50m or free kick (especially when gifting a goal) is totally inappropriate for what is essentially a natural reaction and should be reserved only for ongoing harassment or outright abuse. And whatever hypocritical excuses the AFL wants to make for the game changing decision from umpire snowflake on the weekend they are totally undercut by the fact that the umpires are part-time semi-professionals. Until they get serious about employing their umpires full time and having them accountable to standards all players can understand it will continue to be an obviously amateur aspect undermining what is supposed to be a professional league. And if the excuse for poor decision making is the temperament of the umpire then that umpire needs to be stood down.
PeteB
Roar Rookie
Yeah the contradictory nature of the AFLs explanation struck me. So umpires can interpret dissent differently depending on their own personality or level of resilience but we can’t even have a minor level of tolerance to players who briefly react to or question a decision in what most would class a non offensive way ? Umpires can be human, but players cannot .
junk
Roar Rookie
Give the umpires fewer decisions to make. The obviously struggle with things as they are. Get rid of "stand" before we progress to even more inane rules.
scrum
Roar Rookie
The child rearing thing is completely relevant. As we progress into adulthood we should have control of our emotions, especially negative emotions, it’s how we have a civilised society, sport is part of society but oddly some standards of behaviour at sport would never be acceptable in the rest of society . Sport boasts about how it is good for character development but yet seems to find acceptable standards of behaviour that most of us would not accept at home or in the workplace. You need to move past the thought that because it is sport somehow anti- social behaviour is OK.
Teuton
Roar Rookie
@Srcum, The third score thing is a perfect example. It is venting. Sarcasm. Human. Your point about child-rearing is interesting because it’s lateral thinking but really not relevant or literal enough to work with this idea. We’re talking about adults playing, watching and adjudicating the matches. Players don’t need lectures. Fans don’t need to be taught how to think. Sure, a rules-based society – at work, home, play – is important but there are limits. The punishment should fit the crime. My argument is that it has tipped over.
scrum
Roar Rookie
Your 3rd score comment shows a disconnect with reality. Rules are part of any sport, without rules the sport does not exit. Match officials are low hanging fruit for players/ coaches/ spectators to vent their frustration. As for emotion it is something to be controlled. Raising children for example revolves around passing on that lesson. What is shouting at the Umpire by a player achieving other than venting frustration, it’s a pointless exercise. It is expected at community level so asking well paid professional players to control their emotions is a reasonable ask.
Teuton
Roar Rookie
Tim, I’m questioning both the rules and the roles. The rules because they’re inhibiting the nature of the game, and the roles because a) umpires are being forced to enforce them (pretty much) at their own peril and b) because we’re now to believe that those entrusted with administering the rules are only human yet the players (the reason I watch) are not given such liberty. Why not just make their (the umpires) job easier in the first place. As for the third score jibe… That’s called sarcasm. Cheers for challenging this. It certainly needs discussion going forward. (-;
Tim Carter
Roar Pro
Are you questioning the umpires or the rules they administer? Because they're two very different issues. And your third score remarks made no sense to me at least.