The Roar
The Roar

Daddy Disnick

Roar Guru

Joined October 2013

3.8k

Views

4

Published

10.1k

Comments

Published

Comments

Thanks. I appreciate the comment.

AFL Friday Footy Fix: Swans and Tigers put on a classic despite the controversy - and why THAT non-50 was the right decision

I guess that’s why I have no idea who you are, yet you clearly know me.

AFL Friday Footy Fix: Swans and Tigers put on a classic despite the controversy - and why THAT non-50 was the right decision

That’s it? That’s all you have to add?

AFL Friday Footy Fix: Swans and Tigers put on a classic despite the controversy - and why THAT non-50 was the right decision

That’s a $h1t example and you know it.

Secondly, if you break certain ‘procedures’ and get it wrong, you’re in big trouble, irrespective of whether you thought it was the right thing to do in medicine, Rod.

It’s a game of footy at the end of the day, but what you just said with regards to our profession, I completely disagree with.

It depends on the situation.

AFL Friday Footy Fix: Swans and Tigers put on a classic despite the controversy - and why THAT non-50 was the right decision

Brad Scott is the AFL’s General Manager of Football. His roles encompasses many aspects of the running of the AFL competition including the umpiring. The AFL is advised by an independent body called the AFL Competition Committee, but ultimately, the AFL Commission is responsible for all rules governing the game at both the elite and amateur levels.

So yes, Brad Scott has ultimate control over the umpires and was primarily responsible for the dissent rule. A rule I agree with along with its implementation, initially anyway.

I hope that helps.

AFL Friday Footy Fix: Swans and Tigers put on a classic despite the controversy - and why THAT non-50 was the right decision

But the Richmond players, initially anyway, weren’t involved in umpire dissent as per the rule. They were questioning the umpire while he was making a decision. A decision that took a long time to make, involving all three umpires. I’m not sure on the rules with regards to that, nor do you, so making sweeping statements like you just did does not make sense. Not to me anyway.

However, once the decision was made, the free kick should have been reversed. That was umpire dissent. Tell me I’m wrong?

AFL Friday Footy Fix: Swans and Tigers put on a classic despite the controversy - and why THAT non-50 was the right decision

I’ll never understand why people like you criticise others for contributing to an article.

If it takes you more than 45 seconds to read and comprehend, I suggest you don’t bother.

AFL Friday Footy Fix: Swans and Tigers put on a classic despite the controversy - and why THAT non-50 was the right decision

It depends. I’ll always give that answer to most things in life. Perhaps I’ll be able to sway you to think otherwise?…perhaps not.

I’m not disputing the decision. I’ve simply said that decision, more often than not, would result in a 50. I cannot be too far off the truth because the adjudicating umpire (John Howorth) felt it was a 50. You could hear him quite clearly indicating this. The only reason it didn’t result in a 50 is that Matt Stevic overruled that decision. Those are the facts, not my opinion.

The issue for me, and most I suspect, is consistency. Had that same incident occurred at the halftime siren, and yes, I’ve seen players kick the ball after the siren at halftime to vent frustration or relief, then I have no doubt John Howorth instantly gives a 50m penalty. Stevic would not have had the time to override his decision, and no, I’ve never seen in my 40 years watching AFL an umpire overturn another umpire’s decision. I have seen umpires override non-decisions (this happens all the time), but never an umpire overriding a decision, especially a 50m penalty.

Now, is that the correct procedure? No, I suspect not, based on precedence and my observations in the past, along with far more qualified commentators who equally believe the same. As such, has umpiring consistency come further into question? i.e. are free kicks worth more in the dying moments of a match vs the start? The answer, in this case, is clearly yes and one worth pursuing further.

Has this incidence of ‘common sense’ made life easier for the umpires or made the game better? I suspect not because perhaps we’ll now be expecting the three umpires to have a democratic vote on all decisions in the last 5-minutes to make sure they don’t make a blunder. Even worse: an autocratic process where one umpire can overrule the other, precisely what happened. Although Stevic is more senior in games umpired, I understand that he is not senior in rank on the field, nor does he have the authority to override the adjudicating umpire in the way he did. You’ll have to ask Brad Scott to confirm that, but I’ll bet that I’m right.

In answer to your question: suppose that process fails again, and a future overriding umpire calls something similar but wrong, then yes, in that case, I’d rather the wrong call be made for the greater good, i.e. the process is upheld.

However, in this instance, you can debate that John Howorth did not make an incorrect decision. His decision was within the game’s laws — reaffirmed by many in the industry who agreed. Many also disagreed, but I’m a critically thinking person, and I suspect this is more to do with the decision Stevic made being far less controversial, more so than being the correct one.

Just because something is far less controversial does not mean the right outcome occurred. Not in the long term, anyway.

AFL Friday Footy Fix: Swans and Tigers put on a classic despite the controversy - and why THAT non-50 was the right decision

That is factually incorrect. The umpire had blown the whistle (for the free kick) before the siren, therefore the free kick stands. Everything after that is debatable — something you lack the ability to differentiate.

“The focus is the game”

Another classic cliché. You love them…I get it.

AFL Friday Footy Fix: Swans and Tigers put on a classic despite the controversy - and why THAT non-50 was the right decision

Whether it was the right call or not (regarding the 50) is not the issue.
The issue for me is the process. The adjudicating umpire thought it was a 50. Stevic overturned his decision without consultation. He just stated the kick will be taken from the infringement site and the adjudicating umpire falls in line.
You’ll have to ask Brad Scott whether that’s correct procedure but I suspect it’s not.

AFL Friday Footy Fix: Swans and Tigers put on a classic despite the controversy - and why THAT non-50 was the right decision

I don’t remember him. Could you be more specific?

AFL NEWS: Noble hits back at 'untrue' rumours of woes at North, Lyon opens up on fallen Saint

David Noble is a classic example of demanding respect vs commanding respect. David is the former.

He won’t be at North come this time next year.

AFL NEWS: Noble hits back at 'untrue' rumours of woes at North, Lyon opens up on fallen Saint

You don’t. You burn the shoe.

The Fremantle bubble has burst, and they could be in freefall

Unfortunately, there is no cure. Just make sure it doesn’t touch you. It’s quite infectious, often negatively impacting on one’s sanity.

The Fremantle bubble has burst, and they could be in freefall

You know you’ve hit a raw nerve when nearly 25% of the ramblings on this thread has come from the same person.

The Fremantle bubble has burst, and they could be in freefall

I feel stUp1der after reading that rant. It made no sense. I wish I could unread it, but I can’t.

AFL NEWS: Rutten says Parker sledge 'about all of us', Lumumba releases more Buckle tapes, mega AFLW pay rise coming

All true, Nick. It’s quite an interesting topic the AFL’s equalisation measures when you dig deeper. It’s not as socialistic as you would think, especially from a legal standpoint.

For another discussion.

AFL NEWS: Rutten says Parker sledge 'about all of us', Lumumba releases more Buckle tapes, mega AFLW pay rise coming

See that little comment I made about infrastructure, training and subsidies?…Those articles encompass all of the above., not what you just mentioned. Go hit the links in the second link on the AFL’s website. I really cannot help you out any further. You’re just not interested in learning.

You do realise soccer has become the biggest participation team sport in Victoria right at the grassroots? If you understand this, then I’m sure you’ll realise why the AFL does subsidise grassroots development to help counter this in its heartland.

AFL NEWS: Rutten says Parker sledge 'about all of us', Lumumba releases more Buckle tapes, mega AFLW pay rise coming

No it doesn’t. Stop lying, or better inform yourself.

The AFL works with each state government to help support grassroots development ranging from infrastructure, training, subsidies etc:

https://www.aflvic.com.au/news/grassroots-footy-gets-well-deserved-support-231472

https://www.aflvic.com.au/facilities-funding/grant-funding-opportunities

AFL NEWS: Rutten says Parker sledge 'about all of us', Lumumba releases more Buckle tapes, mega AFLW pay rise coming

Many will argue that the AFL and NFL are the most socialist sporting competitions globally. It’s a conundrum, especially when comparing it to capitalistic European models…or is it?

Both the AFL and NFL have structured their enterprises well to counter any potential legal challenge to the Salary Cap and Draft. This would be considered a restraint of trade, but it’s deemed legal, providing the AFL can justify it as reasonable and fair.

Their justification is the ‘greater good’ argument. There was a great economic article done 10+ years ago (I cannot find it at present) outlining this argument for the NFL.

However, the basic premise is that having equalisation measures (socialist structures) allows for more even competition. A more even competition results in broader interest, thus fueling the capitalistic argument.

So, if we removed certain teams and essentially just had the ones that appear to generate more revenue, would this have a positive effect? Well, the NFL model has shown this not to be the case. It has the highest revenue of any sporting competition on the planet, even significantly surprising the likes of more global competitors such as the EPL and La Liga. The competitions do get rid of the weak through relegation, which many see as cutthroat capitalistic dynamics.

It’s interesting when you think about which is the more capitalistic system when you break it down., especially from a legal standpoint.

AFL NEWS: Rutten says Parker sledge 'about all of us', Lumumba releases more Buckle tapes, mega AFLW pay rise coming

@Chris

While I agree, to some extent, with your argument regarding relatively free enterprise, this is not the case with the AFL.

The 2017-22 CBA is only 28% of total AFL revenue. The men’s PA has always argued for more, especially given other sporting entities can have Player Wages accounting for nearly 80%. Still, the AFL has argued that a stronger AFL will always yield greater wages.

Furthermore, Gill has publicly announced that the extra funding for the AFLW wages will not come from any revenue allocated for the men’s game in the next CBA. It’s a moot issue what we are arguing.

What isn’t a moot issue is whether the women should be paid the same in the future. If the AFL decided to take money from the men’s CBA and offload it into the women’s, then your argument does hold some weight, as does NH’s. However, as pointed out, this is not the case, and you need to understand how the AFL operates its expenditure. You can clearly see they have over 70% expenditure in other areas they can tap into.

The AFL, once again, will argue spending money on the women’s game will grow the AFL economy faster than if they spent it elsewhere.

I’ll finish with one of my favourite quotes from the Hustler, which sums up this premise perfectly:

I’d rather have 1/3 of something than 100% of nothing.

AFL NEWS: Rutten says Parker sledge 'about all of us', Lumumba releases more Buckle tapes, mega AFLW pay rise coming

@ NH

“Your attachment confirms my argument, thanks.”

My link doesn’t confirm your argument at all. I suggest you read the article instead of just the headline.

The article is primarily about the rising cost of soccer registration fees. However, within the article, it references how other codes have helped address this issue, i.e. the AFL subsidising registration fees.

This reference is in direct contradiction to your initial statements.

AFL NEWS: Rutten says Parker sledge 'about all of us', Lumumba releases more Buckle tapes, mega AFLW pay rise coming

whoops, wrong reply. 😊

AFL NEWS: Rutten says Parker sledge 'about all of us', Lumumba releases more Buckle tapes, mega AFLW pay rise coming

I’m not disputing this, or dissing you. However, being ill-informed on a topic, whether that be educated or not, is not desirable.

His comments have been challenged and I threw his only counter argument in the bin, i.e his academic credentials. They matter little to me.

The only thing that matters is what we say. However, if someone does want to bring education into the discussion, well…I can always tell how true that is by the way one writes.

In other words: I agree with you.

Good chatting my friend.

AFL NEWS: Rutten says Parker sledge 'about all of us', Lumumba releases more Buckle tapes, mega AFLW pay rise coming

1. I didn’t bring education into the debate. He did. I simply said spouting off one’s qualifications is irrelevant on a forum like this.

2. I didn’t ask him to leave at all. I asked him to go if I could counter his argument using his own words (which I have). I would never ask someone to do anything I wouldn’t be willing to do myself, which is why I also offered to leave if I couldn’t.

3. I only made a few points. The very fact you agree with those few points reaffirms that I’m right.

AFL NEWS: Rutten says Parker sledge 'about all of us', Lumumba releases more Buckle tapes, mega AFLW pay rise coming

close