SA Footy

How about giving the team a warning for dissent before penalising like with the 6-6-6 rule, and even then make it a 25m penalty. a 50m for reacting and most times gifting a goal is too harsh.

The irony of umps getting abused more now should not be lost on the AFL.

whufc wrote:

shoe boy wrote:Im a fan of the dissent rule.

As reviews in cricket have seen, players are terrible at decision making and generally see what happened completely wrong.

Shut up and play the game.

Rugby union is one of the few sports that have got the respect between players/officials right.

It's terribly enforced and the punishment does not fit the crime - players putting their arms out or shaking their heads being marched 50m back and almost a certain opposition goal. It's ridiculous.

The Bedge wrote:

whufc wrote:

shoe boy wrote:Im a fan of the dissent rule.

As reviews in cricket have seen, players are terrible at decision making and generally see what happened completely wrong.

Shut up and play the game.

Rugby union is one of the few sports that have got the respect between players/officials right.

It's terribly enforced and the punishment does not fit the crime - players putting their arms out or shaking their heads being marched 50m back and almost a certain opposition goal. It's ridiculous.

Yeah agree they haven't found the middle ground and potential some tweeks on the rule needed but it will get there. Its the kind of rule I don't mind them bringing in rather than changing some of the petty crap they change.

Its so much better watching a game and not having the camera focused on some dickweed flapping there arms about on the mark at the umpire when clearly the player is wrong. Nice to watch them throw the ball back and just get on with the game.

I've found the AFL very enjoyable to watch this year as a neutral. First time I have said that in almost ten years.

I've found the AFL very enjoyable to watch this year as a neutral. First time I have said that in almost ten years.[/quote]

I thought it was about the game not umpires.

Hey do you like the bounce?

shoe boy wrote:I've found the AFL very enjoyable to watch this year as a neutral. First time I have said that in almost ten years.

I thought it was about the game not umpires.

Hey do you like the bounce?[/quote]

I didn't realise umpire abuse and grown men throwing the dummy out of the cot was actually part of the game. The 'game' is better for players getting on with doing what their paid do.....play the game.

The rule is terrible at the moment - it seems like just a penalty an umpire can apply when they feel like it.. for every "umpire respect" 50m penalty over the weekend there would've been x10 per game that went unpunished.. and probably more deserving.. the 50's for flapping arms or whatever is non-sense.

The rule is fine.
The players unwillingness to accept it is the rule and zip it is the problem.

Umpires enforcing it isn't an issue.
If players just play the game then the umpires won't have the opportunity to pay anything.

Trader wrote:The rule is fine.
The players unwillingness to accept it is the rule and zip it is the problem.

Umpires enforcing it isn't an issue.
If players just play the game then the umpires won't have the opportunity to pay anything.

You want no emotion in the game just play robots.
Umpires make mistakes and I get that but this has just gone to far.

Plenty of times players put their arms in the air as they are frustrated with their performance and/or their team mates, I can see an umpire misinterpreting this and paying a 50m very soon.

I feel for the umpires as Im sure most of them wouldn't want to pay these penalties.

Dutchy wrote:Plenty of times players put their arms in the air as they are frustrated with their performance and/or their team mates, I can see an umpire misinterpreting this and paying a 50m very soon.

I feel for the umpires as Im sure most of them wouldn't want to pay these penalties.

Yes, with all the noise etc. going on you could easily misinterpret the body language.

As someone stated before, I think the 25m penalty is more apt, not a third of the oval.

Trader wrote:The rule is fine.
The players unwillingness to accept it is the rule and zip it is the problem.

Umpires enforcing it isn't an issue.
If players just play the game then the umpires won't have the opportunity to pay anything.

Ahh, this is a chicken and egg scenario in my mind!

If Hawkins doesn't get paid that free kick, players wouldn't look at the screen and ask a legitimate question of the umpires. Don't pay the free kicks that aren't there and the players wont have anything to argue with!

So when you say 'play the game', they can't. Can anyone, tell me the definition of a block in a ruck contest for instance?

Start docking rotations for "dissent"

Have a 4th umpire that review the play and they can also dock rotations for dives/flops/thug acts

BOOM!

problem solved.

Armchair > Brad Scott >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steve sHocking

gadj1976 wrote:

Trader wrote:The rule is fine.
The players unwillingness to accept it is the rule and zip it is the problem.

Umpires enforcing it isn't an issue.
If players just play the game then the umpires won't have the opportunity to pay anything.

Ahh, this is a chicken and egg scenario in my mind!

If Hawkins doesn't get paid that free kick, players wouldn't look at the screen and ask a legitimate question of the umpires. Don't pay the free kicks that aren't there and the players wont have anything to argue with!

So when you say 'play the game', they can't. Can anyone, tell me the definition of a block in a ruck contest for instance?

So the players expect the umpires to be perfect?

What if every time a player turns the ball over the umpires abuse him?
What if every time they make a bad decision, the umpires abuse him?

If a player makes a mistake, his teammate will get around him, get him back up and ready for the next contest.
If an umpire makes a mistake, the player will abuse him and say its his fault for getting something wrong.

This is the problem. A Player respects his mate but not the bloke in green/yellow/blue/etc.

Allow the umpires to be human, during the week their performance will be reviewed.
Abusing him in front of the 300,000 fans watching on TV isn't the answer.

Trader wrote:

gadj1976 wrote:

Trader wrote:The rule is fine.
The players unwillingness to accept it is the rule and zip it is the problem.

Umpires enforcing it isn't an issue.
If players just play the game then the umpires won't have the opportunity to pay anything.

Ahh, this is a chicken and egg scenario in my mind!

If Hawkins doesn't get paid that free kick, players wouldn't look at the screen and ask a legitimate question of the umpires. Don't pay the free kicks that aren't there and the players wont have anything to argue with!

So when you say 'play the game', they can't. Can anyone, tell me the definition of a block in a ruck contest for instance?

So the players expect the umpires to be perfect?

What if every time a player turns the ball over the umpires abuse him?
What if every time they make a bad decision, the umpires abuse him?

If a player makes a mistake, his teammate will get around him, get him back up and ready for the next contest.
If an umpire makes a mistake, the player will abuse him and say its his fault for getting something wrong.

This is the problem. A Player respects his mate but not the bloke in green/yellow/blue/etc.

Allow the umpires to be human, during the week their performance will be reviewed.
Abusing him in front of the 300,000 fans watching on TV isn't the answer.

But the players cant be?

Trader wrote:

gadj1976 wrote:

Trader wrote:The rule is fine.
The players unwillingness to accept it is the rule and zip it is the problem.

Umpires enforcing it isn't an issue.
If players just play the game then the umpires won't have the opportunity to pay anything.

Ahh, this is a chicken and egg scenario in my mind!

If Hawkins doesn't get paid that free kick, players wouldn't look at the screen and ask a legitimate question of the umpires. Don't pay the free kicks that aren't there and the players wont have anything to argue with!

So when you say 'play the game', they can't. Can anyone, tell me the definition of a block in a ruck contest for instance?

So the players expect the umpires to be perfect?


What if every time a player turns the ball over the umpires abuse him?
What if every time they make a bad decision, the umpires abuse him?

If a player makes a mistake, his teammate will get around him, get him back up and ready for the next contest.
If an umpire makes a mistake, the player will abuse him and say its his fault for getting something wrong.

This is the problem. A Player respects his mate but not the bloke in green/yellow/blue/etc.

Allow the umpires to be human, during the week their performance will be reviewed.
Abusing him in front of the 300,000 fans watching on TV isn't the answer.

They obviously don't because not every decision is met with derision. I think players can tolerate umpires mistakes but due to having three umpires, you are going to get inconsistency, which in my mind means they also should be allowed to ask why a free kick was paid.

Another anomaly the AFL have introduced, watch what happens when there is a ball up, or a decision that is 'not a free' - for instance, out of bounds. Players throw their arms up pleading for a free kick. But because it's not already a free kick, no 50 is paid.

Going back to your comment, you've misquoted or misunderstood me. At no time did I say nor others say 'abuse' was tolerated and shouldn't have a 50 paid. I wholeheartedly agree, if you abuse an ump, 50. But there is a gulf between what we're seeing as dissent and what's actually beneficial for the recruitment and retention of umpires.

BTW, for me, dissent isn't putting your arms up asking why a free kick was there. Calling him a yellow four eyed maggot is indeed dissent!

If the umpires (controlled wholly by the AFL) have a chance to be respected, they'll be respected.

gadj1976 wrote:BTW, for me, dissent isn't putting your arms up asking why a free kick was there.

Bingo.

Trader wrote:

gadj1976 wrote:

Trader wrote:The rule is fine.
The players unwillingness to accept it is the rule and zip it is the problem.

Umpires enforcing it isn't an issue.
If players just play the game then the umpires won't have the opportunity to pay anything.

Ahh, this is a chicken and egg scenario in my mind!

If Hawkins doesn't get paid that free kick, players wouldn't look at the screen and ask a legitimate question of the umpires. Don't pay the free kicks that aren't there and the players wont have anything to argue with!

So when you say 'play the game', they can't. Can anyone, tell me the definition of a block in a ruck contest for instance?

So the players expect the umpires to be perfect?

What if every time a player turns the ball over the umpires abuse him?
What if every time they make a bad decision, the umpires abuse him?

If a player makes a mistake, his teammate will get around him, get him back up and ready for the next contest.
If an umpire makes a mistake, the player will abuse him and say its his fault for getting something wrong.

This is the problem. A Player respects his mate but not the bloke in green/yellow/blue/etc.

Allow the umpires to be human, during the week their performance will be reviewed.
Abusing him in front of the 300,000 fans watching on TV isn't the answer.

We aren't talking about abusing the umpires we are talking about players holding their arms out in frustration, as per usual the AFL has absolutely ****** up the implementation of something by having done no research or trials before implementing it. If a player genuinely doesn't know what the free was for how are they meant to adjust their play if they can't respectfully ask the question?

Most people will accept a 50m penalty when the abuse is there just let the umpires use some common sense. Going to be interesting this weekend now the AFL have doubled down saying the stupidity was right and the umpires who exercised common sense are wrong.

Big difference between:

“can you please explain how that is a free?” where players are asking for advice in a calm manner.
Vs
“That’s not a free” or “what was that for?” When they are pointing at the replay.

Even if you don’t consider those scenarios to be different, the simple fact is the umpire has made his decision, accept it and get on with it.
If you need someone to explain to you the rules of the game, as your coach during the week.
It’s not the umpires job to justify his decision to you, especially when you are doing g it in a manner that question ions his decision.

Jimmy_041 wrote:

Trader wrote:Allow the umpires to be human, during the week their performance will be reviewed.
Abusing him in front of the 300,000 fans watching on TV isn't the answer.

But the players cant be?

Ruckmen tapping the ball into the corridor from a boundary throw in inside their defensive 50 is a mistake that they are allowed to make as a human, and the umpires won’t abuse them for it.

Making the mistake is human.
Abusing someone else when you perceive they have made a mistake isn’t human, it’s being a bully.

Accept the decision, get on with the game and if you still think it was the wrong decision, on Monday morning ask your club to contact the AFL and seek clarification then.

Abusing or simply querying the umpires mid game isn’t going to get him to change his decision, so accept it and move on.

Once again comparing to rugby I think if a player has a genuine concern about an interpretation or rule utilise the captain to go and have a chat to the umpires for clarification. This happens in union between penalties, obviously that time doesn't exist in aussie rules so imo the captain should be allowed to go and chat to the umpires at quarter time if they have a genuine concern. I think a genuine discussion at a period the game is stopped between a figure head and umpire is pretty healthy. In union the referee often uses it as an oppurtunity to pass a message back to the players through the captain...….its a two way streak.

Like trader said trying to have those discussions whilst the umpire is trying to enforce the stand rule, make sure a player is over the mark, call the millisecond a player plays on etc is not the time to discuss what 90% of the time is a player who actually has seen the incident incorrectly.

whufc wrote:I didn't realise umpire abuse and grown men throwing the dummy out of the cot was actually part of the game. The 'game' is better for players getting on with doing what their paid do.....play the game.

Go and watch a low grade ammo's game.