Umpire Abuse

[tigertim]

Geez, I didn’t watch the game yesterday but just heard there were EIGHT 50 metre penalties for “umpire abuse”. Not like the umpires to be over officious on a new rule interpretation….

But the good thing is they’ll get most of it out of their system this weekend and hopefully by rd 1 will officiate it sensibly.….hopefully.

 

[tigerlandishome]

How long until crowd members are ejected for venting their frustration at umpiring?

Matthew 'The bald-headed flog' Nicholls already had someone kicked out based on a false allegation, so I don't think it will be too long.

 

[graystar1]

How long until crowd members are ejected for venting their frustration at umpiring?

I have already posted this.

 

[go polo]

we should be giving away 15 of them under these rules

 

[Redford]

My balance is fine. I never made comment on if the decision was right or wrong, all I pointed out was everyone was bagging a decision without any idea what the decision was made for. Which is stupid. Because as it turned out the bagging of the decision was based on completely the wrong idea.



The AFL didn't create confusion, the fans jumping to conclusions about what happened when they didn't have the facts created confusion.

In a culture with respect for umpires the reaction would be if he paid a 50 someone must have abused him, what a dumb act by the player. Instead, in the culture we have of bagging umpires non-stop, the reaction is straight to what a disgraceful decision, game's ruined etc, etc.... Sink the boots into the umpire first, worry about what actually happened later.

Which is why measure to change the attitude towards umpires are long overdue.

Hah hah hah. Please. Give us a break. Suggesting that everyone bar you is confused is absurd. You were originally trying to validate the decision by making comments about how Petracca has definitely said something to the umpire and why was Gawn remonstrating with Petracca, commentators saying this and that etc. So don't try and sanctimoniously make on that you had some clearer observation. You're as confused as anyone !

 

[Panthera Tigris]

Rugby Union has this sorted. Question an Ref, even an exasperated "why?" or "what?" and it's 10m. Only the Captain is allowed to talk to the Ref and that's only after asking and receiving permission to do so.

It works because it's just a part of the game. If you're new to Rugby having come from say Soccer, and in your first match you happen to yell "What was that for?" towards the Ref, it'll be a race to see whether the Ref can blow his whistle before your Captain runs over, grabs you by the collar and shouts "shut your *smile* mouth and NEVER talk to the Ref again" right in your face. It's a lesson you learn pretty quickly.

Rugby Union very much has British military and Grammar school culture intertwined in it's foundations and hence those cultural traits cross over.

I've served time in the ADF myself and can kind of see how it manifests. Think of the referee as a senior commissioned officer like a Major or a Colonel. The captain of the team is either a junior commissioned officer (like a Lieutenant) or a senior NCO (like a Sergeant), the rest of the team are enlisted men. The lines of communication on the Rugby field are very structured and controlled in that same way in order to keep discipline. Kind of the same as how old English grammar schools would work with lines of communication between the head master, the house masters, the house captains and the rest of the boys.

It's a very rugged sport that is basically controlled violence. It can get extremely out of hand and descend into mindless violence and anarchy if this kind of discipline and control are not kept in check. Just look over the years at how lower levels in French Rugby can descend into obscene thuggery to see the result of failing to maintain such order and discipline (even at the top level France had this reputation). I like the general premise of this culture. Aggression, but controlled and disciplined aggression. Play *smile* hard, but honourably and fair within the prescribed framework. At least that's what it's trying to achieve.

These kind of traits and what they are trying to achieve have their roots in the (gentlemen's) chivalrous code that tried not to so much supress and eliminate traditional notions of male masculinity (as the misguided campaign against "toxic masculinity" sometimes seems to waver towards). But to acknowledge that testosterone and the emotions that it evokes exist and need to be controlled and channelled into more productive, honourable outlets that are positive for society - as opposed to undisciplined, uncontrolled, mentally feeble, destructive uses.

 

[Baloo]

It's a very rugged sport that is basically controlled violence. It can get extremely out of hand and descend into mindless violence and anarchy if this kind of discipline and control are not kept in check. Just look over the years at how lower levels in French Rugby can descend into obscene thuggery to see the result of failing to maintain such order (even at the top level France had this reputation). I like the general premise of this culture. Aggression, but controlled and disciplined aggression. Play *smile* hard, but honourably and fair within the prescribed framework. At least that's what it's trying to achieve.

I played Rugby Union in Europe and you're right, when we came up against French teams you went into the match knowing it was going to be 80mins of thuggery. But I loved game as a player more than watching it on TV. The discipline towards the Ref and to your team mates was sacrosant. You always ran with your team mate who had the ball because you had to protect him when he went to ground. Most of the times there is more urgency in your running and supporting when you don't have the ball vs when you do have it.

When you found yourself on the ground with the opposition trying to ruck you away with their studs you were glad your boys were there. Likewise when you had someone smack you in a maul or behind play. The captain would ask you who it was, you'd tell him if you knew, and he'd let the team know. Guaranteed the next time the guy was near the ball he'd feel the repercussions.

The other admirable trait of Rugby is when you get hurt. Unless you were knocked out or a bone was protruding through your skin, you were expected to get up quickly and run to support. At the stoppage you could get checked out by the trainer and ferried to hospital if that's what you needed.

Then at the end of the match everything was left on the field and forgotten. The hosts always put on the drinks for the visiting team and you'd have a couple of hours of great fun. It's a brilliant game to play.

 

[Redford]

.

 

[Redford]

Incorrect, no validation of the decision, all I said was Petracca said something and Gawn looked pissed off with him. I repeatedly said without knowing what was said there was no way to know what the penalty was paid for.



You mean the poor bloke who only called him a 'bald-headed flog' and so was hard done by because he didn't run at him while he said it?

Fancy not being entitled to turn up to watch someone at work and yell abuse at them.

Again. Give us a break. Comments like:

"On the Fox replay he definitely yelled something out as soon as the whistle went when he was still on the ground. Without knowing what that was it is hard to say but my guess is it wasn't 'great decision'. and.....

As I said Max Gawn by my body language reading came over and pretty sternly said pull your head in so he obviously felt Petracca did the wrong thing." and.....

"Still curious as to why someone who was in a position to hear what was being said in Max Gawn, didn't come over and ask Petracca what that was for, but instead gave him a demonstrative dressing down?" and "Don't know about that, looked like he yelled something out to me. Max Gawn's reaction certainly wasn't bad luck mate you didn't do anything wrong either."

aren't all reflective of someone who originally thought Petracca had committed an infraction ?

Of course they are. You're were originally as confused as anyone before you saw the Macdonald contribution so stop bs'ing otherwise.

 

[Tiger Pops]

Richmond will break the record come round 1 for 50s unless the umpires adjust. Swearing/aggression to the umpire v player frustration. Blues seemed to come ok. Hate for the Blues top scorer in a fortnight be 50m assists!

 

[tigerlandishome]

Incorrect, no validation of the decision, all I said was Petracca said something and Gawn looked pissed off with him. I repeatedly said without knowing what was said there was no way to know what the penalty was paid for.



You mean the poor bloke who only called him a 'bald-headed flog' and so was hard done by because he didn't run at him while he said it?

Fancy not being entitled to turn up to watch someone at work and yell abuse at them.

Fancy the umpire lying about it until the video footage emerged.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

I played Rugby Union in Europe and you're right, when we came up against French teams you went into the match knowing it was going to be 80mins of thuggery. But I loved game as a player more than watching it on TV. The discipline towards the Ref and to your team mates was sacrosant. You always ran with your team mate who had the ball because you had to protect him when he went to ground. Most of the times there is more urgency in your running and supporting when you don't have the ball vs when you do have it.

When you found yourself on the ground with the opposition trying to ruck you away with their studs you were glad your boys were there. Likewise when you had someone smack you in a maul or behind play. The captain would ask you who it was, you'd tell him if you knew, and he'd let the team know. Guaranteed the next time the guy was near the ball he'd feel the repercussions.

The other admirable trait of Rugby is when you get hurt. Unless you were knocked out or a bone was protruding through your skin, you were expected to get up quickly and run to support. At the stoppage you could get checked out by the trainer and ferried to hospital if that's what you needed.

Then at the end of the match everything was left on the field and forgotten. The hosts always put on the drinks for the visiting team and you'd have a couple of hours of great fun. It's a brilliant game to play.

Baloo, forgot to mention, I've also seen plenty of footage of Romanian club and domestic rugby. Wow, does that seem to descend into the type of thuggery French Rugby used to be known for!

Yes that galvanising camaraderie and esprit de corps is infectious. It really drives you to get the best out of yourself for the greater good. It gives you drive, purpose and raison d'etre that you really get a high out of. It's something one really misses when coming out of the military. And people likely miss it greatly if they stop playing a sport that it's a major feature of.

Admittedly off topic, but I sometimes think that for ex-service personnel, the loss, grief and resulting aimlessness that come from leaving this behind - when it's been such an intertwined part of your life and whole reason and drive for being - contributes even more greatly in some people, to their depleted mental state and suicides than actual PTSD.

 

[tigerlandishome]

Of course I thought Petracca had committed an infraction, but I'm also open to the possibility he didn't. That's not confusion, that's understanding I'm not in a position to know for sure and I'm speculating.

Confused is when someone jumps straight to the game is *smile*, watch rugby now, shows why we are a nanny state without any consideration for an alternate view and upon finding out they've made a fool of themselves blames the AFL for not saving them from themselves.



Who said he did? I remember Gil McLachlan saying the guy ran across the bays and the bloke denying it.

The video footage did.

 

[Jason King]

I dont know, I dont really have an issue with the rule. My only concern is whether our boys are emotionally able to let it go when a bad decision is paid against or missed. Dont want it costing us games.

I do feel its pretty important to be able to show emotion, so I guess they have to chanel it via other means.

Richmond will break the record come round 1 for 50s unless the umpires adjust. Swearing/aggression to the umpire v player frustration. Blues seemed to come ok. Hate for the Blues top scorer in a fortnight be 50m assists!

Thats my fear!

 

[Redford]

Of course I thought Petracca had committed an infraction, but I'm also open to the possibility he didn't. That's not confusion, that's understanding I'm not in a position to know for sure and I'm speculating.

Confused is when someone jumps straight to the game is *smile*, watch rugby now, shows why we are a nanny state without any consideration for an alternate view and upon finding out they've made a fool of themselves blames the AFL for not saving them from themselves.

Um, you do realise that unlike you, those people who were arguing that Petracca hadn't committed an infraction were actually correct don't you ? I mean, you get that don't you ?

I'll say it again: you're as confused as anyone, if not more so.

 

[TigerForce]

The whole point last night was the over-use of 50m penalties just because a player disputed a decision by showing a light expression. All an umpire has to do is understand the frustration and just smile and remind (explain) why it was given instead of punishing in a patronising way. Hopefully as the season goes on, players & umpires can reach an understanding. Just concentrate on paying the obvious frees and not go overboard with these 50s and sometimes 100m penalties.

 

[Smoking Aces]

My balance is fine. I never made comment on if the decision was right or wrong, all I pointed out was everyone was bagging a decision without any idea what the decision was made for. Which is stupid. Because as it turned out the bagging of the decision was based on completely the wrong idea.



The AFL didn't create confusion, the fans jumping to conclusions about what happened when they didn't have the facts created confusion.

In a culture with respect for umpires the reaction would be if he paid a 50 someone must have abused him, what a dumb act by the player. Instead, in the culture we have of bagging umpires non-stop, the reaction is straight to what a disgraceful decision, game's ruined etc, etc.... Sink the boots into the umpire first, worry about what actually happened later.

Which is why measure to change the attitude towards umpires are long overdue.

Come on TBR you are naive if you believe the AFL hasnt contributed to the frustration within the playing rank and paying public which is then directed towards the umpires.

Their constant rule changes, interpretations etc is why we are in this mess. The want to blame everyone else for getting to this point where we are struggling to get umpires at the local level. Now in their wisdom they brought in another 'grey' area.

No one is arguing the point of being penalised for hurling abuse at the umpire. What we saw last night was beyond comprehension.

 

[Aegean Tiger]

Gee this new interpretation is going to add a certain degree of spice to our viewing experience. As we see above will stimulate much debate and probably ratings.

Surely the brains trust at AFL HQ didn't just go with this new rule for this reason.....?

Get the popcorn ready folks!

 

[Batchelor Party]

I'm in favor of respecting umpires at all levels of the code but I'm confused, I thought there were already tools at the umpires disposal to address abusive language and aggressive behavior directed towards them. An umpire could always report a player or pay a free kick if it was warranted. I also think this has to work two ways: this overly familiar umpire behavior of talking to players casually on a first name basis should cease from the umpires. They should be professional and likewise the players can adapt.

 

[Number8]

In a culture with respect for umpires the reaction would be if he paid a 50 someone must have abused him, what a dumb act by the player. Instead, in the culture we have of bagging umpires non-stop, the reaction is straight to what a disgraceful decision, game's ruined etc, etc.... Sink the boots into the umpire first, worry about what actually happened later.

I don't think that is a fair reflection of the dissenting voices in this thread. For starters, it is acknowledged this is an AFL directive. But the fascinating thing about this misguided approach to cracking down on dissent, is that the frustration fans have with it will be borne by the umpires on match day. What an illogical approach to drive more respect for the men in white!

Awarding more 50m penalties is an impossibly stupid approach to a worthy aim. Like, mindlessly ill-conceived. Fans hate the 50m penalty. We have this lamentable creeping of it, too. The protected area, stand rule and now this.

It is infuriating to fans and players alike. It generates angst like little else in the game. If its intention is to drive more respect for umpires, its punitive nature is a maddeningly inept solution. The fact that a 50m penalty is often the source of confusion among players and fans plays further into its malignant role in the game.

(The cynics among us might suggest it's another ham-fisted AFL brainfart to increase scoring and ensure the execs hit their KPIs.)

Surely there is a better tool to deal with umpire abuse? One that doesn't generate more anger and tension but, instead, might actually have a constructive effect? I'd support a card system and even a sin bin system. I also like the rugby culture of the communication channel between captain and official.

There will be more bricks put through tellies this season than any other if the 50-metre madness continues.