Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!

[tigersnake]

Dan richardsons ticking off dissent in carltons fwd line a joke.

'If you challenge a decision you run the risk of a free kick'

Whitfield said 'how is that not a free' with bent elbows but fingers extended. No swear or abuse apparently. A simple question to ump which happens 50 times a quarter in every game at every level in every comp forever.

The rule would be better, clearer, more predictible

If you simply couldnt engage with ump

Bit like you cant touch them

You cant engage.

THEN everyone knows where they stand,

Rather than 'running the risk' if you dissent.

It was terrible, woeful. After that decision, free paid for dissent for arms out when stakes are sky-high and game deciding, highly controversial, I saw 3 or 4 similar ones in subsquent games not paid when the stakes are low and just happened in the course of the game, and would have attracted zero controversy if they had been paid.

Then there is the fact it wasn't an extreme example of dissent, not even a medium example, if it was extreme I'd be oK with it.

it was a howler IMO. Technically with no context sure you can justify it. But to me that is *smile*, you have to look at it in context. Well done AFL, another great tick-off.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Dan richardsons ticking off dissent in carltons fwd line a joke.

'If you challenge a decision you run the risk of a free kick'

Whitfield said 'how is that not a free' with bent elbows but fingers extended. No swear or abuse apparently. A simple question to ump which happens 50 times a quarter in every game at every level in every comp forever.

The rule would be better, clearer, more predictible

If you simply couldnt engage with ump

Bit like you cant touch them

You cant engage.

THEN everyone knows where they stand,

Rather than 'running the risk' if you dissent.

I think they need to come out and say no engagement with the umpire at all. They won’t, though, because that would make the umpires more hated than they already are.

 

[artball]

Dan Richardson saying it's up to the Umpire to determine what is dissent is ridiculous ..

"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," Richardson said.

"We have a set of guidelines for the umpires to work between, and we coach them, but we also can't coach human response..."

.. what a goose ... he's papering over cracks ..

 

[Legends of 2017]

Dan Richardson saying it's up to the Umpire to determine what is dissent is ridiculous ..

"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," Richardson said.

"We have a set of guidelines for the umpires to work between, and we coach them, but we also can't coach human response..."

.. what a goose ... he's papering over cracks ..

So, he’s saying umpires are human and have human emotions. On the other up hand, players must be robots and not let emotion get in the way of how they react

 

[tigersnake]

Dan Richardson saying it's up to the Umpire to determine what is dissent is ridiculous ..

"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," Richardson said.

"We have a set of guidelines for the umpires to work between, and we coach them, but we also can't coach human response..."

.. what a goose ... he's papering over cracks ..

really put under the griller by AFL media. What a joke. Out of control spin. I don't think anyone disagrees with penalties for dissent, its consistency and degree that are the issues. Whately was spot on for once, said they would have spent hours massaging the statement, and it didn't really wash.

Following my comment above saying I saw a few similar that weren't paid, he mentioned a figure in the 60s across the round!

 

[Legends of 2017]

I can only imagine what would have happened if this was in place in the 80’s with the likes of jacko, Robbie Muir and BT at their finest

 

[RoarEmotion]

really put under the griller by AFL media. What a joke. Out of control spin. I don't think anyone disagrees with penalties for dissent, its consistency and degree that are the issues. Whately was spot on for once, said they would have spent hours massaging the statement, and it didn't really wash.

Following my comment above saying I saw a few similar that weren't paid, he mentioned a figure in the 60s across the round!

Yep they have made a rule that is completely open to subjective interpretation by the umpire as to how they feel about it.

Let’s hope a gambling company doesn’t find a very sensitive umpire who occasionally has a very short fuse with certain players / teams. Wouldn’t want to raise your eyebrow in a way that offends.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

really put under the griller by AFL media. What a joke. Out of control spin. I don't think anyone disagrees with penalties for dissent, its consistency and degree that are the issues. Whately was spot on for once, said they would have spent hours massaging the statement, and it didn't really wash.

Following my comment above saying I saw a few similar that weren't paid, he mentioned a figure in the 60s across the round!

So, they’re not paying all the frees? There’s an easy solution for that. Let’s have another umpire. That’ll work.

 

[WesternTiger]

Dan richardsons ticking off dissent in carltons fwd line a joke.

'If you challenge a decision you run the risk of a free kick'

Whitfield said 'how is that not a free' with bent elbows but fingers extended. No swear or abuse apparently. A simple question to ump which happens 50 times a quarter in every game at every level in every comp forever.

The rule would be better, clearer, more predictible

If you simply couldnt engage with ump

Bit like you cant touch them

You cant engage.

THEN everyone knows where they stand,

Rather than 'running the risk' if you dissent.

Dan’s just made the umps job much harder and opened them up to another level of public ridicule.

 

[larabee]

Dan Richardson saying it's up to the Umpire to determine what is dissent is ridiculous ..

"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," Richardson said.

"We have a set of guidelines for the umpires to work between, and we coach them, but we also can't coach human response..."

.. what a goose ... he's papering over cracks ..

So he’s officially sanctioning inconsistency in interpretation of the rules by the umps.
Good to know…

 

[TT33]

I played footy for many many years & in all that time if you asked the umpire what the free kick was for "in a respectable manner" they always told you. You didn't always agree with it but you accepted it & got on with the game. You learnt how the umpire/s were thinking & adapted to it.

The AFL has created a monster by instigating this stupid "dissent" rule. Sure crack down on umpire abuse, that shouldn't be tolerated. But for goodness sake a player should be able to ask what the free kick was for, in most cases they probably really don't know.

Quite frankly I think the AFL are absolutely ruining a wonderfully unique game & spectacle with the stupid rule changes that's been made in the last few years.
I can tell you, I for one have no love for the game as it's played nowadays. The stand rule & The run as far as you like from the kick in after a behind, absolutely leave me cold.

I know "I'm an old fart" But I used to love watching footy, AFL, VFL, local footy etc etc. Now I might watch 10-15 minutes of a game & then get bored with it because there's basically no real contests

 

[larabee]

I can only imagine what would have happened if this was in place in the 80’s with the likes of jacko, Robbie Muir and BT at their finest

Imagine if it happened on Friday night to a tiger player?
Media silence

 

[Scoop]

I played footy for many many years & in all that time if you asked the umpire what the free kick was for "in a respectable manner" they always told you. You didn't always agree with it but you accepted it & got on with the game. You learnt how the umpire/s were thinking & adapted to it.

The AFL has created a monster by instigating this stupid "dissent" rule. Sure crack down on umpire abuse, that shouldn't be tolerated. But for goodness sake a player should be able to ask what the free kick was for, in most cases they probably really don't know.

That’s the thing, the AFL has divided the players from the umpires. Umpires always have paid 50’s for abuse if you went too far. You need to treat each other like equals and understand what the other party is going through. That’s gone, umpires are kings and players are servants. The AFL response today was a word salad that didn’t clear up anything.

Bad leadership confounding bad policy. This will go well.

 

[5SKULL5]

Some media outlets have gone with a story that Coniglio had been guilty of dissent a few times during the game.
If true, why didn't he get a free / 50 against him early in the match to set a tone to all players.
The other thing that really made me sick was the umpire explaining why to Whitfield and waving his hands above his head as if to say that's the dissent, when Coniglio did no such thing he had his hands slightly apart at his hips.
Dan Richardson welcome back

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

What's with these X Richmond duds taking the umpire's job.
Gesh, Campbell and now clueless Kojak.

 

[Scoop]

Some media outlets have gone with a story that Coniglio had been guilty of dissent a few times during the game.
If true, why didn't he get a free / 50 against him early in the match to set a tone to all players.

The AFL spin doctors just showed how inconsistent the rule is. Dumb & dumber stuff.

 

[Smoking Aces]

That’s the thing, the AFL has divided the players from the umpires. Umpires always have paid 50’s for abuse if you went too far. You need to treat each other like equals and understand what the other party is going through. That’s gone, umpires are kings and players are servants. The AFL response today was a word salad that didn’t clear up anything.

Bad leadership confounding bad policy. This will go well.

They need to start looking at other codes on how they handle player/umpire relationships. The AFL treat their players like school kids.

 

[eZyT]

They need to start looking at other codes on how they handle player/umpire relationships. The AFL treat their players like school kids.

Son made a good suggestion

Noone but the captain may engage with umps, as in rugby.

 

[MD Jazz]

Dan’s just made the umps job much harder and opened them up to another level of public ridicule.

And this is the issue. They bemoan the lack of respect for umpires but place them in such impossible positions.

You are never going to get respect when you create pedants out of them.

 

[MD Jazz]

Son made a good suggestion

Noone but the captain may engage with umps, as in rugby.

Are you sure the pother players are not allowed to engage with the refs? I notice discussions between players and refs all the time. Both league and union.

I think the key is just get on with the game. You rarely see players wrestle or fight nowadays because the game is too quick (and they don't want to waste the energy). There is a lot to be said with just getting on with the game.