Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!

[The Big Richo]

You completely missed my main point. You are blaming the victim here when the standard was just arbitrarily changed.

No I'm not, the umpire is the victim not the player.

It's been clear for some time that if you gesture or complain about a decision then you run the risk of giving away 50. So don't do it.

The only arguments against the Cognilio decision are that it wasn't that bad or other people do it and aren't penalised. Neither of those arguments hold any water. The line on the first one is where the umpire says it is and the second one doesn't mitigate your own responsibility in the slightest.

Shut your mouth and don't gesture. Simple. Do either of those things and you are playing with fire and at some point might get burnt.

 

[RoarEmotion]

No I'm not, the umpire is the victim not the player.

It's been clear for some time that if you gesture or complain about a decision then you run the risk of giving away 50. So don't do it.

The only arguments against the Cognilio decision are that it wasn't that bad or other people do it and aren't penalised. Neither of those arguments hold any water. The line on the first one is where the umpire says it is and the second one doesn't mitigate your own responsibility in the slightest.

Shut your mouth and don't gesture. Simple. Do either of those things and you are playing with fire and at some point might get burnt.

I don’t disagree if you control your actions a free won’t be given.

It’s clearly not clear when the majority of players, coaches and commentators say they don’t understand what the line is. Just because it is clear to you doesn’t make it true.

If you don’t penalise the same behaviour 100 times you are also tacitly endorsing it and training people that that is ok. It’s basic management or parenting 101. The signal could not be any more confusing.

If you tell your kids they have to clean their room or there will be consequences and basically let them have a dirty room with laundry lying all over the ground for 3 months and say nothing about it then one day they have it almost perfect but have one sock in the draw not folded to your satisfaction but you had a bad day at work and then ground them for a year who do you think screwed up?

 

[IanG]

No I'm not, the umpire is the victim not the player.

It's been clear for some time that if you gesture or complain about a decision then you run the risk of giving away 50. So don't do it.

The only arguments against the Cognilio decision are that it wasn't that bad or other people do it and aren't penalised. Neither of those arguments hold any water. The line on the first one is where the umpire says it is and the second one doesn't mitigate your own responsibility in the slightest.

Shut your mouth and don't gesture. Simple. Do either of those things and you are playing with fire and at some point might get burnt.

So you think players should be robots. And calling umpires victims for such minor actions is simply OTT.

 

[The Big Richo]

It’s clearly not clear when the majority of players, coaches and commentators say they don’t understand what the line is. Just because it is clear to you doesn’t make it true.

I don't see the confusion. The line is crystal clear. Say or do something towards the umpire = risk of 50 metre penalty. So don't ever do it.

It's like if I park my car and don't put money in the meter I might get away with it 10 times and then come back and find a ticket. I don't say how unfair it is because I didn't get a ticket every other time, I did the wrong thing and got lucky until I didn't, then I have to cop it sweet, because I know I'm doing something I shouldn't be.

So you think players should be robots. And calling umpires victims for such minor actions is simply OTT.

No, I think they should be professional.

I didn't introduce the word victim but if someone is being yelled at or abused in their workplace they would be the victim, not the person doing the yelling.

 

[RoarEmotion]

So you think players should be robots. And calling umpires victims for such minor actions is simply OTT.

TBR is right in that if Taranto kept his mouth shut there wouldn’t have been a free.

And it isn’t about being robots. You can demonstrate your emotions in lots of ways (celebrating / determination and ferocity in attack on ball etc) that have nothing to with umpires.

Where he is wrong is that there is a rule that said what Taranto did is warrants being considered dissent and it’s clear and obvious that you take a risk doing it. The fact that hasn’t been paid for a season probably 1000 or more times has reinforced that what he did was ok.

I agree calling an umpire the victim is OTT.

 

[RoarEmotion]

It's like if I park my car and don't put money in the meter I might get away with it 10 times and then come back and find a ticket. I don't say how unfair it is because I didn't get a ticket every other time, I did the wrong thing and got lucky until I didn't, then I have to cop it sweet, because I know I'm doing something I shouldn't be.

It’s not like that at all. I’m not sure why you can’t see the distinction.

A parking officer doesn’t walk past your un ticketed car and not issue a ticket 1000 times while you watch and then issue it on go 1001.

 

[The Big Richo]

It’s not like that at all. I’m not sure why you can’t see the distinction.

A parking officer doesn’t walk past your un ticketed car and not issue a ticket 1000 times while you watch and then issue it on go 1001.

I see parking officers walking around all the time without marking tyres or checking tickets.

But my point really is it is a choice to stay inside the line or to cross it. This isn't the first time this dissent discussion has happened so no player can claim they are not aware this sort of stuff can be penalised and can be penalised for things a lot of people see as minor and not worthy of penalty.

If you choose to cross the line in any way, major or minor, then you take the risk of penalty. Coniglio put his own need to satisfy his frustration before what was good for the team. He can take personal responsibility for that or he can whinge that someone else didn't get penalised, which is really just a cop out from his own actions.

 

[RoarEmotion]

I see parking officers walking around all the time without marking tyres or checking tickets.

But my point really is it is a choice to stay inside the line or to cross it. This isn't the first time this dissent discussion has happened so no player can claim they are not aware this sort of stuff can be penalised and can be penalised for things a lot of people see as minor and not worthy of penalty.

If you choose to cross the line in any way, major or minor, then you take the risk of penalty. Coniglio put his own need to satisfy his frustration before what was good for the team. He can take personal responsibility for that or he can whinge that someone else didn't get penalised, which is really just a cop out from his own actions.

You endorse the standard you walk past.

You can pretend that isn’t true but it it is.

The afl should clearly state what the standard is.

I don’t disagree there is always a risk.

I think the victim though is congilio because this has happened 1000s of time without penalty which basically endorses it as ok. The afl endorsed an interpretation then changed he rule without notice IMO.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one though and I completely disagree with management or parenting that acts this way. Leads to bad things.

We also aren’t talking about how to handle emotions in a mature way and describing what both umpires and players need to do.

 

[The Big Richo]

We will have to agree to disagree on this one though and I completely disagree with management or parenting that acts this way. Leads to bad things.

I agree on agreeing to disagree but I don't share the view that taking personal responsibility for your actions is bad management. If it was my kid my approach would be stop doing what you are doing or face the consequences, not whinge that another kid got away with it so why can't you.

 

[RoarEmotion]

I agree on agreeing to disagree but I don't share the view that taking personal responsibility for your actions is bad management. If it was my kid my approach would be stop doing what you are doing or face the consequences, not whinge that another kid got away with it so why can't you.

I get your point.

My point is leadership endorses a standard by not holding anyone accountable to something.

When you change the rules effectively by not communicating them or tacitly endorsing them by not enforcing them you as a leader are at fault.

In a safety context if we say it’s important to wear safety glasses and you need to do it when you are in the plant. But then we let people get away with putting on safety glasses only when they are ‘near the parts that are dangerous’ then we shouldn’t be surprised when someone gets acid spilled in their eye because they forgot to put their glasses on. Yes the individual took a risk and got burned but the actual culprit was the leadership that let a poor standard manifest and did nothing about it.

In this case I’m not even sure there was a ‘safety risk’ or dissent. What was that for doesn’t register as dissent to me - just maybe someone frustrated they didn’t get a free and asking why.

 

[spook]

I look at cricket, where players work their whole lives for a shot at maybe 2 or 3 spots in the national side if they are lucky, and can go out and cop an awful decision that ends their shot. Yet the game demands they do nothing more than glare and not for too long.

Cricket allows players to specifically gesticulate that the umpire got it wrong. Some of them make a gentle 'T' with their hands. Some violently punch their bats to emphasise how bad the decision was.

 

[The Big Richo]

When you change the rules effectively by not communicating them or tacitly endorsing them by not enforcing them you as a leader are at fault.

The rules haven't changed though. We went through this at the start of last season and nothing has changed since.

If you choose to challenge the umpire and they don't like your tone, actions or what you say then they pay 50 metres for dissent.

None of us have any idea what Coniglio actually said or how he said it. I could ask you why wasn't that a free kick in a way that is very reasonable but I could also ask you in a way that was incredibly confrontational.

Ultimately if you take the path of demonstrating or talking to an umpire after a decision is made then you take the risk that they will see it as dissent and you will wear a penalty.

It all comes back to my real point which is the whole view of this incident sums up the warped view of umpiring in the public at large. The conversation shouldn't be about the fairness of the decision, it should be how stupid a player is to complain to the umpire's at all, ever, about anything. The strike rate for that couldn't be lower, all risk, zero reward.

Cricket allows players to specifically gesticulate that the umpire got it wrong. Some of them make a gentle 'T' with their hands. Some violently punch their bats to emphasise how bad the decision was.

The first part is part of the game now. Players who make any sort of gesture questioning an umpire cops it and rightly so. Tim Paine got fined about $3000 for using the f word to Blocker Wilson. KL Rahul copped the same because he walked towards the umpire with his arms out Conglio style after a dodgy DRS call went against him. In footy the punters would say it was a bad decision so he had every right to do it.

 

[IanG]

I didn't introduce the word victim but if someone is being yelled at or abused in their workplace they would be the victim, not the person doing the yelling.

Here you go shifting the goal posts, players have been pinged for dissent for far less than yelling or abuse and then there's the inconsistency of interpretation.

 

[Sintiger]

TBR I get what you are saying about just not doing it but I think there is a missing element in that which is whether that is reasonable or not.
Sport is played with emotion, it is one of the reasons why we love it. To me it is not reasonable to expect AFL footballers to show the level of restraint that is required to never show any frustration or emotion about a decision. It is also not necessary in my view.
A couple of us talked about how it is handled in rugby union which to me is a more measured and mature way of dealing with it.
Sure let’s cut out the straight out abuse of umpires but the line is wrong in our game imo.

 

[The Big Richo]

Here you go shifting the goal posts, players have been pinged for dissent for far less than yelling or abuse and then there's the inconsistency of interpretation.

How is what I said 'shifting the goalposts?'.

TBR I get what you are saying about just not doing it but I think there is a missing element in that which is whether that is reasonable or not.

I think it is reasonable based on the fact that Australian Rules has a long history of treating umpires as second class citizens to the point where it is killing the game.

When you look at the footage from not that long ago and see how players treated umpires on the field it is really a wonder we have anyone doing it.

That attitude rubs of on spectators who have no respect at all for the umpires. Many posters on here never refer to them as anything but 'flogs' or otherwise, I don't see any other sport where that is the case. The animated abuse from fans at ground is also beyond what I see in other sports. It's a sickness in the game that needs to be addressed because the same idiots then go out to community games and abuse the umpires there as well.

I'm happy for the message to be don't interact with umpires after decisions are made or take the risk of being penalised. Ultimately the players will learn to shut up and play and the game will be better for it.

I agree that they should enforce it more strictly and ping them all but I don't agree that if they don't is it any sort of mitigating factor for someone who is penalised.

 

[Stackey]

Never accepted 'but everyone else was doing it' from my kids so I certainly don't from grown men.

I look at cricket, where players work their whole lives for a shot at maybe 2 or 3 spots in the national side if they are lucky, and can go out and cop an awful decision that ends their shot. Yet the game demands they do nothing more than glare and not for too long.

All this cop out stuff about AFL players can't be expected to not question umpires is complete crap. Shut your mouth, don't make any gestures and get on with the game. Literally the easiest thing any AFL player will ever have to do on the field.

Yeah but it's the off-field pressure that plays a big influence as well...
Spesh for a border line player playing for a spot in the team...pressure from coaches, team mates form, carrying injuries!

 

[Stackey]

No I'm not, the umpire is the victim not the player.

It's been clear for some time that if you gesture or complain about a decision then you run the risk of giving away 50. So don't do it.

The only arguments against the Cognilio decision are that it wasn't that bad or other people do it and aren't penalised. Neither of those arguments hold any water. The line on the first one is where the umpire says it is and the second one doesn't mitigate your own responsibility in the slightest.

Shut your mouth and don't gesture. Simple. Do either of those things and you are playing with fire and at some point might get burnt.

Nahhh...little bit of common sense here please...seek the middle ground for both player and umpire...it's a tough sport...allow the player a little room to dissent/question to the Umpire...if the player carries on...the umpire warns him of consequences...still carry on and/or next time...bang!

 

[Sintiger]

How is what I said 'shifting the goalposts?'.



I think it is reasonable based on the fact that Australian Rules has a long history of treating umpires as second class citizens to the point where it is killing the game.

When you look at the footage from not that long ago and see how players treated umpires on the field it is really a wonder we have anyone doing it.

That attitude rubs of on spectators who have no respect at all for the umpires. Many posters on here never refer to them as anything but 'flogs' or otherwise, I don't see any other sport where that is the case. The animated abuse from fans at ground is also beyond what I see in other sports. It's a sickness in the game that needs to be addressed because the same idiots then go out to community games and abuse the umpires there as well.

I'm happy for the message to be don't interact with umpires after decisions are made or take the risk of being penalised. Ultimately the players will learn to shut up and play and the game will be better for it.

I agree that they should enforce it more strictly and ping them all but I don't agree that if they don't is it any sort of mitigating factor for someone who is penalised.

I don’t know about the other sports. I was once at a super rugby game in Auckland ( blues vs crusaders) and the crowd was pretty animated about the penalties. But you may be right in general. I was also at a soccer game in London once where a penalty was given and I seriously worried about my safety, let alone the safety of the referee.
The other side of it is that we are one of the only games in the world where opposition fans sit together and travel together and generally there are no issues. That doesn’t happen in soccer as an example.
The problem with your last premise is that what players and fans wish for more than anything else is consistency. If it is not consistent it breeds frustration.
A lot of these things are big issues at the start of a season and settle down. For instance the stand rule is not enforced as strictly as it once was ( for good imo). Sometimes the game itself finds the reasonable point and I hope it happens in this case.

 

[shad]

It’s not like that at all. I’m not sure why you can’t see the distinction.

A parking officer doesn’t walk past your un ticketed car and not issue a ticket 1000 times while you watch and then issue it on go 1001.

This is the best analogy of what happened in this case. And it hasn't been addressed by TBR.

 

[The Big Richo]

The problem with your last premise is that what players and fans wish for more than anything else is consistency.

I think most fans substitute the word consistency when they mean perfection, but that's another discussion.

What is consistency in this situation from the fan's point of view? They aren't privy to what is being said on the ground so how can they possibly make a call on the consistency of it?

Can anyone tell us what Cognilio said and what sort of manner he said it in?