Umpire descent

[Toy Saint]

Pity I can't spell,

I thought the subject was 'decent umpire', and I was going to argue.

Isn't it ironic that the dissent is typically as a result of a very bad or incorrect umpire decision. So not only is the team penalized by the original dubious decision, they are further penalized by the extra 50m. This then amplifies the poor decision and makes the umpire look even more foolish and lose even more respect.

Back in the day we had umpires like Bill Dellar, Geoff Crouch and Glen James who were very good and well respected. Sure they were 'booed' if they made poor decisions, but generally they well well respected and well regarded.

[saynta]

Pity I can't spell,

I thought the subject was 'decent umpire', and I was going to argue.

Isn't it ironic that the dissent is typically as a result of a very bad or incorrect umpire decision. So not only is the team penalized by the original dubious decision, they are further penalized by the extra 50m. This then amplifies the poor decision and makes the umpire look even more foolish and lose even more respect.

Back in the day we had umpires like Bill Dellar, Geoff Crouch and Glen James who were very good and well respected. Sure they were 'booed' if they made poor decisions, but generally they well well respected and well regarded.

Excellent post.

[st.byron]

Pity I can't spell,

I thought the subject was 'decent umpire', and I was going to argue.

Isn't it ironic that the dissent is typically as a result of a very bad or incorrect umpire decision. So not only is the team penalized by the original dubious decision, they are further penalized by the extra 50m. This then amplifies the poor decision and makes the umpire look even more foolish and lose even more respect.

Back in the day we had umpires like Bill Dellar, Geoff Crouch and Glen James who were very good and well respected. Sure they were 'booed' if they made poor decisions, but generally they well well respected and well regarded.

I don't agree that you can generalise dissent as a result of a very bad or incorrect decision. Mostly it's just players being frustrated I reckon.

[Life Long Saint]

Letter of the law DMac questioned the decision.

Questioning the decision is not dissent.
He's asking if the ball touched the ground. The ump would have been blind-sided so clearly guessed that it was a mark.
That's what happens when you have three umps running the corridoor and only on the outside during a stoppage.

I umpire cricket and always have every LBW appeal that I give not out questioned by the fielding team. None of it is dissent but they are entitled to ask why.
My respone is never "because I said not out" but a reasoned explanation as to why it was not out. The overwhelming majority of players accept that.

Umpires should be respected by the players but not by making them a protected species.

The last thing we want to see is what happens at soccer games when the players charge the umpires.

And while I'm on my soapbox, the result of abuse or dissent should never be a free kick. It should be a report with a resulting fine of $5000 to the player - can be challenged at the tribunal. Doubled for every subsequent offence. Up to a third offence when an automatic $20,000 fine and a three game suspension will apply.
The opposition should NEVER benefit from an interaction between a player and an umpire.

It'd be like me giving a player out because I called a leg bye and they vehemently claimed they hit the ball.

[Sainter_Dad]

I think the rule is good.
Letter of the law DMac questioned the decision.
Harsh, but fair according to the new rules.
Just watched Ratts presser and the last question is about the DMac 50.
Ratts just bluntly says that the players clearly know the rules and they just need to focus on the play.
I can understand that it seems harsh, a decision like the DMac 50, but personally I like it heaps better without the players carrying on when they don't like the decision. Just get on with the game. Simple.
Another change I'd like to see brought in is something another poster has suggested (can't recall who right now) and that's for the umpires to stop calling the players by their names.
Just say the team and the number. For e.g. "Free kick St.Kilda number 26". Take the faux matey-ness out of it.

meher Baba is the poster you're referring to.
My only issue is that the AFL Umpiring department needs to get all the umpires onto the same page with this rule.
Only some umpires are paying it - others are choosing to ignore it.

Actually - I suggested it when there was the farce of the Umpire calling the St Kilda player back on the mark - but using the oppositions name - then paying the 50 against

[Sainter_Dad]

I'd be interested in why this was paid. If there was prior opportunity, then I didn't see it. The other reason could be no reasonable attempt to dispose of the ball, that is, the player has to try to get the ball out of the tackle, even if the ball is pinned by the tackle. Fake attempts can be pinged.

Umpire saw what he thought was a fend off - not that his arm was caught in the tackle - so deemed THIS prior

[Life Long Saint]

I think the rule is good.
Letter of the law DMac questioned the decision.
Harsh, but fair according to the new rules.
Just watched Ratts presser and the last question is about the DMac 50.
Ratts just bluntly says that the players clearly know the rules and they just need to focus on the play.
I can understand that it seems harsh, a decision like the DMac 50, but personally I like it heaps better without the players carrying on when they don't like the decision. Just get on with the game. Simple.
Another change I'd like to see brought in is something another poster has suggested (can't recall who right now) and that's for the umpires to stop calling the players by their names.
Just say the team and the number. For e.g. "Free kick St.Kilda number 26". Take the faux matey-ness out of it.

meher Baba is the poster you're referring to.
My only issue is that the AFL Umpiring department needs to get all the umpires onto the same page with this rule.
Only some umpires are paying it - others are choosing to ignore it.

Actually - I suggested it when there was the farce of the Umpire calling the St Kilda player back on the mark - but using the oppositions name - then paying the 50 against

I remember that. He called Sam Gilbert "Jarrod" who was the Brisbane player with the ball.

[Sainter_Dad]

That's it - "Jarrod back 2 metres" I thought he was referring to over his mark - then suddenly - 50 metres - was a joke - on the members back 50 arc - bought them to a kick into the 50 - IIR

[CQ SAINT]

I love it when they show dissent and Razor takes the time to chat point out how he is wrong.