The umpire’s dissent is the latest AFL unnecessary overreaction

Giz, the umpire’s disagreement is the only stupid punishment that the AFL has come up with.

Just about.

There have been so many knee-jerk reactions to aesthetic problems rather than physical problems that it is difficult to distinguish them. What they show is that if the AFL has a great thing, it reacts extra.

So now it is a problem for the players to take up arms (in themselves) in the midst of hatred or frustration or even frustration after the umpire’s decision.

Make them 50 meters fine.

Ignoring this punishment reflects many of these reactions. In the heat of the moment, the AFL is urging players to practice censorship on themselves. An exciting time in the game, a match in balance, a decision – or, God forbid, a Bad Decision – goes against a player, and they stay clinically calm?

Really?

And we qualify to respond like a perverted child by licensing umpires who are given legitimacy instead of education.

Someone might throw a fake comparison, like, “You don’t talk to a cop, do you?” Okay, you can ask for an explanation for a ticket. And you can resort to challenging any crime through the courts.

I throw it there because it needs to be viewed in isolation. This is the death penalty – you have no choice. No appeal. There is no moratorium on executions.

Rules are essential in any game, I’ll give it to you. But there should be a reward or punishment for an action that affects the game. We have people holding, disposing of wrongs, pushing back, too high etc. But the umpire disagrees? This is equivalent to punishing a player for shining on an opponent.

How does a player affect the game by throwing their weapons? Does it stand in the way of the opponent? Does it prevent the ball carrier from taking action? Does it in any way affect the speed of competition?

No. The problem is it’s bad to see. We can’t oppose umpires, can we?

Because it is an epidemic in the AFL, the players are revolting against the umpiring decision. We have come close to the level of how pro wrestlers treat referees. We can only do one thing by hitting a player umpire or hitting them with their chairs or throwing them off the field.

Well, no.

Even the worst incidents are a sign of disobedience that umpires have repeatedly shown they can de-escalate.

We were actually proud to allow our backchat. The old AFL promo circulating on social media showing John McEnroe – the legend for his on-court tantrum – is amazing that AFL players can talk to umpires.

If we don’t want that level of discourse anymore, that’s fine; Punish public players. Although, in truth, even it is unnecessary. Just as the umpires were instructed to throw the ball immediately to avoid a blow, continuing the game would suddenly silence any protest.

Think about it: On the contrary, it is only a problem if the umpire is involved. If a player complains, the umpire can ignore him and continue playing. What? Too controversial? Too simple? But that’s what we’re asking the players to do – keep playing.

There is absolutely no problem in the players’ relationship with the umpires and vice versa. It’s just the latest bugbear.

The biggest concern for the AFL is aesthetics: how such performances filter through lower levels and discourage potential umpires from coming through the ranks. You don’t want to be an umpire when you shout, do you? Giz I didn’t know umpires were made of pulses and straw.

I can’t talk about whether the Australian rules are small for umpires, especially umpires who can graduate in the AFL and AFLW ranks.

But if this is a real concern, the answer would seem simpler than telling players to be stupid, emotionless, mute.

Money.

If the umpiring were professional and paid a hefty amount of money, it would persuade people to choose a profession.

If the umpires were professional – if they studied the rules and explanations every day (it remains a misconception that interpretations vary not only from game to game but also from quarter to quarter), if they practiced center bounce, maybe we would actually get some consistency and uniformity. . Not just through a game, but through a season.

Of course, as players do, they can also perform clinics to promote the game and their profession. Do you want good public relations with umpires? This way.

This whole thing about forbidding players to express any emotion at the behest of the umpire is a horrible extra reaction to a problem that did not exist.

What it has done is introduce another unwanted rule that will be applied randomly, will have an unwanted effect on the games and will affect a result if not decided.

This is the primary thought. While this has been done conceptually well, it will be a matter of time before it becomes idiosyncratic – a novelty that is there for a moment, then not the next three. How long does it take? It’s already happening, just like it always has with many knee reactions.

This is something that the AFL really should weigh. What’s the bigger problem: do players sometimes express their frustration or do we have another explanation that will upset everyone with its inconsistency and selectivity?