So big debate on the footy shows tonight on this being dissent to an umpire and awarded 50m against.
Also the other big debate going around which includes this is the inconsistency of umpires applying the rules.
I think it's probably a bridge too far for HQ to expect players to quell their emotional responses and ask questions of the ruling at the time. This will not help the umpires it will hamper them and will not get the public onside.
First thing to fix is the inconsistency, if HQ want to make umpires popular be rigidly consistent in the calls. Have a clear set of rules that will / will not be paid and relay that to all and sundry. Starting with the umpires so they know exactly what to pay and what not to. Inform the public as well.
Second thing to fix is not bring in rules that look petulant and toy throwing. 'Wah, don't raise your arms at me, that's 50' I'm sure the umpires don't want to be seen as too easily offended and come across as meek.
Well HQ if you want the umpires viewed as precious and easily offended you're going the right way about it.
Yeah I get verbal abuse of umpires is not on, but legitimately asking a question without profanity is surely not worthy of punishment. Literally no player outwardly abuses umpires anymore, 'ya gotta be kidding ump' is not dissention and labelling that as dissention will only portray the umpires as too easily offended.
The players are not robots, sure penalise dissent but ensure what defines dissent passes the pub test. Raising arms does not pass that test.
Also the other big debate going around which includes this is the inconsistency of umpires applying the rules.
I think it's probably a bridge too far for HQ to expect players to quell their emotional responses and ask questions of the ruling at the time. This will not help the umpires it will hamper them and will not get the public onside.
First thing to fix is the inconsistency, if HQ want to make umpires popular be rigidly consistent in the calls. Have a clear set of rules that will / will not be paid and relay that to all and sundry. Starting with the umpires so they know exactly what to pay and what not to. Inform the public as well.
Second thing to fix is not bring in rules that look petulant and toy throwing. 'Wah, don't raise your arms at me, that's 50' I'm sure the umpires don't want to be seen as too easily offended and come across as meek.
Well HQ if you want the umpires viewed as precious and easily offended you're going the right way about it.
Yeah I get verbal abuse of umpires is not on, but legitimately asking a question without profanity is surely not worthy of punishment. Literally no player outwardly abuses umpires anymore, 'ya gotta be kidding ump' is not dissention and labelling that as dissention will only portray the umpires as too easily offended.
The players are not robots, sure penalise dissent but ensure what defines dissent passes the pub test. Raising arms does not pass that test.
Last edited: