Why are we not talking about this?

[Jasper84]

Hanging shit on umpires in all forms is first class knobery. For those that do like to abuse or boo them at the game, I want you to know that you are a ruining the experience for other patrons. You may think it's fun banter but I can guarantee that most around you, including the players and umpires, think you're a tool.

 

[Markfs]

If my sole job was to interpret a set of fairly simple rules in an unbiased manner then yes....I would expect to get the sack.
If you don't want to be in the limelight don't be a senior umpire.
I personally don't go in for the "respect" bullshit.
Respect is earned.
Period.
Can be lost and can be revoked.

Again I will point out that it is other umpires off field being criticized by the umpires in the above story. not the players, not the general public or football fans.
There are an handful of dickheads making sexist remarks true, They should be ejected.
Again sexism and sexual abuse. not Umpire abuse.

“Umpire dissent is a very small part of what is an issue here. In our study, it was so small, that was really not such a big issue for the participants.

“I think it [dissent] is probably something that people can understand, and if they frame it like this is the major problem for umpires, then it shifts responsibility away from the AFL and on to spectators and clubs. When, actually, the AFL has some responsibility to make these spaces safe and inclusive for everyone.

“The bigger issue for them was that away from the football field - at training or before games or after games - it was their fellow umpires or coaches. There’s very little in this study that talked about players, and them [the umpires] having issues with players. It was really about the culture of the actual umpiring groups.”

I havent seen the report and if that's what it contains, then we've wasted a lot of talk about other things

 

[sr36]

If my sole job was to interpret a set of fairly simple rules in an unbiased manner then yes....I would expect to get the sack.
If you don't want to be in the limelight don't be a senior umpire.
I personally don't go in for the "respect" bullshit.
Respect is earned.
Period.
Can be lost and can be revoked.

Again I will point out that it is other umpires off field being criticized by the umpires in the above story. not the players, not the general public or football fans.
There are an handful of dickheads making sexist remarks true, They should be ejected.
Again sexism and sexual abuse. not Umpire abuse.

“Umpire dissent is a very small part of what is an issue here. In our study, it was so small, that was really not such a big issue for the participants.

“I think it [dissent] is probably something that people can understand, and if they frame it like this is the major problem for umpires, then it shifts responsibility away from the AFL and on to spectators and clubs. When, actually, the AFL has some responsibility to make these spaces safe and inclusive for everyone.

“The bigger issue for them was that away from the football field - at training or before games or after games - it was their fellow umpires or coaches. There’s very little in this study that talked about players, and them [the umpires] having issues with players. It was really about the culture of the actual umpiring groups.”

I haven't read the report, but that was my take from the newspaper article - some crappy male dominated workplaces that need to be cleaned up and one example of horrendous sexist behaviour from the crowd that needs to be stomped on in the same way that racism from the crowd is.

Mixing in the pantomine of screaming for ball, booing the umps and generally whinging about frees,isn't helpful.

 

[Markfs]

if someone wants to complain about umpires they should watch soccer. I watched that scottish stuff with ange thingo...as i was curious... more staging than a B grade movie and the ref sucked in every time.... the whole game revolves around the ref... its ridiculous

 

[MyManLynch]

Oh scumpire!
View attachment 1392971

Nothing to see here.
Play on. Play on!

Looks like the Collingwood player has made contact below the knees…

 

[sr36]

Oh scumpire!
View attachment 1392971

Nothing to see here.
Play on. Play on!

Are you seriously going to post photos of being hard down by in a game where the umps played a big part of setting us up in the first quarter with a series of WTF frees in front of goal?

 

[Black_White]

Are you seriously going to post photos of being hard down by in a game where the umps played a big part of setting us up in the first quarter with a series of WTF frees in front of goal?

Oh yeah.
I’ll post plenty of the scumpy’s howlers.
Because I do so without malice.
And that’s what puts me apart from you and your cohorts who think every comment on the umpires is said with malice.
Being able to say these things without malice allows me to enjoy post match interaction.
I feel sorry for those who cannot.

 

[sr36]

Oh yeah.
I’ll post plenty of the scumpy’s howlers.
Because I do so without malice.
And that’s what puts me apart from you and your cohorts who think every comment on the umpires is said with malice.
Being able to say these things without malice allows me to enjoy post match interaction.
I feel sorry for those who cannot.

I agree with you regarding the mixing up of the pantomime towards umpires with the hideous shit reported in that article.

But I do think that those who complain about umpiring decisions days later, might need to have a rethink, particularly when their team had the biggest rub of the green I've seen for a while

 

[35Daicos]

Oh yeah.
I’ll post plenty of the scumpy’s howlers.
Because I do so without malice.
And that’s what puts me apart from you and your cohorts who think every comment on the umpires is said with malice.
Being able to say these things without malice allows me to enjoy post match interaction.
I feel sorry for those who cannot.

I think you should be encouraged/allowed to have your own dedicated thread - Black_White Thoughts. You could post as much of your wacky nonsense there as you liked, and sensible posters could simply ignore it! Sadly, you do seem to have really lost the plot of late! I hope you find it again at some stage!

 

[gouki88]

Oh yeah.
I’ll post plenty of the scumpy’s howlers.
Because I do so without malice.
And that’s what puts me apart from you and your cohorts who think every comment on the umpires is said with malice.
Being able to say these things without malice allows me to enjoy post match interaction.
I feel sorry for those who cannot.

You are literally calling them scum. It's not even in the heat of the moment anymore!

 

[Markfs]

after days of consideration, i finally realise that some people need to complain about umpiring and engagee in booing them, in order to make their lives better. I see it as a benefit to the community....

 

[Markfs]

You are literally calling them scum. It's not even in the heat of the moment anymore!

you're underestimating how long some people can remain heated..

 

[Markfs]

i just watched a dan murphy's commercial and evidently dan illegally imported french wines....and they promote this as a positive thing in the commercial....not that i'd expect a grog barn to be a role model....but i find it interesting when the AFL is trying to eliminate dissent....

 

[sideswipe]

Oh yeah.
I’ll post plenty of the scumpy’s howlers.
Because I do so without malice.
And that’s what puts me apart from you and your cohorts who think every comment on the umpires is said with malice.
Being able to say these things without malice allows me to enjoy post match interaction.
I feel sorry for those who cannot.

Of course. Any question on whether something is vilification, abuse, racism always turns on the intent of the deliverer. That’s the important bit.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Of course. Any question on whether something is vilification, abuse, racism always turns on the intent of the deliverer. That’s the important bit.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sr36]

Of course. Any question on whether something is vilification, abuse, racism always turns on the intent of the deliverer. That’s the important bit.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

It's a pretty significant part of the equation. Both the giver and receiver's interpretations and "truth" matter.

 

[sideswipe]

It's a pretty significant part of the equation. Both the giver and receiver's interpretations and "truth" matter.

The equation of what? To be serious for a second, intention of the deliverer does not come into the question of whether behaviour is vilification. It's just a question of the behaviour.

 

[gouki88]

It's a pretty significant part of the equation. Both the giver and receiver's interpretations and "truth" matter.

I don't think intent from the person who says x is nearly as important as the interpretation of the person receiving it.

 

[sr36]

The equation of what? To be serious for a second, intention of the deliverer does not come into the question of whether behaviour is vilification. It's just a question of the behaviour.

I agree that's the way that society is interpreting it. But I don't think it's helpful. As it turns misunderstandings into heinous acts. To look at a practical example from yesteryear, was Ali vilified when Bert famously said, "love the boy"? Or in the modern context Is using the verb "savage" in its modern context and usage an act of vilification?

That's not to say that someone shouldn't apologise when they mistakenly cause offence.

 

[sideswipe]

I agree that's the way that society is interpreting it. But I don't think it's helpful. As it turns misunderstandings into heinous acts. To look at a practical example from yesteryear, was Ali vilified when Bert famously said, "love the boy"? Or in the modern context Is using the verb "savage" in its modern context and usage an act of vilification?

That's not to say that someone shouldn't apologise when they mistakenly cause offence.

No need to get into historical examples or what you think is helpful or not. Go to the AFL's vilification policy (I would have called it an anti-vilification policy) - terms like scumpire clearly satisfy the criteria for vilification.

 

[Jasper84]

No need to get into historical examples or what you think is helpful or not. Go to the AFL's vilification policy (I would have called it an anti-vilification policy) - terms like scumpire clearly satisfy the criteria for vilification.

Seems pretty clear to me. If there was no malice they would be called umpires instead of scumpires. But hey, as long as the person calling them that is having fun, it's all good apparently.

 

[sideswipe]

Seems pretty clear to me. If there was no malice they would be called umpires instead of scumpires. But hey, as long as the person calling them that is having fun, it's all good apparently.

It is especially OK if you "have friends" who fall within the particular group you are belittling.

 

[sr36]

No need to get into historical examples or what you think is helpful or not. Go to the AFL's vilification policy (I would have called it an anti-vilification policy) - terms like scumpire clearly satisfy the criteria for vilification.

Shit hanging is a part of our culture. We can call it all vilification, just because one person interprets it that way. But why would we?

There's a lot of talk about "my truth" at the moment, which implies multiple truths, but we're still looking for and pinning ourself to one truth - it's just that we've shifted from the speaker to the receiver regarding which parties truth matters. Academia did that decades ago when it moved away from author's intention and started debating alternative interpretations - before it embraced multiple interpretations, which is where we'll get to once we move past the idea of one interpretation of communication being the one that solely matters and is the truth.

One parties meaning isn't globally definitive, which is my point, so I'm not going to give massive weight to how the AFL defines it. Why we'd give total control of interpretation to one party in the name of equality is beyond me. And why we'd choose to dilute a powerful concept like vilification to include any time there is a misunderstanding or alternate interpretation that causes offence is also beyond me.

 

[sideswipe]

Shit hanging is a part of our culture. It's not all vilification, just because one person interprets it that way.

There's a lot of talk about "my truth" at the moment, which implies multiple truths, but we're still looking for and pinning ourself to one truth - it's just that we've shifted from the speaker to the receiver regarding which parties truth matters. Academia did that decades ago when it started debating alternative interpretations - before it embraced multiple interpretations, which is where we'll get to once we move past the idea of one interpretation of communication being the one that solely matters and is the truth.

One company's definition isn't globally definitive, which is my point, so I'm not going to give massive weight to how the AFL defines it. Why we'd give total control of interpretation to one party in the name of equality is beyond me. And why we'd choose to dilute a powerful concept like vilification to include any time there is a misunderstanding or alternate interpretation that causes offence is also beyond me.

It is how it is generally defined at law. In fact, the AFL uses a slightly more objective definition of vilification than that contained in anti-discrimination legislation by using "behaviour which may reasonably considered to incite" as opposed to "behaviour that incites".

 

[JB1975]

Shit hanging is a part of our culture. We can call it all vilification, just because one person interprets it that way. But why would we?

There's a lot of talk about "my truth" at the moment, which implies multiple truths, but we're still looking for and pinning ourself to one truth - it's just that we've shifted from the speaker to the receiver regarding which parties truth matters. Academia did that decades ago when it moved away from author's intention and started debating alternative interpretations - before it embraced multiple interpretations, which is where we'll get to once we move past the idea of one interpretation of communication being the one that solely matters and is the truth.

One parties meaning isn't globally definitive, which is my point, so I'm not going to give massive weight to how the AFL defines it. Why we'd give total control of interpretation to one party in the name of equality is beyond me. And why we'd choose to dilute a powerful concept like vilification to include any time there is a misunderstanding or alternate interpretation that causes offence is also beyond me.

The playfulness of postmodern thinking isn't really a concern when abuse is being hurled at the footy. It shouldn't really be considered too much in governing the relations between people.

The hanging of shit is a fantastic pastime, but usually between people who know each other, in situations where boundaries are known and acknowledged.

Abusing a stranger who is working in front of a crowd of people, some of whom are hostile, is a different situation entirely. It should be stamped out, and the motivations of the verbal abuser really doesn't matter at all.