(04-04-2023, 02:32 AM)madbluboy link Wrote:Whitfield questioned the umpire over the dissent free, why didn't we get another kick?
Here's where it gets problematic.
It's been decided that the AFL wants to stamp out umpire dissent.
If it's open slather at senior level and there is no penalty then there are implications for lower leagues.
But how much is too much?
The AFL have basically put it back on the umpire to determine if they feel the dissent has gone too far.
Now in the case on the weekend.
Coniglio has put himself in a position where he has obviously offended the umpire.
The umpire's response to Whitfield..."it wasn't you it was Coniglio" is an indication he didn't feel the same degree of offense by Whitfield's actions.
Quote:"It's not what he said – it wasn't you (Whitfield), it was Steve Coniglio," he said.
"There was a decision not paid, so the ball had gone through (for a behind) and he (Coniglio) has gone, 'How is that not a free kick?' – with his arm out."
Whitfield replied: "And that's worth another goal?".
"That's dissent," Fleer said."
So it will be a brave (and foolish) player who disputes an umpires call this weekend.
It's really a case of they'll have to double down...unless they're told on the quiet to be a little lenient.
But it's a bit like being half pregnant.
How much is too offensive?
Is it fair to leave it to an umpire who just mightn't like the player who gives too much lip?
Can we afford to let it run open slather with the implications for junior league.
I can see the point of those arguing against the severity of the penalty on a team.
I kind of like the idea of putting it back on the individual.
No free, just report them and give them a fine.
It will be equally as effective in modifying behaviour and won't impcat on the match results.
