04-02-2023, 06:08 AM
(04-02-2023, 05:57 AM)Baggers link Wrote:Well if that is the case, then I'll certainly modify my perspective. Perhaps the commentator who said expletives were involved was speculating? That made sense to me -- the penalty -- if the player had added some spice to the questioning, or was aggressive. On the replay Coniglio certainly was animated... perhaps too much so.
The AFL will possibly support the umps decision, as, by the letter of the law, he was correct, especially if Coniglio was belligerent in his delivery/questioning (which he appeared to be by the vision). Either way, a high price for dissent and a far cry from a 50 metre penalty. Clarification is needed for we supporters (and players) as to what happens if the ball is 'dead' and a player dissents.
Swearing or not, its irrelevant.
The dissent rule is not brought in to protect the umpires feelings.
The dissent rule is brought in to teach one and all not to argue with the umpires.
The kids in the ground will never have heard if he swore or not.
They will have seen the arms out, the resulting free kick (and goal) and its potential game changing consequences.
If you can't learn from that, then you'll never learn.
If it wasn't Cogs this week, it'd be someone else next week.
Dunstall said it best when he said if you want to change the way people interact with umpires (which is what the AFL are trying to do with this rule) then you might shoot a few people along the way, but ultimately you will get what you want.
I agree.
In a 50-50 call, err on the side that will help the umpires in the future. Otherwise, you ultimately do more damage by ignoring it.