Frustration over AFL dissent rule a natural reaction

Goldspink, a three-time All-Australian umpire who officiated in 371 VFL/AFL games and six grand finals, says the AFL's new policy is well-intended but isn't helping to fix the issue of a lack of umpires at a local level.

"In isolation, what the AFL is trying to do is fair enough, I think, and we all know the reasons why they do that," Goldspink said. "But to me, it seems like it's having exactly the opposite effect at the moment. It's just putting more pressure on umpires."

Not surprising, really. In the heat of the moment, when players and fans are bristling over the awarding of another soft 50-metre penalty, they're hardly going to stop and remember that the umpires are merely enforcing the latest hobbyhorse of the lawmakers. It's they who will be the symbolic and very real target of the ire.

Pretty ironic when you consider this is all supposed to be about a greater awareness and consciousness of the umpire's essential and valued role in the game. But the handling of the latest kerfuffle makes you wonder about the AFL's own awareness.

When AFL football operations manager Brad Scott released a statement on Tuesday, there was plenty of focus on admitting inconsistencies, the fact that Brisbane's Harris Andrews last Thursday night and a couple of Hawthorn players on Easter Monday were penalised, while Carlton's George Hewett and a couple of Gold Coast players were not.

But the real cause of the genuine ire in the football world is the whole premise that merely pointing to a replay to query a decision or raising arms in a questioning gesture constitutes dissent.

In my view (and I'd suggest a vast majority of football fans), it doesn't.

The AFL laws of the game are based heavily on interpretation. That will always leave room for debate, with a higher proportion of decisions that are open to question than just about any other sport you care to name. And umpires are hardly infallible. Does a player reacting instinctively, without aggression or anger, suggest an undermining of an umpire's authority? Hardly.

And instinct is an important word here. Can players heavily invested in a game and bemused by a specific decision really be expected to show next to no immediate emotion, even with actions rather than words?

Richmond spearhead Jack Riewoldt certainly doesn't think so. "No, it just happens and it just is what it is," he said on 'AFL 360'. "I put my hands out like this, that's body language and a natural reaction ... it's going to be hard to stop because it's human nature to turn around and be like 'come on, umpire'."

The compounding interest is the draconian nature of the 50-metre penalty. More often than not, it results in either a certain opposition goal or at least an easy shot at goal. A dramatic sanction for, in this case, a very insignificant transgression.

Is there another sport in the world where players cannot even ask an official about a decision without an over-the-top further sanction often guaranteeing an opposition score? I can't think of one.

Soccer, cricket, tennis ... they're all sports where players routinely carry on like pork chops over umpiring decisions with little penalty. But this is far from that.

Are AFL players going to now have to practice the impassiveness of monks in order not to receive a double whammy?

Of course, it's going to make people angry. And where is that anger going to be directed? Naturally, towards the official there at the time imposing the sanction. There's an inherent lack of logic here.

So, the one or two players conceding a free kick do everything in their power not to even raise a questioning arm and that ensures sufficient respect for the umpire is maintained?

But the slightest slip in that impassive demeanour brings a whole world of wrath down upon the umpire from fans and commentators, drawing a whole lot of negative attention that wasn't there previously. Is that an even trade-off? I wouldn't have thought so.

Former umpire Goldspink suggests that the AFL's estimate of a shortfall of 6000 umpires at grassroots level is actually a miscalculation and that the real figure is much higher.

That is indeed cause for concern. And, of course, you can't expect people to be attracted to a potential umpiring career if it has to go hand-in-hand with ritual jeers and abuse from participants as well as fans.

But a respectful querying of a decision made as much with gestures as words isn't a deterrent; it's simply human nature and a part of the game.

Not for the first time, the AFL on this issue has located a walnut and ham-fistedly attempted to crack it with a very large sledgehammer.

And the impact has been the opposite of what was intended.