PDA

View Full Version : Dissing the ref



Kevin Bonham
16-04-2004, 06:44 PM
An AFL footballer was fined $20,000 this week for publicly expressing dissatisfaction with an umpiring decision. Similar rules, covering public criticism of the ref even after the game, exist in several sports.

In chess I've never seen much sign of such a culture. There may be events where it exists but on the whole the player is at liberty to say what they like about an umpiring decision. For instance when Nigel Short withdrew from an event in protest at a dubious playing condition, he not only escaped unscathed with appearance fee intact but also was invited to address the FIDE arbiter's committee to discuss the incident.

As an arbiter I like it that players are free to criticise any bad decision I might make, so long as they don't actually defame me in the process (and if they do the latter, there are ways of dealing with it without using chess admin machinery). I like to think that this serves as a way of keeping arbiters accountable. Most criticisms made of chess arbiters are incorrect, but then the person making the criticism just ends up looking silly in any debate about the incident anyway.

Obviously I reckon chess has it right here - my question is, do the other sports have it wrong?

chesslover
16-04-2004, 10:27 PM
there is nothing wrong with blasting the refs

palyers get banned or fined for making the mildest comments, but spectators can abuse the ref all they want in the field using the vilest language. Abusing the refs and the opposistion is part of the fun of going to League games here :)

But there is a diiference between verbal abuse, which is fine and physcially abusing the referee or opposistion, which is not fine at all

ursogr8
17-04-2004, 02:49 PM
An AFL footballer was fined $20,000 this week for publicly expressing dissatisfaction with an umpiring decision. Similar rules, covering public criticism of the ref even after the game, exist in several sports.

In chess I've never seen much sign of such a culture. There may be events where it exists but on the whole the player is at liberty to say what they like about an umpiring decision. For instance when Nigel Short withdrew from an event in protest at a dubious playing condition, he not only escaped unscathed with appearance fee intact but also was invited to address the FIDE arbiter's committee to discuss the incident.

As an arbiter I like it that players are free to criticise any bad decision I might make, so long as they don't actually defame me in the process (and if they do the latter, there are ways of dealing with it without using chess admin machinery). I like to think that this serves as a way of keeping arbiters accountable. Most criticisms made of chess arbiters are incorrect, but then the person making the criticism just ends up looking silly in any debate about the incident anyway.

Obviously I reckon chess has it right here - my question is, do the other sports have it wrong?

Kevin
There were in excess of 61,000 people at the AFL football on Friday night; Carlton v Essendon. No fences, moats, or dogs separate the supporters of both sides. Just a fragile consensus to be law-abiding is between enjoyment and a brawl in the crowd. Any high profile players who threatens that consensus is threatening the game itself. The player concerned had to be penalised in the strongest way for his infraction. I was in favour of a strong penalty.
Personally, the player concerned is one of the greatest and fairest in the club I support. But he had to be pulled into line.
His criticisms needed to be channelled through less public avenues.

starter

ps
Hey CL, how many went to the Bulldogs NRL game on the same night? What were the officials saving all those thousands of empty yellow seats for?

chesslover
17-04-2004, 11:12 PM
ps
Hey CL, how many went to the Bulldogs NRL game on the same night? What were the officials saving all those thousands of empty yellow seats for?

dont start a war that you cannot finish

when you tell me HOW MANY countries play AFL outside Australia, I will answer your question.

And we had established on the football thread that League draws less crowds than AFL, for AFL is better experienced live. But League is more suited to TV

Trent Parker
18-04-2004, 12:04 AM
hmmm http://www.uksportsresource.co.uk/aussierules/international.html

Trent Parker
18-04-2004, 12:37 AM
or even better http://www.iafc.com.au/

ursogr8
18-04-2004, 08:12 AM
dont start a war that you cannot finish

when you tell me HOW MANY countries play AFL outside Australia, I will answer your question.



Why is this an important question CL?



And I thought we had already accepted the cultural synergy of AFL and the Aus psyche? (Previous posts...have you not read)?

starter

ursogr8
18-04-2004, 08:15 AM
hmmm http://www.uksportsresource.co.uk/aussierules/international.html
Thanks tparker for your two posts showing o/s initiatives of Aussie Rules. But the fulture of the code is assured, and it does not need o/s expansion.
starter

chesslover
18-04-2004, 01:04 PM
Why is this an important question CL?



And I thought we had already accepted the cultural synergy of AFL and the Aus psyche? (Previous posts...have you not read)?

starter

because you were making fun of RL crowds, and I wanted to show you thatRL is played in more countries than Aussie rules :p

ursogr8
18-04-2004, 02:58 PM
because you were making fun of RL crowds, and I wanted to show you thatRL is played in more countries than Aussie rules :p

CL
Why is it important to play a code in a multiple number of countries?
starter

Garvinator
18-04-2004, 05:23 PM
CL
Why is it important to play a code in a multiple number of countries?
starter
australian representation for players of that code, increased sponsorship opportunities, more marketability and potentially the need to improve the game as a whole.

ursogr8
18-04-2004, 08:27 PM
australian representation for players of that code, increased sponsorship opportunities, more marketability and potentially the need to improve the game as a whole.

gg''
So you fell for the trap instead of CL.
OK. Your next question is "How come rugby , which dominated in America at the turn of the previous century, has been replaced by the local game GRIDIRON?"
starter

Kevin Bonham
18-04-2004, 09:23 PM
Kevin
There were in excess of 61,000 people at the AFL football on Friday night; Carlton v Essendon. No fences, moats, or dogs separate the supporters of both sides. Just a fragile consensus to be law-abiding is between enjoyment and a brawl in the crowd. Any high profile players who threatens that consensus is threatening the game itself. The player concerned had to be penalised in the strongest way for his infraction. I was in favour of a strong penalty.

Very interesting comments.

So, let me get this right, but word it my way. You're saying that footy needs rules like this because footy supporters include a large proportion of barely contained one-eyed primal louts for whom any controversy can be a spark for thumping the other tribe - even when the dispute is actually with the umpire. Something like that?

I must admit, I had not thought of it that way before. But I suspect sports could be found that had similar codes but lacked crowd control issues. I remember some serious penalties for uncivil dissent in tennis, and I think that some of those were press conference offences not on-court, but I could be wrong.

ursogr8
19-04-2004, 08:43 AM
Very interesting comments.

So, let me get this right, but word it my way. You're saying that footy needs rules like this because footy supporters include a large proportion of barely contained one-eyed primal louts for whom any controversy can be a spark for thumping the other tribe - even when the dispute is actually with the umpire. Something like that?



OK Kevin,
Nice debating trick to take my own words, push them to the extreme, and at the extreme they sound a bit ludicrous.
Except that the facts get in the way.
The fragile consensus has broken down in Soccer on more than one continent. Why?
The consensus broke down at the recent Sydney rugby game. Why?
The consensus broke down in recent country Aussie rules games why?
The consensus has broken down in the Australian tenns open (many spectators will no longer attend due to the constant calling out from the crowd). Why?
starter

Garvinator
19-04-2004, 09:50 AM
OK Kevin,
Nice debating trick to take my own words, push them to the extreme, and at the extreme they sound a bit ludicrous.
Except that the facts get in the way.
The fragile consensus has broken down in Soccer on more than one continent. Why?
The consensus broke down at the recent Sydney rugby game. Why?
The consensus broke down in recent country Aussie rules games why?
The consensus has broken down in the Australian tenns open (many spectators will no longer attend due to the constant calling out from the crowd). Why?
starter

excessive and large alcohol consumption would be one of the main reasons.

chesslover
19-04-2004, 06:42 PM
gg''
So you fell for the trap instead of CL.
OK. Your next question is "How come rugby , which dominated in America at the turn of the previous century, has been replaced by the local game GRIDIRON?"
starter

I'll answert this question on the football thread so it does not go off topic

But there is a difference between Rugby and Rugby League. Rugby refers to Union and that is after Soccer teh second most popular and widespread of fottball codes - albeit there is a big difference betwene number 1 most popular sport soccer and Union. In AUstralia Union is like league only in NSW and Queensland, but again is a poor second/third to League which doiminates

League is mainly played in East Australia, North England, Auckland/Wellington, PNG and a couple of otger areas in France. League is the number 1 sport by far here in Sydney. That actually is it's biggest strength and weakness. As long as Sydney people watch games or buy league publications or tune to free and pay tv league's future in Australia is assured. The amrket in Australia is probably just as importnat as the markets in the rest of Australia put together. That is why even though AFL dominates outside NSW and Queensland, it will never be the number 1 sport till it becomes number 1 here.

It does not matter if we lose Melbourne, Canberra or even Queensland, for as long as the biggest market in Australia is interested in League, League will be popular. And Australia;s survical means that League internationally survives as well, as the money from Australia props up English Super league, PNG and New Zealand

But if SYdney goes, then even if Queensland, Canberra and Melbourne love league it does not matter, for the market in Sydney will determine their future. This is turn will have a domino effect as Australian league will wither, which in tiurn will cause NZ and PNG to wither and England as well.

So if you were a military tactician who wants to wipe out League, then you will attack it's head in Sydney. If SYdney falls the League Empire falls.

Aussie Rules is different for whilst Melbourne is important, so is perth, Adelaide etc and the support and importance ins widespread. In terms of Union that is the same, as Union has stroing countries in NZ, England, France, Safrica which all will survive without Australia. It is more so in soccer, where all the world plays it excepot a few countries

Kevin Bonham
19-04-2004, 11:20 PM
The fragile consensus has broken down in Soccer on more than one continent. Why?

Are you telling me that players criticising umpiring decisions publicly was a cause of even a small proportion of soccer riots?

Looking at recent spates it seems that rioters don't need very much encouragement at all. They riot because their team wins. They riot because it loses. They riot because the other team isn't seperated from them. In the case of the English soccer hoons, they riot because it is what they do.

So what cases have you got of riots being sparked by players criticising referees after the game?

ursogr8
20-04-2004, 07:56 AM
Are you telling me that players criticising umpiring decisions publicly was a cause of even a small proportion of soccer riots?


hi Kevin
Well yes, I am saying “Are you telling me that players criticising umpiring decisions publicly was a cause of even a small proportion of soccer riots?”

You see, it is a public criticism to surround a soccer referee and beseech he change his ruling.
It is a public criticism to have a soccer free kick awarded against you and then stand 2 yards in front of the player taking the kick and have to be told to come back.
It is a public criticism to celebrate by whipping of your shirt top after a goal, when the rules clearly state this is a bookable offence.

Yes, these are breakdowns in the fragile consensus to abide by the rules and play the game.





Looking at recent spates it seems that rioters don't need very much encouragement at all. They riot because their team wins. They riot because it loses. They riot because the other team isn't seperated from them. In the case of the English soccer hoons, they riot because it is what they do.



I probably agree that all these ‘causes’ happen co-incidentally with a riot. What is the root-cause; that is the question?




So what cases have you got of riots being sparked by players criticising referees after the game?


Did I say after the game?



starter

Kevin Bonham
20-04-2004, 02:22 PM
Did I say after the game?

No, but I did, I used "post-game" in the poll question.

I think banning dissent during the game is reasonable. I'm just not convinced that a player should be penalised for commenting afterwards.

ursogr8
20-04-2004, 04:11 PM
No, but I did, I used "post-game" in the poll question.

I think banning dissent during the game is reasonable. I'm just not convinced that a player should be penalised for commenting afterwards.

Kevin

OK then. I have said that my criteria for banning dissent is the 'fragile consensus must be maintained', and this is time-independent. What is your rationale, and why is it different 'during' v 'after'?

starter

Kevin Bonham
20-04-2004, 05:08 PM
OK then. I have said that my criteria for banning dissent is the 'fragile consensus must be maintained', and this is time-independent. What is your rationale, and why is it different 'during' v 'after'?

Firstly it is different because during the game there are a bunch of hoons sitting in the crowd ready to lynch each other, but after the game they are sitting at home watching their individual TVs and are not likely to suddenly run amok over a comment. Unless they are soccer louts in which case they need no provocation at all to run amok anyway.

Actually my prime argument against it during the game would be that it might disrupt the game itself. When I see prolonged dissent during games on TV I often think "just get on with it".

Even within games I'd be interested to hear some examples of where dissent has led to riots. I don't have the same level of interest in or memory for sports as some here, so I'm curious. As I recall some exceptionally bad riots have resulted from spontaneous crowd rebellion without needing any encouragement from the players.

ursogr8
20-04-2004, 05:42 PM
Even within games I'd be interested to hear some examples of where dissent has led to riots. I don't have the same level of interest in or memory for sports as some here, so I'm curious. As I recall some exceptionally bad riots have resulted from spontaneous crowd rebellion without needing any encouragement from the players.

Of course I cannot give a direct example of where Joey Halfbacker snarled at the ref. and the crowd rioted. It does not work like that. This is not a scientific/snail-like cause and effect. If A then B.
No, this is more about pre-conditions for spontaneous crowd rebellion .


Crowds don't just spontaneously combust, there have to be pre-conditions. And these pre-conditions are necessary, but not sufficient.
The question is what is the root-cause of the combustion; and you have not given me any theory except spontaneous.

starter

Kevin Bonham
20-04-2004, 06:25 PM
Of course I cannot give a direct example of where Joey Halfbacker snarled at the ref. and the crowd rioted. It does not work like that. This is not a scientific/snail-like cause and effect. If A then B.
No, this is more about pre-conditions for spontaneous crowd rebellion .

Crowds don't just spontaneously combust, there have to be pre-conditions. And these pre-conditions are necessary, but not sufficient.
The question is what is the root-cause of the combustion; and you have not given me any theory except spontaneous.

Then you should at least be able to give me a case where a crowd, who had been significantly stirred up by players publicly dissing the ref, later went bananas over something else

At the moment you have not given any evidence to put the suspect in the dock. It is true that I can't prove these things never cause riots. But when someone's freedom of speech is curtailed I prefer a lot more than an unproven theoretical conjecture that something contributes to crowd combustion.

Garvinator
20-04-2004, 06:32 PM
are we just talking about australian sporting events or world wide?

Kevin Bonham
20-04-2004, 06:50 PM
are we just talking about australian sporting events or world wide?

World wide. I do remember reading, ages ago, of a very severe soccer stampede in South America where the crowd spontaneously rioted after a goal was disallowed, and hundreds of people died. However I don't remember reading that player dissent was cited as a cause.

chesslover
20-04-2004, 10:39 PM
a couple of months ago I was researching soccer as my daughter was playing soccer at school

there was a US website that was pouring scorn on the world game. The site said the reason that most of the worst sports riots and violence was in soccer was due to the boring nature of the game (so that teh crowd has to do something else to get excited) and that most soccer games results in just a couple of goals - unlike nbasketball and gridiron (so the tension for waiting for goals lead people to start getting violent)

It was a tongue in cheek website and I do not have the URL now. But it is interesting that most of the sports riots happen in soccer

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2004, 12:57 AM
I'm amazed they can say that when one of their national sports is baseball, which is like cricket but with fifty times less runs.

ursogr8
04-05-2004, 12:46 PM
Then you should at least be able to give me a case where a crowd, who had been significantly stirred up by players publicly dissing the ref, later went bananas over something else

At the moment you have not given any evidence to put the suspect in the dock. It is true that I can't prove these things never cause riots. But when someone's freedom of speech is curtailed I prefer a lot more than an unproven theoretical conjecture that something contributes to crowd combustion.

From the AGE today >
AC Milan won its 17th Italian title ...on Sunday.
..
But there were ugly scenes as the game was interrupted by Roma supporters hurling fireworks and missiles on the pitch.
First, Milan's Gennaro Gattusto was stunned by a powerful firework that exploded near him after Roma player appeals for a penalty following a handball were controversially turned down.
Then Milan goalkeeper Dida had to receive medical attention after he was twice struck by objects thrown by the crowd.

I did not have to wait long for the next example. Do you want more Kevin?

starter

Kevin Bonham
04-05-2004, 03:16 PM
But there were ugly scenes as the game was interrupted by Roma supporters hurling fireworks and missiles on the pitch.
First, Milan's Gennaro Gattusto was stunned by a powerful firework that exploded near him after Roma player appeals for a penalty following a handball were controversially turned down.
Then Milan goalkeeper Dida had to receive medical attention after he was twice struck by objects thrown by the crowd.[/COLOR][/B]

I did not have to wait long for the next example. Do you want more Kevin?



That seems to me to be a case of the crowd rioting over disagreement with the umpire's decision - not because of players dissing the ref (and particularly not because of them doing it post-game). That said I don't know soccer's rules on "appealling" - are players allowed to appeal for a penalty, or is this considered "dissent"?

That soccer crowds will sometimes spontaneously riot if they don't like an umpiring decision is already well-known, I think this was behind one of the (if not the) worst ever soccer stampede disasters.

JGB
04-05-2004, 05:13 PM
I heard the best think on this site! How many countried play AFL???
Good question??? what does AFL stand for? What a stupid question? Is a sport good because is played in many countries? thats like asking how many countries have prositution?

arosar
04-05-2004, 05:21 PM
Look, I haven't been closely following this thread, so what's the argument here? That AFL is superior to soccer? Pffftt...! Youse all gotta be kiddin' me. Soccer is like a Sequoia tree while AFL is like a little legume. But, I have to say, I reckon AFL has more chances of a bright future than any other code in this here country. Did youse all see that ripper of a game on the w/e where some team lost by 1 point? Them AFL crowd go crazy like in no other sport here at all. It's absolutely electric.

AR

Rincewind
04-05-2004, 05:23 PM
Did youse all see that ripper of a game on the w/e where some team lost by 1 point? Them AFL crowd go crazy like in no other sport here at all. It's absolutely electric.

I think you'll find you will find examples of that in every other football code as well as the other popular sports.

arosar
04-05-2004, 05:28 PM
Yeah sure, but in terms of consistency, week in, week out - I reckon in Australia, AFL wins hands down.

Now CL, wleh (!) . . .got any stats mate?

AR

Kevin Bonham
04-05-2004, 05:56 PM
Interesting to see another dimension to the ref-dissing issue today with suggestions that Hird's fine was $20,000 well spent, because the umps had been softies on Essendon in subsequent matches.

Some might say that this is another good reason for banning public comment on umpiring decisions - that if you allow it, it may actually influence future decisions in an unfair manner.

The problem I have with that is that unless the penalties are really draconian, the fines system becomes one of influence-by-pay, eg instead of everyone having the chance to influence the umpires by public complaint, now only those willing to shell out for the privelege have that chance. That would mean that such incidents would be relatively rare but influential - rather than a babble of public comment from all sides that would tend to cancel out and be ignored.

ursogr8
05-05-2004, 07:54 AM
Interesting to see another dimension to the ref-dissing issue today with suggestions that Hird's fine was $20,000 well spent, because the umps had been softies on Essendon in subsequent matches.

Some might say that this is another good reason for banning public comment on umpiring decisions - that if you allow it, it may actually influence future decisions in an unfair manner.

The problem I have with that is that unless the penalties are really draconian, the fines system becomes one of influence-by-pay, eg instead of everyone having the chance to influence the umpires by public complaint, now only those willing to shell out for the privelege have that chance. That would mean that such incidents would be relatively rare but influential - rather than a babble of public comment from all sides that would tend to cancel out and be ignored.

Kevin
The penalty is that Hird has to travel the country for 3 years being the unpires representative in many forums to promote and recruit umpire from junior ranks. Some might say THIS is draconian.
The upper limit on fines was $5000. The $20,000 only came into it when Hird made an offer of contrition.
starter

ursogr8
13-07-2005, 08:09 AM
That seems to me to be a case of the crowd rioting over disagreement with the umpire's decision - not because of players dissing the ref (and particularly not because of them doing it post-game). That said I don't know soccer's rules on "appealling" - are players allowed to appeal for a penalty, or is this considered "dissent"?

That soccer crowds will sometimes spontaneously riot if they don't like an umpiring decision is already well-known, I think this was behind one of the (if not the) worst ever soccer stampede disasters.

Kevin
I think it is fair to assume your introduction of the phrase 'dissing the ref' referred to dissent which is an action taken after the referee has made a decision?
In the case quoted by me (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=15808&postcount=28) it is clear the ref had made his decision and the players (as they do in many soccer leagues) beseeching the ref to change his mind. This is not the 'appealing' action that takes place in cricket before the umpires decision.
I think my example proves my original point.

starter

PHAT
13-07-2005, 04:54 PM
In the bro talking in da hood, " dissin' " = disrespecting. So, dissing the ref is disrespectful behaviour toward the ref.

ursogr8
13-07-2005, 05:11 PM
In the bro talking in da hood, " dissin' " = disrespecting. So, dissing the ref is disrespectful behaviour toward the ref.

Thanks for that Matt. There is some vernacular I would never encounter, and that would be one.

In the past week, in the AFL, there has been much discussion on this topic again.
The umpires seem to have moved to near zero-tolerance of dissent; reasoning that
dissent = disagree = disrespectful, (and now I learn) = dissing.

The issue has come about because Umpires are miked-up for Friday night games and questionable words are being heard by 700,000 viewers, and palpitations in the blue-rinse set.

Those of us who have a long association with watching dummy-spits, tantrums, mouth-guard throwing, and demonstrative behaviour at AFL games, are sorry to see this entertainment disappear.

The key question is why must our umpires be treated like precious, pretentious popinjays?
It is a good question, and we have long awaited the answer.
The party-line is that it is difficult to recruit umpires in junior leagues if they are likely to be subject to verbal abuse.

I grudgingly admit the AFL may be correct. But it sure is sanitising a once entertaining theatre.

starter

ursogr8
14-07-2005, 08:36 AM
^^
The Geelong coach has now announced a ban on his players talking to the umpires. :rolleyes:
During the game, if the umpire gets annoyed enough by back-chat then he often awards a free kick and a 50 metre penalty. This usually illicits groans from half the crowd and precipitates the dreaded modern affliction of a 'momentum swing'.
How is it we have come to this un-Australian position where we cannot question authority? Why have the NRL and ARU so meekly accepted the no talk-back culture?
Where should the line be drawn?
Don't get me wrong...I am not arguing for open slather because nothing cheeses me off than the (o/s) soccer players beseeching the ref. for a penalty or like.

Perhaps NRL and ARU have so few real interpretative decisions, apart from
> was that pass forward
> was the bloke lying on the back of the ball-carrier for too long
> was that try an inch over the line
that there is no room for debate anyway.

Where is kegless when you need him.

starter

PHAT
14-07-2005, 12:25 PM
Those of us who have a long association with watching dummy-spits, tantrums, mouth-guard throwing, and demonstrative behaviour at AFL games, are sorry to see this entertainment disappear.

Two points.
First, refs/umps in all sports over a hundred years have copped a the ire of players and spectators. The question I ask is, has that ire increased to "dangerous" levels over, say, the last 20 years? I don't think so. Refs could handle it then, they can handle it now. There was no need to go from a proven balance of authority and dissent, to a zero tolerance.

Secondly, this is about money! While ever the family TV audience don't know the true nature of the on field argy bargy, even though the live crowd do, the large audience share would keep the sponsorship/advertising dollars coming. If parents are turning off and or keeping their children away from the errant sport, that will mean a drop in revenues over time.

I think our community has been ill served by those who would sanitise our social intercourse. Fruity language, vicious abuse, vilification - they are all one part of the spectrum of social intercourse. Unfortunately our minders refuse to acknowledge that to remove one end of that spectrum improverishes the language and selectively nobbles one side in the exchange. Furthermore, the spaying of language alienises about half the population by infering that thier learned cultural expectations are inferior to those who make the rules. It is part of the class war that we all secretly know continues, but nobody wants to admit is still raging.

To all those middle-class, PC, thin-skinned, sanctimonious prats, GF!


Jeez, I've realy started raving now :lol:

ursogr8
14-07-2005, 01:13 PM
Two points.
First, refs/umps in all sports over a hundred years have copped a the ire of players and spectators. The question I ask is, has that ire increased to "dangerous" levels over, say, the last 20 years? I don't think so. Refs could handle it then, they can handle it now. There was no need to go from a proven balance of authority and dissent, to a zero tolerance.

I think I agree with this first point.
While we see the cowering of grown men in ARL, as they are lectured by a ref., we can be sure we do not have the balance correct. Better the free-for-all of elite basketball where trash-talk is allowed until the point where a ref. signals 'that's enough' and anything further results in tech. fouls or rejection from the game.


Secondly, this is about money! While ever the family TV audience don't know the true nature of the on field argy bargy, even though the live crowd do, the large audience share would keep the sponsorship/advertising dollars coming. If parents are turning off and or keeping their children away from the errant sport, that will mean a drop in revenues over time.

But I have my doubts about this point of yours. Contrary evidence is world championship wrestling....the trash-talk is the contest, and is even scripted so that you don't have to ad lib. While I don't support the wrestling 'sport', it does show that audiences like a bit of dummy-spit theatre.

Instead, I think our zero-tolerance is creeping in because of video-replays and Monday-measurements.
I notice AFL umpires now concentrate on making those decisions where there is less interpretation and more certainty. Hence we have seen a movement from 'penalising actions that clearly affect the course of the game' to 'penalising actions where we can prove the incident has broken the rule'. This leads to tiggy-touch-wood penalties for minor incidents and overlooks incidents requiring umpire-judgement for a game changing action.
As this is all reviewed a second time on Monday by Umpire Managers, we are seeing a trend to only making decisions that are defensible and require little judgement. And sadly, zero-tolerance comment on decisions becomes the enforceable norm rather than the grey-line of 'enough-is-enough'.


I think our community has been ill served by those who would sanitise our social intercourse. Fruity language, vicious abuse, vilification - they are all one part of the spectrum of social intercourse. Unfortunately our minders refuse to acknowledge that to remove one end of that spectrum improverishes the language and selectively nobbles one side in the exchange. Furthermore, the spaying of language alienises about half the population by infering that thier learned cultural expectations are inferior to those who make the rules. It is part of the class war that we all secretly know continues, but nobody wants to admit is still raging.

To all those middle-class, PC, thin-skinned, sanctimonious prats, GF!

I liked my precious, pretentious popinjays better. ;)


Jeez, I've realy started raving now :lol:

And the theatre is better for it. :cool:

starter

Kevin Bonham
14-07-2005, 03:29 PM
Kevin
I think it is fair to assume your introduction of the phrase 'dissing the ref' referred to dissent which is an action taken after the referee has made a decision?

Correct.


In the case quoted by me (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=15808&postcount=28) it is clear the ref had made his decision and the players (as they do in many soccer leagues) beseeching the ref to change his mind. This is not the 'appealing' action that takes place in cricket before the umpires decision.

Not clear to me from what you quoted. What you quoted referred to player appeals being controversially disregarded. If the decision had been made and was final and irreversible I am not sure in what sense the disregard for the "appeal" would have been controversial. I am not a soccer fan but on those rare occasions when I have chanced to watch this peculiar brownian motion simulator on TV I have frequently seen players attempt to influence the ref's decision before it has been made. Perhaps you could explain further?

BFG
14-07-2005, 05:47 PM
Instead, I think our zero-tolerance is creeping in because of video-replays and Monday-measurements.I think the turning point was the 'miking' of umpires. In the last 100 years what went on between player and umpire remained on the ground. Now, it is broadcast live into our loungerooms which can create a serious public relations incident for the AFL/NRL/ARU etc. Hands up all those who remember Mal Meninga's famous rev up speach to the QLD team before one state of origin which was beamed out live. Come to think of it, that was the last one that was ever beamed out live.

I think the biggest issue in whether a harsh penalty is given is the way the question is asked. From my experience as a basketball ref/player, I know that a call can be questioned in a way that will not result in a tech foul (or 50 metre call) being made. But a question asked in the manner of 'What was that for, you effing clown' from about 2 inches from your face is likely to get an entirely different result.

Its mainly all in the delivery.

ursogr8
14-07-2005, 08:02 PM
I think the turning point was the 'miking' of umpires. In the last 100 years what went on between player and umpire remained on the ground. Now, it is broadcast live into our loungerooms which can create a serious public relations incident for the AFL/NRL/ARU etc. Hands up all those who remember Mal Meninga's famous rev up speach to the QLD team before one state of origin which was beamed out live. Come to think of it, that was the last one that was ever beamed out live.
hi BFG
You remember the theatre of the speech! That is what the administrators should notice.
A feature that has disappeared from AFL is that the Captains used to be permitted to 'visit' the umpire on the field at 1/4 time and ask questions. No longer pemitted.



I think the biggest issue in whether a harsh penalty is given is the way the question is asked. From my experience as a basketball ref/player, I know that a call can be questioned in a way that will not result in a tech foul (or 50 metre call) being made. But a question asked in the manner of 'What was that for, you effing clown' from about 2 inches from your face is likely to get an entirely different result.
Exactly.
Basketball has the 'grey line' in existence and leaves it to the judgement of the Ref.
Sadly, the AFL have gone to no-tolerance. That is, the querying of a decision is taken as disageeing with the decision and is taken as dissent and is given a 50 metre penalty.
Non-negotiable, final and unilateral.
It is un-Australian. And I don't know why it came into ARL and ARU.



Its mainly all in the delivery.
A good observation of how it should be.

starter

PHAT
14-07-2005, 10:54 PM
It is un-Australian. And I don't know why it came into ARL and ARU.


I told you its all those middle-class, PC, thin-skinned, sanctimonious prats. Or perhaps as you might put it, all the pharisaical persnickety bourgeois derrieres - but then I would sound like a nobhead. ;)

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2005, 02:01 AM
Is PC really so consistently anti-swearing though? I would have thought PC would have some sympathy with the idea that policing language = class warfare = discrimination vs the poor = bad. Sorry for the tangent, I doubt it will last long enough to deserve its own thread.

ursogr8
15-07-2005, 08:18 AM
I told you its all those middle-class, PC, thin-skinned, sanctimonious prats. Or perhaps as you might put it, all the pharisaical persnickety bourgeois derrieres - but then I would sound like a nobhead. ;)

I invite you to comment on the following observation.

In AFL, when the penalty for umpire abuse was a suspension for 1-2 weeks, the number of players reported was about 3 per season. That is, only 3 occasions in 176 games, a player spoke out of turn, across the line, with sufficient wounding intent to warrant a penalty. Three times in total per season, on average.

Now that we have moved the penalty to 50 metres, and moved to no_tolerance, we have on average 2 per game.
We have moved from 3 penalty warranting infractions per season to 2*176 = 352 penalty warranting infractions per season.

How can this be?


starter

auriga
15-07-2005, 08:51 AM
I invite you to comment on the following observation.

In AFL, when the penalty for umpire abuse was a suspension for 1-2 weeks, the number of players reported was about 3 per season. That is, only 3 occasions in 176 games, a player spoke out of turn, across the line, with sufficient wounding intent to warrant a penalty. Three times in total per season, on average.

Now that we have moved the penalty to 50 metres, and moved to no_tolerance, we have on average 2 per game.
We have moved from 3 penalty warranting infractions per season to 2*176 = 352 penalty warranting infractions per season.

How can this be?


starter

i would think the 1-2 week suspension should be back in.
however, like the arl they focus on different things each year.
eg. this year its grapple tackles, next year it's play of the ball, last year back chat, etc.

the story on wayne rooney in the english premier (soccer) last season was bad. they microphoned some of the matches and every word was the f word.
all the 10-year kids looking up to rooney, starting copying and so were dishing it out to the u10 refs as well!

but i do think the league did try to promote it a bit and the controversy is good for making the game exciting (and more viewers).

anyway, reckon 1-2 suspension would fix it in afl where there is already enough niggle between the players, never mind the ref.

PHAT
15-07-2005, 09:49 AM
I would have thought PC would have some sympathy with the idea that policing language = class warfare = discrimination vs the poor = bad.

True. PC lurves tolerence of difference until the PCist has to do the tolerating. The hypocrasy is palpable when it comes to swearing. They read something in the NT Times, "Oh dear! All those poor aborigines being arrested and gaoled for swearing in the local mall. Disgraceful." An hour later when they are in their own local mall they are wishing that security would hurry up and clear out give some swearing derro sprawlled on the bench seat.

I am sick too death of officious AFL officials and outraged politicians and and good-two-shoes moderators and PC pillars of the community all stridently cleaning up backchat/swearing/dissent to protect the kiddies ears and souls, while still approving of child abuse in the form of no fault divorce. It's selective application of standards - hypocracy!

PHAT
15-07-2005, 10:01 AM
We have moved from 3 penalty warranting infractions per season to 2*176 = 352 penalty warranting infractions per season.

How can this be?



Easly answered.

Some bright spark realised that:

1. There was a strong penalty for strongly dissing the ref - a 1 or 2 week suspension.
2. There was no penalty for simple mouthing-off.
3. Mouthing-off was "not nice" on TV.

Solution: Kill two bird with the one stone. Tell the PC brigade that what was needed was an intermediate level of penalty for all that "nasty" mouthing-off the ref. PCists clap ernestly and knowingly. Then, surprise surprise, 50 metres + free kick is born.

ursogr8
15-07-2005, 10:23 AM
Easly answered.

Some bright spark realised that:

1. There was a strong penalty for strongly dissing the ref - a 1 or 2 week suspension.
2. There was no penalty for simple mouthing-off.
3. Mouthing-off was "not nice" on TV.

Solution: Kill two bird with the one stone. Tell the PC brigade that what was needed was an intermediate level of penalty for all that "nasty" mouthing-off the ref. PCists clap ernestly and knowingly. Then, surprise surprise, 50 metres + free kick is born.

No.
2. There was no penalty for simple mouthing-off. is incorrect. The penalty was always 1-2 weeks, if the abuse hurt the umpires feelings.
We can only presume then the laziness becomes the explanation of the sudden 100-fold increase in penalty-warranting infractions. Previously, the 1-2 week penalty required the umpire to front up on Tuesday night for the tribunal hearing. Now he just has to trot 50 yards (sorry, metres...showing my age).

starter

PHAT
15-07-2005, 10:44 AM
"There was no penalty for simple mouthing-off is incorrect. The penalty was always 1-2 weeks, if the abuse hurt the umpires feelings.
We have a difference of understanding with regard to what is "mouthing-off." I mean it to mean wingeing and complaining out aloud. Where as dissing is, to my thinking, something much stronger.



We can only presume then the laziness becomes the explanation of the sudden 100-fold increase in penalty-warranting infractions. Previously, the 1-2 week penalty required the umpire to front up on Tuesday night for the tribunal hearing.

Aha!!! You did have your own answer in mind when you asked "How can this be?" However, the 50+FK option had to be given to the refs in before they could opt for "laziness."

ursogr8
15-07-2005, 11:07 AM
We have a difference of understanding with regard to what is "mouthing-off." I mean it to mean wingeing and complaining out aloud. Where as dissing is, to my thinking, something much stronger.

Abuse to an umpire is either a wound, under the rules, or it is not a wound. There are no degrees mentioned in the rules.
We used to have 3 penalised infractions per year, now we have oodles...just because the penalty changed....not because the rule (defining verbal abuse to an umpire) or wounds changed.

Abuse to another player is a different matter. If it crosses the racial divide then all hell breaks loose and the infracting player is sent away to remedial behaviour instruction....we have had suspensions for up to 6 weeks; also usually add a mandatory session of abject hand-wringing at a media conference.
Most other verbal abuse to a player (opponents or own team) is OK,... not penalised.



Aha!!! You did have your own answer in mind when you asked "How can this be?" However, the 50+FK option had to be given to the refs in before they could opt for "laziness."

I didn't until I started conversing with you. ;)


Don't get me wrong.
I started in this thread with posts agreeing with the $20,000 penalty to James Hird (captain of the team I support); and I am in favour of penalties (such as the regime in basketball). But zero-tolerance :rolleyes: ...spare me.


starter

Bill Gletsos
15-07-2005, 11:32 AM
No.
2. There was no penalty for simple mouthing-off. is incorrect. The penalty was always 1-2 weeks, if the abuse hurt the umpires feelings.
We can only presume then the laziness becomes the explanation of the sudden 100-fold increase in penalty-warranting infractions. Previously, the 1-2 week penalty required the umpire to front up on Tuesday night for the tribunal hearing. Now he just has to trot 50 yards (sorry, metres...showing my age).

starterDo you feel this may be a case of previously the umpire was simply the policeman reporting the player to the AFL tribunal who were the judge, jury and exectioner where as now the umpire gets to not only be the policeman but the other three as well and as such from the refs viewpoint makes this aspect of his job much easier.

ursogr8
15-07-2005, 11:42 AM
Do you feel this may be a case of previously the umpire was simply the policeman reporting the player to the AFL tribunal who were the judge, jury and exectioner where as now the umpire gets to not only be the policeman but the other three as well and as such from the refs viewpoint makes this aspect of his job much easier.

hi Bill
What are you doing over here on non-chess threads mate? Just helping out?

Yes; a lot of truth in what you say. The umpires know that after one 50m penalty that the COACH will sub the infractor off the ground and give him an earful. So, essentially the policing and the intended cultural change is moved to the infractors team and COACH.
And maybe this is clever.
But no-tolerance....it is not on. :mad:

starter

Bill Gletsos
15-07-2005, 11:53 AM
hi Bill
What are you doing over here on non-chess threads mate? Just helping out?I read all the threads even the non chess ones.
In this particular case I thought I would just make a point that so far hadnt been made.


Yes; a lot of truth in what you say. The umpires know that after one 50m penalty that the COACH will sub the infractor off the ground and give him an earful. So, essentially the policing and the intended cultural change is moved to the infractors team and COACH.
And maybe this is clever.Yes, so it would seem.

But no-tolerance....it is not on. :mad:Yes, it would seem the AFL could leave the decision with the umpire as to how tolerant they should be. I suspect however that the AFL wanted all umpires to be consistent as to how they handled it, hence the no tolerance approach.
If that however was the case then it this seems inconsistent as there are other aspects of the game that are clearly affected by how a particular umpire chooses to act on a particular situation. e.g. whether the umpire thought a player had unfairly infringed another player. One umpire may award the free kick whilst another may not and just rule play on.

ursogr8
15-07-2005, 12:01 PM
<snip>
If that however was the case then it this seems inconsistent as there are other aspects of the game that are clearly affected by how a particular umpire chooses to act on a particular situation. e.g. whether the umpire thought a player had unfairly infringed another player. One umpire may award the free kick whilst another may not and just rule play on.

We have had a 100+ years of social conditioning on inconsistent application of the rules; in fact, that is why most of go home hoarse after a game. ;)

We have come to 'accept' that they will not get the game part of it 'right'.

But, no-tolerance of sledging.....un-Australian!

starter

BFG
15-07-2005, 02:39 PM
We have had a 100+ years of social conditioning on inconsistent application of the rules; in fact, that is why most of go home hoarse after a game. ;)

We have come to 'accept' that they will not get the game part of it 'right'.

But, no-tolerance of sledging.....un-Australian!

starterI think most of us go home after the game because we are absolutely one eyed and refuse to admit that our team was at fault (personally guilty as charged).

The other thing is that the average fan and player usually has no idea what the rules are and just assumed that the ref stuffed up. Post match reviews of most games show that the average professional referee makes a very small number of mistakes a game (about 3 -5 in a high speed 80 -110 minute game) which is far better than most players are able to do.

The best example of this is in games where players are required to referee games themselves. The worst whingers are usually the most appalling referees. I had an example where someone who usually gives me grief about my decisions umpired me. After returning the complement to him (I was more controlled than he usually is but it did give me some degree of satisfaction), his comeback was that 'he didn't know the rules because he wasn't a ref'.

I think that the punishment for anyone who gets a 50 metre penalty should be 5 weeks of umpiring a social or junior grade of their sport. After copping abuse from the players and parents (some of that is absolutely vicious) maybe they will think first about venting their spleen at someone who is probably right anyway.

Sledging is OK as long as it is done with some degree of fun. Mindless swearing and abuse should have a zero tolerance but players should be able to question calls as long as they are within acceptable standards of behaviour. And captains not being able to talk to the referees at the breaks in play is just ludicrous. That is the best time to calm down simmering tensions and get closer to an agreement of what is the best solution. That is something I always try to do as a referee and it seems to work really well.

ElevatorEscapee
15-07-2005, 04:47 PM
Nice post BFG :)


I think most of us go home after the game because we are absolutely one eyed and refuse to admit that our team was at fault (personally guilty as charged).

...

Guilty here too.. even when watching it on telly... if a 50/50 umpiring decision goes against the 'roos, I immediately think they are being hard done by, however if the same decision goes for them, I immediately think it fully justified. :lol: (The same goes for lbw decisions in the cricket. ;) )


I think that the punishment for anyone who gets a 50 metre penalty should be 5 weeks of umpiring a social or junior grade of their sport. After copping abuse from the players and parents (some of that is absolutely vicious) maybe they will think first about venting their spleen at someone who is probably right anyway.

Poetic justice! A sort of community service... however the player may also have to give up his own playing time to perform his umpiring service. (Which, in Aussie Rules may involve running a half marathon backwards. ;)) If it is a high profile player, then the media would be there to capture all his mistakes on camera. :D

ursogr8
21-07-2005, 08:51 AM
I invite you to comment on the following observation.

In AFL, when the penalty for umpire abuse was a suspension for 1-2 weeks, the number of players reported was about 3 per season. That is, only 3 occasions in 176 games, a player spoke out of turn, across the line, with sufficient wounding intent to warrant a penalty. Three times in total per season, on average.

Now that we have moved the penalty to 50 metres, and moved to no_tolerance, we have on average 2 per game.
We have moved from 3 penalty warranting infractions per season to 2*176 = 352 penalty warranting infractions per season.

How can this be?


starter

Update...two weeks on

By all reports, the abuse to umpires has magically disappeared. From the peak-high of the previous week to nil this most recent week-end. It seems that zero-tolerance has had an effect.

But my watching of the replays evinced that players have stopped back-chat of an umpire decision that awards a mark or a free-kick, but has not stopped the back-chat when an umpire makes a nil decision.
That is back-chat that disputes
*the ball was out of play
*the ball missed the goals
*a free-kick that is missed (by the umpire)
*a mark that is missed (by the umpire),
is not penalised with a 50-metre penalty.

Where is the logic in that?


starter