The AFL's Head of Umpiring Dan Richardson has praised the dissent rule's "positive impact" before ticking off on the controversial call that saw Stephen Coniglio cost his side a crucial goal during GWS' narrow loss to Carlton on Saturday evening.
By way of a statement sent from AFL House on Monday afternoon, Richardson claimed the Giants had no case for complaint, claiming that by the letter of the law, Coniglio's demonstrative behaviour warranted a free kick being paid against him.
"The dissent was paid based on the player (Coniglio) challenging the umpire both verbally and visually, both in his tone and his manner," Richardson stated clearly.
"If there was no challenge to the decision, regardless of personal opinion on the threshold, then no free kick could or would have been paid."
Richardson was also effusive in his praise for the recent piece of legislation, stressing that it was having the desired trickle-down effect within lower grades of football.
"The dissent rule has had the positive impact intended and has found an appropriate level over the course of the past 12 months," he said.
"We have been really happy with everyone's approach, both during the back half of last season, and in the early parts of this year.
"The players have generally been doing their bit and umpires have been applying the rule where required."
With ambiguity surrounding adjudication far from a new feature to the game, Richardson acknowledged that there would always be plenty of "grey" area attached to the vast majority of umpiring calls.
"Just like we have some players or coaches who occasionally get emotional, or become overly expressive when under pressure, we also have umpires with differing levels of temperament," he added.
"We have a set of guidelines for the umpires to work between, and we coach them, but we also can't coach human response.
"Footy is not black and white, it is one of the hardest games to umpire, there is a level of โgrey' and within this area is where the debate always sits."
However, Richardson signed off by claiming that players who questioned calls would always find themselves in strife with the whistleblowers.
"The umpires understand in the heat of battle there are going to be times regarding this rule, whether it has been an accumulation across the match or a single response, a time comes where they need to make a call," Richardson admitted.
"We understand the debate on the level of dissent; we understand the debate on whether the umpire made the right call on the weekend, but this part is clear - If you put yourself in a position for an umpire to have to make a call by verbally or visually challenging a decision, then you need to live with the potential consequence, and in the example on the weekend, the umpire made a call.
"If you don't challenge the decisions, then there is no need for the debate.
"The approach going forward won't change."
This is called a “cover up”.
We now know that when the umpire makes a “mistake” (regardless of if it appears to be not so much a mistake but intentional) a player cannot be “surprised” that the rules have been ignored at the detriment to his (or her) team.
There is no accountability for the umpiring “error” that resulted in the “Horrifying” spectre of a player raising his arms in disbelief.
That was a game changing “non-decision followed by a free goal” which at the very least warrants investigation ….. a comparable sequence would have racing stewards frothing at the mouth……..
Any “punters” who lost betting on this game should lodge a complaint with the relevant gambling authority – as this looks VERY “fixed”…..
And if you want to guarantee or re-enforce the view that umpires are corrupt….
look at the unpaid free,
look at the umpires “reaction”,
look at the leagues’ complicit decision.
… even horse racing is starting to look “clean”….