AFL world erupts over rules confusion

It comes after a fresh twist in the crucial free kick on Saturday paid against Giants star Stephen Coniglio, who was “consistently badgering or complaining” to umpires throughout the game, reports the Herald Sun’s Jon Ralph.In a rare move by the league, AFL umpires boss Dan Richardson on Monday night released a lengthy statement to address the dissent free kick paid against Coniglio in the fourth quarter of the Giants’ close loss to Carlton at Giants Stadium, which resulted in a goal to Blues forward Jesse Motlop.Watch every match of every round of the 2023 Toyota AFL Premiership Season LIVE on Kayo Sports. New to Kayo? Start your free trial now >Amid ample commentary that indicated confusion around penalties for dissent, Richardson backed the right of umpires to pay these free kicks while, at the same time, explicitly not backing in Craig Fleer’s decision to pay the free kick against Coniglio.Richardson said while players and coaches “get emotional, or become overly expressive when under pressure, we also have umpires with differing levels of temperament”.However Richardson declared: “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.”Speaking on Fox Footy’s On The Couch, Ralph said the AFL was now “splitting hairs” as to when and how it would penalise dissent.“Players are allowed to ask for a free kick by throwing their arms out … this is what we’re told by the AFL. But if a decision has been made, you cannot then contest the free kick, which I would imagine is almost impossible to make that judgment as an AFL player,” Ralph told Fox Footy.Ralph’s report comes after commentators were left confused by the fact Carlton’s Mitch McGovern – in the same game – and St Kilda’s Jack Higgins in another game on Saturday weren’t penalised for dissent McGovern put his arms out appealing for a holding the ball or insufficient intent free kick before it was deemed a boundary throw-in. Then in the St Kilda-Essendon game at the MCG, Higgins pleaded for a deliberate rushed behind as the ball was seen over the goal line by Bombers defender Mason Redman before a rushed behind was confirmed by the officiator. Critically, McGovern and Higgins’ interactions with the umpires happened while appealing for a free kick, rather than questioning a free kick that’d already been paid.But Ralph said the dissent story got “stranger” on Monday afternoon when the Giants were told by the AFL that Coniglio’s alleged persistent bickering of the umpires during the game might’ve contributed to the fourth-term free kick.“Umpires boss Dan Richardson said Fleer had made a ‘call’ – didn’t say it was right, didn’t say it was wrong – and admitted players and umpires have differing levels of temperament and that you can’t coach human response. As GWS privately told me, the AFL is just twisting itself in knots here just to come out and not say what they should be saying: ‘It’s a great rule, we love it, but in this case it was an overreach,’” Ralph said.“My understanding is the AFL believes Stephen Coniglio was consistently badgering or complaining to the umpiring department throughout the game for free kicks – and this was the last straw, this is why the umpire made this decision.“Richardson speaks in that statement about there being an ‘accumulation’ of events at times. I spoke to GWS, for their part, ‘he just doesn’t do that and contests these decisions and doesn’t say boo to umpires’.“It’s just a really complicated way of the AFL probably trying to have a bob each way to support the umpire when I think it probably confuses us even more.”Speaking on Fox Footy’s AFL 360’s, co-host Gerard Whateley said “there were two tension points” for the AFL when crafting a statement to address the call against Coniglio.“It ended up being a 13-paragraph, 364-word statement that specifically didn’t say ‘this is the threshold for dissent’ – because had it done so, there’d be 65 other free kicks that would’ve been missed across the weekend,” Whateley told AFL 360.“But they also couldn’t make it a free-for-all on dissent. They can’t validate dissent from players to the umpire.“So they’ve steered a very awkward middle ground.”Player behaviour towards umpires was brought into sharp focus by the AFL last given the decline in numbers at local and junior levels. Multiple players, subsequently, were pinged in highly-debated incidents last year, either for pointing to the scoreboard or putting their arms out when disputing a decision.Dunstall said he understood why the dissent crackdown had been introduced, but added he was confused by the AFL’s messaging and what constituted a “challenge” of the umpire.“It sounds like they’re saying: ‘We’re not sure we’re 100 per cent correct, but we certainly don’t want to say we’re wrong,’” Dunstall said of Richardson’s comments on AFL 360.“I think we all understand why we’ve gone down the dissent path. We needed to curb player behaviour because it was out of control.“The other thing we have to be careful of though – and we heard Dan Richardson talking about if you challenge a decision – what defines ‘a challenge’? We can‘t expect players in an emotional game to become completely unemotional – that’s physically impossible because we love the emotion in the game.“So is putting (your arms) out then clapping your hands in disappointment – which is what it appeared to be from Stephen Coniglio – it didn’t appear to be over the top, it didn’t look bad. But I understand why it’s been paid because the umpires have been given a brief.“We just need to be very clear about what defines dissent. We can’t take emotion or the ability for a player to at least be a little bit disappointed or frustrated, because that’s normal. That is human behaviour.“My concern is it (the Coniglio free kick) came at a critical time, it was a gift goal at the top of the square – how many times would that happen around the ground? I guess because of when and where it happened it’s become such a big talking point.“I defend the umpires, we need to respect them and I really applaud the way we’ve gone down this track and we’re almost there. But at some stage we’re going to need to interpret what the definition of a challenge to an umpire’s decision is.”Whateley added the call against the Giants star was arguably “below the threshold of where we want free kicks to be paid”. Via news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site https://www.news.com.au