AFL hijacked by an over-reaction which has created gross inconsistency, writes Mark Robinson

Players are disillusioned, fans are beside themselves and the game is suffering. The AFL now has serious issues to address on umpire dissent, writes Mark Robinson.

Tom Mitchell copped a 50m penalty for dissent. Picture: Getty Images

Dissent. It is said the truth is always the first casualty of war.

In footy, it seems common sense is almost always the first casualty of everything.

The umpire abuse – or dissent – and the resulting 50m scourge is so out of whack, the AFL now has serious issues to address.

Our game has been hijacked by an over-reaction which has created gross inconsistency.

Players are disillusioned, and fans are beside themselves.

The game is suffering.

Stream every match of every round of the 2022 Toyota AFL Premiership Season Live & Ad-Break Free In-Play on Kayo. New to Kayo? Try 14-Days Free Now >

Tom Mitchell reacts after giving away a 50m penalty for dissent. Picture: Getty Images

Umpire dissent has become the AFL’s “weapon of mass destruction’’.

Are we going to war over something that did not exist?

Was it really ever there to command such a response?

Was it that obvious that we needed a declaration of war against player behaviour?

On Tuesday, the competition’s new footy boss Brad Scott doubled down on the league’s stance.

He backed 50m penalties handed down across the weekend, and declared there should have been more.

“Our message to players is that when an umpire pays a free kick, accept it and move on and our message to umpires is we encourage you to continue to pay free kicks or 50-metre penalties where players have shown dissent,” Scott said.

But the now infamous “arms out is 50m” decision is the single greatest overreaction to what has been a noble position taken by the AFL to stamp out umpire abuse.

The now infamous “arms out is 50m” decision is the single greatest over-reaction to what is a noble position taken by the AFL to stamp out umpire abuse.

The AFL loves the word “optics’’ and it has now deemed a player who puts his arms out in reaction to a free kick as being an unacceptable optic.

The Harris Andrews decision on Easter Thursday was over the top.

The Tom Mitchell decision on Easter Monday against Geelong was ridiculous and embarrassing.

Tom Mitchell speaks to umpire Hayden Gavine. Picture: Getty Images

These are grown men, not children, playing a high octane sport.

If any player uses obscene language, or is aggressively demonstrative with their body or facial expression, then yes, a 50m penalty should be awarded.

Arms out? Please, what a joke.

One senior club person who sent a text on Monday night — a person who can’t be named because he fears a scolding from the AFL for commenting on umpires — had a sensible viewpoint.

“We all know the difference between aggressive facial reactions by players towards umpires and a gentle ask-the-question reaction,” he said.

“And umpires know when the behaviour is intimidatory and disrespectful as opposed to a gentle act of minor frustration.

“It will make the life of an umpire worse not better, which is unfair given they don’t make the rules, they just reinforce them.”

Round 5 was a rollicking weekend of confusion.

Arms out was paid in some games, but not in others.

From Round 1 to now, there would be hundreds of examples of players reacting with their “arms out”.

And 50m penalties were not paid.

The crackdown on umpire abuse, which was first highlighted by the AFL in February, has now become an overreach from the AFL.

And footy fans know that.

They have been quick to highlight the vagaries of “arms out”.

Like, look at the hands that go up when players are appealing for a holding-the-ball decision, or a deliberate out-of-bounds kick, or when a player claims he has taken a mark and it’s not paid.

Harris Andrews got a 50m penalty for reacting with his hands.

That’s dissenting a non-decision — hands in the air in protest isn’t it?

No one disagrees with the AFL’s endeavours to improve respect for umpires, but common sense must always prevail.

We’ve lost that inside five weeks.

And outside of the inconsistency of the interpretation — which always means there is a grey area — there was no greater example of the absurdity of the situation than what played out in two incidents in that Easter Thursday game between Collingwood and Brisbane.

We wrote in Monday’s Tackle column: “Andrews received a 50m penalty for waving his arms and teammate Darcy Gardiner received a 50m penalty and a $2000 fine for a pathetic and potentially dangerous crunch into the back of Josh Daicos.

“The difference between these two acts was a lousy $2000.

“One could’ve inflicted serious injury on a player and the other was innocuous in a campaign to stamp about abuse towards umpires.

“If this is where footy has got to, then a part of footy is in crisis because the punishments don’t fit the crime.”

Where’s the common sense in all that?