AFL news 2023: Stephen Coniglio’s constant complaints lead to dissent free kick

As the AFL dodges the heat on a controversial free kick, a new twist has emerged in the fallout from Carlton’s win over GWS, which may explain umpire Craig Fleer’s decision.

Umpire Matt Stevic. Picture: Michael Klein

The AFL has told GWS that Stephen Coniglio’s continued complaints to umpires in Saturday’s dramatic loss to Carlton contributed to the final-quarter dissent call that helped turn the game in the Blues’ favour.

The AFL on Monday put out a carefully worded statement which said only that umpire Fleer had made a “call” on Coniglio’s dissent without making clear whether it was right or wrong.

AFL umpires boss Dan Richardson admitted some umpires had “differing levels of temperament” as he stated: “we also can’t coach human response”.

Richardson said of Fleer’s decision that just as players and coaches “get emotional, or become overly expressive when under pressure, we also have umpires with differing levels of temperament”.

Richardson’s comments made clear the league was not willing to call Fleer’s dissent rule overreach even as the league’s own advice to clubs last June was that players would not be penalised for putting their hands out.

The Herald Sun understands the AFL umpiring department’s feedback to the football department was that Coniglio’s demand for a free kick was not a one-off during the game.

Instead the accumulation of demands for free kicks or unwanted feedback from Coniglio to the umpires played a key part in the Fleer decision.

AFL umpire Craig Fleer. Photo by Michael Klein

GWS were adamant Coniglio was not overly demonstrative and did not swear at Fleer as he put his arms out and asked “How was that not a free kick?”.

They believe Coniglio is not the kind of player to badger umpires and were privately bemused by the explanation which seemed to highlight Fleer’s sensitivity

Richardson admitted the dissent rule contained shades of grey as he said of the Coniglio decision: “If you don’t challenge the decisions, then there is no need for the debate. The approach going forward won’t change.”

While the AFL did not confirm Coniglio’s badgering of the umpires, Richardson hinted at the real reason for the Fleer decision when he said: “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.”

It is not known what Coniglio said to Fleer or his colleagues during the match but the strong view from AFL House is that it contributed to what became a match-defining game.

Richardson’s statement balanced the need to back in umpires with a concession that some officials will accept more frank feedback while others might instead pay free kicks for dissent.

“I want to be clear – the dissent was paid based on the player challenging the umpire both verbally and visually, both in his tone and his manner,” he said.

Motlop’s goal changed the game in the final quarter. (Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)

“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.

“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.

“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 ‘grey’ and within this area is where the debate always sits.”

The league now makes a distinction between players appealing for a free kick before it has been paid and berating or challenging the umpire for a decision he had already made.

So while players including Mitch McGovern and Jack Higgins threw their arms out to appeal for free kicks across the weekend, the league does not believe that constitutes dissent.

AFL BACKS UMPS ON DISSENT FREES

The AFL will continue to back the right of umpires to pay dissent free kicks as it awaits an umpiring department decision on Stephen Coniglio’s game-changing penalty.

The league was unprepared on Sunday to make an official call about umpire Craig Fleer’s call half way through the last term of the Carlton-GWS game.

But the AFL’s broad view is that players should not put themselves in a position to be penalised for verbally or visually challenging a decision because they are at risk of a dissent free kick.

GWS asked the AFL on Sunday for an official ruling given it believed Coniglio had not sworn or been overly demonstrative but AFL umpires boss Dan Richardson was not prepared to admit a mistake.

Former GWS captain Stephen Coniglio complained with outstretched arms about an unrewarded tackle in front of Carlton goals and said, “How was that not a free kick?”.

Fleer gave Carlton’s Jesse Motlop a free kick directly in front of goal and the Blues never lost the lead in a 10-point victory.

As a few eagle-eyed fans have pointed out McGovern does something identical a minute later and doesn’t get penalised. Blues deserved the win. Just thought we had reached a good place with the dissent rule in the back half of ‘22 and the Coniglio dissent free kick was overkill pic.twitter.com/enW5Xv0WTK

— Jon Ralph (@RalphyHeraldSun) April 1, 2023

The free kick for dissent just given in the GWS Blues game is not what the rule is there to stop.

Use some common sense umpire please 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

#AFLGiantsBlues

— Will Schofield (@WillSchofield) April 1, 2023

That free kick for dissent against the Giants is the worst thing I’ve seen in a while. #gwsblues

— Neil Cordy (@neilcordy) April 1, 2023

Former AFL umpire Matthew Head told the Herald Sun the decision was inconsistent with the way the dissent rule had been policed.

““The AFL will back it and they will double down on it but no one really wants that sort of free kick paid. It is technically correct and the AFL will come out and back it, but it’s one that you don’t want to happen.

“We have seen a relaxation of the rule since last year and what we saw last night has been tolerated by other umpires over the course of last year and this year, so it’s a consistency thing.”

Geelong legend Steve Johnson said of the incident on Sunday that it was “one of the worst decisions I’ve seen in my time in football” and called on Fleer to be dropped next week.

The league had found a better balance in the dissent rule in the second half of last season as umpires were told to tolerate a “level of emotion” from players.

Fleer’s decision was clearly overkill compared to that stance but the league is not prepared to undercut its umpires by labelling their dissent decisions incorrect.

It believes the introduction of the dissent rule – pushed by AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan – has had a positive impact at the elite level and across community football.

Stephen Coniglio after the final siren. Picture: Phil Hillyard

On Saturday night after the Coniglio decision a raft of players were highlighted throwing their hands in the air to debate decisions, including Carlton’s Mitch McGovern only a minute later.

But the league’s view is that there is a difference between players appealing for decisions in the moment and contesting a non-free kick after the fact.

The league usually only officially rules on umpiring decisions if they are game-changing and made in the last minute of a game, including the insufficient intent decision in the North Melbourne-Fremantle game last week.

The league backed in the umpires’ decision not to penalise Dan Howe as it judged the ball had crossed the boundary line before the siren sounded.

GWS coach Adam Kingsley said on Saturday after the game the Giants were keen to “get to the bottom of it”.

“It’s hard for me to comment really because I don’t know what was said,” Kingsley said.

“Clearly we don’t want to be giving away free kicks in front of goal – that’s for sure. We’ll try to get to the bottom of it.”

AFL great Jason Dunstall said during the game the umpire had failed to show common sense.

“That’s big. I would’ve thought if there was some serious abuse, yes. But just for throwing the arms out and saying ‘how is that not a free kick?’ That to me is a very heavy penalty to pay,” Dunstall said during Fox Footy’s commentary.

“He didn’t even throw them right out … He put them out in front of him. It’s tough.”