Talking to Umpires

West Adelaide had two 25 metre penalties against them in the first quarter yesterday, presumably for swearing at the umpire.

No problems there, if that's the rule, so be it.

My question is this. There is plenty of anecdotal and first hand evidence that Chris and James Gowans constantly and vociferously dispute umpires' decisions. They're rarely penalised for it.

Why are the treated differently?

They are often penalised for it, redandblack, I can assure you of that...

Agree R&B, I made a similar comment recently. They also do a lot of their whinging at breaks .

They are not the only players who talk back and 'whinge' to the umpries folks...

Of course they are not , that isn't what is being said.

Phil, you see them more than I do, but I've rarely seen them penalised for it.

It's not a question of being penalised occasionally, it's a question of consistency.

We all know they seem to have different tolerance limits from the umpires.

Chris gave away two 25 metres yesterday for back chat.

How do you know what they are saying to the umpires anyway? Unless you know don't make assumptions. Just makes you sound like a whinger.

I'm not sure I follow your logic, Cennals.

You're telling me that Chris gave away 2 25 metre penalties for backchat yesterday and then you're asking me how I know they backchat?

I'm asking you how you know that they have been back chatting the times you think they should've given away 25 metre penalties if penalties weren't given?

Fair enough.

I asked the question because I've heard them backchatting umpires many times myself. I've also heard many people from different clubs asking the same question.

From a logical point of view, on the numerous occasions I've watched them yapping to the umpires on TV, I'd say it's obvious they weren't complimenting them.

I doubt you'd find many supporters who would seriously defend them on this matter. They've been doing it for years, whereas some other players get zero tolerance.

I wouldn't get too sensitive about it. I think it's a legitimate question.

Agree with R&B here .

I could never work it out .

perhaps when they are asking a civil question or making a civil point the umpires take it calmly but when it is asked aggressively with 'colorful language' then the umpires take umbrage

purely guessing

You only need to see their Body Language to realise it's agressive .

Yes, the Gowans boys show agressive body language both to opposition players and the umpires. Yes, at times they over step the mark. Yes, they perhaps get away with a little bit more than others do. BUT they play with white line fever and passion AND are not the only ones in the league that do all of the above, either.

I suppose my point, Phil, is why should they 'get away with it a little bit more than others', as you say.

I don't think the rules state that they should be given more latitude at all?

So I guess it falls back to the individual umpire(s) and how they perceive and handle situations involving the twins. No, they shouldn't be given any more latitude than others but if they are, it's not their fault. How they play might be perceived by some as not very nice but if they break the rules, they are like any other player and should be punished accordingly. That is just the way they play and they are not orphans in that regard, as mentioned earlier. Maybe in some way, with their longevity, the umpires perhaps let them get away with just a little bit more than others, who knows? Perhaps that would be a good question to be asked of Shane Harris?

Fair enough, Phil, but I haven't blamed them for this at all. If they are clever enough to get away with it, good luck to them. It also doesn't take away from their achievements and reputation, which any fair-minded footy follower would agree is astoundingly good.

All I'm saying, which you've twice confirmed, is that the umpires give them more latitude than other players.

I don't think that's a good thing, or a fair thing.

Agreed, on all points...