AFL Head of Umpiring Dan Richardson: 

Firstly, I want to say the dissent rule has had the positive impact intended and has found an appropriate level over the course of the past 12 months.

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.

In regard to Saturday’s GWS GIANTS vs Carlton match and the free kick paid in the fourth quarter.

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.

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 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.

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.