AFL umpires’ boss Dan Richardson says players who opt to challenge a decision “need to live with the potential consequence” after the GWS dissent debacle rocked Round 3.

Former Giants skipper Stephen Coniglio paid a heavy price when he extended his arms and asked: ‘How is that not a free kick’ late in his side’s loss to Carlton.

A dissent free kick was paid by umpire Craig Fleer against Coniglio directly in front of goal 20m out, and it turned the match in the Blues’ favour.

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 >

The dissent call was widely slammed in AFL media, with Kane Cornes declaring he was “embarrassed for the game” while Fox Footy’s Garry Lyon said it was “taking it way too far”.

But in a statement issued on Monday, Richardson refused to apologise for the “harsh” stance taken against dissent.

“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,” he said.

“If you don’t challenge the decisions, then there is no need for the debate.

“The approach going forward won’t change.”

RELATED

‘ACCEPT THE GREY’: Blues skipper calls for calm on dissent

CONTROVERSY: AFL greats hit out at ‘embarrassing’ dissent call

FULL AUDIO: Listen as GWS demands answer to massive dissent decision

While conceding the dissent rule was not “black and white”, Richardson was comfortable an umpire’s dissent call would sit in a “grey” area.

“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,” he said.

“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.”

Richardson said he wanted “to be clear” when assessing the controversial call from Saturday’s clash between GWS and Carlton.

“The dissent was paid based on the player challenging the umpire both verbally and visually, both in his tone and his manner,” he said.

“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.”

The AFL umpires’ boss added that he was pleased with the “positive impact” the dissent rule has had in regards to the treatment of umpires.

But Cornes highlighted the fact the rule was not applied equally across the competition, with evidence of other players using the same extended arm action as Coniglio and not getting penalised.

“We are all confused. We don’t know what is going on. The players don’t know. One umpire is more sensitive than the other,” he said on The Sunday Footy Show.

“The inconsistency is what is so frustrating,” fellow panellist Matthew Lloyd added.