I'm not sure it really requires vilification Shane. The AFL, and in this case the umpire in question, are trying to find the line where abusing an umpire or player goes from 'part of the pantomime' to something that crosses the line. I don't think that's an easy thing to do, and I certainly don't think there is an obvious bright line.
And then if a fan does cross the line, what should be the consequence?
Some would say that all swearing should be prohibited, but I'm personally not really offended by swearing and so I think that would be overkill. I probably swear too much at the football, to be honest. I've probably called umpires and opposing players 'd*ckheads' a fair bit. I'm not proud of it, but I would think it pretty unfair to be tossed.
But punters calling umpires 'maggots' is something I personally really dislike. I think it's the mix of being so artless and unoriginal, but also so dehumanising, that really rubs me up the wrong way. Yet most would say 'well it's not swearing so what's the problem?'.
Likewise, 'bald-headed flog' to me crosses the line, but probably not enough to have someone kicked out of a game. Flog is a word I use all the time, but I think as a general rule abusing people based on their physical characteristics probably crosses a line. Except if you're making fun of Daniel Rich's tiny arms, which is actually pretty funny.
I've seen crowds give it to umpire Nicholls a fair bit in his career. That he was visibly upset about what was said means something to me. I can't see anyone wanting to put a target on their back if they didn't think they had cause to make a show of it. I think other people see it as a chance to tee off on how bad an umpire he is, but I know for sure I would never be an umpire - let alone a good one - so I tend to have a fair bit of empathy for them. It's a pretty thankless gig, especially at lower levels, so I'm pretty comfortable with the AFL erring on the side of protecting them from people who get right up to that line.
