Magarey Medal 2011

[Dutchy]

Ill add I dont think the umpires made the mistake here, they give votes due to the rules given to them, best and fairest, and if they reported a player they obviously believe he wasnt fair, this can obviously change after game day but at the time they have to give votes the umpires are doing the correct thing by not giving votes to him.

[Grahaml]

Ill add I dont think the umpires made the mistake here, they give votes due to the rules given to them, best and fairest, and if they reported a player they obviously believe he wasnt fair, this can obviously change after game day but at the time they have to give votes the umpires are doing the correct thing by not giving votes to him.

Problem though is it's not consistent. Fair enough if the umpires want to take fairness into account, then it should be all manner of fairness not a single incident one umpire took exception to. I don't have a problem with players who are reported not getting votes, but when it's such a weak report that it doesn't even go to the tribunal compared to other incidents that go to the tribunal but not due to a match day report then it's farcical. And what about players that give away a lot more free kicks? Shouldn't that be taken as fairness then? I'd have much preferred the SANFL to not say anything and assess at the end of the season.

[spell_check]

I hope someone puts the house on Allan in case they "jinx" themselves and him. Other than that, hand the medal over already.

One of the reasons why we never have had a Magarey Medal recipient - one stand out player in another team with no-one else taking votes off him.
Others are: Votes taking off players eg. Cicolella and Colville; Biglands in 1999 and those two
-McKenzie getting injured in 2007 - prior to that he had polled four BOGs and after his return, nothing.
-No stand out players in a season
-Different players getting BOGs

Ah yes, different year, same stuff happens.

BTW, the Grocke report in that match is another example of AFL softness in the SANFL. And that cost him three votes. It's a bit inconsistent where a report during a match (however soft it is) can take a player out of voting contention, yet someone who was cited on video evidence and suspended can still get votes from that match. And that's just because it wasn't seen on the day.

[robranisgod]

Problem though is it's not consistent. Fair enough if the umpires want to take fairness into account, then it should be all manner of fairness not a single incident one umpire took exception to. I don't have a problem with players who are reported not getting votes, but when it's such a weak report that it doesn't even go to the tribunal compared to other incidents that go to the tribunal but not due to a match day report then it's farcical. And what about players that give away a lot more free kicks? Shouldn't that be taken as fairness then? I'd have much preferred the SANFL to not say anything and assess at the end of the season.

Certainly in the old days "fairness" was a huge consideration in Magarey Medal voting. Rick Davies was expected to win the 1974 Medal by miles but he didn't get the expected votes because of his continual chatting of the umpire. Personally I didn't even think that fell into the category of unfair play but apparently the umpires did. Darel Hart suffered a similar fate in 1990. In fact in one game against West he had 57 touches kicked six goals and never polled a vote because of his abuse to the umpires. Those same umpires copped more abuse Grand Final night when Doug Thomas of all people sought out the umpires and told them in no uncertain matter that they knew nothing of the game.