Computer Crashed wrote:Zartan wrote:morell wrote:Never understood football's fascination with getting umpires to give awards. It's utterly illogical.
it's stupid.. Firstly they should be focusing on the game itself not players - then they're likely only to notice the players through the midfield because they're around them more regularly, and finally I have a theory if you have a strong last quarter you're a better chance of getting votes even if you have a quiet 1st 3 because it's fresh in peoples minds.
Hancock from Ingle Farm didn't poll a single vote, but was easily our best player all season, where as Lynch finished equal 3rd or 4th or whatever it was, and he had a lot of games where he played through the mid a lot but also kicked goals late in games as well.
Hancock not getting a vote just about sums it all up I'd say.
That's ridicules.
He was super this year, best decision maker and reader of the play considering the pressure position he plays.
TEAM player too.
How Hancock didn't get the 3 against us in the return game at Ingle Farm is absolutely beyond me.. Was superb and basically the difference in a game that was close for a fair bit of the day.. Probably had a case to get the 3 and the 2 that day
I have a theory that their is a common occurrence of incorrect entering of votes by the umpires. Or they simply confuse people with others because some of the votes given/not given over the years simply beggar belief..
Its an annual discussion that should we take the voting burden off them as they have enough on their plate, but I don't think their is a viable alternate. An independent volunteer to watch games and do voting would be too hard to drum up for every game of every division.. Coaches have a fair bit on their plate to do voting, although they would know who influenced games fairly well.. But then their is bias that could potentially come into it. Its a tough one