SA Footy

"Fairest and Most Brilliant" as I understand, is the basis of the award (same with Magarey) and I've always wondered why the first component of that needs to be there ... I mean if Jonathon Brown (eg.) was to be rubbed out for 7 games, but poll the highest in the 15 remaining games, then surely that would make him clearly the best player for the year?

I know many people are divided on this one (or have been in the past), but I can't help but think that with the (at times) overly sensitive and inconsistent tribunal in place these days it gives further reason to question the basis ... Thoughts??

It has been "softened"- as long as a player doesn't accumulate more than 100 pts, he is still eligible (also monetary fines don't disqualify players)

Punk Rooster wrote:It has been "softened"- as long as a player doesn't accumulate more than 100 pts, he is still eligible (also monetary fines don't disqualify players)

Thats because most monetary fines are for things soft as butter. So i guess i agree with you.

..

Until recent times, it hasn't been an issue (apart from the moral one).
With Corey McKernan levelling Voss and Hird in '96, and Chris Grant outpolling Robert Harvey in '97 - it does ask the question as you have, CP.

Daniel Kerr almost made it a third time this year.

Whilst I think it's impossible to change, I do wonder if it would have been better the other way. Maybe, for example, the player doesn't poll votes in the game he was reported in.

Of course it also asks the question if a 3-2-1 system does in fact present the best player for the year.

I'm tired.

Dissident wrote:Until recent times, it hasn't been an issue (apart from the moral one).
With Corey McKernan levelling Voss and Hird in '96, and Chris Grant outpolling Robert Harvey in '97 - it does ask the question as you have, CP.

Daniel Kerr almost made it a third time this year.

Whilst I think it's impossible to change, I do wonder if it would have been better the other way. Maybe, for example, the player doesn't poll votes in the game he was reported in.

Of course it also asks the question if a 3-2-1 system does in fact present the best player for the year.

I'm tired.

I dont think any way of doing it is going to be 100% fair to everyone involved. I think it should be left as it is. Having the umpires vote on it is also the best way to do it. They see things during the match that youd need to be up close to see. Having the 'experts' in the media vote on it would be a disgrace (Judd would get 66 votes every year from the C10 commentators), they have to close a personal relationship with players to vote unbiasedly. Imagine if KG was voting on it, Crows players would get the 3-2-1 every week!!

Every year there is one or two players who maybe dont get as many votes as they deserve, or maybe the media has put those players up on a pedistal and they aren't actually playing as well as they'd have us believe.

pafc1870 wrote:

Dissident wrote:Until recent times, it hasn't been an issue (apart from the moral one).
With Corey McKernan levelling Voss and Hird in '96, and Chris Grant outpolling Robert Harvey in '97 - it does ask the question as you have, CP.

Daniel Kerr almost made it a third time this year.

Whilst I think it's impossible to change, I do wonder if it would have been better the other way. Maybe, for example, the player doesn't poll votes in the game he was reported in.

Of course it also asks the question if a 3-2-1 system does in fact present the best player for the year.

I'm tired.

I dont think any way of doing it is going to be 100% fair to everyone involved. I think it should be left as it is. Having the umpires vote on it is also the best way to do it. They see things during the match that youd need to be up close to see. Having the 'experts' in the media vote on it would be a disgrace (Judd would get 66 votes every year from the C10 commentators), they have to close a personal relationship with players to vote unbiasedly. Imagine if KG was voting on it, Crows players would get the 3-2-1 every week!!

Every year there is one or two players who maybe dont get as many votes as they deserve, or maybe the media has put those players up on a pedistal and they aren't actually playing as well as they'd have us believe.

Definately leave it with the umpires.
Christ, watching a game from a different seat can make you see the game, and players, in a new light. A coach sitting in the coaches box sees the game, but again, can see it different from the sidelines.

The umpires are the only people with the umpires view. Whether that's good or not, who cares

I am happy to leave it as best and fairest but do we look at whether a player can continue to gain votes after he is deemed to be ineligable

bottom line is if your not a goal kicking ball carrying midfielder these days you can not win the medal

sydney-dog wrote:I am happy to leave it as best and fairest but do we look at whether a player can continue to gain votes after he is deemed to be ineligable

bottom line is if your not a goal kicking ball carrying midfielder these days you can not win the medal

I think if you start making player ineligable to get votes after they get suspended you taint the result, ie a player who should get 2 votes gets 3

well what's worse, winning it in the same circumstances as Harvey did in 97, finishing 2nd

I always wondered what happens in a scenario where:

Player does something untowards that warrants, in the umpires eyes, a report.
Player kicks 6 goals, has 25 touches, clearly best on ground.

Does said umpire give 3 votes to said player, even though in his eyes for one instance he wasnt the best and fairest player on the day?

Or does the umpire ignore totally what he thought the player did, and reward votes on performance, and let the tribunal decide..

..

PhilG wrote:As a retired umpire, I fully support the ideal of best and fairest. It's what makes the award unique. Fairness is best judged by the umpires because they are the ones who apply the rules, and know who flouts them or does whatever else. The main reason why good players don't get votes is because they whine a lot. I know I've refused to give votes to whiners despite the fact that they were amongst the best players on the day - because it's conduct that is not becoming of a fair player. The award is given to the player who is the best and fairest across the board in all facets of the game - not just the best kick, the best mark, the biggest ball magnet etc etc.

There are plenty of other awards about the media that takes care of that. Awards like the Brownlow, the Magarey, the Sandover, the JJ Liston etc etc are unique. That goes for all the other similar awards in the other leagues - including the juniors.

Leave it be.

Phil, I take your points and appreciate your perspective on it, and I guess best or most brilliant needs to be accurately defined ... Ie, is it the player who displays the most skill or a player who is most effective ... In example, Barry Hall could be playing CHF and have 4 by quarter time against the Cats, who then shift say Scarlett away from his regular post and whilst not getting too much of the ball himself, keeps Hall goalless for the remainder of the game - His influence on the result quite likely the greatest of anyone on the ground if the Cats get up, yet unlikely to receive any votes in my opinion.

Certainly take your point also about the umpires being the best positioned to adjudicate on the fairness of a player, however (and I'll preface this by saying I've not umpired before, so please feel free to set me straight if I'm incorrect) I most certainly don't believe they are the best positioned to adjudicate on who has been the best or even most brilliant - Their craft is umpiring but not playing, and those former players in the media or even coaching staff would surely be better credentialled to judge that?

For my mind, fairness on the field shouldn't detract from a players effectiveness, if they transgress the rules their penalty will come via report, suspension and ultimately missing games ... If they cross this line too often they would have no chance of winning the award anyway due to the number of games they become ineligible to receive any votes.

..

As expalined by an AFL umpire (Matthew Nichols) at an umpires education session in Darwin, the process is as follows for determing 3-2-1 Brownlow voting:

All three umpires sit down in an area on there own and go through both team sheets initially eliminating the more poorly performed players, this is repeated until they get down to half a dozen or how many players they think are worthy of votes from both teams. The then rank them in order to determine the top three players.

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:As expalined by an AFL umpire (Matthew Nichols) at an umpires education session in Darwin, the process is as follows for determing 3-2-1 Brownlow voting:

All three umpires sit down in an area on there own and go through both team sheets initially eliminating the more poorly performed players, this is repeated until they get down to half a dozen or how many players they think are worthy of votes from both teams. The then rank them in order to determine the top three players.

Is that how Goodwin got 0 votes for 34 posessions but in the same game Perrie got 2 votes for 10 posessions and a point?

Hey, never said it was fool proof

..

PhilG wrote:

Dissident wrote:

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:As expalined by an AFL umpire (Matthew Nichols) at an umpires education session in Darwin, the process is as follows for determing 3-2-1 Brownlow voting:

All three umpires sit down in an area on there own and go through both team sheets initially eliminating the more poorly performed players, this is repeated until they get down to half a dozen or how many players they think are worthy of votes from both teams. The then rank them in order to determine the top three players.

Is that how Goodwin got 0 votes for 34 posessions but in the same game Perrie got 2 votes for 10 posessions and a point?

I'm willing to bet that Goodwin mouthed off that game, Dissident. That's what would have cost him. Can't think what else it could have been. Perrie - maybe all ten touches were VERY effective?

That's very much clutching at straws Phil!
Obviously it's a "possibility" but really ... taking who the players are into consideration, I've hardly every seen Goodwin "mouth off" and Perrie has one or two good posessions for every 3 bad ones.

Thanks Phil, very much appreciate your reply, and whilst I was referring more to the AFL system, I've certainly seen countless instances of (deliberately) unfair acts resulting in serious injury occur over the years at amateur level.