MOTY and GOTY

[K]

This Roughead mark should definitely not get MOTY (but at least it's legal):

https://twitter.com/7AFL/status/1112233684982071296

[PyreneesPie]

[David]

[Fatui Attata]

[K]

[David]

To play devil’s advocate, then, how do you view De Goey’s mark? I think he pretty clearly put his hands in his opponent’s back (quite high, too) and shoved him forward, which in any other contest (i.e. where he didn’t end up holding the mark) would have almost certainly been paid as a free. Much softer and less effective pushes are paid as frees every game, and even the new relaxation on permissible contact in marking contests explicitly doesn’t allow for shoves:

https://www.afl.com.au/video/2018-10-14/new-rules-no-more-hands-in-the-back

Of course, you might well point out that the umpire didn’t pay the free, and that thus it wasn’t illegal – but by the same token, you’d have to accept Higgins’ goal as legitimate, wouldn’t you?

[K]

Is there good video of the JdG possible push in the back? I'd like to view it.

If a player does something illegal and gets away with it, he's already been rewarded once by the umpire. Clearly, (almost) nothing in a game can be taken back. No one ever tries to have it taken back. When Hinkley (correctly) went on his entertaining rant about the (incorrect) video review of the JJ point, he wasn't trying to have the game result changed, for example.


Here's the deal. When we judge whether a mark or goal is the MOTY or GOTY, should we take into account whether the umpires made the wrong decision? Of course we should!! A clearly wrong umpire's call should come with a huge penalty in judging the aesthetics of the piece of play, so huge that the rest of the play should have to be almost miraculous to compensate.

If video does show a clear push in the back from Jordy, then of course that should count against his mark being MOTY. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise.

When Buddy did his run down the wing with Talia trailing, he clearly ran closer to 25m than to 15m. That should not have been given GOTY, because the other elements of his goal weren't even close to making up for its illegality.

[David]

Yep, here you go (from multiple angles) – from 0:22.

https://youtu.be/xKl_ZuK1onI

The trouble is that so much of this stuff is subjective. Yes, there are cases where the umpires’ boss comes out during the week and admits that a decision was wrong – I think it’s fair enough for such cases to be disqualified from these awards. But to this day, there’s no clear ruling that Higgins’ goal was illegal, and you’ll still get disagreement over whether he threw the ball or not; you think he did, I think he didn’t. The same might go for the De Goey mark in reverse (have a look at the video and see what you think). In such cases, I think it best if we don’t try to second-guess the umpires’ and other official adjudicators’ decisions – though whether it weighs on your personal decision on how to vote is up to you (and I wouldn’t have voted for, say, Ablett’s “mark of the century” for the same reason).

[Rd10.1998_11.1#36]

It was good enough for Gary Moorcroft to win MOTY in 2001 with a clearly illegal marking action, so it's good enough for JDG

[K]

[K]

Pies missed out on both.

Bruce won the MOTW by a landslide from Googs.


On JdG's mark: I was expecting the replay to look much worse push-wise than it did. It's not really clear. But the other thing is whether the touch/push is to the back or shoulder. Is shoulder worse than back or should they be treated the same? I guess when you try to spoil and touch your opponent's shoulder reaching over, it's okay, but shoulder contact is not really 'protecting your space' (which is the justification for the loosening of the rule).

S. Hocking in the vid David posted above: "As long as it's not two actions." There's the multiple-action thing again, yet again making it bleeding obvious that the three-action throw goal was totally illegal.

[K]

Crozier's mark against our boys won MOTW R4.

[E]

[think better]

I think Eddie Betts has goal of the round stitched up

[PyreneesPie]