MOTY and GOTY
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests Registered Users: None |
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
|
|
|
|
PyreneesPie
PyreneesPie
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
|
Post subject: | |
|
Just letting any interested forum members know that I have amended the starting post of this thread, as it seems the system has changed for deciding these awards - for the better!!!! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
PyreneesPie wrote: | Quote: | The All Australian committee used a 5-4-3-2-1 voting system to narrow the nominations from all 23 rounds to the final three in each category.
In a change from last year after the uproar to Collingwood high flyer Jeremy Howe being snubbed in the Mark of the Year award, the 10-member committee then voted on the overall winner, with the fan outcome counting as an 11th vote.
Last year, the fan vote decided both awards.
The 10-person AFL All Australian committee consists of Gillon McLachlan (chairman), Steve Hocking, Kevin Bartlett, Luke Darcy, Danny Frawley, Glen Jakovich, Chris Johnson, Cameron Ling, Matthew Richardson and Warren Tredrea. |
|
Ah, thanks for the update – I wasn’t aware of that. Certainly an improvement! _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Fatui Attata
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
|
Post subject: | |
|
Dunno how legal it is having an Auskicker stay on the ground after half time. _________________ I'm not the pheasant plucker I'm the pheasant plucker's son, and I'll be plucking pheasants til the pheasant plucker comes! "Try saying that with a mouthful of peanuts!!" Lou Richards |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | ... what’s the point of voting if you’re just doing it out of club loyalty? Surely you actually want to see the best mark/goal rewarded?
... |
My main goal in life is to see that unequivocally illegal marks and goals are not rewarded (again -- they've already been rewarded by the umpires at the time) as "best". |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
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? _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
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
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
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). _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Rd10.1998_11.1#36
rd10.1998_11.1#36
Joined: 18 Jul 2018 Location: Sevilla, Spain
|
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | ...
The trouble is that so much of this stuff is subjective. ... |
Yes, the degree of the illegality matters. Objectivity matter. It's not a fixed penalty you as judge should apply, but when people argue that the illegality doesn't matter, they are arguing for zero aesthetic penalty, which is ridiculous. The worse and clearer the illegality, the bigger the aesthetic penalty should be. That's why the Buddy goal is so bad. It's hard to argue when you can just replay the video and see that he's run way too far.
(As for the AFL, we know they don't willingly admit to any umpiring decision being wrong. They admit to errors when it's so clear that they don't have much choice. Even the Buddy run, the umpiring boss, while admitting it was wrong, waffled about Buddy supposedly having "long legs" or something like that. But the rules and their own words completely damned the throw goal. It was far more illegal than the Toby kung-fu mark, which the AFL sort of admitted was illegal. Something for another post.)
I'll have another look at the Googs mark... |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
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
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Crozier's mark against our boys won MOTW R4. |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | 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). |
hands in the back is not per se illegal anymore guys. There has to be a pushing motion. Didn't look like a free kick to me. _________________ Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
think better
Joined: 16 May 2005 Location: Adelaide
|
Post subject: | |
|
I think Eddie Betts has goal of the round stitched up _________________ I think therefore I think - I think |
|
|
|
|
PyreneesPie
PyreneesPie
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
|
Post subject: | |
|
think better wrote: | I think Eddie Betts has goal of the round stitched up |
It was superb wasn't it!! Amazing skill. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
|