| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jatsad
Joined: 29 May 2010
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Just want to add in another magpie bias here. Jeremy Howe just missed out on All Australian selection, on retrospect that would never happen as he's a Collingwood player, did not receive 1 Brownlow vote.
Go figure.
_________________
Jatsad - That is all |
|
|
|
 |
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The Daniher mark was bog standard though still better than this moustache.
The Collingwood vote was split between Grundy and Howe.
Most people looking on with neutral eyes don't believe Daniher was the worthy winner.
Unfortunately this is what happens when you leave something in the hands of a mostly stupid general public.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
WarrenerraW
Joined: 18 Apr 2008
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Shafted again. Luke Darcy said as much and I'm sure daniher knows that he's not the real winner and undeserved of the award. This should be judged by professionals who understand and appreciate a terrific mark because they've played the game, not the biased general public with a chip on their shoulder against Collingwood.. |
|
|
|
|
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| WarrenerraW wrote: | | Shafted again. Luke Darcy said as much and I'm sure daniher knows that he's not the real winner and undeserved of the award. This should be judged by professionals who understand and appreciate a terrific mark because they've played the game, not the biased general public with a chip on their shoulder against Collingwood.. |
Exactly, as we are the most hated club in the league, many Opposition fans, the scum, norf, saints, dogs, deees, etc, would have voted for Daniher just to screw us over, its a monty. Even Joe, sent a text to Howe, saying he is embarrassed to have beaten him, he said Howe himself was far better mark, and hes amazed how it happened. Even he said it was unfair, but what do we do, roll over to the $£$%^%%$ corrupt League, and say, shit on us again with mustard on it, or do we grow a set of balls, and stand up to the bastards, enough is enough, time we hit back hard, real hard.  
_________________
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Eh, these are very subjective awards, I have no problem with a fan vote. Isn't that what they're about? Exciting the fans with a great mark or goal? "Experts" don't really have a role in judging that.
Personally I thought Daniher would win due to his mark being overhead, not a chest mark but I've not viewed them very closely.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
Woods 
Joined: 21 Aug 2013
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Who audits this so called fan vote? What checks and balances are there to prevent the award being given out to the AFL's chosen favourite? |
|
|
|
|
PyreneesPie 
PyreneesPie
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
On Fox Footy tonight - Gerard said it was an absolute travesty that Jeremy Howe did not win and that the award is too important to be voted on by the public!! Both he and Robertson said likewise Buddy's goal was the best but that he get the least votes, being in a Sydney team.
Gerard said that it is almost a foregone conclusion that next year, a panel of experts will decide.
Same theme followed through with On the Couch. They actually measured the height the two players actually got off the ground - Daniher 1.5m and Howe 2.3m! All agreed that Howe was very clearly the better mark. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| PyreneesPie wrote: | On Fox Footy tonight - Gerard said it was an absolute travesty that Jeremy Howe did not win and that the award is too important to be voted on by the public!! Both he and Robertson said likewise Buddy's goal was the best but that he get the least votes, being in a Sydney team.
... |
Buddy's running goal against Talia? That shouldn't have been a goal at all. After the third bounce he ran almost 25 metres. (Afterwards, the umpiring chief
conceded "20 metres".) This brings back bad memories of Jetta... |
|
|
|
|
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: Elwood
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | PyreneesPie wrote: | On Fox Footy tonight - Gerard said it was an absolute travesty that Jeremy Howe did not win and that the award is too important to be voted on by the public!! Both he and Robertson said likewise Buddy's goal was the best but that he get the least votes, being in a Sydney team.
... |
Buddy's running goal against Talia? That shouldn't have been a goal at all. After the third bounce he ran almost 25 metres. (Afterwards, the umpiring chief
conceded "20 metres".) This brings back bad memories of Jetta... |
It is what it is according to the rules of the game adjudicated by the umpires. If the umpires don't pay it, it's legal. So Buddy's goal was a great goal just as Gary Ablett's mark over Gary Pert was a great mark. |
|
|
|
|
Boogie Knights
Joined: 18 Sep 2015
|
| Post subject: | |
|
And just like Pebbles didn't kick a goal in the last 1/4 against Brisbane in 2002.
Or just like Wank Harmes didn't punch the ball back into play from the 3rd row in 1979. (And if asked to testify in court, I will absolutely say the ball was actually sitting in my lap) |
|
|
|
|
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| PyreneesPie wrote: | On Fox Footy tonight - Gerard said it was an absolute travesty that Jeremy Howe did not win and that the award is too important to be voted on by the public!! Both he and Robertson said likewise Buddy's goal was the best but that he get the least votes, being in a Sydney team.
Gerard said that it is almost a foregone conclusion that next year, a panel of experts will decide.
Same theme followed through with On the Couch. They actually measured the height the two players actually got off the ground - Daniher 1.5m and Howe 2.3m! All agreed that Howe was very clearly the better mark. |
I heard the so called "voting "was a comp run by a Supermarket chain, think its bloody Woolies, so thatd HAVE to be real reliable eh.  
_________________
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
|
Member 7167 
"What Good Fortune For Governments That The People Do Not Think" - Adolf Hitler.
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
Location: The Collibran Hideout
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | The Daniher mark was bog standard though still better than this moustache.
The Collingwood vote was split between Grundy and Howe.
Most people looking on with neutral eyes don't believe Daniher was the worthy winner.
Unfortunately this is what happens when you leave something in the hands of a mostly stupid general public. |
Danaher received more votes that Howe and Grundy combined. There must have been a lot of Bombers or anti Collingwood voters (although after the drug saga you would think that more people would have adverse issues with Essendon than Collingwood)
_________________
Now Retired - Every Day Is A Saturday |
|
|
|
|
Member 7167
"What Good Fortune For Governments That The People Do Not Think" - Adolf Hitler.
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
Location: The Collibran Hideout
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| WarrenerraW wrote: | | Shafted again. Luke Darcy said as much and I'm sure daniher knows that he's not the real winner and undeserved of the award. This should be judged by professionals who understand and appreciate a terrific mark because they've played the game, not the biased general public with a chip on their shoulder against Collingwood.. |
The only problem we have supposed professions involved in the MRP and lets be honest, they are confused and inconsistent at best.
_________________
Now Retired - Every Day Is A Saturday |
|
|
|
|
doriswilgus
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Location: the great southern land
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Simple question:Do you think Howe would have won with that mark if he had still been playing for Melbourne?I do. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: | | K wrote: | | PyreneesPie wrote: | On Fox Footy tonight - Gerard said it was an absolute travesty that Jeremy Howe did not win and that the award is too important to be voted on by the public!! Both he and Robertson said likewise Buddy's goal was the best but that he get the least votes, being in a Sydney team.
... |
Buddy's running goal against Talia? That shouldn't have been a goal at all. After the third bounce he ran almost 25 metres. (Afterwards, the umpiring chief
conceded "20 metres".) This brings back bad memories of Jetta... |
It is what it is according to the rules of the game adjudicated by the umpires. If the umpires don't pay it, it's legal. So Buddy's goal was a great goal just as Gary Ablett's mark over Gary Pert was a great mark. |
The umpire's decision means it is a goal, but the fact it shouldn't have been counts against it aesthetically and enough, I think, to mean it isn't a great goal,
given that it was a clear and large infringement of the rules.
Marks are often in a grey area with regards to such things as how long the ball was held, whether there was a free kick, such as for hands in the back, etc.
(Look at Capper's mark over Langford.) For me, such things matter in judging a mark, as does degree of difficulty and maybe some other things. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
