Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
plugger66 wrote:If the umpires arent the best to vote for the umpires award then who is? Even in the paper and on radio we different best players just about every game and from my experience I have found it easier to vote for players when umpiring.
Maybe they should go and watch the game again on tape before casting votes.
It's the games highest honour so when the umpires make a mistake on voting, it's a bit more important than a wrong free kick. Surely a player giving a spray doesn't negate his dominance on the match?
Did you watch the Sydney game? Was Richards the best & fairest player? He was flogged & had to be moved off Riewoldt. So those votes are clearly wrong.
I clearly dont think umpires care about getting a spray when giving votes. I also have no idea who was best in that saints game but given the stats Rooy seemed better than Richards. i also dont think they should watch the game again. I still say umpires would get it right as much as anyone else. Even in the game Lynch kicked 10 I was watching it with my old man and told him i tought Dangerfield was best. he said i was an idiot and maybe I was and I am caertainly am but the umpires saw it my way. Its an opinion so no one can be correct or inccorrect. it is a midfielders award as every single weekly voting award is except B&F for the clubs and even most of them do get win by a mid.
dragit wrote:
Did you watch the sydney saints game?
Was Richards the best & Fairest player on the ground?
Riewoldt was clearly the best player on the ground, was he unfair to a point which negated his influence on the game?
Who did he spray? Did it mean that his game was worthless…?
If anything McViegh was next best behind Riewoldt… Richards was completely toweled up and moved off the most dominant player on the ground.
yeah thanks for that - who I think had a better game is pointless - same goes for you
three umpires do a 3 2 1 then its averaged up, so I am not going to get outraged over an objective assessment ? not one bit in this case
as a football supporter - when a backman kicks a goal on his forward opponent - its worth how much ? If you watch Richards again you might see a lot of 1%ers and less clangers/turnovers... as a backman those stats matter, & if your opponent wants to rack up stats in his defensive 50 then let him. Aactually would love to know how many possns Roo got in the back half???
As for sprays Im not out on the ground - but remember it was the game with the disputed goal that Richards' outmarked Roo the line
I wouldnt be surprised if Roo let loose then
dragit wrote:
Did you watch the sydney saints game?
Was Richards the best & Fairest player on the ground?
Riewoldt was clearly the best player on the ground, was he unfair to a point which negated his influence on the game?
Who did he spray? Did it mean that his game was worthless…?
If anything McViegh was next best behind Riewoldt… Richards was completely toweled up and moved off the most dominant player on the ground.
yeah thanks for that - who I think had a better game is pointless - same goes for you
three umpires do a 3 2 1 then its averaged up, so I am not going to get outraged over an objective assessment ? not one bit in this case
as a football supporter - when a backman kicks a goal on his forward opponent - its worth how much ? If you watch Richards again you might see a lot of 1%ers and less clangers/turnovers... as a backman those stats matter, & if your opponent wants to rack up stats in his defensive 50 then let him. Aactually would love to know how many possns Roo got in the back half???
As for sprays Im not out on the ground - but remember it was the game with the disputed goal that Richards' outmarked Roo the line
I wouldnt be surprised if Roo let loose then
Yeah, fair enough, apologies for my aggressive response.
I would just hope that umpires don't factor a player being verbal when voting on 'best & fairest'.
Of course any voting is opinion based so will never please everyone, but occasionally there just seems to be absolute howlers like the Richards one and the Chris Grant one mentioned in the other thread.
The guy getting 3 votes should generally be a player in most observers top 5.
dragit wrote:
Did you watch the sydney saints game?
Was Richards the best & Fairest player on the ground?
Riewoldt was clearly the best player on the ground, was he unfair to a point which negated his influence on the game?
Who did he spray? Did it mean that his game was worthless…?
If anything McViegh was next best behind Riewoldt… Richards was completely toweled up and moved off the most dominant player on the ground.
yeah thanks for that - who I think had a better game is pointless - same goes for you
three umpires do a 3 2 1 then its averaged up, so I am not going to get outraged over an objective assessment ? not one bit in this case
as a football supporter - when a backman kicks a goal on his forward opponent - its worth how much ? If you watch Richards again you might see a lot of 1%ers and less clangers/turnovers... as a backman those stats matter, & if your opponent wants to rack up stats in his defensive 50 then let him. Aactually would love to know how many possns Roo got in the back half???
As for sprays Im not out on the ground - but remember it was the game with the disputed goal that Richards' outmarked Roo the line
I wouldnt be surprised if Roo let loose then
He didn't get out marked and he didn't let loose.
But you're right, we couldn't expect an unfair player like Roo to poll well when it's reserved for cleanskins like Dipper, Greg Williams, Plugger, Aker and Dane Swan.
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
dragit wrote:I've said for a long time, the umpires just aren't the best people to be judging who is BOG, they should be too busy concentrating on the contest to even notice who is doing what.
never WAS - never HAS been an award for BOG
it is fairest and best - you dont know how many sprays roo gave off that game
one of the reasons why Harvey won two - a great player but never a foul mouth on field
You've got to be f****** kidding me sunsaint…
Did you watch the sydney saints game?
Was Richards the best & Fairest player on the ground?
Riewoldt was clearly the best player on the ground, was he unfair to a point which negated his influence on the game?
Who did he spray? Did it mean that his game was worthless…?
If anything McViegh was next best behind Riewoldt… Richards was completely toweled up and moved off the most dominant player on the ground.
Maybe he was over heard spraying some one who didn't put it on his chest
