by Macca19 » Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:38 am
by spell_check » Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:40 am
Macca19 wrote:Backchat is the only reason Jezza wouldnt have scored more votes. He had 35 disposals, 11 marks and 1 goal in R1 for nothing. Against Sturt later in the year he had 34 disposals, 9 marks and 6 goals and was the clear most brilliant player on the ground....no votes. Other games he was just as good but also got no or one votes. He really does fly off the handle at the umpires sometimes so I dont blame them, the award is fairest as well as most brilliant player.
by smac » Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:41 am
Fairness has many attributes spelly, good sportsmanship being one of them.spell_check wrote:Macca19 wrote:Backchat is the only reason Jezza wouldnt have scored more votes. He had 35 disposals, 11 marks and 1 goal in R1 for nothing. Against Sturt later in the year he had 34 disposals, 9 marks and 6 goals and was the clear most brilliant player on the ground....no votes. Other games he was just as good but also got no or one votes. He really does fly off the handle at the umpires sometimes so I dont blame them, the award is fairest as well as most brilliant player.
Don't they mean "fairest" as in "not suspended"?
by spell_check » Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:44 am
smac wrote:Fairness has many attributes spelly, good sportsmanship being one of them.spell_check wrote:Macca19 wrote:Backchat is the only reason Jezza wouldnt have scored more votes. He had 35 disposals, 11 marks and 1 goal in R1 for nothing. Against Sturt later in the year he had 34 disposals, 9 marks and 6 goals and was the clear most brilliant player on the ground....no votes. Other games he was just as good but also got no or one votes. He really does fly off the handle at the umpires sometimes so I dont blame them, the award is fairest as well as most brilliant player.
Don't they mean "fairest" as in "not suspended"?
by smac » Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:47 am
I'm not sure if there is a 100% right answer to your last point, as on one hand any player can be the fairest and most brilliant in any game and on the other hand why give votes to someone ineligible to win the award?spell_check wrote:smac wrote:Fairness has many attributes spelly, good sportsmanship being one of them.spell_check wrote:Macca19 wrote:Backchat is the only reason Jezza wouldnt have scored more votes. He had 35 disposals, 11 marks and 1 goal in R1 for nothing. Against Sturt later in the year he had 34 disposals, 9 marks and 6 goals and was the clear most brilliant player on the ground....no votes. Other games he was just as good but also got no or one votes. He really does fly off the handle at the umpires sometimes so I dont blame them, the award is fairest as well as most brilliant player.
Don't they mean "fairest" as in "not suspended"?
I know thatbut, that's what the rules state (illegible to win if suspended). Even then, umpires still give out votes to players who have already been suspended during the year.
by Jimmy » Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:47 am
Dutchy wrote:Geez the North boys dont like females? its a man fest!
by blueandwhite » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:02 pm
by Pseudo » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:41 pm
Aerie wrote:What a crap way of writing an article on the Magarey Medal. Shows no respect for the SANFL or Backwell himself by taking a slant on the tribunal. There is not even any mention of how Backwell plays the game. And what the hell does the title mean?
by Pseudo » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:42 pm
Constance_Perm wrote:Punk Rooster wrote:Hmmm.... thinking outside the square, wonder whether the SANFL had prior knowledge of his unassailable lead, & were not comfortable with a scenario, whereby a player wins the Magarey by daylight, yet is inelligible because of suspension...
LOL ... Had the exact same thought myself PR
by Pseudo » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:45 pm
Macca19 wrote:Backchat is the only reason Jezza wouldnt have scored more votes. He had 35 disposals, 11 marks and 1 goal in R1 for nothing. Against Sturt later in the year he had 34 disposals, 9 marks and 6 goals and was the clear most brilliant player on the ground....no votes. Other games he was just as good but also got no or one votes. He really does fly off the handle at the umpires sometimes so I dont blame them, the award is fairest as well as most brilliant player.
by mighty_tiger_79 » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:47 pm
by Ecky » Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:00 pm
Pseudo wrote:Constance_Perm wrote:Punk Rooster wrote:Hmmm.... thinking outside the square, wonder whether the SANFL had prior knowledge of his unassailable lead, & were not comfortable with a scenario, whereby a player wins the Magarey by daylight, yet is inelligible because of suspension...
LOL ... Had the exact same thought myself PR
Gotta say it did cross my mind too...
by Pseudo » Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:14 pm
Ecky wrote:But if Mouse was suspended, it would have made for much better TV when reading the votes in the last few rounds...
by spell_check » Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:16 pm
Pseudo wrote:Ecky wrote:But if Mouse was suspended, it would have made for much better TV when reading the votes in the last few rounds...
and there would have been a dual winner!
by Dissident » Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:20 pm
Pseudo wrote:Ecky wrote:But if Mouse was suspended, it would have made for much better TV when reading the votes in the last few rounds...
and there would have been a dual winner!
by mrjbeam1981 » Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:42 pm
by Thiele » Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:44 pm
by Stevie_K » Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:42 pm
by magpie in the 80's » Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:47 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |