SA Footy

I guess the question I'm about to place for people here, is something that was touched on briefly in a thread relating to the Brownlow Medal last week, and I'd like to know what people's thoughts are on backchatting the umpires, and whether it's actually "Unfair" as such.

People see things differently and always will because "different" is perspective ... But to my mind, there is nothing unfair about backchatting the umpire, if it was, then surely a player guilty of such would wind up at the tribunal as a result with an x(inelgible) against his name ... Therefore, if an umpire fails to duly reward an individual because of his onfield comments, then to my mind that umpire is operating as a law unto himself!

Talk in the leadup to the count was rife that Jeremy Clayton would feel the wrath of the umps for his onfield verbal, and whilst we can't always believe everything we hear, IF there is truth to the rumour(s), then we've got the wrong people running our game!!

I am truly staggered that players like Clayton, Ivens, Gowans x 2 can receive such little recognition (throw Younie in there aswell and Im sure there are others) ... I'm not for one minute suggesting it would have made any difference to the eventual winner (Backwell is a most deserving medallist IMHO), but it's something that cheeses me off and I just wondered what other people's opinion might be on it?

Cheers,
CP

I don't think it makes any difference. Cicolella back chats the umpire more than any other player in the league and gets votes. I think it's more the way each player plays the game and I think being well known helps as well.

Aerie wrote:I don't think it makes any difference. Cicolella back chats the umpire more than any other player in the league and gets votes. I think it's more the way each player plays the game and I think being well known helps as well.

Hard to see J. Clayton not meeting that same criteria

I agree CP.

It's hard isn't it. I mean it's all interpretation.

Umpires can be impressed by different things, players ability etc. One umpire might put more weight in the small 1%ers et al, another might see more flashy things and put more weight in those.

And on the flipside, players backchatting can probably affect the thought process of the umpire....

Here's one for you:

How can Andrew Osbourne win the "best and fairest player in the league" yet never be the best and fairest player in one game??

I think that's a reward for consistent brilliance Diss ... Given that in many games the votes must be given to 3 of 6-10 potential receivers, as you've said, it's only interpretation that see's him collect a 2 but not a 3

Constance_Perm wrote:

Aerie wrote:I don't think it makes any difference. Cicolella back chats the umpire more than any other player in the league and gets votes. I think it's more the way each player plays the game and I think being well known helps as well.

Hard to see J. Clayton not meeting that same criteria

Clayton won last year. Why would this year be any different? Did he abuse umpires more? He played a lot with injuries so wasn't as effective this year and missed some games. Also, Port didn't win as many games.

The Gowans are good and important to the side, but IMO have never been the standout Central players and don't play the type of game that would vote well.

What amazes me the most is that it is the first time that Brett James has finished in the top 20!

He narrowly missed out last year.

I knew that Clayton didn't have quite as good a year as last year but I thought he might have done just enough to win with BOG performances.

Constance_Perm wrote:I think that's a reward for consistent brilliance Diss ... Given that in many games the votes must be given to 3 of 6-10 potential receivers, as you've said, it's only interpretation that see's him collect a 2 but not a 3

I know - it was more tongue in cheek

Aerie wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:

Aerie wrote:I don't think it makes any difference. Cicolella back chats the umpire more than any other player in the league and gets votes. I think it's more the way each player plays the game and I think being well known helps as well.

Hard to see J. Clayton not meeting that same criteria

Clayton won last year. Why would this year be any different? Did he abuse umpires more? He played a lot with injuries so wasn't as effective this year and missed some games. Also, Port didn't win as many games.

Definitely those reasons that you have listed are valid mate, I was however replying to your initial post on Cica ... Surely Clayton plays in the same eyecatching manner (some migjt argue more so) as Cica, and being the winner the previous year is surely as well known??

Mix up on vote cards?

M Clayton = J Clayton

Personal thoughts - is there a difference when thinking of Best eg media awards or even best and fairest compared to umpires votes based upon fairest and most brilliant?

Congratulations to Brett - a most worthy winner

Col D

Very interesting topic. I recently spoke with a player who said that they didn't expect to poll too well because they had mouthed off a few times and I notice that Rucci has made reference to the umpires "annoyance" in regards to Jeremy Clayton in his article in today's paper. I can't see that "giving lip" is in anyway unfair and shouldn't even come into consideration. It's not the "Best, Fairest and Most Polite".

cd wrote:Personal thoughts - is there a difference when thinking of Best eg media awards or even best and fairest compared to umpires votes based upon fairest and most brilliant?

Congratulations to Brett - a most worthy winner

Col D

Fair question CD, and I guess it depends on the inidividual .. Personally I don't think "Fairest" should come into the equation, but hey that's just me.

And indeed Mouse is a thoroughly deserving winner, I hope my initial line of question wasn't taken as any sort of slant or blight on his achievement.

Constance_Perm wrote:

Aerie wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:

Aerie wrote:I don't think it makes any difference. Cicolella back chats the umpire more than any other player in the league and gets votes. I think it's more the way each player plays the game and I think being well known helps as well.

Hard to see J. Clayton not meeting that same criteria

Clayton won last year. Why would this year be any different? Did he abuse umpires more? He played a lot with injuries so wasn't as effective this year and missed some games. Also, Port didn't win as many games.

Definitely those reasons that you have listed are valid mate, I was however replying to your initial post on Cica ... Surely Clayton plays in the same eyecatching manner (some migjt argue more so) as Cica, and being the winner the previous year is surely as well known??

Yes, absolutely. But what I'm saying is Clayton was not as good this year and didn't deserve to be up there.

Aerie wrote:
But what I'm saying is Clayton was not as good this year and didn't deserve to be up there.

You really need to break it down game by game to get the true picture. Can someone go through game by game to see how many times Clayton seemed guaranteed to poll but didn't?

When it comes down to it, a lot of LUCK is needed.

Luck can have you forth, or first best on the ground on any day.

To win, you need an element of luck many times to gain votes.

When people say some players "attract the umpires eye" I beleive it means they have this natural luck to win the BOG in a mix of four players.

Personally, I think it should cost votes. It is specifically for the "Fairest and Most Brilliant" - to me, this means whether or not a player is the fairest is the first consideration when differentiating those 6-10 players who could have justifiably received votes in a particular game.

Gilly wrote:... I notice that Rucci has made reference to the umpires "annoyance" in regards to Jeremy Clayton in his article in today's paper. [...] It's not the "Best, Fairest and Most Polite".

Nor is it the "Journalist's Pet" award. Today's effort by the "chief football writer" smacks of sour grapes. That HACK should stick to the AFL, leave the SANFL commentary to those who watch it and are also capable of giving impartial comment.