News Brownlow Betting Scandal allegations - 6th Dec Police Widen Investigations

Remove this Banner Ad


I'd still let the umps vote, but each ump votes separately, without consulting each other.
I'd also make it a top 5 players for the match. There's usually 6 or so players each game who deserve to be in the points but half miss out.
Rewards consistency better.
So effectively, if one player is the standout for a game, he might get 15 votes. You might only end up with 5 different players sharing the votes if all umps had similar views, or you could have as many as 15 players polling votes in the unlikely scenario that all 3 umpires picked different players.
Would allow forwards, rucks and defenders to get more votes, as they wouldn't always go to the top few mids.
Players from losing sides will get a few more votes if they were the sole player trying their guts out to keep their team in it, instead of the 3-2-1 all going to players from the one team.
 
That doesn't solve the problem though. They would be just as, maybe more, likely to have loose lips or be susceptible to corruption or standover tactics.

What would help a lot, is to have a panel of 3 or 4 people (umpires or otherwise) who all cast their votes independently and in private, with only one set of votes being randomly selected to be the ones that are actually counted.
I would prefer an amalgamation of all votes rather than selecting just one. If your vote only count every 4 weeks or so, would you consider the voting as much as you should?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I'd still let the umps vote, but each ump votes separately, without consulting each other.
I'd also make it a top 5 players for the match. There's usually 6 or so players each game who deserve to be in the points but half miss out.
Rewards consistency better.
So effectively, if one player is the standout for a game, he might get 15 votes. You might only end up with 5 different players sharing the votes if all umps had similar views, or you could have as many as 15 players polling votes in the unlikely scenario that all 3 umpires picked different players.
Would allow forwards, rucks and defenders to get more votes, as they wouldn't always go to the top few mids.
Players from losing sides will get a few more votes if they were the sole player trying their guts out to keep their team in it, instead of the 3-2-1 all going to players from the one team.
Spot on Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods, However I would make it individual voting and tally it on the b&F night in a controlled environment to give you a final 5,4,3,2,1 for the game. There is so much disparity between 3,2,1 & 0 for a two hour game that having five players receiving votes. It lessens the ability to know the final result of a game from a single person.
 
Is still preferring ump voting more out of sentimentality than anything else?

Ideally it should have never even been in their hands. They should be completely focused on making the correct calls and nothing else. Of course that's what they're doing during the game, which is why they just hand out votes based on the stat sheet at the end. How is that a good thing?

Just because something has been done for a long time doesn't mean it's right.
 
Exactly, I agree wholeheartedly. Peter Landy tells a story of how he was told the week before Brownlow night in 1978 that Blight had won the medal, by someone who would know. Stupidly (as he tells it) he failed to get on with the bookies. The next time(s?) he was made aware of the certain winner, he didn't fail to capitalise.

Knowing some (former) senior AFL umpires, and having been present in their rooms a number of times back in the 1990s when votes were being given, the fieldies discussed their votes quietly - but within clear ear-shot of virtually everyone in the room, with the voting form and envelope open on a table.
People in the the room included boundary and goal (and emergency) umpires, umpiring officials and friends and family of all the umpires from the game.

This has now changed, and the field umpires make their votes away from all other umpires and officials. There was probably less opportunity for leaks in the old VFL single field umpire days, as soon as they multiplied to 2, then 3, and allowed other people in, leaks were pretty much guaranteed.

 
He was the best player on the ground by a long way that game, re-watch it without stressing about the result and you'll see what I mean. We were s**t, he was sublime though.
Brayshaw was outstanding in a team that won by 6 goals and was awarded 8 coaches votes (0 Brownlow votes). Alex Pearce??? Since when do the umps award votes to full backs? It's a mess and clearly looks it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

That would indicate the umpire gave votes for that exact reason then to cover that.

Otherwise I don't see the difference between a jockey having a bet and this.
Not sure I agree with that logic. The alleged conduct is revealing who received the votes. If he knows that Karl Amon or whoever got 3 in a game and told someone for the purpose of betting then I'd argue that corrupts the betting outcome.

He's using his position to take an uncertain bet and making it a certainty.
 

Interesting, I saw him speak at another corporate event years ago and I was sure he told that one differently, but thanks for the correction. He still got inside info from an umpire though, if his story is to be believed. Although how would one umpire know Diper would win (tie) in such a close count if all the umpires hadn't been comparing votes?
 
Read on article on Fox saying suspicions were raised as all bets made were winning bets, what if they meticulously placed other bets that knew wouldn't get up, would they have gone undetected? Obviously reduces profit but at least would give some element of protection. And then that does ask the question have people done similar in the past with more care taken?
 
Read on article on Fox saying suspicions were raised as all bets made were winning bets, what if they meticulously placed other bets that knew wouldn't get up, would they have gone undetected? Obviously reduces profit but at least would give some element of protection. And then that does ask the question have people done similar in the past with more care taken?
Yes it would have gone undetected. These guys were as dumb as dog shit so I don't think it was a professional sting.They got too greedy.
 
Last edited:
Read on article on Fox saying suspicions were raised as all bets made were winning bets, what if they meticulously placed other bets that knew wouldn't get up, would they have gone undetected? Obviously reduces profit but at least would give some element of protection. And then that does ask the question have people done similar in the past with more care taken?
Probably has been done in the past, and honestly, I don't care one bit. As long as an umpire isn't rigging his actual votes I couldn't care less about him stooging some billion dollar companies out of a few bucks.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top