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

[GROTTO]

You are still missing the point, Pell, nor a standalone umpire has the power to award votes, it is a collaboration of 3 people

And all the facts we have so far, points to individual game betting rather than tge overall winner

Youre missing the point still, that he is the umpire whose integrity has been questioned and influenced the voting for the game.

Youve basically answered my question in any case which I suspected all along with your inherent biased posting and of Pell's integrity, even if Pell influence the other umpires to award Cripps 3 votes, you dont think the AFL should take it off him.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Not at all, as I have said on here before, many a times the coaches votes does not marry up with the umpire votes.

Im not saying Cripps didnt have a good game or shouldnt get votes, I felt he shouldnt have got he 3 votes in a 6 goal loss.

You’re obviously allowed an opinion, but treating it as fact and calling conspiracy because of it is rubbish.

It is clear you don’t even understand what Pell has done if you think the Brownlow result is in jeopardy. Do we wipe the 3 votes he (and the other two umpires) gave Neale and Miller in other games?

 

[WilloTree]

So Longmuir thought Cripps was best on ground, along with Voss, yet that doesn’t add weight to (3) umpires agreeing with both coaches?

Pell was giving information as to who got what votes, not that he supposedly had more power and influence over who actually got the votes

I have no problem with Cripps getting votes in that game. He was bloody awesome.

As was Brayshaw.

 

[Arr0w]

Youre missing the point still, that he is the umpire whose integrity has been questioned and influenced the voting for the game.

Youve basically answered my question in any case which I suspected all along with your inherent biased posting and of Pell's integrity, even if Pell influence the other umpires to award Cripps 3 votes, you dont think the AFL should take it off him.

Okay, let's go with your theory, that this wasn't about individual game betting

Remove all the votes, that Pell was involved. Who wins the Brownlow?

 

[GROTTO]

You’re obviously allowed an opinion, but treating it as fact and calling conspiracy because of it is rubbish.

It is clear you don’t even understand what Pell has done if you think the Brownlow result is in jeopardy. Do we wipe the 3 votes he (and the other two umpires) gave Neale and Miller in other games?

I know what he has allegedly done, youre just defending his awarding of votes blindly when his entire credibility and integrity has been raised.

Its clear you dont understand all the issues at hand and the bigger picture here.

 

[kozi]

I don’t have a narrative. I believe umpires go out to umpire, coaches go out to coach, players go out to play.

Votes by all parties can be done as an afterthought.

Mate, you've gone from:

They don't think about it all game, to
They only think about it after the game, to now
It can be done as an afterthought (not is being done)

Instead of backing your position further into a corner, there's no harm in saying it would be better if they were simply relieved of it. 100% pure focus on their job (the most integral part of the game which they have serious trouble with as is) would not be a bad thing. The award would be just fine.

 

[JyeDye]

Youre missing the point still, that he is the umpire whose integrity has been questioned and influenced the voting for the game.

Youve basically answered my question in any case which I suspected all along with your inherent biased posting and of Pell's integrity, even if Pell influence the other umpires to award Cripps 3 votes, you dont think the AFL should take it off him.

Ok as his integrity has been put into question I believe all games he umpired should be given no result. Time to restart the whole season, yay. Maybe we make finals this time.

 

[GROTTO]

. Maybe we make finals this time.

Lets be serious here for a minute.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Mate, you've gone from:

They don't think about it all game, to
They only think about it after the game, to now
It can be done as an afterthought (not is being done)

Instead of backing your position further into a corner, there's no harm in saying it would be better if they were simply relieved of it. 100% pure focus on their job (the most integral part of the game which they have serious trouble with as is) would not be a bad thing. The award would be just fine.

And you said this only a page ago.

“They end up giving votes based off the stats sheet at the end of the game”

So how do you think they come to their votes?

I think my position is pretty clear. The umpires don’t think about who is best on ground during a game. They are capable of giving votes after the game, without their primary job being effected, like every other party involved.

 

[JyeDye]

Don't have any real issues with umps doing the votes. Gives a unique perspective. If I wanted a bunch of media people giving votes I'd just look at the Channel 9 or Triple M votes. Seems the issue is more so the amount people value it or the theatrics of it all which has nothing to do with the umpires themselves.

 

[chickenonachain]

IIRC They have caught people in the past at the TAB with cameras placing and receiving the wins, cannot recall which sport.

I do agree that would have been the better way to go about it. Greed in the end took over I guess.

Iirc Dean Wallis was on a camera having a bet at a Tab.

 

[GROTTO]

Iirc Dean Wallis was on a camera having a bet at a Tab.

Thanks for that, I thought I did remember it correctly.

Dean Wallis banned for 14 weeks

Essendon assistant coach Dean Wallis has been banned from any coaching activities for 14 weeks after being found guilty of laying three bets on AFL matches - including one on his own team.

www.theage.com.au

 

[rdhopkins2]

Where did you get that the umpire placed the bets? Thought it's pretty obvious from the story that Pell leaked the info to those who placed the bets.

Chatting to a mate but they probably didn’t read the entire story too.

 

[kozi]

And you said this only a page ago.

“They end up giving votes based off the stats sheet at the end of the game”

So how do you think they come to their votes?

They do end up giving votes based off the stats sheet. Not sure how that precludes them from thinking about it before that

I think my position is pretty clear. The umpires don’t think about who is best on ground during a game. They are capable of giving votes after the game, without their primary job being effected, like every other party involved.

It's nonsense saying umps don't think about it at all during a game. They aren't robots that flick a switch in their head. If it's an impending task the human brain will go to it in some capacity, at some point over a period of almost 3 hours whether you like it or not. Lastly, comparing umps to coaches votes is just as ridiculous. Coaches are acutely aware of who has played well or not for both teams as part of their job. They don't have to go out of their way for that stuff like umpires do.

Don't have anything else to add to this. Your position is your position, but I've more than demonstrated how it's based on nothing more than wishful thinking

 

[Some Idiot]

They do end up giving votes based off the stats sheet. Not sure how that precludes them from thinking about it before that


It's nonsense saying umps don't think about it at all during a game. They aren't robots that flick a switch in their head. If it's an impending task the human brain will go to it in some capacity, at some point over a period of almost 3 hours whether you like it or not. Lastly, comparing umps to coaches votes is just as ridiculous. Coaches are acutely aware of who has played well or not for both teams as part of their job. They don't have to go out of their way for that stuff like umpires do.

Don't have anything else to add to this. Your position is your position, but I've more than demonstrated how it's based on nothing more than wishful thinking

It's been stated in this thread that umpires don't get to look at the stats till after they have done the votes. They might see stats when it comes up on the screen occasionally, but it's probably not the biggest factor in their votes.

 

[kozi]

It's been stated in this thread that umpires don't get to look at the stats till after they have done the votes. They might see stats when it comes up on the screen occasionally, but it's probably not the biggest factor in their votes.

It certainly wasn't always like that. If that's true now it means there's even more of an onus on them thinking about it during the game when they're meant to be completely focused on umpiring which is terrible.

 

[Aussie_boy]

Umpires would talk about votes at all 3 breaks and that is a guarantee. The fact I did it with other umpires when I umpired under 12s means they sure as hell would be doing it with the Brownlow on the line.

 

[STANTS]

IIRC They have caught people in the past at the TAB with cameras placing and receiving the wins, cannot recall which sport.

I do agree that would have been the better way to go about it. Greed in the end took over I guess.

Yes but most weren’t allowed to bet on what they were betting on. Michael Pells friends can get bet on the Brownlow. So just them at an outlet betting on the Brownlow is not a smoking gun.

 

[PrinceCharles]

Still doesnt dismiss the fact that the 3 goals scored by Cripps, was after Freo secured control of the game.

The integrity of the umpire who assigned the votes for this game is brought into question, so yes a player being deemed worthy of votes is an issue here. Especially more so from a losing side that lost by almost 6 goals.

You think someone kicking goals when an opposition is 20 points up is useless?

 

[Satan]

Sounds like there were 2 games he was an emergency are in spotlight qb game coll vs melb and rnd 23 syd vs saints

 

[keithrichards]

They do end up giving votes based off the stats sheet. Not sure how that precludes them from thinking about it before that

Source?

I’ve only ever heard umpires (past and present) say categorically that they don’t have access to a stat sheet after the game.

 

[HTPunter]

Don't have any real issues with umps doing the votes. Gives a unique perspective. If I wanted a bunch of media people giving votes I'd just look at the Channel 9 or Triple M votes. Seems the issue is more so the amount people value it or the theatrics of it all which has nothing to do with the umpires themselves.

Yeah, people want "an appointed panel" which would just result in the likes of Luke Darcy voting.

And then thinking that isn't a similar issue in regards to leaks.

And then on top of that, those who want coaches to award it because umpires have to focus on umpiring - not only do coaches have to focus on coaching, they also are not impartial.

It's the dumbest take, the crying about how an award is voted on. As if media and ex footballers are going to do any better lol

 

[HTPunter]

They do end up giving votes based off the stats sheet. Not sure how that precludes them from thinking about it before that


It's nonsense saying umps don't think about it at all during a game. They aren't robots that flick a switch in their head. If it's an impending task the human brain will go to it in some capacity, at some point over a period of almost 3 hours whether you like it or not. Lastly, comparing umps to coaches votes is just as ridiculous. Coaches are acutely aware of who has played well or not for both teams as part of their job. They don't have to go out of their way for that stuff like umpires do.

Don't have anything else to add to this. Your position is your position, but I've more than demonstrated how it's based on nothing more than wishful thinking

It certainly wasn't always like that. If that's true now it means there's even more of an onus on them thinking about it during the game when they're meant to be completely focused on umpiring which is terrible.

How far do you honestly have to stretch your brain to think about who were the few best players in the ground when you've been on the ground with them for 2 hours??

What is your logic here?

The umps are sitting there going "is this holding the ball maybe, yep dragged it in, fair tackle, I'll pay holding the b-hey Clayton Oliver has been super today, probably 3 votes, yeah I think I'll tell the others Clayton deserves the 3, * what was I going to say, um HIGH TACKLE"

It's really not that difficult.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

I think it reasonable to say that with this and the racism at Hawthorn (and elsewhere) Baron Gill's term in office has left the game poorer than when he began.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

How far do you honestly have to stretch your brain to think about who were the few best players in the ground when you've been on the ground with them for 2 hours??

What is your logic here?

The umps are sitting there going "is this holding the ball maybe, yep dragged it in, fair tackle, I'll pay holding the b-hey Clayton Oliver has been super today, probably 3 votes, yeah I think I'll tell the others Clayton deserves the 3, * what was I going to say, um HIGH TACKLE"

It's really not that difficult.

I should’ve put it that way last night.

Seriously silly logic.