Autopsy I did it - The Round 14 JHF 3 Brownlow Votes Highlights

[jdeezy]

My main takeaway from the night was JHF and Ashcroft will be battling it out for Brownlows in future years based on last nights count. Ashcroft with 10 votes and Dunkley 4 was a little staggering. Cripps 20+ and Cerra 2 probably more staggering.

Wouldn't be surprised if JHF gets blatantly underscored the next few years because of this 'scandal' to be honest. He'll still be the best player in the comp though, no worries.

It is blatant who the umpires like and who they don't, though, and the votes match accordingly.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Do you think those kinds of people are likely to be invited to partake in corrupt activity?

Or do you think just because you (and the people you associate with) can't keep secrets, then literally nobody else can either?

Some may be very adept at it yes.
But let's look at this case in point

Either it's
* an orchestrated plan that involves at least 3 umpires to deliberately award votes in a very public setting for financial gain

Or

* 3 umpires tired at end if game with nil access to stats replays recalling their memory of who was best and then agreeing

I could well be wrong but in the absence of any other information the second scenario is more plausible

 

[fpm84]

Did any betting sites allow bets on JHF for the three votes in this game?

He would have been paying $500-1000 if so…. And there’s your explanation.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Did any betting sites allow bets on JHF for the three votes in this game?

He would have been paying $500-1000 if so…. And there’s your explanation.

Brownlow betting scandal leads to major change

As probe into axed former umpire continues

www.google.com

 

[Gavin Excell]

Capped at max $250 bet payout

 

[Rankine2Rachele]

I’m still not convinced. Horne-Francis has a very distinct gait, you’d think the umpires have noticed that.

How much time do umpires spend studying players legs and the way they move?

 

[Osho]

A lot of perfect people on this website. Humans make mistakes.

I'd blame that group of North supporters who have such a perverse fixation on JHF, on shaming and defaming him, that the rest of the footy world, including oppo fans and referees, want JHF to do well, to the extent they even over rate his performances.

This, rather than the shrill conspiracy theory, explains the voting.

 

[HTPunter]

Did any betting sites allow bets on JHF for the three votes in this game?

He would have been paying $500-1000 if so…. And there’s your explanation.

No, he would have been “any other player”. The books have maybe 6-7 players max for the 3 votes - they certainly don’t list all 44 (well, 46), pretty clearly JHF was in the 30-44 rung that night.

The odds would have been closer to $9-20 for “any other player”, capped at a max profit payout of $250, and after last year the books 1) would have been on the lookout for any suspicious bets and 2) clearly have the ability to detect said suspicious bets.

While it screams conspiracy to me, I’m not sure how they actually get around it. The gambling companies one and only rule to themselves is “make money at all costs”, they will not let themselves be ripped off.
If there was an influx of bets on “any other player” for that game, you bet they will be investigating it and they will have the software to work out if they’re related bets.

 

[theouthouse]

Why not just ban betting on the brownlow altogether?

For what its worth a lot of JHFs disposals and attack on the contest were very noticable, in close to the umpires and generally holds onto the ball for longer than most other players to try and make something happen. Not unfeasible that he caught the umpires eyes in this game.

 

[HTPunter]

I'd blame that group of North supporters who have such a perverse fixation on JHF, on shaming and defaming him, that the rest of the footy world, including oppo fans and referees, want JHF to do well, to the extent they even over rate his performances.

This, rather than the shrill conspiracy theory, explains the voting.

I’d maybe cop this if round 14 was 1 week after trade week, but by round 14 the booing by oppo fans (not just north fans) had really quietened down, and it is a small minority of North fans now that have a vocal hatred of him - unless North are playing Port (just like when Cats play Henry or any other leaving player) the vast majority are now focused elsewhere.

Besides, if this was the case, JHF had a lot of other games where he was top 10 on the ground but not top 3 - and didn’t poll. These are the games I’d expect an overrating to result in votes.

No one is arguing that his 27 & 3 game v GWS or his round 1 breakout match weren’t deserving of 3…no one is overrating him in general, he’s a 2nd year player capable of dominating matches but not yet consistent, Port fans would acknowledge that he’s not yet a Butters/Rozee level of week in week out and North fans who hate him would acknowledge his best is insanely good.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

Some may be very adept at it yes.
But let's look at this case in point

Either it's
* an orchestrated plan that involves at least 3 umpires to deliberately award votes in a very public setting for financial gain

Or

* 3 umpires tired at end if game with nil access to stats replays recalling their memory of who was best and then agreeing

I could well be wrong but in the absence of any other information the second scenario is more plausible

Is it true that they don't have access to the stats?

 

[lumpinee]

where theres money involved theres bound to be corruption

 

[Osho]

I’d maybe cop this if round 14 was 1 week after trade week, but by round 14 the booing by oppo fans (not just north fans) had really quietened down, and it is a small minority of North fans now that have a vocal hatred of him - unless North are playing Port (just like when Cats play Henry or any other leaving player) the vast majority are now focused elsewhere.

Besides, if this was the case, JHF had a lot of other games where he was top 10 on the ground but not top 3 - and didn’t poll. These are the games I’d expect an overrating to result in votes.

No one is arguing that his 27 & 3 game v GWS or his round 1 breakout match weren’t deserving of 3…no one is overrating him in general, he’s a 2nd year player capable of dominating matches but not yet consistent, Port fans would acknowledge that he’s not yet a Butters/Rozee level of week in week out and North fans who hate him would acknowledge his best is insanely good.

You're being way too lineal. Reactions and counter reactions happen spontaneously, predicting dates will be near impossible. If you think JHF hasn't received extra sympathy from footy fans and umps and a multitude of others for the shrill North noise denouncing him, preferring a wide conspiracy involving many folk, all who have kept quiet, that's denial.

 

[Percel]

Imagine being labelled a lazy turncoat with a bad attitude by North supporters having had no pre season and still topping any North players in the Brownlow.

Thats the real scandal.

Reckon theres a thread for that Brother

 

[Shadow89]

Let me start of by clarifying that this is in no way an indictment against JHF, I understand he's just a kid playing footy.

I did this because I had time, someone requested it and I was curious. Watching the count I was baffled many times, games where the losing team had the player getting both the 3 and the 2 votes, even when it wasn't close, games where a player that shouldn't have even gotten a vote, got the 3 votes happened a lot, as is well documented.

But the cherry on the cake was this game. After going through it, there really is only one explanation for how it's possible, corruption.

On paper, the stats show a 13 possession game, sure, not impossible for a player to be best on ground (and fairest) with 13 touches, but if you actually watch the game, you will see not only should it be impossible, it's actually as if it's a joke being rubbed in our faces, as if they are saying "look, here is a player that not only isn't anywhere near the best player, but is clearly the most unfair player of the game, but we are going to give him 3 votes anyway and you will all squabble about it and we will have news for a few days to sell papers and sell clicks lol".

You can watch the game yourselves, my 3, 2, 1 were -

Marshall - 3

Rozee - 2

Butters - 1

Unlucky is Holmes, Alir, Houston and Guthrie, then there is at least 30 other players ahead of JHF for this game, no joke, almost 40 players had a better game than JHF, but JHF polled 3 votes lmao

Now, I don't subscribe to umpires being confused by JHF and Bergman, thinking they are the same player. These umpires are professionals and they all know exactly who JHF and Bergman are. Even if you combined the two of them, they were both equal to about the 30th best player of this game lol.


Every time he went near the ball and touched the ball or impacted is in this 6 odd minutes.
It really is astonishing, the first Q he has 1 kick 1 handball and the last Q he has 1 kick 1 handball, he literally has zero impact on the game. There is a 30 second period where he does a couple of things, everything else was literally meaningless to the game and result.
I highlighted a couple of times where he yells at the umpire, dives into a tackle to draw high contact and gives away the only 50m penalty for Port.
No other player for this game came anywhere near the levels of disrespect or however you want to define 'fair' as people who defend the Brownlow will say "It'S nOt jUSt tHe bEsT bUt ThE fAirEststss".

Anyway, see for yourself and tell me and tell yourself that there is an explanation other than blatant, clear and obvious corruption.
I was surprised the AFL posted a detailed blog about it today, almost as if they're mocking the situation, detailing a round by round blow of games where players polled perfect 10 coaches votes and zero Brownlow votes hahaha -

link to that here - Shock BOGs, perfect 10s but no votes: Brownlow Medal surprises


Link to the full game here - Match Replay: Port Adelaide v Geelong


Bigfooty won't allow me to upload and AFL copyright the video instantly on YouTube, so Vimeo it is, was originally in 4k but Vimeo took it down to 720p, cheers.


Link to JHF impossible 3 vote game 'highlights' -


Cheers.

You are an absolute champion. Seeing Margetts and Gil defend this sort of BS is exactly why everyone sees the AFL as a 'boy's club.' Not an independent thought amongst their braindead fraternity.

Would love if you could do the same for the Lachie Neale game when you get a chance.

 

[Sphynx]

My main takeaway from the night was JHF and Ashcroft will be battling it out for Brownlows in future years based on last nights count. Ashcroft with 10 votes and Dunkley 4 was a little staggering. Cripps 20+ and Cerra 2 probably more staggering.

I think you mean Noah Anderson.

He finished top 10 on 22 votes in a side that finished 15th, unlike JHF and Ashcroft who have the far easier task scoring votes in top 4 sides with 17 wins.

 

[jakson68]

Wouldn't be surprised if JHF gets blatantly underscored the next few years because of this 'scandal' to be honest. He'll still be the best player in the comp though, no worries.

It is blatant who the umpires like and who they don't, though, and the votes match accordingly.

You Port guys are absolutely delusional.
He isn't even the best player in his team and is far from the best in the comp.

I think he is already behind Ashcroft and well behind Daicos.

He will be similar to Wines, a good above average player.

 

[Shadow89]

Exactly, he was the only player, literally, the only player to mouth off at the umpires and show aggression towards the umpires, he gave away Ports only 50m penalty, which cost them a goal, 12 out of his 13 touches were either meaningless or direct turn overs.

Clear and blatant, they didn't even try to hide it, someone who shouldn't have even come close, in fact, should have been the last player apart from the subs to even be considered for a vote, polled the 3.


This was one game, there were many games this year where it was beyond just plain old incompetence.........

The two I still can't wrap my head around (besides this and the Neale game), is the game where Jez Cameron had 6 goals and 25 disposals, and singlehandedly nearly won us the game against the Blues in Round 2. He got 1 vote for that - and was clearly baffled by it on Brownlow night.

Neutrals and supporters of both teams that night were in absolute awe of the man...yet Adam Saad gets 3 votes?

Gulden getting 1 vote from a 42 disposal, 2 goals game, and Trac getting no votes after being the reason Melbourne even came back in that game, is just another utterly bizarre one too.

I legitimately do not understand it this year.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

When faced with cause being a conspiracy (corruption in this case) or just unplanned incompetence, I'll always favour the latter

'The VGCCC’s inquiries were prompted by the reports of an AFL umpire allegedly leaking results of round-by-round voting before the 2022 Brownlow Medal count, allegedly resulting in a series of successful wagers being placed. This matter is an ongoing investigation by Victoria Police.'

Yeah mate, this is all some crazy conspiracy theory and not something that directly relates to what an umpire was arrested for and is the subject of an ongoing police investigation from last year's Brownlow.

It doesn't take a genius to work out why round-by-round betting is particularly vulnerable. And everyone thought the AFL would eliminate it because of this scandal.

But of course they didn't because they are the AFL. And here we are with all these 'mysterious' baffling calls in the very next Brownlow.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Why not just ban betting on the brownlow altogether?

For what its worth a lot of JHFs disposals and attack on the contest were very noticable, in close to the umpires and generally holds onto the ball for longer than most other players to try and make something happen. Not unfeasible that he caught the umpires eyes in this game.

Or an even more sensible question would be why the f*ck you would have match officials be put in such a compromised position that conflicts with their role in the first place?

Last year's Brownlow arrest and this year's controversy should be the wakeup call that we need to remove another one of these archaic bush league things from the game altogether and act like a real sport.

 

[rye]

I think you mean Noah Anderson.

He finished top 10 on 22 votes in a side that finished 15th, unlike JHF and Ashcroft who have the far easier task scoring votes in top 4 sides with 17 wins.

standout midfielders in poor sides have often polled well whilst struggling to win the award. simon black post 2004, touk miller for the last few years. davies-uniacke missed a significant part of the season this year in a 3 win side and polled 13 votes.

when these sides improve and win more games, the extra votes on offer from playing in more wins is often counteracted by the fact that the midfield around them has likely improved and they will have to share said votes more often.

i think ashcroft and jhf polling as well as they did with the stars around them is more impressive personally

 

[My Tilly]

Capped at max $250 bet payout

He would have been paying $500-1000 if so…. And there’s your explanation.

Unbelievable.
I reckon the odds still would have been decent enough. Maybe 50:1?

 

[Crow_Magnon]

Yes well the plot thickens doesn’t it.

There’s something rotten in Denmark about all of this…

May have been Ollie Wines...#16 vs #18 jumper...at least he got a bit of the ball. Yet, even Butters and Powell-Pepper didn't have great games that day - so the betting conspiracy seems quite valid to me!

 

[Spiral_Out]

No, he would have been “any other player”. The books have maybe 6-7 players max for the 3 votes - they certainly don’t list all 44 (well, 46), pretty clearly JHF was in the 30-44 rung that night.

The odds would have been closer to $9-20 for “any other player”, capped at a max profit payout of $250, and after last year the books 1) would have been on the lookout for any suspicious bets and 2) clearly have the ability to detect said suspicious bets.

While it screams conspiracy to me, I’m not sure how they actually get around it. The gambling companies one and only rule to themselves is “make money at all costs”, they will not let themselves be ripped off.
If there was an influx of bets on “any other player” for that game, you bet they will be investigating it and they will have the software to work out if they’re related bets.

I had a fair few posts to go through and as I was reading, I think most people, yourself included, are closed to the idea that the corruption and conspiracy is only umpire deep.


You hit the nail on the head with it's the bookies that have rules and regulations in place so they do not lose, but you and others are looking at it from an individual punter perspective and not the bookies perspective.

I think it's much deeper, understanding the history of gang lords owning the bookies themselves, and then rigging horse races to avoid the largest payout.


Perhaps, the count was rigged so that the bookies avoided the largest payout..... Daicos not getting 3 votes in games he should have, Bont not getting any votes when he should have and this game, butters who I had as polling either 1 or 2 votes, didn't poll any and they give the 3 votes to someone who wouldn't impact the top 3 or top 5....

This explains why so often, someone outside of the top 3 favourites is the Brownlow winner, the dark horse who had the least money put on him and thus, the bookies made the most money......


Or you can believe that Corporations are innocent and this and countless other votes throughout the years is all down to individual umpiring incompetence........


I for one understand enough of history to understand how ignorant the average person is to how much conspiracy and corruption surrounds them.

 

[Sqotty from office works]

. Cripps 20+ more staggering.

Saw a lot of games.
Raised eyebrows and staggered is an understatement.