Last night on Footy Classified, Caroline Wilson pointed out that Aaron Francis' excellent mark in Round 23 wasn't properly considered for the Mark of the Year award because the judges were given the "full" list of contenders after Round 22. It's beyond belief that the AFL can't get its act together and manage the MOTY process after all the Home and Away games have been completed. What's the rush to have it resolved before the end of the season? The winner doesn't get announced until Grand Final Week, which allows plenty of time for a decision to be made.

I assume there is betting conducted on the MOTY. In which case, should people who bet on Aaron Francis' mark be entitled to a refund? Should the AFL have to face scrutiny from the gaming regulator for not having managed this betting opportunity with appropriate integrity?

I'm not saying that Francis mark was necessarily better than Isaac Heeny's. But it definitely was good enough to be considered. 

(I couldn't see this discussed anywhere else, but if I'm wrong, please merge with the appropriate thread.)

Good point. I thought the Francis mark was one of the best grabs, fwiw. 

No doubt Hogan would have liked Francis to be eligible, with the possibility it knocked off Heeney, and therefore provided far fewer viewings of him as Heeney’s step-ladder. Probably not Hoges’s most front-of-mind thought this week, though.....

hmmm well... in terms of the equality of the  draw,  marquee slots to big but underperforming clubs, crap times to smaller clubs who need exposure, changing the rules of the game  to suit TV executives, crap deals for smaller clubs at ethiad ....and ( I could go on) this infringement seems  pretty minor. 

36 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

hmmm well... in terms of the equality of the  draw,  marquee slots to big but underperforming clubs, crap times to smaller clubs who need exposure, changing the rules of the game  to suit TV executives, crap deals for smaller clubs at ethiad ....and ( I could go on) this infringement seems  pretty minor. 

The issues you've mentioned are all important and raise questions of equity but not integrity. But I agree that the equity issues are more significant than this particular integrity issue. 

It is minor in the scheme of things but that makes it even more mind-boggling that it's even happened. It makes them look lazy and unprofessional for no good reason.

6 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Last night on Footy Classified, Caroline Wilson pointed out that Aaron Francis' excellent mark in Round 23 wasn't properly considered for the Mark of the Year award because the judges were given the "full" list of contenders after Round 22. It's beyond belief that the AFL can't get its act together and manage the MOTY process after all the Home and Away games have been completed. What's the rush to have it resolved before the end of the season? The winner doesn't get announced until Grand Final Week, which allows plenty of time for a decision to be made.

I assume there is betting conducted on the MOTY. In which case, should people who bet on Aaron Francis' mark be entitled to a refund? Should the AFL have to face scrutiny from the gaming regulator for not having managed this betting opportunity with appropriate integrity?

I'm not saying that Francis mark was necessarily better than Isaac Heeny's. But it definitely was good enough to be considered. 

(I couldn't see this discussed anywhere else, but if I'm wrong, please merge with the appropriate thread.)

The same thing happened in 1998. Farmer was robbed of MOTY because it happened in round 22 and therefore wasn't considered.

Such an amateur organisation some times.

 

Edited September 26, 20187 yr by Dr. Gonzo

Yes great mark by Jeffy; but must have annoyed Gary to be used as a step ladder again.

 

I'm annoyed that " Integrity " and. " AFL" are mentioned in the same sentence. These two things are light years apart.