2 hours ago, Monbon said:

Which means ipso facto, the two Pells are not related.

 

Two Pells don't make a right!

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Let's not fall for the tabloid version of the story. Ten years in gaol is the maximum penalty. He clearly won't get that. And he may not even be charged with any offences. Irrespective of any criminal process, based on what has happened to players involved in football betting, the AFL will presumably suspend him for a considerable period. What will be interesting is whether he would be given a chance at redemption (should he want to continue as an umpire) once any period of suspension is over.

Exactly.

You don't get jail time in Oz for corruption ( maybe 1 in 500 cases). Business or gaming.  

Crown ex- Directors - No charge  , etc.

But I can't see the Umpire remaining on the list at the AFL under any circumstances. Gil - " wer'e outraged about this, heads must roll, etc , etc..."

What will be fascinating will be the deathly silence of all those in the betting trough  - looking at you SEN , Nathan Brown, etc.

Gerard will have something to ponitifcate about from on high, but will still be taking his weekly cheque form Sportsbetting sponsoors through SEN.

15 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Odds the AFL clear him? 

You betcha! Swept under the carpet post haste. Bit of an exposé, huh?

 

13 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

I can't read the whole article but at the risk of taking the wrong interpretation of it, I don't see how that would stop the same thing happening.  5 people would know who got the votes for that game.  5 people who could tip off mates to make the same bets Pell's did.

At least with the umpires there are only 3 people involved who have some level of ethics to uphold, albeit there has now been a breach. 

A panel of experts would have almost no level of ethics to uphold no bond to secrecy and probably less trustworthy.

More risk with no gain with Thomas's suggestion.

Just stop game by game Brownlow betting.  Keep it to the winner/placings.  Better still get rid of the betting altogether!

4 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

I can't read the whole article but at the risk of taking the wrong interpretation of it, I don't see how that would stop the same thing happening.  5 people would know who got the votes for that game.  5 people who could tip off mates to make the same bets Pell's did.

At least with the umpires there are only 3 people involved who have some level of ethics to uphold, albeit there has now been a breach. 

A panel of experts would have almost no level of ethics to uphold no bond to secrecy and probably less trustworthy.

More risk with no gain with Thomas's suggestion.

Just stop game by game Brownlow betting.  Keep it to the winner/placings.  Better still get rid of the betting altogether!

You won't be able to stop the betting. You might be able to stop the legal betting, but that means the illegal betting will  thrive and that just increases the likelihood of an ethical breach (because it's the the legal bookies who do the heavy lifting with their algorithms to identify suspicious betting.)  

I agree with you that changing the voting formula from three umpires to five "independent experts" just increases the risk. I suspect that that particular argument for change has come from someone who has wanted to take the Brownlow voting away from the umpires and is just using the current situation as ammunition to support their argument. 

7 hours ago, old dee said:

It’s been a midfielders awards for decades IRW.

Is the Coaches Award any different? 

12 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

You won't be able to stop the betting. You might be able to stop the legal betting, but that means the illegal betting will  thrive and that just increases the likelihood of an ethical breach (because it's the the legal bookies who do the heavy lifting with their algorithms to identify suspicious betting.)  

I agree with you that changing the voting formula from three umpires to five "independent experts" just increases the risk. I suspect that that particular argument for change has come from someone who has wanted to take the Brownlow voting away from the umpires and is just using the current situation as ammunition to support their argument. 

I was referring to Brownlow betting especially game bets but take your point about it going underground.

But if the mainstream on-line betting agencies, that advertise on every AFL related media don't offer it how many people are going to seek the illegal ones out?

Anyway an expert panel was silly suggestion by Thomas.

Edited November 15, 20222 yr by Lucifers Hero

Five (or even fifty five) so called hand picked experts will still not get it right. Only the umpires are at the "coal face" and can know who is trying hard and influencing the game. From over then fence who can tell? And in any event, where can the AFL find 45 so called experts every week. Each one vulnerable to outside influences. Cannot, should not ever happen.

The only real solution is to ban or restrict betting on the Brownlow. I know that illegal betting will go on but it then becomes a police issue as having legal betting doesn't seem to stop the crooks.

Too much betting on footy. Can only corrupt the game.

 

Edited November 15, 20222 yr by tiers
Correction of simple arithmetical error.

1 hour ago, tiers said:

Five (or even fifty five) so called hand picked experts will still not get it right. Only the umpires are at the "coal face" and can know who is trying hard and influencing the game. From over then fence who can tell? And in any event, where can the AFL find 45 so called experts every week. Each one vulnerable to outside influences. Cannot, should not ever happen.

The only real solution is to ban or restrict betting on the Brownlow. I know that illegal betting will go on but it then becomes a police issue as having legal betting doesn't seem to stop the crooks.

Too much betting on footy. Can only corrupt the game.

 

Problem is, illegal bookmaking is international. Victoria, or any Australian police force, won't be able to prevent it. I repeat: It's much safer to have legal bookmaking with the bookies monitoring for problems.

 

 

Colour me shocked. One of the two games that was red-flagged was Melb Coll on QB

 

Magpies forward Brody Mihocek was the surprise winner of the three votes on Brownlow Medal night with his 16 disposals and four goals edging out Demons superstar Clayton Oliver who on the day was awarded the Neale Daniher Trophy for his 43-possession game.

11 hours ago, IRW said:

A tangent..the maggots meet for half an hour post game to discuss who they will vote for...how many beers they can drink more Iikely, but apparently none of them say stuff like.." gee I thought Steven May had a three vote game; he basically won it for the Dees"

"Awright boys, time for the votes. Whaddya reckon?"

(silence)

"Matt? Leigh?"

"E. Yeo 3 votes."

"Dean, the Eagles weren't even playing. And you weren't on the ground. How did you get in here? The door's supposed to be locked! Go on, [censored] off. Matt, who do you think played well?"

"I dunno. Most of the game was down the other end from me."

"Leigh, what about you?"

"I dunno. They players all look the same to me. What do you reckon?"

"I dunno either. It moves so fast, I dunno what's going on most of the time."

(silence)

"Well, we can't sit here all night. What are we gunna do?"

"We could look at the stats sheet."

"Great idea ... lemme see ... Tom Mitchell 40 possies! Well that's your 3 right there."

"Did Cripps play?"

"Nah, he played last night ... good idea, but ... hey, it says here someone kicked 6 goals."

"A mid?"

"No, a ... um ... what's the word? Four ... fore ... foreman ..."

"So not a mid?"

"You're right. One vote only."

"Who played on Mitchell?"

"Christ. Was it ... Pendlebury?"

"I dunno. Come on, give him the 2 and let's get out of here."

"S. Pendlebury 2 votes. Jeez, that was easier than I thought. Crack open the beers."

11 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

"...one betting agency was alerted to a punter or punters placing bets on players’ votes in different matches and winning every time...

They fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The first, of course, is never get into a land war in Asia. The other is, never win against a betting agency.

Pell is in real trouble.  It wasn't a momentary lapse.

The Age is reporting that the bets-were-allegedly-laid-on-more-than-10-matches-michael-pell-umpired. 

Can't see him ever umpiring again.   And if convicted I hope he has a 'day job' that won't be affected.

Edited November 15, 20222 yr by Lucifers Hero

I doubt this will get swept under the rug by the afl,   I would assume the betting agencies are furious and would be pounding on the afl's door for action on this. they don't like loosing money.

From Fox:  "... the Herald Sun also reports two games where Pell was an emergency have received scrutiny".

"Pell was the emergency umpire in the Collingwood-Melbourne Queen’s Birthday game in Round 13, where Brody Mihocek was the surprise three-vote getter, ahead of Neale Daniher Trophy winner Clayton Oliver and the impressive Mason Cox.

Pell was also the emergency umpire in the St Kilda-Sydney game in Round 23, where the Saints became the first team in 16 years to lose yet poll all six votes. Dan Hannebery, in what is likely to be his final AFL match, polled the three".

 

The 3-vote winners in those two games would have been hard to predict as they surprised most people.

Edited November 15, 20222 yr by Lucifers Hero

Not from insider trading that’s for sure.!!

25 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

From Fox:  "... the Herald Sun also reports two games where Pell was an emergency have received scrutiny".

"Pell was the emergency umpire in the Collingwood-Melbourne Queen’s Birthday game in Round 13, where Brody Mihocek was the surprise three-vote getter, ahead of Neale Daniher Trophy winner Clayton Oliver and the impressive Mason Cox.

Pell was also the emergency umpire in the St Kilda-Sydney game in Round 23, where the Saints became the first team in 16 years to lose yet poll all six votes. Dan Hannebery, in what is likely to be his final AFL match, polled the three".

 

The 3-vote winners in those two games would have been hard to predict as they surprised most people.

Would an emergency umpire be involved or otherwise know what votes were awarded for each game?

15 hours ago, jnrmac said:

 

 

Colour me shocked. One of the two games that was red-flagged was Melb Coll on QB

 

Magpies forward Brody Mihocek was the surprise winner of the three votes on Brownlow Medal night with his 16 disposals and four goals edging out Demons superstar Clayton Oliver who on the day was awarded the Neale Daniher Trophy for his 43-possession game.

We can't have it both ways. We can't complain it's a "midfielder's medal" and then complain again when a key forward who kicks four goals outpolls a midfielder.

52 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

We can't have it both ways. We can't complain it's a "midfielder's medal" and then complain again when a key forward who kicks four goals outpolls a midfielder.

What it shows is that 99.9999% of the time that Oliver would have got the votes. Why not this time? The AFL will defend their system claiming it just one bad apple. Only a change of leadership at the top has any chance of real change. It's time for the old boys club to be broken up but I seriously doubt that will happen there are too many vested interests from the board on down. 

18 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

I can't read the whole article but at the risk of taking the wrong interpretation of it, I don't see how that would stop the same thing happening.  5 people would know who got the votes for that game.  5 people who could tip off mates to make the same bets Pell's did.

At least with the umpires there are only 3 people involved who have some level of ethics to uphold, albeit there has now been a breach. 

A panel of experts would have almost no level of ethics to uphold no bond to secrecy and probably less trustworthy.

More risk with no gain with Thomas's suggestion.

Just stop game by game Brownlow betting.  Keep it to the winner/placings.  Better still get rid of the betting altogether!

LH I like your last paragraph but Pandora's Box was opened some years ago and the evil is out and won't be put back in. The upside is that with good governance this was exposed. 

I think the AFL will go hard after Pell and give him a lifetime ban even if he doesn't get jail time. They'll want to be seen as taking a strong stand so there will be lots of outrage. They'll also be miffed because they can't control the judicial process. But, they and media entities enjoying the support of betting agencies wont look at the toxicity of their relationship - nothing to see there!  That'll be left to media outlets that don't depend on gambling ads for revenue.

On 11/15/2022 at 8:18 AM, rjay said:

Gambling is a big issue...I remember my father always saying it would come back to haunt the AFL & he was right.

The problem is there are way too many vested interests here to get a real debate on the issue.

'Bite the hand that feeds'...will be interesting to hear the SEN & FOX takes in particular.

Will they put gambling under the microscope or will the focus be on the umpire?

Will they narrow the issue down rather than explore the wider ramifications?

 

12 minutes ago, Roger Mellie said:

I think the AFL will go hard after Pell and give him a lifetime ban even if he doesn't get jail time. They'll want to be seen as taking a strong stand so there will be lots of outrage. They'll also be miffed because they can't control the judicial process. But, they and media entities enjoying the support of betting agencies wont look at the toxicity of their relationship - nothing to see there!  That'll be left to media outlets that don't depend on gambling ads for revenue.

The ABC and???

Not many left these days...

What could possibly go wrong...

https://sportshandle.com/mini-golf-wagering-approved-colorado-wyoming/

Very odd that only St Kilda players got votes in that round 23 game V Sydney despite being down by 3-5 goals for much of the night, and of course subsequently losing to Sydney

With regards to Queens birthday, it was widely acknowledged that either Oliver (who won the medal) or Cox (who was marking the ball like he was Wayne Carey) was BOG.
Instead Mihocek got the 3 votes and he would've been long odds despite kicking 4 goals.
Imagine a full forward kicking 4 goals in the 1980's/1990's and then getting the 3 votes.