Rising Star on Radio

[Phhht]

You have 9 judges giving votes on a 5-4-3-2-1 basis. So getting 3 or 4 times what another guy gets doesn't mean your 3 times better.

It's no different to Brownlow votes. There might be 3, 4, 5 or 6 outstanding players in a match. But it doesn't mean the guy who gets 3 votes is 3 times better than the bloke who gets 1 vote.

Yeah I understand that and my comment was more of a show of frustration at how few votes the Hoff received rather than a literal bake at the numbers.

I also would love to know how many games each judge watched. If they are voting on players from every club then surely they would have watched every game. I know for a fact one R Walls doesn't watch every game so how can he (or anyone else who hasn't seen every game) justify their votes.

As I said I am not sure on the criteria. I also assume that the 'judges' vote on the year a player has had. I just can't fathom how people could rate the year that guys like Tom Williams, Jesse Smith and even Shannon Hurn have had higher than the Hoff - mindboggling IMO.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Yeah I understand that and my comment was more of a show of frustration at how few votes the Hoff received rather than a literal bake at the numbers.

I also would love to know how many games each judge watched. If they are voting on players from every club then surely they would have watched every game. I know for a fact one R Walls doesn't watch every game so how can he (or anyone else who hasn't seen every game) justify their votes.

As I said I am not sure on the criteria. I also assume that the 'judges' vote on the year a player has had. I just can't fathom how people could rate the year that guys like Tom Williams, Jesse Smith and even Shannon Hurn have had higher than the Hoff - mindboggling IMO.

I don't think there is anybody in Oz, except for maybe the 16 clubs video analysists guys, who watch all 176 games. That's why you have a large panel and one from SA and WA to balance things out a bit. The panel is Vic-centric so most of the panel members will mainly see Vic club kids several times a year live in the flesh. No conspiracy theory here just practicalities of where people live. I would suspect a guy like Walls most weekends will watch 3 games live and one or two on the box. You will never get a perfect system.

Individual bias is probably the only criteria used.

 

[Phhht]

I don't think there is anybody in Oz, except for maybe the 16 clubs video analysists guys, who watch all 176 games. That's why you have a large panel and one from SA and WA to balance things out a bit. The panel is Vic-centric so most of the panel members will mainly see Vic club kids several times a year live in the flesh. No conspiracy theory here just practicalities of where people live. I would suspect a guy like Walls most weekends will watch 3 games live and one or two on the box. You will never get a perfect system.

Individual bias is probably the only criteria used.

EXACTLY, yet they have the 'pleasure' to vote on this award.

Yeah Ok it isn't really that big a deal in the overall scheme of things but really how about they get real and do it just a little better.

Sure you cant have 8 guys watch EVERY game but there are ways to make it more objective than someone like AA or Vlad etc trying to convince the footballing public that they honestly think that Tom Williams or Jesse Smith or Patrick Ryder have had a better year than the Hoff.

FFS the Charlie is proving to be a joke of an award due to ahving morons who know **** all about the game vote on it, you would think the AFL would be able to implement a system where ANY award is judged objectively.Then again it is the AFL.

Rant over.

PS I mean absolutely no disrespect to any of the young guys, just getting frustrated with the AFL making sure that no matter what they do they seem to **** it up!

Now rant truly over

PSS Thanks for the clarifications REH

 

[ash_78]

Agree REH and Phhht. In fact, started a thread on the main board about it half an hour or so ago...

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=367654

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

FFS the Charlie is proving to be a joke of an award due to ahving morons who know **** all about the game vote on it, you would think the AFL would be able to implement a system where ANY award is judged objectively.Then again it is the AFL.

By the end of the 1993 season I officially gave up on the Brownlow, Magarey etc. Any award by umpires. When Ablett went to full forward and was still getting 20+ disposals, dominating games, kicking 8.7 and not getting votes, I gave up. He kicked 127 goals in 17 games and got 13 votes.

 

[tribey]

By the end of the 1993 season I officially gave up on the Brownlow, Magarey etc. Any award by umpires. When Ablett went to full forward and was still getting 20+ disposals, dominating games, kicking 8.7 and not getting votes, I gave up. He kicked 127 goals in 17 games and got 13 votes.

Tredders in 2004 was my most recent gripe. Easily the most dominant, influential and pivotal player in the comp that year and was rightly installed as pre-count favourite - yet on the night he polled worse than 9 other players including Brett Kirk and Luke Power to finish on half the votes of media darling Chris Judd.

 

[Toots Hibbert]

Ah quantum physics and Aussie Rules. What a great mix. Did you ever see the play called Copenhagen by Michael Frayn. It was about a series of secret meetings between Heisenberg and Niels Bohr in 1941 in Copenhagen. Denmark was occupied by the Nazis at the time. Bohr had been Heisenberg's mentor and professor earlier on in their professional lifes. Both were Nobel lauretates. Heisenberg is working on the Nazi atomic bomb and the play revolves around whether he is trying to warn Bohr's about the building of the bomb or trying to recruit him. Old professional jealousies are brought up during the play.

Brilliant, intelligent writing by Frayn. You have to concentate fully because a lot of physics is discussed. The play involves the 2 principle characters and Bohr's wife. It takes a special effort by the actors to deliver belivable performances which occured the night I saw it.

Sounds like it would make a good movie in the right hands.

That whole crowd of physicists involved in research on nuclear weapons were a fascinating lot. I've read biographies of some of them including Robert Oppenheimer and Ernest Lawrence. As you say, the professional jealousies and questionable loyalties of some of them were a volatile mix.

 

[Predator.]

Ah quantum physics and Aussie Rules. What a great mix. Did you ever see the play called Copenhagen by Michael Frayn. It was about a series of secret meetings between Heisenberg and Niels Bohr in 1941 in Copenhagen. Denmark was occupied by the Nazis at the time. Bohr had been Heisenberg's mentor and professor earlier on in their professional lifes. Both were Nobel lauretates. Heisenberg is working on the Nazi atomic bomb and the play revolves around whether he is trying to warn Bohr's about the building of the bomb or trying to recruit him. Old professional jealousies are brought up during the play.

Brilliant, intelligent writing by Frayn. You have to concentate fully because a lot of physics is discussed. The play involves the 2 principle characters and Bohr's wife. It takes a special effort by the actors to deliver belivable performances which occured the night I saw it.

I reckon that play would be right up my alley.

I did an honours degree in theoretical physics, and about 6 months of a Masters. My supervisor was a guy in his 50's, and his supervisor also lectured us in mathematical methods, while he was in his 70's. His supervisor, was none other than Bohr himself True story.

 

[Toots Hibbert]

LOL!!


Anyway, congrats to Humphrey on a flying start to his AFL career. Keep at it son!

You must have missed this which managed to remain on the main board (as it should have):-

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=257311&highlight=ross+gibbs

 

[Toots Hibbert]

I reckon that play would be right up my alley.

I did an honours degree in theoretical physics, and about 6 months of a Masters. My supervisor was a guy in his 50's, and his supervisor also lectured us in mathematical methods, while he was in his 70's. His supervisor, was none other than Bohr himself True story.

Impressive.

And I can now say that I've got three degrees of separation from Neils Bohr.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I reckon that play would be right up my alley.

I did an honours degree in theoretical physics, and about 6 months of a Masters. My supervisor was a guy in his 50's, and his supervisor also lectured us in mathematical methods, while he was in his 70's. His supervisor, was none other than Bohr himself True story.

If you do a google search and type in Michael Frayn and Copenhagen and you will get some good summaries of the play. Here is a bit of a review form the Toronto production from Canada's national newspaper The Globe and Mail. It talks about the uncertainty of the discussions between Heisenberg and Bohr. It was on in Sydney in late 2002.
http://www.hep.yorku.ca/menary/misc/globe_copenhagen_frayn.html

The play revolves around Heisenberg's clandestine visit to the Bohrs in Copenhagen in 1941. What we do know is that the two men quarrelled and broke off their discussions -- but we don't know why. Like electrons orbiting a nucleus, the three characters circle the stage, re-examining the motive for Heisenberg's trip, a subject of continuing debate among historians and scientists alike.

Many believe Heisenberg was acting on behalf of the Nazis, trying to learn from Bohr, his former mentor, about the Allies' war-time efforts to build the bomb. Others believe Heisenberg was trying to warn Bohr about developments in the Nazi program itself, which he oversaw. The final answer is unknown and perhaps unknowable -- much like Heisenberg's famous Uncertainty Principle, which postulates that all observations are inherently subjective and that nothing can ever be absolutely determined.

An interesting thing that was discussed in the play was that most of the leading physicts at the time were Jewish. The fact that Hitler didn't like Jews, forced them out of the country meant that his desire to build a bomb was slowed down. A great irony that he needed Jews to achieve his dream of world domination.

 

[Sandola]

Toots! Whaddaya mean, "questionable loyalties". Remember that the late 40's early 50's were the height of McCarthyism in the US, and anyone who was anywhere near the left, or was "cosmopolitan" (code for immigrant and/or Jewish) was considered, by the government and the mass media, to have "questionable" loyalties. The paranoia was such that anyone who had ever, as a young student, been associated with a dread "communist" organisation (and communist was fairly loosely defined at the time -- god help you if in a moment of idealism you had actually joined such an organisation) was clearly, in the public's eye, disloyal to America. Oppenheimer's career was destroyed not because his loyalties were questionable, but because they were questioned.

Don't get me started.

 

[Toots Hibbert]

Robert Oppenheimer's brother certainly flirted with the Russians and Robert got himself into strife by covering for him.

Your quite right about McCarthyism and the persecution of innocent people that took place. But there's also no doubt that the Russians got important secrets about the American nuclear program from some of the scientists involved in it.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

When Oppenheimer opposed the development of the Hydrogen bomb in the early 50's, developed and pushed by that nut case Edward Teller and expressed concern that the USA had all the power and no checks and balances against them, he was accussed with being a communist sympathiser.

In the 30's he flirted with it, ie was closely associated with people who thought communism was a good idea. But typical pants wetting politicans and bureaucrats who forgot that in the '30's capitalism was on it's knees and that people wanted a better society and looked at all the alternatives.

 

[SuperDanyle]

wtf are u guys talking about