• You must be logged in to view threads on this forum. Please sign up by clicking here to continue viewing content on the mighty South Sydney Rabbitohs.

Match Discussion Round 4: Rabbitohs v Bulldogs

Prowsey said:
The Dally M’s become more nonsensical every year.

Are there now 3 judges awarding their 3,2,1? How can 3 players get the maximum points?

(I know it’s possible mathematically, with Koloa getting 2 points from 1 Judge and 1 point from the other, but it’s just madness).
Click to expand...
The maximum for a player is now 6 points. You answered your own question there. Although it also could have been Jack or Cam that got the 2 and 1.

Just purely guessing here how it went.

3 points to Cam and Jack
2 points to Keaon and Taaffe
1 point to Keaon and Tracey
 
Kempy said:
The maximum for a player is now 6 points. You answered your own question there. Although it also could have been Jack or Cam that got the 2 and 1.

Just purely guessing here how it went.

3 points to Cam and Jack
2 points to Keaon and Taaffe
1 point to Keaon and Tracey
Click to expand...
It’s a ridiculous system.

In the Warriors game Ponga got more points than RTS.

Ponga did a couple of showy things but RTS was strong throughout the game. He contributed more to the game in my view.

I know the 3,2,1 is subjective but there needs to be some basic guidelines on how someone earns points.

It’s why halfbacks and fullbacks get more points than forwards, because they get recognised for the showy stuff, not the grunt work.
 
Having 2 judges should make the process more balanced. I.e, more players get points, and a poor choice by one judge is offset somewhat by the second.

People also have to understand that different people take different things from a game of footy.

That Dogs game is a perfect example of one where no one really stood out for an obvious 3 points. So from there, people will weigh things differently depending on how they see the game.

I think people get way too carried away with the judging results. It is what it is. The system calls for an individual to watch the game and give a 3-2-1 score. It’s not going to be flawless.

I don’t think this is the game to cry foul that one of Wighton or Murray did or didn’t get points compared to someone else. I rate their performances equal with a bunch of other guys on the field. Hence the spread in points.
 
Pplspoet said:
Having 2 judges should make the process more balanced. I.e, more players get points, and a poor choice by one judge is offset somewhat by the second.

People also have to understand that different people take different things from a game of footy.

That Dogs game is a perfect example of one where no one really stood out for an obvious 3 points. So from there, people will weigh things differently depending on how they see the game.

I think people get way too carried away with the judging results. It is what it is. The system calls for an individual to watch the game and give a 3-2-1 score. It’s not going to be flawless.

I don’t think this is the game to cry foul that one of Wighton or Murray did or didn’t get points compared to someone else. I rate their performances equal with a bunch of other guys on the field. Hence the spread in points.
Click to expand...
That wasn’t the point I was making.

1. I think having 2 people judging a game leads to more distortions than having 1 judge.

2. There should be some guidelines/criteria for judging performance. When I do my 3/2/1 - I look for players that have gone “above and beyond” their role / have influenced the outcome of the game.
E.g. Murray is a consistent 7 out of 10 performer each week. And then turns in a 8 or 9 out of 10 - which is when I give him points.
Similarly Latrell doesn’t get points for me often, as I think he does his job (pretty well) but doesn’t often bust out of that “bubble”.

But others will judge differently to me, and that’s absolutely right. But it’s a bit annoying when you have such disparity in judging. Some guidelines would help I reckon.

But then it could spark even more debate.
 
Prowsey said:
But then it could spark even more debate.
Click to expand...
This.

Dally M is like the reffing. Just accept its flawed, and always will be flawed, and enjoy the process. :)

You’re not gonna create a perfect system for something like this.
 
Dogs fans still sooking cos wighton wasn't penalised for his tackle because two other players got binned and suspended for it
 
Sonic Star said:
Dogs fans still sooking cos wighton wasn't penalised for his tackle because two other players got binned and suspended for it
Click to expand...
To be fair, they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed
 
Taaffe ran for 121m on the weekend from 19 hitups. That's 6m per run. At fullback where you have the most space.

He did one nice chip for a try but was his otherwise normal self - enthusiastic but completely ineffectual.

No idea how that means Dally M points.
 
Sonic Star said:
Dogs fans still sooking cos wighton wasn't penalised for his tackle because two other players got binned and suspended for it
Click to expand...
Mayes of mine who go for other teams as well carrying on that Wighton was very very lucky.

For mine it wasn’t a hip drop
 
Kempy said:
The maximum for a player is now 6 points. You answered your own question there. Although it also could have been Jack or Cam that got the 2 and 1.

Just purely guessing here how it went.

3 points to Cam and Jack
2 points to Keaon and Taaffe
1 point to Keaon and Tracey
Click to expand...
I would think it’s more likely that two judges gave Cam points, so swap him for Keaon.
 
Last edited:
In regards to the Wighton “hip drop,” I believe he would have been in trouble IF he landed on Preston’s legs.

But he didn’t. So it’s not a hip drop. End of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top