The Forgotten Norm Smith Medallist: How Jason Gram could still win the award, years after retirement
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ส.ค. 2020
- 🥇 Not too many people would be able to tell you that two players polled an equal amount of Norm Smith Medal votes in the 2009 AFL Grand Final classic between St Kilda and Geelong, and that Paul Chapman's victory was due to a countback. The countback system was once commonplace in sporting competition awards, but has been removed from the Brownlow Medal for nearly 40 years. In this video, I argue that League administrators should now apply those same principles to the Norm Smith Medal, and present a retrospective medal to Jason Gram.
🙏 If you like these historical videos, let me know what you wanna see more of!
✴️ Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. No copyright infringement intended. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS - กีฬา
A couple of people seem to be missing the point of the video. I address this very argument at 10:05. It matters very little how people judge Gram's effectiveness in hindsight. It could've been anyone. It's more about the fact that the countback rule needs to go. The Gram situation is just an example.
So, there are no other examples of players in previous grand finals being tied for votes on the Norm Smith and denied the medal because of the countback system?
@@xalstarx Hi AJ, Nope, this is the only one! We only have detailed judge-by-judge voting from around 2002 onwards though, so if a countback did happen prior, we just aren't privy to it.
Ryan O Keefe won on countback in 2012
Mitchell Heard Was it Dan Hannebery who missed out due to the countback?
@@mitchellheard8981 O'Keefe won on 12 votes with Brad Sewell second on 7 votes. Chapman's win is the only known case of a countback occurring.
Give him a medal....And I'm a Geelong supporter who was at that Grand Final..... Jason Gram did stand out that game!
@Brendan Johnson • You are a fanastic, good sport. I agree, Norm Smith medals for both Paul Chapman ( Geelong ) AND Jason Gram ( St Kilda ) !!! The 2009 Grand Final was one of the best Grand Finals I have seen, two great teams that year ! A very tough Grand Final, full of star players !
@@Code_breaker_ I was just happy to have won the Grand Final. As a Cats supporter the last dozen years have been fantastic for us. I know what it's like to sit at a grand final and watch your team lose.....It's awful!!!
@@brendanjohnson4448 Cheers.
MUFC Soccer is the most overrated ‘sport’ in the world and is played by overpaid flops that dive, fake injuries and pretend they’ve been shot just to get free kicks and get opponents carded < Aussie rules football is a real man’s sport and is Australia’s indigenous game that has always been and always will be Australia’s number 1 sport. By 2060, soccer will continue to be AFL’s bitch and the laughingstock of sport in the country
@@trainco1643 You are 100% right ! ! ! Don't forget all of soccer's mindless games where nobody kicks a goal ( Nil - all draws ) , and all those useless games where it is a 1 goal to 1 goal draw ! And then there's the long extra time , hoping someone will score , and avoid the draw . It's like having your teeth pulled ! Soccer is the lowest scoring game in the world . Hey , everybody , let's go and watch a draw ! If we are lucky , it will be Nil-all or 1 goal each ! Maybe we can have 3 hours of extra time ! Let's make the goal scoring square smaller , and have 2 goalkeepers ! Cool !
I had Rooke/Gram for first goal/norm smith double at 800-1. I was devastated when the votes were released.....
I’m a saints fan. And I never knew this. Great video
Really enjoyed this one! plenty of little rules I never knew existed. In agreement that this should he addressed sooner rather than later
Great channel. I subscribe.
You guys should do a colab
Jason Gram goes down in the history books with one of the biggest kicks ever. I've never been so excited to see a man punt a ball so hard in my life.
Couldn’t agree more mate, great work!
Amazing clip and breakdown
So i just watched the entire match again and took stats lf every player that received a vote from the 5 judges and broke down who I thought was the best 3 players from each quarter. Very interesting watching the game over.
1st - hayes, bartel, chapman
Hayes clearly best and most impact, chapman started well first half of first quarter then went unsighted, bartel killed it from half way to end of first quarter.
2nd - Corey, Gram, taylor
Chapman hurt early missed 2nd half of 2nd quarter, gram lifted but corey i felt had most impact from any player. Taylor was a shock in 3rd but clearly nullified reidwoldt.
3rd - Gram, chapman, reidwold
Gram smashed this quarter, best on ground, chapman 2nd and reidwoldt had big impact early and chipped in late, taylor was 4th for me and nearly could take 3rd but in their head to head battle reidwoldt won the quarter so he went ahead.
4th - chapman, corey, taylor
This is where I was shocked in the end. Chapma clearly best on ground this quarter and most impact, joel corey.... I dont know why but I never realised how much he and taylor impacted this game! Taylor xlear 3rd and reidwoldt had zero impact in the final quarter. Gram also had few touches but none had impact where chapman almost every touch was a critical one.
So putting it together chapman was a deserving winner, gram and corey were next in que followed by taylor.
Before watching this i thought whately was high giving taylor 3 votes but after watching it over i can see why.
Joel Corey was underrated in this game by a mile, only 1 vote from 1 judge? bartel was ok but 2 votes? Dont think so, 1 good quarter isnt a whole game. Milburn and Rooke did not have enough impact all game to get 2 votes each. Rooke did good in 1st and last that was it, milburn....no just no.
Finally ablett probably did enough to get his 2 x 1 votes, he had just enough impact to warrant those votes but thats it.
Grams problem looking back was his first and last quarter wernt as damaging as his 2nd and 3rd and from his almost 30 touches, I'd say 15 to 20 were good the other 10 were not really where almost everything chapman did was effective.
So for me.
1st Chapman
2nd Gram
3rd Corey
4th Taylor
That was fun. Going to do the same thing for the 2017 grand final next to see if Martin truly was deserving or if houli was robbed.
Very well done, you should be on a panel, in fact maybe even the chairman.
Super effort and a great break down of all important possessions of the players and impact on the game,, as 30 touches may sound good going on numbers, but if half or more are clangers , then it becomes a poor performance and one could almost say a hindrance to the end result.
Again well done.
@doriankeating1963 thanks for the kind words, I love footy so studying it isn't hard to do.
Coming back to this post all this time later I actually did do the same with the 2017 grand final as people always say houli was robbed by Martin and despite houli being the best in the 1st quarter, Martin was better over the 4 quarters.
@@devilwarr1or agreed , and giving credit where it's due should be the norm! You put a fair effort into the analysis, unbias , thorough so again well done and thx .
Great video, loved this!
love this sorta stuff, really intriguing for me. keep up the good work!
I think the countback system actually makes perfect sense here. Let's go back to basics and say every panel member only had one vote to give out. Chapman wins 3-1.
Hope you enjoy this one and it uncovers a few secrets of the voting process for you! Also, it goes without saying, but I in no way condone any of the actions that Gram was convicted for when he exited the League, and I address that as a reason why the AFL may have avoided a retrospective medal. I just found this particular anomaly quite interesting and unfair, regardless of who it is.
Great video Gibbsy, really well done!
So good you made this! I love seeing NBA stories on this typa stuff and seeing it for the AFL...oooft
hopefully we're just getting started! thanks bro!
Great information thanks mate
This is a brilliant video
I am all for the retrospective medals for all the tied ones throughout the history of the league..
Great video
I'm just writing to let you know, i have printscreened the votes part of the video and will be rewatching the grand final to compare.
Before I do I remember gram and Chapman being good and rooke doing a few things but I honestly don't recall Corey, ablett, bartel and Taylor doing that much and I recall milburn giving away a goal just on half time.
Will check back in a few days with my thoughts after watching it again.
Very interesting video
this is quality
Wow, so I have one more reason to dislike John Worsefold ahaha. Well it’s another one of those systems with kind of a dubious way of deciding the whole “there can only be one” format of an award. I think it’s because it’s the BOG award that’s the reason why it only has ever had one winner. Which is fair enough until 2 players tie in the voting of course. So woosha would have just thought that because: Chapman kicked 3 goals including the sealer and the cats won the game, then the award should be just given to Chapman even though the votes tied. Of course I’m bias as a saints fan who had a horrible time that day and I just want something else as a consolation for losing. But still, I agree with all points in this video that it’s an incredibly dubious system when 2 people tie and one is just instantly deemed the winner, just coz yeno, “3 goals and Geelong player.....”
You are wrong. Worsfold gave his 3 votes to Chapman as did Buckley and Dunstall. The count back system gave Chapman the medal as he had 3 votes from 3/5 judges. Worsfold did not decide to give the medal to Chapman because the votes were tied; he only affected the outcome by casting his votes accordingly and the system in place decided its winner.
I was there and thought he played pretty well, if he had kicked that goal in the 4th he may have got it.
Still hurts as a Saints fan that day.
So first up, great video, and really interesting.
But I have to disagree - you can't have 2 best on grounds, and the comparison to the Brownlow having 2 league Best and Fairests isn't accurate or fair.
You genuinely have to choose 1 or the other to have a Best on Ground in one specific game. Unlike the Norm Smith, the Brownlow is a collation of round by round for one final result. All these rounds of each player are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE from the other rounds by each of the other players (potential multiple winners). Players are only competing against each other for votes in the games that they play against each other.
The Norm Smith, being for one specific game, means that a players performance is in direct competition with another players performance. Its why we dont't have multiple 3 vote getters during the year.
However, the countback system should be removed.
The best scenario is the 5 panelists cast their votes. A chairman that has already cast votes cannot be a tie-breaker. In the example, its obvious that Chapman would have won in a tie-breaker. A 6th panelist would need to have cast votes at the same time, but only counted in the case of a tie-breaker needed. If no tie-breaker, those votes are destroyed. This 6th panelist could also be the umpires (similar to the Brownlow). 3-2-1 for panelists, 5-4-3-2-1 for the secret 6th, and no chairman required.
Love this comment and thanks so much for the feedback! It's probably the most reasoned discussion I've read so far, and although it disagrees with the hypothesis of the video, it also makes great sense!
I guess I'm not a massive fan of countbacks overall because they seem archaic, but your solution also works too. The 'mutually exclusive' thing is a great point, and I probably glossed over that, but the fact that (for instance) two Glendinning Medals were awarded in the one game in 2018 proved to me that you sort of can have two best-on-grounds. I guess the argument is, if something is subjective, can it still be equal? Obviously stats are objective and are equal, but now we start talking about ranking opinions, etc.
It's a really interesting discussion topic and I'm glad this video raised it for you. Hope to see you in the comments section for some more vids soon. Cheers!
I agree, I think the whole point of a brownlow or norm Smith medal is that one player was better than all the rest. The reason the 2010 grand final draw caused so much uproar was because fans did not leave the ground with a winner, they had to come back next week and then find one. The same applies here. One of these two players was better than the other that day, it was just harder to decide which one it was
This was absolutely heartbreaking! Knowing Jason from primary school, both barracking for the Saints, (quiet but popular and very talented in any sport he persued), would have tore him to pieces, as it did us fans.
I am all for one winner- that is the aim of the sport, that's why these blokes put their heart and soul into being the best- in turn recieving polling votes. He recieved 9, no one scored 10. It's in black and white.
The AFL wouldn't have given it a second though, yet would in my opinion have a lasting effect on Jason as it still brings sorrow thinking about it now.
If Chapman was half a man he would've made a stand, but instead ran off with it knowing he got away with it by the skin of his nose..
Left foot snap *
Akermanis, has kicked... A goal
Great video. Pity we didn't see the toepoke again though !!
Cheers, yeah in hindsight I probably should've let the clip run through!
@@extraverse There is one other quirk re the 2009 GF. The only time in the last 35 years that the team leading at 3/4 time did not win !!
The countback system was wrong to begin with in my view, as why should a player that is less consistent be viewed higher than one that is more often seen in the best three players on the field? Nice video though, I wasn’t aware that Gram polled the same number votes as Chapman that day.
Background music used? Great video by the way, I think the people dismissing your video’s point are absolute garbage
Great video and I understand your message, but I very much subscribe to the one winner system. I feel that you can’t have two best on grounds, you can’t have two best players through the season, Coleman is a bit different because of how measurable it is and to be frank I don’t have a solution to that as much as I want to see one winner if it’s tied. Perhaps the votes need to be 54321 or an extra few judges be on the panel for norm smith medals. A count back is rough to lose to so how about we further reduce the possibility of there even being one while also making it as clear as possible what happens in the even of one
Great comment Lachlan, I actually wouldn't be against there only being one winner so long as the countback system was abolished and the league found a way to make it so a countback wasn't necessary. There were a couple of other good suggestions in the comments, like having a sixth judge whose opinion only comes in in the case of a tiebreaker. I wonder if we'll see any change. Thanks for watching!
@@extraverse I see the logic behind a 6th judge, but is that any different from the one currently tiebreaking? Maybe we need more judges, maybe another countback style such as disposals ect (although that’s a mess to figure out in itself). I think we really need to minimise the possibility of a tie, while at the same time making it incredibly clear what the countback protocol is
The WAFL Grand Final has produced two ties for their Simpson Medal. In 1974, Gary Gibellini of East Fremantle and David Pretty of Perth shared the medal. In 1981, Gary Shaw of Claremont and Maurice Rioli of South Fremantle did it. It can be done.
Absolutely it can be done. On a lesser scale, there were two Glendinning Medallists in 2018 too!
Saints could've potentially had 3 Norm Smith's from 2 seasons
How do you only have 2.4k subs
That's what I'm trying to figure out 😅 Nah in all seriousness I only started the video essay series about 3 weeks ago and I've gained around 350 subs in that time, so it looks like people are enjoying it! I'd love to get to 5k by the end of the year if I can keep pushing out videos every week or two 😃
extraverse do you think Matt Rowell can still win the rising star if not who wins it?
@@randomgaming7603 Hey mate, I would love if he could but I just don't think it's possible from only 5 games. There's every chance Max King could win his club's goalkicking tally in his very first season, so I'd love to see him get up. Caleb Serong has been super and is deserved fav with the bookies, but I think Noah Anderson is probably on top for mine simply due to having played every match this year. It's gonna be close that's for sure :)
Imagine if he'd kicked that goal, would be a different story I reckon
Its irrelevant to the video, but how do 3 judges give Chapman best on ground, yet 2 of them don't even have him in the votes. Makes no sense.
Cast their votes at 3/4 time maybe.
Worst day of my life. Not angry about losing to that Cats team. Gram did not deserve the norm smith AT ALL. Chappy was easily #1
I’m a cat supporter and I didn’t know that Gram Tied with a Chapman on the day so I reckon he should get a medal as well
Most 3 votes get the award for the Norm Smith Medal if it’s a tie.
If it’s still a tie then the Chairman’s 3 votes player is awarded the Norm Smith Medal.
How's the handball from Riewoldt 2:04
Slick handball out the back
If that was the rule at the time then Chapman wins it, regardless if the rule gets changed in the future.
Although I think Chappy should've won it when the players have the same votes they should go to the player from Winning team or why not even give two medals
Because sometimes there is a clear best on ground player and is on the losing team.
Chris Judd in 2005 grand final was the best player on the ground by a mile and it was right that he won it even though they lost.
Also that 1 game from ablett when he was at gold Coast and they played the pies and he got over 50 touches and they lost by over 10 goals. He got 3 votes even though they losr and got smashed he was again very clearly the best player on the ground that day.
I agree if there are 2 good players from either team in a close match that winning should weigh a little more to that player, there should still need to be that opportunity for a great player in a bad team loss to win it.
I don't know. I'm a "there can only be one" kind of guy. The system is dubious sure, in favour of scrapping it for a better one. I'd be in favour of giving it to the player on the team that won, that's fair imo. Not sure about what to do if two players from the same team win though. Perhaps just get all the judges to vote again between just the tied players.
It's a tough call, that's for sure. At least they fixed up the 'early voting' thing that might have cost Michael Voss a Norm Smith. I'm a Pies fan and I still think Bucks was super influential on GF Day 2002, but you can't award a medal after three and a half quarters, particularly when the final quarter essentially decides the game
What if two players play equally well? Your stance makes zero stance. The medal shouldn’t go to just one player if two are equally deserving of it. This is simple logic people, it’s not hard.
@@chiefchimp4377 What you're saying makes no sense. No 2 players can play equally well in a game of footy, no matter how hard it is to judge there will always be a Best on Ground.
Please explain how two players can’t play equally well. So you are saying 9 doesn’t equal 9. I’m the only one making sense here.
@@chiefchimp4377 You can't judge a players performance with just numbers. In the real world every on-field performance is different and its value can be subjected to infinite variables. To say that 2 players objectively played equally as well is moronic. You can say subjectively that you reckon 2 players played equally well. That doesn't make it fact.
Why does it say i'm on x1 playback speed this x2 at least
I'm working on slowing down my speech.
@@extraverse dw man i just put it on x0.75, excellent vid!
Right foot snap? Check again ;)
This is what happens when I write scripts after midnight. Thanks ;)
No point having 30 touches when your direct opponent has 26 and kicks 3 goals and wins the game for the oppositions
You missed the point dumbass. He polled the same amount of votes as the winner....hard to understand?
@@silverchair5169 you've missed the point. He had very litte impact on the game even though he had a lot of possessions. Chapman deserved it more than he did. He lost.....get over it.....dumbarse
Not one of the judges thought Gram was best on ground. It would be a bad joke for Gram to have received the medal.
Cough Gerald Healy cough
@@doylersafl8728 yeah you're right. Not sure what I was thinking 8 months ago.
@@johnmarc1986 it's alright haha, we all do that sometimes
I guess back then the said only winning team get the norm
Not always
Beating the saints felt soo good that year
Lots of white boots !
I still can't believe that Jason Gram ( St Kilda player. ) did NOT get a Norm Smith, even though he got the same amount of votes ( 9 ) as Paul Chapman ( Geelong. ) . The "Count-back" system is a joke !!!!!!! St Kilda's Jason Gram was robbed !!!!!!!!
Now explain to me how JJ got the gong in 2016 instead of Tom Boyd. While you’re at it tell me how Gerard Whately got a vote.
Boyd would've been my pick too. Judges are drawn to high possession getters, flashy sorta players. JJ's efficiency by foot was poor, but he still would've been in the top 5 players on the ground. Could have mounted a very strong argument for Josh Kennedy in a losing side too.
@@extraverse - Liam Picken right up there too tbh. A workhorse medal :)
@@debuthunter5389 Agree. Loved his screamer and goals!
Buckley hates st Kilda
Buckley eats poop for breakfast.
He didn’t win because the saints didn’t win
“Every kiddie gets a prize,” is your basic argument, very Millennial. Stop being woke and just accept that Chapman won it, the dude was juiced up to eye balls, as was the whole Geelong team.
Whateley shouldn't be voting!
Interesting comment put forward by a couple of people. Is it because he's a Geelong supporter? Or because he never played the game at the highest level?
A totally meaningless video. Yes they were tied and count back at the time declared Chapman won it. Can't use the arguement about what would have happened if this or if that as it didn't happen. If the count back does change for awarding the Normal Smith it will never be award retrospective, as it would need to be rewarded for every best on ground in Ground Final through history even pre 1978.
No more meaningless than videos prophesying over match results 'what ifs' etc. And there is form in awarding a retrospective medal, I mention that in the back half of the video. Let's not forget that these are just for a bit of fun! 😃 Have a great day Rod
Paul Chapman was clearly BOG, 3 goals in a low scoring game was the match winner.. Gram getting that number of votes was a joke, how did that even happen, he wasn't in the best 4 on the ground. Chapman, Selwood, Taylor, Rooke all played better roles for Geelong.
You sound like a one-eyed Geelong fan!
Harry Taylor was robbed, destroyed Reiwoldt
Meh. It was years ago. And they lost.
Granted, but a tie will almost certainly happen again one day and I think it’ll cause Gram’s year to at least be revisited, regardless of how old it is. They handed retrospective Brownlows to guys 69 years after the fact.
Who cares, the Saints are a terrible club, always will be
*this video was made by someone who has never played a competitive game of football in his life. There is no way someone who's lost a GF wants a medal to remember it by. Team sport. And on the other side of the coin....if St Kilda won.... Gram would be happy with the premiership medal. Individual awards are for selfish people. Nathan buckley openly admits to swapping his norm smith for a premiership medal*
Define competitive? I still play local footy on the weekends and have done since I was 11 years old. Sure, there's every chance Gram doesn't care. But from a statistical/historical point of view... I'd like to see it. And a lot of people on here agree.
9:02 - Completely Wrong. Extra Time is not fair tie breaker. Playing the match again is fairer, and a better spectacle, and its tradition, with is a forbidden word in modern sport.
Lach Lach true
Mate I couldn't disagree more...I felt so empty when they replayed Collingwood v St Kilda. The extra time is definitely fair, as both teams have to slog it out - it doesn't benefit one or the other.
@@modano182That's stupid, it's a grand final, but people are dissatisfied with draws, they want fast food football.
Timmy what about if it’s a draw, a two week break to recover then go again ?
@@lachlach3449 I dont think requesting extra time to settle the score on the day is fast food football. I dont want to "americanise" our game either, but I think a short extra time after a drawn GF is the best way to do it rather than rescheduling the whole thing again...it just doesnt make a lot of sense logistically. Understand if you disagree, but it's just my opinion.
Keep dreaming sainters. Maybe you can go back and stop the toe poke aswell?