There has been plenty of conjecture each year the Dally M award ceremony has been held, mainly surrounding the current process in which the NRL’s best and fairest player is chosen.
In its current format, the NRL has appointed a panel of judges comprised from 29 ex-players, selecting one of them for each match to assess the top three players in said match on a 3-2-1 point system.
A problem with this format is with one judge there may be bias towards certain teams and players seeing as the judge is an ex-NRL player. It is also arguably more difficult for individual players to consistently stand out in a strong side, particularly when you look at this year’s grand finalists in the Penrith Panthers and Melbourne Storm.
The ARL chairman Peter V’Landys has touted a possible change to the system which would direct judges to rate each player on the field between 1-10, with the player with the highest accumulated points at the conclusion of the regular season awarded the Dally M medal.
The rate-out-of-10 system is seen only as an opinion-based article for Test matches, state of origin and NRL finals, yet it definitely has a lot of merit to it if implemented as an official points-based ranking system.
But I propose an alternative that, although it may appear to be a minor change, will ensure a much fairer process.
The NRL should select a voting panel made up of around 15 ex-players, ex-coaches, ex-referees and journos involved with the NRL to ensure the spread of knowledge and experience in the game rather than limiting it to ex-players alone.
The new voting panel would then be assigned to each NRL game of each round, meaning all 15 judges must submit their 3-2-1 votes for every match. This is opposed to a single judge being selected for a single match every round or so as per the current system.
After each judge submits their votes, the scores are accumulated and the three highest-scoring players receive the 3-2-1 points respectively.
These minor tweaks to the Dally M point-adjudication system will likely mitigate any biases when the same 15-judge panel is scoring every match of the regular season, highlighting who the best three players on the field actually were during a match and ultimately the best and fairest for the season.
With the voting system being tweaked for the best and fairest, it is also fitting that the players scoring highest on the point tally be chosen for the Dally M starting XIII team of the year as well.
The move in 2020 to name the best starting XIII was a masterstroke from the NRL, although in future the player(s) scoring the highest points in their position on the Dally M tally should receive the award, unlike this year when Kotoni Staggs was named centre of the year and Isaah Yeo lock of the year when Zac Lomax and Jason Taumalolo received more points than them respectively.
(Ian Hitchcock/Getty Images)
Taking nothing away from this year’s deserved winners, I just believe that a player scoring the highest in their position should reflect that they are named the best for the year, and the tweaking of the voting system would back that.
Furthermore, to avoid the embarrassment of leaking and alleged corruption in the voting system, I believe it has become a necessity to make voting non-transparent to the public for the entire season.
So what say you, Roarers?
Do we keep the current system, tweak the current system or overhaul it as V’Landys suggested?
The Barry
Roar Guru
I guess we’re coming at this from different angles I don’t see anything about the Dally Ms or Wighton's win to suggest it’s unfair
Daniel John
Roar Pro
Yes. A panel of judges, whether 5/10/15, getting paid to judge every game every round would achieve a FAIRER result.
The Barry
Roar Guru
The current system is absolutely fine. Doesn’t mean I’m a “fan of it“ Do you think getting 15 judges x 8 games x 24 rounds will necessarily get a better result? Lots of extra expense for an award that mostly goes to the best player in the game as is? What if we’re not happy with that? Let’s get 100 judges, watching every game 10 times and giving every player a score between 0-100 Surely that’s even more accurate....
Daniel John
Roar Pro
Are you a fan of the current system or could you see improvements to it? I thought Cleary was going to get it too and the closeness in the contest shouldn’t have been a surprise, so I’m not knocking Wighton for winning, but Personally, tweaking it to multiple judges Or the PVL 1-10 system rather than one Judge would solve the stigma issue.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Most years the winner of both awards lines up but the RLPA award throws up some strange results too All your points are fine, I just don’t think it’s the massive problem requiring a massive re-think that has been claimed I would have nominated Cleary as my player of the year but not by a margin that Wighton is a shock It certainly wasn’t a Tedesco 19, Barba 12, Hayne 09 type of season
DJM
Roar Rookie
In my cricket umpiring career I was once asked to give 3 2 1 for a club’s player of the year award for a limited overs game where they had been bowled out for 35 and lost by 10 wickets. I asked the captain, ‘Can I give points to sundries?’
DJM
Roar Rookie
Well Cleary got nil points for those weeks which is probably what stopped him winning.
Dexter The Hamster
Roar Rookie
Sorry Ron, but you have that wrong. No player has ever been docked points for missing games through off field issues. Ever. Refer to Payne Haas as recently as last year.
Daniel John
Roar Pro
I agree with your comment Dexter, I am of the opinion that off-field suspensions should not hinder your Dally M tally.
Daniel John
Roar Pro
Hi TB, It isn’t necessarily the winner that the public are up in arms about - it’s usually the process in how it is done and the public perception that an ex NRL player judging the game doesn’t vote correctly. Best way to mitigate that stigma is to have multiple judges vote for one game whether it be rating each player 1-10 or 3-2-1. Another issue I highlighted is how they determine the best players in their position - the process is as clear as mud. The awards still seem to be media driven rather than NRL driven - despite the prestige of the award. ALTHOUGH the process for the RLPA award is completely player driven and determined by their votes, which has seemingly gained a lot of traction as the more sought after individual player award (as it is determined by 400 of their peers)
Daniel John
Roar Pro
Hi Paul, I actually am a fan of the 1-10 rating system as that example you provided is probably the best way to demonstrate a rating from player performance rather than forcing 3-2-1 voting for the “three best on the field”. Issue with that again would probably be the judging system - but it would no doubt be fairer than the current system. And the same 15 judges each game is a big ask - maybe 10 or 5 with different experiences in the game would be more plausible. Plus asking them to do this wouldnt be for free. Dream job would be to get paid to watch the footy hahaha.
Paul
Roar Guru
Daniel, I've got an issue and a question. My issue is, if we have a 3-2-1system,what happens if there genuinely is no-one good enough in a game to get the maximum votes. I recall a Penrith game this year against the Cowboys, which is probably one of the worst games of the season. Penrith got the points, but in the first half were dreadful and only marginally better after half-time. If we had a 1-10 system to judge each player, in this example probably no-one would score better than 5, but someone got exactly the same points as though they'd played a10out 10 game. My question about your suggestion is, how can all 15 judges award points if they don't watch every game? That's a big ask I'd have thought a better option is to have 5 guys offer points for each game and mix it up so they all get to judge all of the teams.
Ron Norton
Guest
So take the points back off Nathan Cleary ( as the NRL has done with all other players) and he 's no longer the red hot favourite to win. But hey, God help us if he's beaten by a Canberra or Parramatta player!!!
Dexter The Hamster
Roar Rookie
To be fair, the announcement to dock Cleary for his suspension was done in error. You only lose points for on-field suspensions, as was the case the previous year with Payne Haas. So to say the decision was reversed and he was lucky might be a tad unfair. Mind you, had he won, I'm sure there would have been some blow back on it.
Dan
Guest
There is the problem where teams with multiple high performing players canibalise points from their team mates. I'd argue Kayln Ponga didn't really deserve to finish as high as he did yet because he stood out in an otherwise average playing roster he didn't really have much competetion from his own team. It is balanced out though by the fact that the majority of points are allocated to the winning teams so the teams with a rounded roster get more opportunities to poll. The biggest problem I believe though is bias as almost every judge has a club loyalty or media agenda. I'd like to see the referees allocate the points
max power
Guest
the problem is that the 4th best player and the 34th best player of each game get the same amount of points. 0
max power
Guest
dont think it will cost much money
steve Evans
Guest
What we do locally is a respected member of the club picks his 3,2,1 each game(we try and not have the same person if possible) he puts the result in a sealed envelope the president is responsible for their security. On presentation night the envelopes are opened and tallied on a board. The result is not know untill the last envelope is opened. I
The Barry
Roar Guru
“There has been plenty of conjecture each year the Dally M award ceremony has been held“ Has there? If you look at the list of winners, most years the best player gets the Dally M This wasn’t a year with a standout best player and any of Wighton, Cleary or Gutherson would have been deserved winners Normally players who are suspended lose three points for each week of their suspension. A decision was made to reverse that for Cleary’s TikTok suspension so he was probably lucky to get as close as he did
Bigbill
Guest
Keep the current system. Nothing wrong about Jack Whiton. Spend the money developing grassroots or women’s footy or training referees better!