- In general, a Player judged to have played the best individual game of the round to be the basis of the weekly nomination.
- When several players are judged to have played at a reasonably similar level, previous rounds / year to date performances are then taken into account.
- The priority is to have the best performed 23 players nominated by the end of the season for consideration for the overall award. Therefore, in later rounds, year-to-date performances will be allocated increasing weight relative to performances in the round.
That's about what I thought except for the last bit. Seems pretty rational to me, stand out game, if there's not one of them then take a look at what else they have done as a tiebreaker.
The last section is interesting, I guess that is about rewarding someone like Gibcus who is having a great season for a young bloke but is a bit of a plodder in terms of impacting games. Again that seems fair enough.
Last round, Hobbs OK I suppose. Body of work? Not even close to JG. Last round JG down by his standards but those are high and he was still solid, as good as Hobbs. So 2 players, both play solid games, 1 has the superior body of work, plays a harder posi in a much stronger side, but the other gets the nod. Farce.
Think you are overstating how much difference there is in their seasons Tigersnake. When you compare the two there isn't a lot between them in terms of what they have produced over the season. Think your both playing 'solid' games is also inaccurate, Hobbs has played a much better game than Gibcus last week.