One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: Dougeytherichmondfan on May 10, 2016, 11:48:42 AM
-
Just did a little research and thought I'd love a few OER opinions on this one.
So Treloar was eventually traded for two first rounders (Coll also got a second rounder in return which they took Brayden Sier with, hasn't played a game as yet).
Here are the pick 7/5 from successive drafts from the last 12 years. Would you rather Treloar or these duos?
Jordan Lewis & Pendlebury (04/05)
Patty Ryder & Boak (05/06)
Selwood & Jarrod Grant (06/07) (was shattered with this one. Got excited when Selwood was taken at 7 then peanut Grant stuffed it up. Would still take Selwood though.)
Palmer & Hurley (07/08)
Rich & Cunnington (08/09)
Brad Sheppard & Polec (09/10)
Caddy & Buntine (10/11)
Nick Haynes & Stringer (11/12)
Wines & Kolodjashnij (12/13)
Aish & De Goey (13/14)
Ahern & Parish (14/15)
In my opinion, I'd probably take Treloar over most of the individuals but I would take most of the couplings over Treloar. Who are the winners of the trade at this stage, would we have paid overs if we traded Rioli and our first pick this year?
Order of draft selections viewed using afl.com.au webarchive via wikipedia.org on the 10/05/2016 at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100401053105/http://www.afl.com.au/portals/0/afl_docs/development/draft/national_draft/national_draft_2004.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20100401053105/http://www.afl.com.au/portals/0/afl_docs/development/draft/national_draft/national_draft_2005.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20100401053105/http://www.afl.com.au/portals/0/afl_docs/development/draft/national_draft/national_draft_2006.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20100401053105/http://www.afl.com.au/portals/0/afl_docs/development/draft/national_draft/national_draft_2007.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20100401053105/http://www.afl.com.au/portals/0/afl_docs/development/draft/national_draft/national_draft_2008.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20100401053105/http://www.afl.com.au/portals/0/afl_docs/development/draft/national_draft/national_draft_2009.pdf
The subsequent draft orders were viewed via wikipedia.org without any citation, however can be found archived at www.theage.com.au, www.heraldsun.com.au and other various Melbourne based media outlets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_AFL_draft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_AFL_draft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_AFL_draft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_AFL_draft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_AFL_draft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_AFL_draft
-
I would say choosing Colonwood over a Richmond is the opposite to failure.
-
Trelor
-
WAR CHEST
-
Trelor
Just change th sentiment to that colonwood prick..
-
Is it too muchto ask for people to supply an appropriate link for info they get off other sites :banghead :banghead
You've admitted you've researched something, how hard can it be to post a link to show where this research came from :huh
-
Wow ...
-
Yeah gotta keep all those copyright lawyers at bay....because websites apparently now own established facts....
-
Yeah gotta keep all those copyright lawyers at bay....because websites apparently now own established facts....
can we get a source on that
-
what if the info came from this site?
-
WP would have to sue himself....
-
WP would have to sue himself....
No i'd ue the poster who didn't supply the link for causing mental anguish
-
WAR CHEST
Provide link to the person who coined the term please.
-
Is it too muchto ask for people to supply an appropriate link for info they get off other sites :banghead :banghead
You've admitted you've researched something, how hard can it be to post a link to show where this research came from :huh
WP you cant be serious. Im not quoting anyone or paraphrasing any ideas. This is freely available information that leaves no one liable in any way shape or form. Relton Roberts MIGHT sue you for claiming something regarding his off field situation which isnt true, but he has no legal recourse if you claim he was rookie drafted at pick 48 when in fact he was drafted at 38.
Ill edit the post giving to according facts which I referred to other sites to clarify. Much of that info I knew anyway.
-
WP you cant be serious. Im not quoting anyone or paraphrasing any ideas. This is freely available information that leaves no one liable in any way shape or form. Relton Roberts MIGHT sue you for claiming something regarding his off field situation which isnt true, but he has no legal recourse if you claim he was rookie drafted at pick 48 when in fact he was drafted at 38.
Ill edit the post giving to according facts which I referred to other sites to clarify. Much of that info I knew anyway.
I am very serious, i dont know why people continue to make an issue and mock me about it.
Did you or did you not take some of the info from other areas? You said yourself you "researched" so that means you need to provide soem sort of reference to that
BTW Tne rule has been place since this forum started 12 years ago
Refer
:
2. Plagiarism: will not and cannot be allowed. If you are posting threads that are direct copies from other sites (eg Real Footy, RFC website etc) and this includes other unofficial sites you must quote the source/link. Also, we request that if you use information from this site as discussion topics on other forums that you quote OER as the source and post the appropriate link. Due to legal requirements failure to quote the correct source/link will result in the post being either edited if we can locate the source or removed. Before resorting to removing any post we will endeavour to contact the original OER poster to get them to edit their post. If we are unable to do that OER will endeavour to find the source and edit the post.
From:
http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum/index.php?topic=13.msg541405#new
Surely it isnt diffiucult to mention that you got the info from AFL.com or wikipedia.com or wherever.
Usimg your post as example
"Just did a little reserach via AFL.com and footywire.com and thought I'd love few OER opinions..."
NB: edit from http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum/index.php?topic=24333.msg549556#msg549556
-
Right, and as its MY research and they are MY ideas, I owe no individual or body any recognition. I have not plagiarised or paraphrased anyone. Facts are facts until they are contested.
-
wp its 'open information'
the draft order has been available on tv, radio, newspapers
it doesnt require a source as its factual
ie. deledio was a pick 1
i dont have to source afl.com.au as my claim is true ...
-
Dougeytheacademic should know all about referencing common mate!
-
Right, and as its MY research and they are MY ideas, I owe no individual or body any recognition. I have not plagiarised or paraphrased anyone. Facts are facts until they are contested.
So you are saying off the top off your head you knew all of those draft picks?
You said you did some research, research means you went and looked at references to get information. You then used that researched info to give a view
If you took information from another source it should be referenced accordingly
Unless or are you now saying you didn't do that and you knew all this data without any assistance from other sources
-
wp its 'open information'
the draft order has been available on tv, radio, newspapers
it doesnt require a source as its factual
ie. deledio was a pick 1
i dont have to source afl.com.au as my claim is true ...
That all depends if you had to look it up or if you just pulled it straight out of your head.
I'd say you'd need to think back to where you first seen or heard he was pick 1 and quote the source you seen or heard it from prior to memorizing it!
-
i think we should be concerned with the things people post that they pull straight out their arse, rather than if they pulled it out of their head or from another site.
-
Right, and as its MY research and they are MY ideas, I owe no individual or body any recognition. I have not plagiarised or paraphrased anyone. Facts are facts until they are contested.
So you are saying off the top off your head you knew all of those draft picks?
You said you did some research, research means you went and looked at references to get information. You then used that researched info to give a view
If you took information from another source it should be referenced accordingly
Unless or are you now saying you didn't do that and you knew all this data without any assistance from other sources
I referred to what is categorically "common knowledge". It is reasonable to assume that during any draft it was publically broadcast, that information mediums (ie newspapers, radio) enabled the average punter free access to such information.
Within academia an auther is not expected to source facts which may be reasonably assumed as "common knowledge". Which is to say, I would not have to source any fact accepted. If people wish to contest something Ive posted, by all means.
Its common knowledge that players in the afl are drafted, that draft results are broadcast publically and that this information is easily attainable on any number of sources.
If this were not the case, simple statements become exhaustingly laborious. Imagine having to quote a peer reviewed source simply to preface that the sky is blue, or afl footballers are professional athletes.
Which relates largely to any liabilty. Who could potentially make a claim for restitution if I make the statement that Jarrod Grant was taken with pick 5 in the 07 draft?
-
wp its 'open information'
the draft order has been available on tv, radio, newspapers
it doesnt require a source as its factual
ie. deledio was a pick 1
i dont have to source afl.com.au as my claim is true ...
That all depends if you had to look it up or if you just pulled it straight out of your head.
I'd say you'd need to think back to where you first seen or heard he was pick 1 and quote the source you seen or heard it from prior to memorizing it!
Refer to Douglas
-
I referred to what is categorically "common knowledge". It is reasonable to assume that during any draft it was publically broadcast, that information mediums (ie newspapers, radio) enabled the average punter free access to such information.
Within academia an auther is not expected to source facts which may be reasonably assumed as "common knowledge". Which is to say, I would not have to source any fact accepted. If people wish to contest something Ive posted, by all means.
Its common knowledge that players in the afl are drafted, that draft results are broadcast publically and that this information is easily attainable on any number of sources.
If this were not the case, simple statements become exhaustingly laborious. Imagine having to quote a peer reviewed source simply to preface that the sky is blue, or afl footballers are professional athletes.
Which relates largely to any liabilty. Who could potentially make a claim for restitution if I make the statement that Jarrod Grant was taken with pick 5 in the 07 draft?
All well and good but you didn't list 1 player you listed 22 players over a 12 year period, so did you or did you not get that information from somewhere?
Yes it is easily found and yes it is common knowledge that all AFL players are drafted but to reproduce it such detail like you have means you sourced it from somewhere which should be IMHO be noted
But I get that you are refusing to do so
-
At that was the end of the thread
-
Nobody will sue OER.
It ain't happening.
They know if they did, it would be the best publicity they could give the joint.
This is not homocide or national security stuff.
-
At that was the end of the thread
Woulda been great if a few people might have actually lent their opinions on the topic. I suppose Im as much to blame as anyone.
-
At that was the end of the thread
Woulda been great if a few people might have actually lent their opinions on the topic. I suppose Im as much to blame as anyone.
I've already made my point.
The other thing is Wikipedia should not have to be posted as a link as it doesn't tell us who the author is all the time. People can go on the site and add information including false information without verifying who they really are. So it is pointless having to have a link to them. It gets a bit ridiculous when events that have happened under our own eyes cannot be stated without a link. That information also does not belong to one author unless it is an opinion piece. Stating facts as they happened is not an opinion and so there is no ownership of the information.
If I amwrong then when is it necessary to post a link ? I can tell you Hodge was number 1 pick in the 2001 draft followed by Ball and the Judd. If I could remember the next 3 in order is that OK or would I need to put a link in? And if I don't and can remember the first 20 because I have a good memory, what do I do then?
That is why I think that this information has no ownership as it is factual. When a report is made that is about events that are not freely seen by all and is laced with opinion, then that clearly must be quoted and linked.
That is my ever so humble opinion....... ;D
-
Hawthorn have won the last three premierships
Source : The Herald Sun
The Sun will rise tomorrow
Source : NASA
Farts smell
Source : The Great Australian Nose Society
-
I referred to what is categorically "common knowledge". It is reasonable to assume that during any draft it was publically broadcast, that information mediums (ie newspapers, radio) enabled the average punter free access to such information.
Within academia an auther is not expected to source facts which may be reasonably assumed as "common knowledge". Which is to say, I would not have to source any fact accepted. If people wish to contest something Ive posted, by all means.
Its common knowledge that players in the afl are drafted, that draft results are broadcast publically and that this information is easily attainable on any number of sources.
If this were not the case, simple statements become exhaustingly laborious. Imagine having to quote a peer reviewed source simply to preface that the sky is blue, or afl footballers are professional athletes.
Which relates largely to any liabilty. Who could potentially make a claim for restitution if I make the statement that Jarrod Grant was taken with pick 5 in the 07 draft?
All well and good but you didn't list 1 player you listed 22 players over a 12 year period, so did you or did you not get that information from somewhere?
Yes it is easily found and yes it is common knowledge that all AFL players are drafted but to reproduce it such detail like you have means you sourced it from somewhere which should be IMHO be noted
But I get that you are refusing to do so
I reckon it's common knowledge that most of our picks have been stuffed up in the past 30 years
-
I referred to what is categorically "common knowledge". It is reasonable to assume that during any draft it was publically broadcast, that information mediums (ie newspapers, radio) enabled the average punter free access to such information.
Within academia an auther is not expected to source facts which may be reasonably assumed as "common knowledge". Which is to say, I would not have to source any fact accepted. If people wish to contest something Ive posted, by all means.
Its common knowledge that players in the afl are drafted, that draft results are broadcast publically and that this information is easily attainable on any number of sources.
If this were not the case, simple statements become exhaustingly laborious. Imagine having to quote a peer reviewed source simply to preface that the sky is blue, or afl footballers are professional athletes.
Which relates largely to any liabilty. Who could potentially make a claim for restitution if I make the statement that Jarrod Grant was taken with pick 5 in the 07 draft?
All well and good but you didn't list 1 player you listed 22 players over a 12 year period, so did you or did you not get that information from somewhere?
Yes it is easily found and yes it is common knowledge that all AFL players are drafted but to reproduce it such detail like you have means you sourced it from somewhere which should be IMHO be noted
But I get that you are refusing to do so
I reckon it's common knowledge that most of our picks have been stuffed up in the past 30 years
And in Hardwick's time, not only stuffed up but failed to develop any of the possibles into decent footballers.
-
I referred to what is categorically "common knowledge". It is reasonable to assume that during any draft it was publically broadcast, that information mediums (ie newspapers, radio) enabled the average punter free access to such information.
Within academia an auther is not expected to source facts which may be reasonably assumed as "common knowledge". Which is to say, I would not have to source any fact accepted. If people wish to contest something Ive posted, by all means.
Its common knowledge that players in the afl are drafted, that draft results are broadcast publically and that this information is easily attainable on any number of sources.
If this were not the case, simple statements become exhaustingly laborious. Imagine having to quote a peer reviewed source simply to preface that the sky is blue, or afl footballers are professional athletes.
Which relates largely to any liabilty. Who could potentially make a claim for restitution if I make the statement that Jarrod Grant was taken with pick 5 in the 07 draft?
All well and good but you didn't list 1 player you listed 22 players over a 12 year period, so did you or did you not get that information from somewhere?
Yes it is easily found and yes it is common knowledge that all AFL players are drafted but to reproduce it such detail like you have means you sourced it from somewhere which should be IMHO be noted
But I get that you are refusing to do so
I reckon it's common knowledge that most of our picks have been stuffed up in the past 30 years
And in Hardwick's time, not only stuffed up but failed to develop any of the possibles into decent footballers.
You think our dodgy development has only happened during Dimmas era? :lol
-
Certainly not...but kudos to his regime for continuing the tradition.... :gotigers