Mega Thread Port Forum 'General AFL Talk' Thread Part 2

[FPPF]

People stop complaining if it was a Port player retroactively getting a Brownlow you'd all be 100% behind it as it's the right thing.

 

[NEGAN]

Just read the Essendon board.

Anyone feel sorry for the supporters, Jobe or the club?






.....





Nope neither do I

 

[Portia]

Honestly giving Jobe's Brownlow to Cotchin is fantastic fodder for baiting Essendon fans forever

 

[JimmyBeerCans]

Not sure I wanna live on a planet where Trent fecking Cotchin has a Brownlow & Tredrea n' Gray don't

 

[LFC2010]

The number 1 thing that pissed me off the most about the Watson brownlow thing is that media outlets keep on going with how he handed the medal back on his own accord and what a great person he is for doing so... umm We all know the AFL work. There is no way in hell he was ever going to hand the medal back on his own accord, if he did, it would've been done once the guilty verdicts were handed down by CAS.

 

[tribey]

People stop complaining if it was a Port player retroactively getting a Brownlow you'd all be 100% behind it as it's the right thing.

Yeah, not all of us are biased bathwater-sipping douchenozzles.

 

[Eddie Dingle]

People stop complaining if it was a Port player retroactively getting a Brownlow you'd all be 100% behind it as it's the right thing.

Nah, it's tainted.

It may even be cursed.

 

[tribey]

The theory is the same as any other suspended player. They aren't meeting 'fairest' part of b&f, so they are ignored from final tallies.

There's no "oh if then" recalculation done when some bloke is suspended for a week. same thing here

Congrats Cotchin & Mitchell

He wasn't suspended/rendered ineligible because he whacked a bloke, sat out a week and was good to go from there on.

He was retrospectively suspended/rendered ineligible because he (and his relevant teammates) fell afoul of the WADA code and essentially should not have played the entire season.

 

[Lockhart Road]

No.

No. No. No. No. No.

This isn't the Olympics where Cotchell physically came second to the drug cheat, a la Carl Lewis and Ben Johnson at Seoul '88. It's that there are so many variables that go into the relevant Essendon players' votes being expunged.

If the logic is that Jobe and friends' votes are ostensibly erased/invalidated and everyone else moves up a place on the leaderboard, this logically should extend to matches where Jobe received votes. 2 votes become 3, 1 vote becomes 2. What of the 4th best afield who is now effectively 3rd best, etc. Except we can't do that because reviewing performances would be incredibly subjective/arbitrary, like that retrospective Norm Smith thing that never grew legs a few years ago.

Just vacate the award like Bush's Heisman and the Storm's premierships. That Brownlow is just as tainted and should disappear into the ether.

Concur.
Watson wasn't the 'fairest' and neither Mitchell nor Cotchin were 'best'.
Null and void.

 

[ozph1870]

Ok now can I go back and collect on the bet I made on Mitchell winning.. campaigners..

 

[Pappagallo]

Concur.
Watson wasn't the 'fairest' and neither Mitchell nor Cotchin were 'best'.
Null and void.

Harvey wasn't the best in 1997 either.

I really don't see the issue with it. Ineligible players receive votes every single year, even after they become ineligible. This talk of completely expunging the Essendon votes is just nonsense.

 

[manureid]

Should have just expunged Essendon.

 

[Visenfest]

The AFL really should've put a dash or 'N/A' in the 2012 Brownlow winner's column.

 

[edgie]

Playing in finals, and maybe even winning one, is not a criteria for the Brownlow.

At least we can be comforted by the knowledge that Cotchin will never win a Merv.

To an extent it does as it shows competence in a good team. Also please don't deny me any angle of argument that Trent is the worst winner ever!



Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk

 

[Jason K]

Am I the only one who couldn't give a * who the Umpires favourite or 2nd favourite player is?

 

[edgie]

Should umpires not vote for players after they've received a suspension and are ineligible? A bloke is suspended in round two, it doesn't make a lot of sense that he continues to be considered for votes for an award he can't win.

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk

 

[edgie]

Also in 2012 Richmond won the Coleman and the Brownlow.

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk

 

[tribey]

Harvey wasn't the best in 1997 either.

I really don't see the issue with it. Ineligible players receive votes every single year, even after they become ineligible. This talk of completely expunging the Essendon votes is just nonsense.

They're still eligible to play in those games for which they're not suspended for and sit out those they're not.

The winner played an entire season where he was retrospectively ineligible to play.

 

[tribey]

Should umpires not vote for players after they've received a suspension and are ineligible? A bloke is suspended in round two, it doesn't make a lot of sense that he continues to be considered for votes for an award he can't win.

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk

It's a quirk, but it makes sense. If he's eligible to play in a given game and is best on ground, he should be recognised as such.

That nutshot back in Round 4 means he can't actually win it though.

Apologies for repeating myself, but Jobe played in games he effectively shouldn't have.

 

[Contested Marx]

I think we all agree that the brownlow means nothing and always will*








*until a Ports (Power) player wins it.

 

[Portia]

Nah, it's tainted.

It may even be cursed.

Its going to Cotchin

And its being awarded to Sam Mitchell right after he's at a new club, so Hawthorn get nothing out of it.

As curses go

 

[Pappagallo]

They're still eligible to play in those games for which they're not suspended for and sit out those they're not.

The winner played an entire season where he was retrospectively ineligible to play.

I don't even think this is quite right either.

Jobe and the other players have been deemed ineligible for the award due to the fairness criteria. The only time they have been deemed ineligible to play was the 2016 suspensions.

They still played the games in 2012 and that is recognised in the record books (even after being DQ'd from the finals).

 

[Contested Marx]

Also has he handed back his Crichton and who does that drop to?

 

[tribey]

I don't even think this is quite right either.

Jobe and the other players have been deemed ineligible for the award due to the fairness criteria. The only time they have been deemed ineligible to play was the 2016 suspensions.

They still played the games in 2012 and that is recognised in the record books (even after being DQ'd from the finals).

But the variables affecting the result of the award means it is sufficiently tainted to vacate it wholesale, which is what would have happened if they'd have won the flag.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Also has he handed back his Crichton and who does that drop to?

Ha, didn't even think of that. Zaharakis?