Opinion Brownlow medal and suspensions

[Jimbos1]

Currently if a player is reported and suspended for 1 or more games he is ineligble for the brownlow medal, period.

Alternatively I think the votes that were awarded in the reported game (if any) should be excluded. For example if Fyfe got 2 votes on saturday, they dont count. Pretty simple. Additionally the player wont be recieving any votes for the following game/s as he is not playing (suspended). In my opinion "best and fairest" is still being upheld with this new set of guidelines. Look at a 1 match ban, this excludes 2 games towards the brownlow which is still a set back but not absolute.

Players can be "unfair"(crowley and ballantyne, cmon let keep it real) and still be eligible while others can be negligent and be excluded.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Purple Suit]

It should just be that negligent incidents don't exclude a player. Only reckless and intentional. Missing games just about rules them out anyway.

 

[Schauermann]

Don't mind the system.

The problem is player get suspended for laughable offences...

 

[Freo_4eva]

It should just be that negligent incidents don't exclude a player. Only reckless and intentional. Missing games just about rules them out anyway.

This.. pretty simple really. Although they probably wont change it until one of their favourites from over east is affected

 

[pavsbootlace]

snip...

Players can be "unfair"(crowley and ballantyne, cmon let keep it real) and still be eligible while others can be negligent and be excluded.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

What has Crowley done to be labelled unfair?

 

[ilikepotatoes]

Who gives a shit about the Brownlow? Other then on Brownlow night?

This could cost the team 8 points. That is more important.

Edit: like the idea though.

 

[Jimbos1]

What has Crowley done to be labelled unfair?

Shirt grabbing

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[estibador]

This.. pretty simple really. Although they probably wont change it until one of their favourites from over east is affected

They've already found a way around that - in those cases they deem that blood is proof of insufficient force to be reportable.

The corruption in this league really stinks to high heaven lately.

 

[estibador]

As I wrote in another thread - the fairest part of the best and fairest is a remnant of the days when you had to commit a genuine thug act in order to get suspended.

The problem is nowadays they're suspending perfectly fair ball players on all sorts of minor technicalities that change from week to week.

 

[PapaJ]

Posted in the main board, something like what the OP suggests should be done.

We need to keep in mind that the actual 'fairest' part of the thinking was born out of times when if you made the tribunal, you'd actually done something wrong - genuinely unsportsmanlike like even. In which case becoming ineligible makes sense. These days, you can get there for looking at someone the wrong way.

In any case, the Brownlow is a flawed award system anyway, so one more point of arbitrariness doesn't really make a big difference.


Edit: What Esti said, he beat me to it.

 

[pavsbootlace]

Shirt grabbing

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Huh? Shirt grabbing should prevent a bloke from winning the brownlow? Do you even footy?

 

[slicedndiced]

Shirt grabbing

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Oh that wicked sod.

Have you played much footy mate?

 

[Jimbos1]

Huh? Shirt grabbing should prevent a bloke from winning the brownlow? Do you even footy?

You havent read the whole thread have you? Youve taken it out of context, I didnt say that.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Jimbos1]

Oh that wicked sod.

Have you played much footy mate?

Derp, read the whole thread. Context is key.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[slicedndiced]

Derp, read the whole thread. Context is key.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Stick your derp.

You were asked a specific question about crowleys "unfair" play. That is a tactic used by probably 99% of players at some stage.

Shit thread.

 

[Jimbos1]

Stick your derp.

You were asked a specific question about crowleys "unfair" play. That is a tactic used by probably 99% of players at some stage.

Shit thread.

I was drawing a comparison between bumping someone and being negligent as oppose to intentionally grabbing a shirt. "Fair".

Please bro, chill out.

 

[scon]

Shirt grabbing

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

You havent read the whole thread have you? Youve taken it out of context, I didnt say that.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Derp, read the whole thread. Context is key.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[salim malik]

I was drawing a comparison between bumping someone and being negligent as oppose to intentionally grabbing a shirt. "Fair".

Please bro, chill out.

If you have a problem with Crowley the odds are you're not a genuine true purple supporter

 

[pavsbootlace]

If you have a problem with Crowley the odds are you're not a genuine true purple supporter

Either that, or he doesn't understand Australian footy.

 

[Jimbos1]

If you have a problem with Crowley the odds are you're not a genuine true purple supporter

I have a problem with crowley? Matey, Im just drawing comparisons between a bump and something intentional thats against the rules in relation to the word "fair". Its all good just chill.

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk

 

[Jimbos1]

Posted in the main board, something like what the OP suggests should be done.

We need to keep in mind that the actual 'fairest' part of the thinking was born out of times when if you made the tribunal, you'd actually done something wrong - genuinely unsportsmanlike like even. In which case becoming ineligible makes sense. These days, you can get there for looking at someone the wrong way.

In any case, the Brownlow is a flawed award system anyway, so one more point of arbitrariness doesn't really make a big difference.


Edit: What Esti said, he beat me to it.

Appreciate the input (y)

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk