Should a suspension rule a player ineligible for the Rising Star award?

[BEEG]

Who gives a flying **** what the NBA does?

It's just one of the many examples I could use for sports that don't have such stupid backwards rules in regards to awards.

 

[_Mike_]

Yes…

That’s the basis of the award best and FAIREST.

 

[_Mike_]

In light of Harley Reid's possible suspension. Should the Rising Star award be a "fairest" award like the Browlow Medal?

We dont penalise the Coleman medal Etc..

The Coleman medal holds little weight in comparison to the Charlie and Rising Star, and it’s clearly articulated as to the criteria of the award.

Which isn’t the leading and fairest goal kicker

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Short answer: no they shouldn't change the existing rules to clear a path for Reid to win the award.

Longer answer: it ought to be all or nothing. Either you're ineligible if found guilty of any act by the MRO/tribunal (not 'only if you get suspended'), or you remain eligible, regardless of your MRO record.

Corey McKernan

Corey Mckernan

Age

52

Ht

197cm

Wt

105kg

Pos.

F/R

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.7

3star

K

9.0

3star

HB

3.7

3star

M

5.1

5star

T

0.7

3star

G

1.3

5star

No current season stats available

D

9.2

3star

K

5.6

3star

HB

3.6

3star

M

4.2

4star

T

1.0

3star

G

1.2

4star

and Scott Camporeale

Scott Camporeale

Age

50

Ht

180cm

Wt

80kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

20.9

5star

K

14.9

5star

HB

6.0

4star

M

3.0

3star

T

1.9

4star

No current season stats available

D

16.0

4star

K

11.4

4star

HB

4.6

4star

M

2.8

3star

T

2.0

4star

have already missed out on Rising Stars due to a suspension, not like it's unprecedented.

 

[3207]

So do Dusty Martin, Toby Greene and Corey McKernan get retrospective medals if you change the rules?

FTFY

 

[3207]

Short answer: no they shouldn't change the existing rules to clear a path for Reid to win the award.

Longer answer: it ought to be all or nothing. Either you're ineligible if found guilty of any act by the MRO/tribunal (not 'only if you get suspended'), or you remain eligible, regardless of your MRO record.

Corey McKernan, Toby Greene and Scott Camporeale have already missed out on Rising Stars due to a suspension, not like it's unprecedented.

FTFY

 

[3207]

Was totally unaware that this was the case. Seems ridiculous to be ruled ineligible.

Ask Toby Greene.

 

[3207]

Not that either would happen, but McKernan has more of a claim since he actually received the most votes but wasn't awarded the medal due to suspension. In Martin's year they didn't vote for him at all as a result of being ineligible so you couldn't restrospectively hand him the award.

Same as Toby Greene in 2012

 

[Acinath]

I posted in another thread that it's a really simple fix. You have two suspension types, intentional acts and careless acts.

If you're suspended for an intentional act, you are ineligible. If you are suspended for a careless act, you're eligible.

Make it this way for the brownlow as well and we won't have a situation where someone loses a brownlow because of a tackle.

Such a simple yet effective solution. I can’t see the AFL going for this.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

FTFY

My recollection is that McKernan and Camporeale actually did poll the most votes in the early years of the award but were ineligible to win due to their suspensions, similar to McKernan for the 1996 Brownlow. The voting system had changed by 2012, so Greene didn't poll the most votes that year.

 

[Kappa]

I posted in another thread that it's a really simple fix. You have two suspension types, intentional acts and careless acts.

If you're suspended for an intentional act, you are ineligible. If you are suspended for a careless act, you're eligible.

Make it this way for the brownlow as well and we won't have a situation where someone loses a brownlow because of a tackle.

Yep, the awards become a farce if the top few players are rubbed out because they tackled too hard.

A punch to the face however, yeah sure, make them ineligible.

 

[Madas]

If it’s Harley Reid then yes , and throw in 2 extra weeks for dissent education and umpire appreciation

 

[3207]

My recollection is that McKernan and Camporeale actually did poll the most votes in the early years of the award but were ineligible to win due to their suspensions, similar to McKernan for the 1996 Brownlow. The voting system had changed by 2012, so Greene didn't poll the most votes that year.

Didn’t get any votes. Because of one of the lost innocuous bumps on a player to result in a suspension.

And he was an odds on favourite to win it at the time of his suspension.

So very similar to Dusty in that regard

 

[hoss]

If it’s Harley Reid then yes , and throw in 2 extra weeks for dissent education and umpire appreciation

And an anger management course for good measure.

On Pixel 7 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[kreuze_missile]

The "fairest" component of these awards was established in an era where you had to punch someone in the face to get a week. Most people suspended in this era were due to committing "non-football acts" that were well outside spirit of the game.

Then the AFL started suspending people for bumps, which were previously not even paid as free kicks.

And then the AFL banned saying certain bad words, when sledging was a key part of working over your direct opponent.

And now the AFL is banning players for tough tackles.

I'm not arguing against the rule changes. I've evolved my thinking with the times.

But when you change certain rules in isolation and don't consider the full impact, the result is the best young player in the country won't win a prestigious award because of a tackle.

Wake up to yourself AFL and fix this immediately.

 

[Foxx]

The "fairest" component of these awards was established in an era where you had to punch someone in the face to get a week. Most people suspended in this era were due to committing "non-football acts" that were well outside spirit of the game.

Then the AFL started suspending people for bumps, which were previously not even paid as free kicks.

And then the AFL banned saying certain bad words, when sledging was a key part of working over your direct opponent.

And now the AFL is banning players for tough tackles.

I'm not arguing against the rule changes. I've evolved my thinking with the times.

But when you change certain rules in isolation and don't consider the full impact, the result is the best young player in the country won't win a prestigious award because of a tackle.

Wake up to yourself AFL and fix this immediately.

This ^. 100% agree.

 

[Madas]

The "fairest" component of these awards was established in an era where you had to punch someone in the face to get a week. Most people suspended in this era were due to committing "non-football acts" that were well outside spirit of the game.

Then the AFL started suspending people for bumps, which were previously not even paid as free kicks.

And then the AFL banned saying certain bad words, when sledging was a key part of working over your direct opponent.

And now the AFL is banning players for tough tackles.

I'm not arguing against the rule changes. I've evolved my thinking with the times.

But when you change certain rules in isolation and don't consider the full impact, the result is the best young player in the country won't win a prestigious award because of a tackle.

Wake up to yourself AFL and fix this immediately.

So it would be like letting a young
drug smuggler off when he gets caught just because he is really good at what he does ?

No , let him face the music and pull his head in ( I’m not talking about the tackle in isolation here either , if you watch his games he thinks he’s pretty bloody special and let’s the umps know it )
Getting a rep as a ducker as well which isn’t a good look .

Kid is getting way ahead of himself with all the smoke being blown up his ass

 

[Matera92]

I posted in another thread that it's a really simple fix. You have two suspension types, intentional acts and careless acts.

If you're suspended for an intentional act, you are ineligible. If you are suspended for a careless act, you're eligible.

Make it this way for the brownlow as well and we won't have a situation where someone loses a brownlow because of a tackle.

That's far too much common sense for the mouth breathers at AFL house to work out.

 

[Obeanie1]

Sam Darcy very lucky to only cop 2.

Harley Reid should get 2.

Should they be ineligible for the Rising Star? - No, they should absolutely still be in the running, imo.

And same goes for the Brownlow Medal. Suspension shouldn't rule you out of contention.

With the AFL going stupid on suspensions for so called dangerous tackles and bumps that go slightly wrong we about to enter an era where some above average players will be winning major awards.

We all know AFL House has protected Browlow favourites and eventual winners late in the season. Cripps the most recent.

Also played favourites with prelim reports.

But just watch as more and more gun players miss out because of the AFL's over reaction because directors are frightened of litigation.

Won't just be Darcy and Harley missing out because the bar has been lowered significantly for suspensions.

Jjlust another AFL House example of dumb management leading to the game being worse off.

Look forward to Kane and friends talking about a player missing the Browlow because of a run down tackle where the player tackled flops to get a free.

 

[Obeanie1]

So it would be like letting a young
drug smuggler off when he gets caught just because he is really good at what he does ?

No , let him face the music and pull his head in ( I’m not talking about the tackle in isolation here either , if you watch his games he thinks he’s pretty bloody special and let’s the umps know it )
Getting a rep as a ducker as well which isn’t a good look .

Kid is getting way ahead of himself with all the smoke being blown up his ass

Your jealousy here is quite obvious.

Still not over the Derby thrashing.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I don't think suspension should rule a player out of the RS. It's not a best and fairest.
He's not going to be less of a future star because of one bad tackle.
I also think 2 weeks is a bit harsh.

 

[Madas]

Your jealousy here is quite obvious.

Still not over the Derby thrashing.

So you disagree with the logic ?

 

[Spearman]

Totally agree with the above suggestions about grades of suspensions, or taking 'fairest' out of the descriptions. Thereby admitting their rule changes have resulted in players getting suspended at the drop of a hat.

But it must be done in the offseason, not as face-saving exercise for a special case or for the 'look' at the award ceremony. Be professional in that at least.

 

[Obeanie1]

So you disagree with the logic ?

Stupid logic.

Go listen to the media discussing it. Cory McKernan missed out because the AFL rules at the time gave tripping a week off. A year later they changed their minds and made a 50m penalty.

A split second decision during a game is nothing like premeditated drug dealing. Rules change every year, then they are reversed because AFL House got it wrong (again). Plenty of players have won awards in the past who have done much worse and deliberately. Patrick Cripps won a Brownlow after a dog act that should have got weeks as dangerous play. Maynard ended a players career but was let off because it was a prelim and the AFL didn't have the stomach to charge him with rough conduct and weaseled their way out of upsetting Eddie and 100,000 Pies supporters.

The balanced view has been posted by neutrals. Split the MRP decisions into deliberate or careless with the latest list of soft suspensions being defined as careless and you remain eligible for awards. Common sense.

One thing for sure the betting companies will love this. Favorites for awards with big dollars placed on them get rubbed out by pretty soft suspensions. Laughing all the way to the bank. Betting on awards these days won't be worth it until the season is done. I don't bet BTW but plenty do.

 

[kreuze_missile]

So it would be like letting a young
drug smuggler off when he gets caught just because he is really good at what he does ?

I must have missed Harley Reid's drug conviction