SA Footy

Given the talk of the medal possibly being ‘won’ by ineligible players tonight and thus being awarded to the player with the second or third highest tally I think it is important to look at the wording of the charter set by Mr Magarey over 100 years ago.

At our club our award is called ‘Club Champion’ others use ‘Best & Fairest’ or simply ‘Best’.

The medal is awarded for ‘Fairest and Most Brilliant’. It could be argued that sometimes the Best may not get the award due to this distinction.

If you are ineligible due to being suspended because you’ve been found guilty of an offence under the rules of the game you can’t be the Fairest.

Thus if the second or third highest tally gets the award then over the entire year that player is deemed to be the Fairest and Most Brilliant and should be seen as such and not as coming behind others.
(Sad as it is for those who by one silly act in one of 20 games become ineligible)

I think other awards such as the Budget Star Player and the Advertiser Player of the Year cover the ‘best player’.

I for one believe the tradition of the Medal and its format should never change.

Col D
Personal Post Only

Within a few years the Magarey Medal will become dwarfed by the juggernaut that is the SAFooty Player of the year award.

But I agree with your sentiments Col, perfectly summed up.

As a supporter, or even a club administrator, how much value do you place on the "fairness" of a player as opposed to the "brilliance" ... In most cases, I would have thought, the latter quality is far greater (as it's generally what wins you matches).

I know I'm in the minority here, but I've never seen the point in the "fairest" part, and whilst it still takes a great player to win the award, how do they feel knowing they ran 2nd or 3rd and won it, in some respects, by default?

In Claytons case I don't think (and very well could be wrong here) he didn't receive any suspension this year, yet can't take home the medal, seems odd to me.

I've never understood why a player is deemed ineligible for a whole season just for an act of weakness in one round.

I've always considered a player is only deemed to be "unfair" on the day of his offence, and therefore doesn't poll votes. He also cannot poll votes for any match he misses due to suspension, so that is further penalty.

Every other match he plays, he is deemed to be both "brilliant" and "fair" and can be awarded votes. So why then can't he win the medal if he polls the most votes? Like a lot of things in footy, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I'd never thought about it like that before AH, you make some fair points

I reckon the "fairest" and "most brilliant" aspect should be weighted some way. The "fairest" aspect holds way too much weight as one offence and you're ineligible. IMO "most brilliant" should hold more weight.

Perhaps instead of being ineligible completely for a guilty offence, votes are deducted depending on the severity of the offence.
Eg Reprimand, 1 vote deducted; 1 week, 2 votes deducted; etc etc

Player X has been found guilty at the tribunal and cops a reprimand and 1 magarey vote deduction.

I don't think removing the "fairest" component would remove the deterrant of receiving suspension ... In this day and age most players don't want to lose any match payments so that's automatically their incentive for not getting rubbed out (along with letting the team/club down yada yada).

As it is an across the league award and not the club award I like the difference of Fairest with all it implies being an important aspect. At club level Best is what it is about.

I also love the tradition of the medal and why Mr Magarey established it with the charter he set out.

Interesting points from others and thus makes for a good footy discussion. I'm the traditionalist with this one.

Col D

I was once told that either Mr Magarey or Mr Brownlow never in fact made any reference to the term "fairest" at all ... Could have been hogwash I don't know, perhaps one for our historians or Mr Spellch Eck

The whole point of the "fairest and most brilliant" tag was to make sure it was not won by thugs - even thugs who only lost control of their innate thuggery once a season!
The emphasis is then on football skill and talent, not GBH skills, as it should be. Mr Magarey got it right in trying to encourage players to learn and practice self-restraint.

Someone else can introduce a separate boxing or wrestling in footy trophy - the "Thug Medal" with matching brass knuckles perhaps?.

Mr Magaery certainly did as it was institued to recognise fair and brilliant players and to raise respect for officals and thus they would determine the award. Our medal the oldest such award in Australia - at least 30 years before the Brownlow Trophy introduced in the VFL.

Col D

cd - may I suggest "Determined to Shine in 2009!" for your signature now..

I have no issue with 'Fairest' still coming into it, but I wouldnt mind if it was taken out either.

I think it does play on umpires minds. I still remember Clayton in 06 having quite a considerable better year than he did in his Magarey winning 05, but couldnt get a vote to save himself because he was blasting the umpires week in week out.

The other point to it I guess is, who deems the umpires the best judges of player brilliance?

Adelaide Hawk wrote:I've always considered a player is only deemed to be "unfair" on the day of his offence, and therefore doesn't poll votes. He also cannot poll votes for any match he misses due to suspension, so that is further penalty.

I don't necessarily disagree with that, but it presupposes that the tribunal will actually hand out meaningful penalties for indiscretions. Something which doesn't happen that well in the SANFL.

I'm with cd, leave the system as it is and has always been. Though if it was changed, I figure Stephen Kernahan should be awarded a medal in retrospect

Pseudo wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:I've always considered a player is only deemed to be "unfair" on the day of his offence, and therefore doesn't poll votes. He also cannot poll votes for any match he misses due to suspension, so that is further penalty.

I don't necessarily disagree with that, but it presupposes that the tribunal will actually hand out meaningful penalties for indiscretions. Something which doesn't happen that well in the SANFL.

I'm with cd, leave the system as it is and has always been. Though if it was changed, I figure Stephen Kernahan should be awarded a medal in retrospect

And his partner in crime on that fateful' 83 day would receive his 3rd

Generally I agree with CD,

According to the history books the Magarey (the first such medal of its type in Aussie Rules Football) was awarded more to recognise fairness than brilliance.

Apparently in the 1890's the game was thuugery with a ball and it needed to be cleaned up. Having this award was part of the solution devised at the time.

For a while it was a year by year proposition to award one or not, it used to be done at the SAFA AGM, the first public presentation not done until 1929.

I guess the question is where is the line between breaking the rules (happens at least 40 times every game when a free kick is awarded) and an act of unfairness that makes on illegiable.

Currently in the SANFL it is being found guilty of an offence regardless of the penalty,

Hate to say it but I think the AFL has it right where you need to be suspended for a game to be inelligable, expecially given what constitues a guilty decision these days relative to the 1890's.

PhilH wrote:Hate to say it but I think the AFL has it right where you need to be suspended for a game to be inelligable, expecially given what constitues a guilty decision these days relative to the 1890's.

Thats not the case in the AFL though mate

I though that until you missed a match you were elligable for the Brownlow. They made the change about 3 years back. Something else for me to research this afternoon.

Pseudo wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:I've always considered a player is only deemed to be "unfair" on the day of his offence, and therefore doesn't poll votes. He also cannot poll votes for any match he misses due to suspension, so that is further penalty.

I don't necessarily disagree with that, but it presupposes that the tribunal will actually hand out meaningful penalties for indiscretions. Something which doesn't happen that well in the SANFL.

I'm with cd, leave the system as it is and has always been. Though if it was changed, I figure Stephen Kernahan should be awarded a medal in retrospect

Who has been the unluckiest player under the current system? My vote would be for Peter Darley in 1968 who missed the medal because he back-chatted the umpire, Ken Cunningham. KG said in retrospect he wouldn't have reported him for what he said. Nice one Ken.