Brownlow Medal

[Punk Rooster]

Ok, given the AFL's hysteria about making contact with the head, should we alter the rules on what constitutes "Fairest"?
Previously, it has been declared that should a player be found guilty of an offence, other than time wasting, & recieved matches, he couldn;t win "Charlie".
Should it now be the case of once a certain level of points is reached, you are in-eligible?
It just seems silly to me that Franklin, by taking the guilty plea, guarantees a game for himself next week, but forfeits his right to potentially win the Brownlow- an award soon to be given as a "last man standing" award...

[Psyber]

Ok, given the AFL's hysteria about making contact with the head, should we alter the rules on what constitutes "Fairest"?
Previously, it has been declared that should a player be found guilty of an offence, other than time wasting, & recieved matches, he couldn;t win "Charlie".
Should it now be the case of once a certain level of points is reached, you are in-eligible?
It just seems silly to me that Franklin, by taking the guilty plea, guarantees a game for himself next week, but forfeits his right to potentially win the Brownlow- an award soon to be given as a "last man standing" award...

Perhaps nobody really values the Brownlow anymore for its original purpose, because they don't value the fairness with skill it was designed to encourage. It seems to be more valued for the glamour and publicity it generates, than for the original values. Is it time to replace it with a "Most Effective" award and include the body count in the points system?

[Hondo]

It just seems silly to me that Franklin, by taking the guilty plea, guarantees a game for himself next week, but forfeits his right to potentially win the Brownlow- an award soon to be given as a "last man standing" award...

The reprimand is still a penalty Punky. He only gets the reprimand option because of his previous good record, otherwise under the old system he would have gone to the tribunal and got a game probably - and been ineligible anyway.

Plus, if you remove the fairest criteria now do we go back and issue Brownlows to anyone who only missed because of a suspension? Such as Chris Grant? What about club B&F awards?

Having said that, I agree it looks like he is trading Brownlow eligibility for playing next week and no club is going to let their star player take the first option. The media have a role to play in this because every time they cover this story they bring up the Brownlow issue. If it was Robert Shirley we wouldn't even think about it.

[Punk Rooster]

my point is Honda, that when the points system came in, change was made.
Plea bargaining doesn't = guilt

[Aerie]

You just hope the person with the most votes on the night is eligible, because if another Chris Grant situation came about we'd never hear the end of it. If a player doesn't get suspended for a game, I reckon he should be eligible. Not many of these hits have been really dangerous or thuggish enough to say a player isn't playing the game "fairly" IMO.

[Hondo]

It's the thin edge of the wedge

First we allow reprimands - then 1 game per season is OK - where do we stop?

IMO either scrap the fairest part of the equation or leave it as is - don't try to put a tolerance level in it will create more dramas than we think we have now

[Punk Rooster]

but given we've become more precious in interpreting what's reportable, this is where we should be relaxing the criteria slightly.
Call it the "Goodes Clause" & it will get rushed through quicker than a Politician's pay rise!

[Punk Rooster]

Juddy must be reading SAFooty...

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 12,00.html

[JK]

I agree with Punky/Juddy ... TBH I always have, even back in the dark days

[Goldberg]

I understand the AFL's duty of care when it comes to head high contact, but lets really examine this. In 150 years of elite football, how many life threatening injuries have really happened due to high contact. The answer is 1!!!! 3 years ago when Blake Carasella coped that bump, in (i know this is going to sound harsh) what was partially his own fault through ducking his head at an on coming apponent, something that he used to do all the time to get around them, or earn a free kick! Now I'm not saying get rid of the new laws, but lets have a look at them. I say if you run past the footy to make contact & its high eg: Burton, then you must go. If the contact is in the play & its not an elbow, fore arm, or knee, then lets pay a free kick & get on with it

Buy the way: Get on Simon Black for the Brownlow

[Punk Rooster]

I understand the AFL's duty of care when it comes to head high contact, but lets really examine this. In 150 years of elite football, how many life threatening injuries have really happened due to high contact. The answer is 1!!!! 3 years ago when Blake Carasella coped that bump, in (i know this is going to sound harsh) what was partially his own fault through ducking his head at an on coming apponent, something that he used to do all the time to get around them, or earn a free kick! Now I'm not saying get rid of the new laws, but lets have a look at them. I say if you run past the footy to make contact & its high eg: Burton, then you must go. If the contact is in the play & its not an elbow, fore arm, or knee, then lets pay a free kick & get on with it

Buy the way: Get on Simon Black for the Brownlow

*cough* Neil Sachse *cough*

[Psyber]

my point is Honda, that when the points system came in, change was made.
Plea bargaining doesn't = guilt

It is a reduced penalty for a guilty plea. That is how Plea Bargaining works.

[Goldberg]

I understand the AFL's duty of care when it comes to head high contact, but lets really examine this. In 150 years of elite football, how many life threatening injuries have really happened due to high contact. The answer is 1!!!! 3 years ago when Blake Carasella coped that bump, in (i know this is going to sound harsh) what was partially his own fault through ducking his head at an on coming apponent, something that he used to do all the time to get around them, or earn a free kick! Now I'm not saying get rid of the new laws, but lets have a look at them. I say if you run past the footy to make contact & its high eg: Burton, then you must go. If the contact is in the play & its not an elbow, fore arm, or knee, then lets pay a free kick & get on with it

Buy the way: Get on Simon Black for the Brownlow

*cough* Neil Sachse *cough*

????????? Sorry Punky not following you ???????

[Punk Rooster]

Neil Sachse, while playing for Fitzroy, was rendered a Quadraplegic, as a result of a head-high bump. Neil was ex-North Adelaide (hopefully I have the rights "Sachse", as that all happened before my time)

[Goldberg]

Ok mate, well thats 2 in 150 years!!! I still think my point is valid dont you?? or not???

[Punk Rooster]

Ok mate, well thats 2 in 150 years!!! I still think my point is valid dont you?? or not???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Sasche

Yeah I think it is valid- it's what I'm suggesting in my original post.
I love seeing hard hits on players- most of the packaged videos they sell are of hard hits. Hits where blokes are knocked out or injured.

[Rik E Boy]

I must be the only football fan who just doesn't give a shit about the Brownlow Medal. I don't barrack for Jimmy Bartel or Paul Couch, I barrack for Geelong. If we hadn't made the Grand Final last year I would have been more stoked that Jimmy won it but at the time all I could think about was 'I hope this doesn't effect his performce come Saturday'.

Couldn't care less who wins it to be honest. However, if the new rules can prevent another Sasche incident, then that is something worthwhile. If Couchie handed in his 89 medal and the Catters got the 89 flag instead that would be just fine by me and I suspect, Paul Couch.

regards,

REB

[Hondo]

So, really, this is yet another debate about whether the game is going soft!

We don't think the penalties are justified so we want to modify the Brownlow medal criteria so that what WE think are acceptable incidents don't disqualify the player concerned. Um ... lads, I think it's the AFL that set the standards here, not us ... rightly or wrongly

It's easy to say the game is going soft so more players are getting rubbed out of contention. But every year I can remember in the last 25 years of me watching Magery and Brownlow medals there's always been a handful of players in the top 10 with a * against their name. ALWAYS. It's not new.

No matter how lenient or strict you make the penalties there will always be a % that will slip over whatever line is set - and I bet that % hasn't changed much over the years.

Besides, if you modilfy the tolerances after all these years I think it calls into question all the previous Brownlow counts. As REB says, it's an individual award, not a team one and arguably it's more the punters who get fussed about players getting rubbed out. Anyway, it's based on a flawed 3-2-1 voting system so IMO there's other things to fix before this issue.

[JK]

Im certainly not trying to suggest the game is going soft, but in nearly every department it has undergone change to previous era's, and thats been pretty constant for quite some time now.

Since Trial by Video was introduced, it is now picking up infringements rightly or wrongly, that were being missed or dismissed in bygone days ... Getting reported repeatedly used to tag a player as being a bit of thug, now days if such a tag is placed it's generally along the lines of clumsy, tardy or over-zealous, lol but Im starting to digress.

I think the Medal probably needs to change with the times (although I've always been a believer personally that it should be an award for the "Most Brilliant" irrespective of the fairness aspect) as Punk has questioned.

I think we'd all agree with REB that there's daylight between a Premiership and any other achievement but I also think it's good that most, if not all sports, celebrate a players achievements across a season ... To that affect the NBA (I think) awards it's MVP (Brownlow equivalent) based on votes from opposition coaches, and I think we're starting to see a shift in the AFL for the award won by votes from peers starting to carry more weight, and rightly so imho.