by BenchedEagle » Mon May 21, 2007 5:51 pm
by mighty_tiger_79 » Mon May 21, 2007 6:16 pm
by Dutchy » Mon May 21, 2007 6:30 pm
by BenchedEagle » Mon May 21, 2007 6:47 pm
by rod_rooster » Mon May 21, 2007 6:58 pm
by RustyCage » Mon May 21, 2007 7:23 pm
rod_rooster wrote:Regardless of who the player is if they miss out on the Brownlow medal for an incident like that it is a disgrace. Same scenario as Brett Kirk but he gets away with it because of his previously good record. Kerr gets 3 weeks (reduced to 2 with an early plea) because of a poor record. He is being punished more harshly this season because of what he has done previously. Fair enough maybe but the Brownlow is handed out for on field performance and fairness for just the one season. It does not take into account a previous record yet a previous record can mean that you can't win it. Makes no sense.
Just imagine if Player X tops the Brownlow by 10 votes from Player Y but is ineligible because of an incident that occurred during the season yet Player Y who committed exactly the same infringement gets awarded the medal. Over the course of the 2007 season both players were equally fair but Player X clearly more brilliant yet Player Y wins. Only in the AFL
by heater31 » Mon May 21, 2007 7:56 pm
lizbeff eaglez wrote:I was sorta hopin it would work like a horse gettin scratched???? Oh crap. Next year ill do my research. hahaha
by BenchedEagle » Mon May 21, 2007 8:35 pm
good point. Doh!!heater31 wrote:lizbeff eaglez wrote:I was sorta hopin it would work like a horse gettin scratched???? Oh crap. Next year ill do my research. hahaha
well the race has already started so you should have never expected your money back because he had begun the race
by Hondo » Mon May 21, 2007 9:33 pm
rod_rooster wrote:Just imagine if Player X tops the Brownlow by 10 votes from Player Y but is ineligible because of an incident that occurred during the season yet Player Y who committed exactly the same infringement gets awarded the medal. Over the course of the 2007 season both players were equally fair but Player X clearly more brilliant yet Player Y wins. Only in the AFL
by Dutchy » Mon May 21, 2007 9:52 pm
by Psyber » Mon May 21, 2007 10:58 pm
hondo71 wrote:...Another question is what is the point of a suspended player getting votes in future games after he comes back? He can't win it so why not give the votes to guys who can? I'm not saying they should do that, just raising another anomoly. ....
by rod_rooster » Mon May 21, 2007 11:03 pm
Psyber wrote:hondo71 wrote:...Another question is what is the point of a suspended player getting votes in future games after he comes back? He can't win it so why not give the votes to guys who can? I'm not saying they should do that, just raising another anomoly. ....
It might help his future behaviour to see that he would have won if he had not transgressed! It also makes the point to other players.
The fairest bit is important - it is not for "the best player who got away with it".
by rod_rooster » Mon May 21, 2007 11:05 pm
by Psyber » Mon May 21, 2007 11:09 pm
rod_rooster wrote:Psyber wrote:hondo71 wrote:...Another question is what is the point of a suspended player getting votes in future games after he comes back? He can't win it so why not give the votes to guys who can? I'm not saying they should do that, just raising another anomoly. ....
It might help his future behaviour to see that he would have won if he had not transgressed! It also makes the point to other players.
The fairest bit is important - it is not for "the best player who got away with it".
The fairest bit is important but it is the fairest over the course of that particular season. Past indiscretions could have one player suspended for the same incident that a player with a better record over previous seasons isn't suspended for. Having one eligible and the other not seems absurd to me.
by redden whites » Mon May 21, 2007 11:15 pm
rod_rooster wrote:A long way off yet anyway but does anyone on here think what Kerr did was that bad as to make him ineligible for the Brownlow? Look back at Chris Grant missing out in 1997. That was a disgrace and this would be as well.
by rod_rooster » Mon May 21, 2007 11:19 pm
redden whites wrote:rod_rooster wrote:A long way off yet anyway but does anyone on here think what Kerr did was that bad as to make him ineligible for the Brownlow? Look back at Chris Grant missing out in 1997. That was a disgrace and this would be as well.
Chris Grant whollped Nick Holland when beaten to a marking contest .Not sure I understand the tragedy there.
by Stumps » Mon May 28, 2007 7:15 pm
by Dutchy » Mon May 28, 2007 10:10 pm
Stumps wrote:Is Brent Harvey still eligible for the Brownlow? I heard hes got done for something
Im nervous ...
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |