Should suspended players remain eligible for the Brownlow Medal? | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Should suspended players remain eligible for the Brownlow Medal?

Should suspended players remain eligible for the Brownlow Medal?

  • Total voters
    52
  • Poll closed .
Tigers of Old

Tigers of Old

Tiger Legend
Jul 26, 2004
80,301
45,500
www.redbubble.com
Should suspended players remain eligible for the Brownlow Medal? The majority of AFL coaches believe they should.

Despite tradition of it being the best and fairest award I have changed my mind on this one and also say yes suspended players should remain eligible to win the most prestigious award.

2 reasons..

1) The AFL MRP and Tribunal hand down suspensions for the most innocuous of offences these days. No way known someone like Dipper would win it in this age.

2) Suspensions for unfair play make it harder for players to win the award anyway given that they don't receive votes for the games that they miss.

Would be a controversial change though and don't expect everyone to agree.

Discuss.. 8-
 
Yes and no. Agree that with the saturation of video coverage and the softening of our game a player is far more restricted in what he can get away with. I doubt any of the winners in the 80s and backwards would have been eligible if they had today's media coverage and rules.

But some reports should make a player ineligible. Deliberate king hit, intention to hurt, etc, should mean no Brownlow. But the problem with that is its a subjective call and as a result prone to misuse.

So a qualified Yes from me.
 
I don't like changing the traditions of the game. I do find the MRP decisions baffling and inconsistent but it is still a no for me
 
It's a no for me.

The Browlow is actually for the FAIREST & Best. As voted by the Umpires. Not the Best & Fairest as people keep saying.
So the first element to it is who the Umpies think has been the Fairest player the next element is the best player bit.

Imo if a player has been suspended he should not be eligible because he has been deemed at one time during the season NOT to have been a fair player.
We all remember instances like Chris Grant & Cory McKernan who were deemed ineligible due to suspension. But that is the way the rules for the Brownlow are written.

As far as I'm concerned, too many things are being changed in our once great game. If they keep going the way they are with rule changes & more umpires etc. etc. etc. we will soon be watching something more like basketball than "Aussie Rules"
The game is losing its unique character & I'm gradually losing my love for it. But maybe that's a subject for another thread.
 
No for me as well
Brownlow to me means the player that won was the best & fairest player.
The MRP panel is very lenient nowadays you almost have to charged :police: with aggravated assault to be suspended.
So if you get suspended you shouldnt be eligible
 
People often use the argument that the brownlow is a measure of 'best and fairest' (or fairest and best...I don't see how changing the order of these makes ones more important that the other) but this is flawed logic.

The 'fairness' part is measured by a dichotomous variable (suspended vs not suspended), so it is actually a measure of the "Best and Fair". This is no more valid than having a system where all players who have a shocker at some point in the season are disqualified and then players are given 3-2-1 votes each week based on their fairness.

IMO, players should loose 1 vote (or maybe 2 votes) for every game they are suspended. Then at least it would be a combined measure of Best and Fairest.
 
No for me.

There are plenty of other awards for the Best player (midfielder) - MVP, Coaches Award etc. IMO the MVP award voted by the players should be the most coveted award now.

As for the soft suspensions, I reckon change the bloody MRP/Tribunal system instead of changing the Brownlow criteria
 
Corey McKernan should definitely be given a brownlow. Wasn't he suspended for tripping by hand which is not even a reportable offence now.
 
Intentional hit - Ineligible.
Reckless hit - Eligible.

The suspension rule is outdated and needs to be changed IMO. Something lauded as good hard play 30 years ago can now get you 4 weeks suspension for the same offence today. The only difference between the two is era's.
 
They should have 3.

1. Best and Fairest
2. Just the best
3. Best drug cheat (or the Watson medal. )
 
Definitely a get from me. Being suspended doesn't necessarily mean you weren't fair. And who cares about "fairness"? Bloody Libba and Dipper won one!


Take "fairest" ioff the Brownlow requirement and just make it "best".
 
My 2c worth: Brownlow is the Best and Fairest in the league. Suspensions happen, doesn't mean you are not fair. If you are David Rhys Jones (or Ty Vickery) you aren't going to play enough games in a year to win the Brownlow. But if a player is suspended and still plays good enough footy to get more votes than another bloke who plays every game -he should be awarded the medal.
 
If we're gonna make changes, I reckon we go the whole 9 yards and award the Brownlow to the player with the highest ave. Supercoach score
 
the umpires like everyone dont put any consideration to the fairest, its fairest and best in name only,everyone umpires included gives votes to whoever they notice more, so fairest part is total *smile* and to think otherwise is to be in denial.
 
Yes from me. In soccer they give 'fair play' awards to teams that fouled the least in tournaments. Who cares? An insipid umpires/ref award.

The browlow is rubbish anyway. KB was streets ahead the best player in the comp in 73 and 74. Some of the best players ever in Matthews, Carey and Ablett senior hardly got close. Defenders are shafted.

I'd scrap the brownlow and introduce a hybrid coaches and a balanced expert panel with great ex forwards mids and defenders to vote round by round.

Maybe keep the brownlow on the fashion channel for the red carpet and giggles as WAGs try (mostly) in vain to exude class and sophistication.
 
lamb22 said:
Yes from me. In soccer they give 'fair play' awards to teams that fouled the least in tournaments. Who cares? An insipid umpires/ref award.

The browlow is rubbish anyway. KB was streets ahead the best player in the comp in 73 and 74. Some of the best players ever in Matthews, Carey and Ablett senior hardly got close. Defenders are shafted.

I'd scrap the brownlow and introduce a hybrid coaches and a balanced expert panel with great ex forwards mids and defenders to vote round by round.

Maybe keep the brownlow on the fashion channel for the red carpet and giggles as WAGs try (mostly) in vain to exude class and sophistication.
Click to expand...
Forwards are shafted too, lambo. In every award.
 
Not overly fussed, but I voted yes.

If you commit an offense worthy of being punished, your punishment is missing games. As stated in the first post, those missed games you can't get votes.

So if you play well in the games you're eligible to play in (that is, the games you are deemed 'fit for purpose' which includes being deemed fair enough to play), then you can get votes.

If you've been deemed 'unfit for purpose' (ie, including being unfair), then you can't get votes for the duration of time that you've been deemed unfit for purpose. That is how it currently stands, BUT...

If you are also ineligible for the B&F on top of being sat out for a time (also how it currently stands), it's a double punishment.

Eg1
A player goes to block and accidentally knocks a bloke's head and he get two weeks - this is punishment enough for that offense and it's 2 games he cant' get votes.

Eg2
A bloke gets niggled by his defender all game. He snaps and gives him a left hook from downtown and sends the defender into la la land. Deservedly get ten weeks. Does nothing 'wrong' for the rest of the season. But his punishment for a pretty poor act sees him with not enough voting games to get the award.

Time served should be enough.

If thugs like Dipper and Greg Williams can win, then I have no problem giving Chris Grant and Corey McKernan retrospective medals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Go for premiership or give Carlton the spoon? | The state of footy >
Official PRE merch now on Redbubble!
Top Bottom