MRP / Trib. 2022 - MRO Chook Lotto - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports

[Gethelred]

Suspension issue aside, is it time we got rid of the "fairest" criteria, or reserved it for suspensions of a certain duration?

Footy's pretty clean these days and the threshold for a reportable offence has changed massively over the last 30 years. Surely a one week suspension for a negligence shouldn't rule a player out of contention.

For the last time...

You do not need to be fair to be the best player in the comp, and you do not need an award to be the best player in the comp. Buddy Franklin has been the best player in the comp since 2007, but you don't see him winning brownlows, do you?

Plenty of wonderful players have not won brownlows. Plenty of wonderful players will not win brownlows. No player has the right to a brownlow win.

The Brownlow Medal is an award for the best and fairest. It is not an award for the best. There are other awards that are, but this is not one of them. If you were to change the eligibility rules for it, it would cheapen the award for all of those who have won it in the past and have kept their names and deeds above reproach.

If you want to dispute whether the AFL have created a farce in refusing to suspend players who are on for a shot, that isn't the players who have won a brownlow's fault.

They are the ones you need to look at to convince me that they deserve to have the word 'fairest' struck from their award.

 

[CJMB]

What a load of turd, you mean the same two guys that pushed for the Blues to appeal the Young suspension?

don't let the truth get in the way...

 

[blues4flag]

For the last time...

You do not need to be fair to be the best player in the comp, and you do not need an award to be the best player in the comp. Buddy Franklin has been the best player in the comp since 2007, but you don't see him winning brownlows, do you?

Plenty of wonderful players have not won brownlows. Plenty of wonderful players will not win brownlows. No player has the right to a brownlow win.

The Brownlow Medal is an award for the best and fairest. It is not an award for the best. There are other awards that are, but this is not one of them. If you were to change the eligibility rules for it, it would cheapen the award for all of those who have won it in the past and have kept their names and deeds above reproach.

If you want to dispute whether the AFL have created a farce in refusing to suspend players who are on for a shot, that isn't the players who have won a brownlow's fault.

They are the ones you need to look at to convince me that they deserve to have the word 'fairest' struck from their award.

My contention isn't with the Brownlow being an award for best and fairest. There's no singular objective measure of fairness but a suspension made for a good proxy. My argument is that a one-week suspension is no longer a good proxy for fairness.

Going back 20+ years, a suspension typically meant you performed an act of malice on the field and was fairgrounds to be excluded from the award. Today, it's also used as a deterrent, often in situations where a player had little or no alternative (negligence/carelessness). Banning a player for today's negligence was likely never in the spirit of the law (which would have been designed to ban players who intentionally stepped outside of the rules to hurt an opponent).

The easy answer is to say it's how it's always been and why change it, but we're ignoring a massive shifting of the goalposts in terms of what constitutes a reportable offence. I'd much prefer that the threshold becomes banning players for intentional acts as that's more in line with the spirit of the law .

 

[Gethelred]

My contention isn't with the Brownlow being an award for best and fairest.

Worked that our myself. Your contention is in contradiction of that idea though.

There's no singular objective measure of fairness but a suspension made for a good proxy. My argument is that a one-week suspension is no longer a good proxy for fairness.

Not being suspended is as good a means to judge fairness as any. You are unlikely to get done per capita for something you didn't mean to do.

Going back 20+ years, a suspension typically meant you performed an act of malice on the field and was fairgrounds to be excluded from the award. Today, it's also used as a deterrent, often in situations where a player had little or no alternative (negligence/carelessness). Banning a player for today's negligence was likely never in the spirit of the law (which would have been designed to ban players who intentionally stepped outside of the rules to hurt an opponent).

... and?

I'm struggling to see the problem here. The rules governing taking due care for the protection of your opponents have changed, moved with the times to reflect the ugly reality of CTE. You, the player, need to actively avoid deliberately hurting someone else.

If it happens accidently, you shouldn't be suspended.

Now, the counterpoint to this is that the MRO confects a week here and there all the time, but right now we're talking about ideals not reality. If you want reality, there are other awards to dilute, but the Brownlow has always been about ideals over pragmatism.

The easy answer is to say it's how it's always been and why change it, but we're ignoring a massive shifting of the goalposts in terms of what constitutes a reportable offence. I'd much prefer that the threshold becomes banning players for intentional acts as that's more in line with the spirit of the law .

Okay. If you are fined at all for any form of rules misdemeanor, you are ineligible for the Brownlow medal.

You're still looking at it through the lens of how unfair that player X cannot win the award - possibly, in the scant likelihood that Cripps gets banned for his tackle this week - if they're suspended due to the arbitrary nature of the MRO/Tribunal. I'm looking at it from the position that while there are players who've won the award who probably should've gotten done, by moving the rules that becomes a judgement of them all.

In short, you move the goalposts, the players with the award are no longer the fairest. It becomes a reduced award; simply a best player award.

 

[Boy with chook]

Suspension issue aside, is it time we got rid of the "fairest" criteria, or reserved it for suspensions of a certain duration?

Footy's pretty clean these days and the threshold for a reportable offence has changed massively over the last 30 years. Surely a one week suspension for a negligence shouldn't rule a player out of contention.

I agree. Prior to trial by video (thank Leigh Matthews for that) when it was the umpires reporting players, a report would automatically exclude the player from getting votes for that game.
I wonder since the reports are now done 24 hours after the games, how many players have had Brownlow votes when in previous times they wouldn’t have.

 

[RedFury]

If he gets cited the afl may as well introduce a size and strength limit to players so they don't accidentally worsen the condition of players with pre existing injuries.

"No strong men allowed - you might hurt little bloke with crook neck."

 

[bluebaggerjuls]

when would they actually announce if hes been cited or not?

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

If he gets cited the afl may as well introduce a size and strength limit to players so they don't accidentally worsen the condition of players with pre existing injuries.

"No strong men allowed - you might hurt little bloke with crook neck."

No worries, he will get off with a challenge and appeal, it's annoying it's taking this long to announce the findings.

 

[marcmurphy3]

when would they actually announce if hes been cited or not?

Should have been this afternoon. Odd nothing has come out.

 

[Aphrodite]

YES YES YES!

 

[no fate]

YES YES YES!

Justice. Thank you.

 

[Aphrodite]

GAGF Mitch Cleary!

 

[ESKIE]

GAGF Mitch Cleary!

?

 

[Aphrodite]

?

 

[Blue and Blue]

If he did nothing wrong..why does it have to be cleared....LOL
They are clowns

 

[Juice030103]

GAGF Mitch Cleary!

How much of a joke was that Twitter post! He’s now in Tom Browne status for me

 

[Aphrodite]

Match Review: Cripps' tackle explained, gun Saint charged

The Match Review has completed its findings from Sunday's round eight matches

www.afl.com.au

Incident assessed:
The incident involving Carlton’s Patrick Cripps

9

Patrick Cripps

Age

29

Ht

195cm

Wt

93kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

25.9

5star

K

9.8

4star

HB

16.1

5star

M

3.4

3star

T

5.8

5star

CL

7.4

5star

D

21.0

5star

K

10.1

4star

HB

10.9

5star

M

2.5

3star

T

3.8

4star

CL

6.3

5star

D

12.6

4star

K

4.8

2star

HB

7.8

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

3.2

5star

CL

1.4

4star

and the Adelaide Crows’ Lachlan Murphy

4

Lachlan Murphy

Age

26

Ht

174cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.8

2star

K

5.8

2star

HB

4.0

3star

M

2.3

2star

T

3.4

5star

G

0.9

4star

D

8.8

2star

K

4.8

2star

HB

4.0

3star

M

1.8

2star

T

3.2

4star

G

0.7

4star

D

9.0

3star

K

6.2

3star

HB

2.8

3star

M

1.8

2star

T

3.6

5star

G

1.0

4star

from the third quarter of Sunday’s match between Carlton and the Adelaide Crows was assessed. Murphy gains possession of the ball in the centre square where he is met by Cripps who lays a tackle.

It was the view of the Match Review Officer that Cripps’ actions did not constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken

 

[Aphrodite]

How much of a joke was that Twitter post! He’s now in Tom Browne status for me

He copped it so much & deservedly so.



#trialbymedia

 

[Blue Warrior]

He tried and failed.

 

[Aphrodite]

He tried and failed.

Big. Time.

 

[Wickzki]

Match Review: Cripps' tackle explained, gun Saint charged

The Match Review has completed its findings from Sunday's round eight matches

www.afl.com.au

Good. The fear was warranted but sanity prevailed which isn't always the case.

 

[Blue and Blue]

Good. The fear was warranted but sanity prevailed which isn't always the case.

That fear should never have been created. Its not fair on players or fans that they persist with the circus on the back of media witch hunts week in week out.

 

[agro]

Good. The fear was warranted but sanity prevailed which isn't always the case.

We await for Mr Obsequiousness and Mr Plonko to demand an AFL appeal over this clearly egregious act.

 

[agro]

GAGF Mitch Cleary!

You know I invented GAGF, don’t you.

 

[footyfan1978]

You know I invented GAGF, don’t you.

GFY