Hall of fame criteria

[Hoola Hoops]

The AFL has mistakenly put in Integrity and character as requirements of Hall of Fame eligibility. Who are the 8 panel members that live flawless lives that they can judge someones character? Have we not seen enough of the headline grabbing false stories from two reporters that are full of lies and BS on the selection panel, where is their integrity??? How can they judge.

Who has such a flawless character that can be 'Pure" enough to cast judgement over another? Who is so flawless in their character that they can judge others??

I am sure every AFL Hall of famer has done something that shows a lack of integrity or character in their lives. But who is their to judge who should be in and out on these two criteria. I am sorry but no one is that flawless.

Talent, ability, sportsmanship, record, achievement and not bringing the game of AFL into disrepute are the only categories necessary for Hall of Fame eligibility.

Thoughts???

 

[Ipaidmy200in89]

The AFL has mistakenly put in Integrity and character as requirements of Hall of Fame eligibility. Who are the 8 panel members that live flawless lives that they can judge someones character? Have we not seen enough of the headline grabbing false stories from two reporters that are full of lies and BS on the selection panel, where is their integrity??? How can they judge.

Who has such a flawless character that can be 'Pure" enough to cast judgement over another? Who is so flawless in their character that they can judge others??

I am sure every AFL Hall of famer has done something that shows a lack of integrity or character in their lives. But who is their to judge who should be in and out on these two criteria. I am sorry but no one is that flawless.

Talent, ability, sportsmanship, record, achievement and not bringing the game of AFL into disrepute are the only categories necessary for Hall of Fame eligibility.

Thoughts???

I don't want my kids growing up thinking drug taking is cool. You need to get some prespective on live and DEATH!

 

[BennyHarper]

I'm pretty sure they weren't junkies who helped young girls overdose......but i guess you never know.

 

[Hoola Hoops]

I don't want my kids growing up thinking drug taking is cool. You need to get some prespective on live and DEATH!

If you let your kids think that drug taking is cool, it is no fault but your own. Anyway get back on topic, tell me who's character is flawless enough to judge another?

 

[Ipaidmy200in89]

If you let your kids think that drug taking is cool, it is no fault but your own. Anyway get back on topic, tell me who's character is flawless enough to judge another?

Ablett = NOT

Bobby Davis = Yes

 

[talkshowhost]

No conicidence that both Eddie MacGuire & Mic Malthouse have launched salvos, The collingwood hierachy saw a free hit to savage some of their media favourites

Getting a little bit vindictive down at Pie Land perhaps they are feeling a little bit uncomfortable being under the spotlight due to poor on field performances.

Watch for the journos in question to return fire over the weekend, they Know that Eddie & Mick have been feeling the pressure this season & will not be forget the bullying tactics they are being subjected to.

 

[chapmanmagic35]

I find it hard to believe that a panel of judges who most, if not all, wouldn't have met Gary Ablett, can judge a man's character and integrity.

I don't think the problem lies there. It's just the whole media buff-up of this particular inductee. Gary Ablett is the best player in alot of people's minds to have ever played the game, but people forget about the things that he did do that were admirable. He visted sick and terminally ill kids, visted numerous other sick people and did alot of charity activities.

It seems as though Ablett gets 100% of the blame for the death of the girl. The girl didn't have to take drugs and hang out with Ablett in the first place, even if Ablett lied about the drug which she was taking (which I'm not condoning at all).

 

[BennyHarper]

If you let your kids think that drug taking is cool, it is no fault but your own. Anyway get back on topic, tell me who's character is flawless enough to judge another?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

you have no idea mate.

Yeah, most teenagers do exactly what their parents do/tell them.
They don't give a f*ck what their idols on the footy feild do.

Look at all the little homey wannabe ********s walking around....why do they dress and act like Yanks???....must be their Australian parents influence.

 

[Hoola Hoops]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

you have no idea mate.

Yeah, most teenagers do exactly what their parents do/tell them.
They don't give a f*ck what their idols on the footy feild do.

Look at all the little homey wannabe ********s walking around....why do they dress and act like Yanks???....must be their Australian parents influence.

Dress sense and drug taking on a par you think? This is a footy debate not an influence debate.

 

[Hoola Hoops]

Ablett = NOT

Bobby Davis = Yes

Even I am not naive enough to think Bobby Davis' character and integrity are flawless.

NO ONE IS PERFECT.

 

[BennyHarper]

Dress sense and drug taking on a par you think? This is a footy debate not an influence debate.

Bull********. Your question has come due to Abletts induction into the hall of fame.
The issues sorrounding this are purely to do with his drug habits.
How can you possibly say that it is not an influence debate???
The reason they hesitiated was due to the bad image it might give to the sport, and the influence it might have on young kids.

Kids are impressionable, i think you give them to much credit.

I personnaly think Ablett should be in the hall of fame...but this is a debate on his illegability for it due to his drug fuelled past.

 

[ELfooty]

on the footy show they talked about the criteria boxes being ticked, and you had to have all ticks to get in

i reckon it would be better if there was a percentage or something like that, ablett may only be 15% in good character but because he is 95% good footballer it could all average over 60% or something so he should be able to get in, not saying those are the actual facts

so if they are going to include character and integrity, even if that is low your ability can get you in and probably even work the other way even if you weren't the greatest footballer if you did a lot for the game and all that you could get in

not sure if i made enough sense in all that, i just think that would be the best way to do it if they stick with the current criteria

 

[Hoola Hoops]

Bull********. Your question has come due to Abletts induction into the hall of fame.
The issues sorrounding this are purely to do with his drug habits.
How can you possibly say that it is not an influence debate???
The reason they hesitiated was due to the bad image it might give to the sport, and the influence it might have on young kids.

Kids are impressionable, i think you give them to much credit.

I personnaly think Ablett should be in the hall of fame...but this is a debate on his illegability for it due to his drug fuelled past.

Incorrect, it is about his character and integrity. I am just statint that the these two criteria should be removed as their is no one of flawless character and integrity, that should be able to judge anothers. Remove these two criteria and replace them with 'does not bring the game into disrepute'.

Simple

 

[BennyHarper]

Incorrect, it is about his character and integrity. I am just statint that the these two criteria should be removed as their is no one of flawless character and integrity, that should be able to judge anothers. Remove these two criteria and replace them with 'does not bring the game into disrepute'.

Simple

OK, fair point.

 

[Dasher39]

Can someone please tell me what Gary Ablett was found guilty of? And what was he charged with?

No doubt what he did was stupid, I dont think anyone would deny that, but who hasnt done something stupid in their life.

And seeing as though this thread is about the criteria, lets have a look at the criteria shall we: -

"Without limiting clause 5.1, the Committee may consider a candidate’s individual record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship and character.

The number of football games played, coached or umpired or the years of service provided shall only be a consideration and shall not be determinative in assessing a candidate’s eligibility"

Candidates shall be adjudged on the basis of their overall contribution to Australian Football, as opposed to one specific aspect."

So there we have it, the Committe MAY CONSIDER their chracter and integrity, so they dont necesarilly have to consider it.

The last part however is crucial, they will be judged on their OVERALL contribution to the sport and not one specific aspect. So even if he did fail in the part of character and integrity, it doesnt mean he is ineligible.

So he DOES meet the criteria, and as people have mentioned it is amazing how quickly people forget all the good things that Gary Ablett did. But that is typical of the world these days, people only want to hear doom and gloom and never want to hear any of the good things that people do.

 

[chapmanmagic35]

Possessing and using drugs.....fined $1500

 

[Vaughan Pitt]

You would assume that Ablett's significant amount of charity work and his many visits to the elderly, sick kids etc. (as has been mentioned previously) would have been taken into consideration by the panel as they most likely do ACTUAL RESEARCH, thus rendering Brereton's comment on TFS uninformed and redundant.

I imagine Sam Newman knows a bit about having a public reputation as a fool (although that's how he makes a living) while doing a great deal of good work behind the scenes that goes unnoticed, hence his straight laced comments on the matter. People believe what they want to believe - for some people it is simply easier to believe Ablett is a monster rather than a flawed figure.