One game suspension exemption

[gbatman]

We are in a different era in regards to suspensions. Players can miss week/s for high hits and hard tackles. I'm not against that at all, the rules are in place to protect those who play the game from injury and there is overwhelming evidence that the head must be protected.

However some punishments don't remain equal and don't really match the crime. Should a punishment be greater based on what time of the year you get punished or because you happen to be the best player in the game? No.

I think one game suspensions, minor suspensions, should be handed out only in the home and away season and not make a player ineligible for the Brownlow. The Best and Fairest. You can be a fair player but make a mistake, competing a bit too hard and get suspended now. That has changed from what it used to be.

Seeing as a lot of these actions are accidental but still require a suspension. I think there needs to be some adjustments as to just what we are taking away from a player in terms of their punishment.

One week is not just one week. Miss a home and away game. Big deal. No player wants to miss. But it's not the same as missing a final. The punishment is not equal, one week is not just one week, circumstances change this. A suspension to a player who polls first in the Brownlow medal is a far greater than it is for every other player in the competition.

I think minor suspensions should not make you exempt from the Brownlow medal and no one should miss a grand final (or any final for that matter) because they accidently carried someone forward in a tackle and they hit their head on the ground or because a player deliberately keeps their head down and someone makes high medium grade contact and is suspended for a week.

Missing a 1 finals game vs missing one home and away game is not the same level of punishment. Missing a week and a Brownlow medal is not the same level of punishment as just missing a week.

It's never been easier to be suspended in the game that it currently is. I think we need to accept this and move with the times and allow the punishment to account for whether the game they will miss will be a final and whether they poll top votes.

You would hate to see the best player in the game not get the medal because they missed a week for a hard tackle. You would hate to see a top AFL player miss a grand final because they brushed an opponent's head by accident.

The moment is coming and it's going to put the AFL in a really difficult position.

I think most players and fans would take an extra weeks suspension in the following H/A games than miss one finals game.

Thoughts?

 

[_Mike_]

Thoughts?

Admirable, however once they start to make exemptions it further diminishes the integrity and intention of the award. Players have been getting suspended and missing brownlow opportunities as long as the award has been around.

I'm not in favor of making exceptions just because accidents happen on the field. That's a part of the game, and whether the contact was intentional or accidental it's directly relational to the player's action.

 

[gbatman]

Admirable, however once they start to make exemptions it further diminishes the integrity and intention of the award. Players have been getting suspended and missing brownlow opportunities as long as the award has been around.

I'm not in favor of making exceptions just because accidents happen on the field. That's a part of the game, and whether the contact was intentional or accidental it's directly relational to the player's action.

I think we need to look at why they had to be the fairest originally and what being an unfair player meant back then. Basically the fairest part was to rule out thugs. Blokes who went around belting people and deliberately trying to hurt people were ruled out and rightfully so. You could not get suspended for doing things accidently or for being overly competitive or careless. Fast forward to 2024, you can tackle a player and carry them forward and if their head hits the ground it's a suspension. You can attack the ball a little too hard and if another player does the same and there is a head clash it's a suspension. A player can keep their head down and look for high contact and it's a suspension.

These acts for years have been only free kicks and now they rule you ineligible for a Brownlow or players may miss finals games or even a grand final over it.

The rules have changed. This is the first time accidental acts are suspendable offences. When the fairest criteria was first put in place this simply was not the case.

It's great that his issue has come up soon after I posted this, brings a lot of relevance to the post.

The other side of the coin is that players are going to get off suspension because the tribunal know that giving a player 1 week, who really should get a week, is not fair if they are a brownlow medal contender or if it's going to impact finals. So you have players avoiding suspension who shouldn't be. This is where we are at. The AFL know the new suspendable offences are harsh, that's why a lot of players get away with it. This way a players will get away with it a lot less, still get a suspension, but won't have to suffer extra consequences of say missing out on a brownlow or missing out on a finals/grand final game.

We have seen a lot of players get off and miss suspension over the years because they will miss a grand final or because they are a brownlow contender. That's not right. Should still be able to get a week for a low grade offence but still be Brownlow eligible. Blokes who get nothing because they committed the act in a prelim, should be getting round 1 off.

I think there has to be a middle ground for suspensions and finals games and the Brownlow medal.

These changes would mean that players still get a mild punishment but aren't over punished. We wouldn't be putting best and fairest medals in the hands of thugs. We wouldn't be giving players extra punishment simply because of the time they committed their offence.

I think because we have changed the rules for what is a suspendable offence over the years. We must also changed the rules in regards to whether the suspension is taken in finals or not or whether it makes them ineligible for the brownlow or not.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Admirable, however once they start to make exemptions it further diminishes the integrity and intention of the award. Players have been getting suspended and missing brownlow opportunities as long as the award has been around.

I'm not in favor of making exceptions just because accidents happen on the field. That's a part of the game, and whether the contact was intentional or accidental it's directly relational to the player's action.

A threshold is not an exemption. As long as the number of games banned threshold aligns with an agreed upon severity of conduct then there will be no issue with it. You can rest assured that the suspension of any previous ineligible brownlow vote leaders would fall outside that threshold given what constitutes a suspension back then vs now.

Everyone forecasted this would happen throughout the year, and majority agree most of these 1 match bans don't logically impede on the 'fairest' aspect of Brownlow. The change should be brought in immediately (seeing that the AFL isn't opposed to changing things mid season). The only thing an immediate change would affect is betting agencies, and frankly who gives a shit about them that's not the AFL's problem. There is 0 reason to not review and change it up right now.

More importantly they need to change the ruling so that players aren't missing out on Grand Finals for piss weak incidents, whilst players are getting off for deliberate punches to the face or guts.

 

[_Mike_]

Everyone forecasted this would happen throughout the year, and majority agree most of these 1 match bans don't logically impede on the 'fairest' aspect of Brownlow. The change should be brought in immediately (seeing that the AFL isn't opposed to changing things mid season)

A subjective view IMO, no system is perfect however suggesting a change to the best and fairest awards system during a season is a band aid fix, prejudicial to the integrity of the award.

The real issue is the inconsistency of the MRP and tribunal systems IMO, not the mechanics of the award.

 

[Moonatic77]

I've had the opinion for a long while that the 'fairest' part of the brownlow could be removed. If you win it after missing a match or multiple matches through suspension it's an even more impressive effort I reckon. Same goes for the rising star too

 

[Xtreme]

Do the crime
Do the time

Why should you be rewarded for thug acts on the football field ?

 

[hawkman]

Just do it like rugby league, -3 votes for every game missed through suspension

You get suspended in finals too bad though

 

[FreoGirl]

the only reason I voted that players should be eligible for the Brownlow is because there has been too many inconsistencies.

 

[Wallaby]

Same rules H&A and finals re suspensions. They don't let prisoners out for Christmas.

 

[eddiesmith]

No

But, I do like the idea of a demerit point system. Instead of fines it should be

Level 1- 1 demerit
Level 2- 2 demerit etc

Suspensions start at level 3. But points add up over 2-3 years so these players who keep getting fined would be facing suspensions. A one off low level offence wouldn’t get a suspension for a supposedly ‘fair player’.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

No

But, I do like the idea of a demerit point system. Instead of fines it should be

Level 1- 1 demerit
Level 2- 2 demerit etc

Suspensions start at level 3. But points add up over 2-3 years so these players who keep getting fined would be facing suspensions. A one off low level offence wouldn’t get a suspension for a supposedly ‘fair player’.

Not a bad idea. Kind of like a driving licence demerit point system?

 

[eddiesmith]

Not a bad idea. Kind of like a driving licence demerit point system?

Yep, might need some tweaking after they get suspended so players aren’t getting 6 weeks for a strike, but the general idea would be that fair players get a fine for a low level action but regular offenders cop suspensions.

But Charlie Cameron would probably be out for 6 weeks instead of 3!!!

 

[Wallaby]

Yep, might need some tweaking after they get suspended so players aren’t getting 6 weeks for a strike, but the general idea would be that fair players get a fine for a low level action but regular offenders cop suspensions.

But Charlie Cameron would probably be out for 6 weeks instead of 3!!!

Do you get demerits removed for being a 'good bloke'?

 

[Eshay187]

Just get rid of the suspension thing.

The Brownlow rules were made before there were cameras scrutinising every single interaction around the whole field. A suspension was because you punched someone, not because you only rotated the tackle 75 degrees instead of 90 or whatever new inanity gets you suspended nowadays.

There are way more suspensions now, it’s a different time.

The “fairest” thing was always about dog acts, and those acts get 5-6 weeks suspension anyway. If someone wins with a 6 weeks suspension, good luck to them.

 

[Underarm]

No

But, I do like the idea of a demerit point system. Instead of fines it should be

Level 1- 1 demerit
Level 2- 2 demerit etc

Suspensions start at level 3. But points add up over 2-3 years so these players who keep getting fined would be facing suspensions. A one off low level offence wouldn’t get a suspension for a supposedly ‘fair player’.

They tried the 3 fine strike system. Everyone lost their minds because people were at risk at becoming ineligible for the smallest of offences just because it was the 3rd fine.

 

[Roylion]

Leave all players eligible for the Brownlow irrespective of the suspension.

But for every match suspended have a penalty of 2-3 Brownlow votes for that player. Not only do suspended players miss a match they could have very well received Brownlow votes, they also have to make up ground to win the award.

If, for example in 2023, the penalty for a match was 3 Brownlow votes and Lachie Neale

9

Lachie Neale

Age

31

Ht

178cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

27.0

5star

K

11.5

4star

HB

15.5

5star

M

4.0

4star

T

3.7

5star

CL

5.9

5star

D

28.3

5star

K

13.9

5star

HB

14.4

5star

M

4.6

4star

T

4.0

5star

CL

5.9

5star

D

12.0

3star

K

4.6

2star

HB

7.4

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

1.0

3star

CL

0.4

3star

was suspended for one match with a penalty of three Brownlow votes, Marcus Bontempelli

4

Marcus Bontempelli

Age

28

Ht

194cm

Wt

96kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.5

5star

K

12.3

5star

HB

10.3

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

4.8

5star

CL

4.4

5star

D

18.4

4star

K

9.7

4star

HB

8.8

4star

M

2.6

3star

T

4.1

5star

CL

4.0

5star

D

12.0

3star

K

5.8

3star

HB

6.2

4star

M

2.0

3star

T

3.8

5star

CL

1.8

4star

would have won with 29 votes and Neale would have been equal second with 28 votes, instead of the 31 votes that saw him receive the award.