![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/collingwood.png)
- Mar 28, 2023
- 13,167
- 25,656
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
bottoms up!!!
![Urinating Circle Of Life GIF by Four Rest Films Urinating Circle Of Life GIF by Four Rest Films](/forum/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia0.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2F3oEdv8fF5WVS0zNHUs%2F200.gif&hash=30fec9367a556c195ddeb7c77a67f766)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 2 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
bottoms up!!!
Rubbish - if Heeney cannot win why award votes - you're the clueless oneClueless
Fair enough - interesting takeBit of a contentious issue this one. Insert McKernan and Grant.
It is too a lot easier to be suspended these days. So let’s say we take the three or more weeks suspension is the new threshold to miss out, then I think it would be ridiculous that Sicily misses from last year (provided he gets the points) vs other suspensions for shorter periods that might be seen as more “damaging” to the Oppo player but less suspension time.
I’m sure this debate will go on for a long time. Even if they tweak the rule on suspension vs getting the Brownlow.
Ok for club awards, MVP etc but the AFL rule states a suspended (not fined) player is ineligible to win the Brownlow. If they cannot receive the medal then any votes post suspension are "hollow" at best - it's cute recognition of a good player - should the AFL invite an ineligible player who scores the most votes onto the podium alongside the winner and say "this guy really should have won it"?Well if he's one of the 3 best players in a game, he should still get votes. I don't suppose umpires will ever tell us whether they vote differently for a suspended player though.
Rubbish - if Heeney cannot win why award votes - you're the clueless one
I agree with you but there was no need to use the word clueless.Because he has earned votes earlier through the season. It would skew the vote distribution in subsequent games compared to previous if he was removed from consideration. That’s elementary
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
To my way of thinking, it's pointless giving votes to a player who cannot win the thing - the AFL have "removed him from consideration", thus "skewing" the outcome with their rule - by no longer awarding votes the umpires would be recognising the reality that a suspended player can't be awarded the medal.Because he has earned votes earlier through the season. It would skew the vote distribution in subsequent games compared to previous if he was removed from consideration. That’s elementary
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
To my way of thinking, it's pointless giving votes to a player who cannot win the thing - the AFL have "removed him from consideration", thus "skewing" the outcome with their rule - by no longer awarding votes the umpires would be recognising the reality that a suspended player can't be awarded the medal.
Maybe Heeney would now be happier to stay on 18? votes and never know what might have been than end up in front on 26? votes and being told - thanks Isaac but you're not eligible.
Please:It’s about the players in earlier rounds who would have gotten an extra vote if Heeney was removed. He can’t be pulled halfway through a season so that suddenly changes. Instead of incessant afl bagging, maybe think on that.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
I understand your point of view..but I still think the umps should give their votes to the 3 best players for each particular game. There are that many players suspended for minor incidents these days, it would be hard for them to keep up tbh. That's a lot of really good players not receiving any votes for any more of their games.. Heeney, Reid, Darcy, Rankine, etc etc...not to mention EVERY other player suspended this year. And there's still the chance someone who gets the most votes by Round 24 & gets suspended in Round 24.Ok for club awards, MVP etc but the AFL rule states a suspended (not fined) player is ineligible to win the Brownlow. If they cannot receive the medal then any votes post suspension are "hollow" at best - it's cute recognition of a good player - should the AFL invite an ineligible player who scores the most votes onto the podium alongside the winner and say "this guy really should have won it"?
Please:
- make your 1st sentence clearer. I'm not a lawyer.
- explain, without being condescending, why awarding votes to a player who is ineligible makes sense.
(What's skewing the "system" is the AFL ruling a player ineligible to receive its major individual award even if suspended for one week.)
I'm paying close and serious attention to every word here..Can’t have a change mid race. If Heeney can take votes from n daicos in rd 1 he must be able to take votes from Bont in a fortnight
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
The thing is, do umpires ever consider who has been fairest when they award the votes for a game?I'm paying close and serious attention to every word here..
IMO - Brownlow votes for Heeney from now on are illogical because the AFL has determined, from this point, he no longer meets the criteria of "fairest and best".
PS- I'd be happy to have Heeney at Pies
I'm paying close and serious attention to every word here..
IMO - Brownlow votes for Heeney from now on are illogical because the AFL has determined, from this point, he no longer meets the criteria of "fairest and best".
PS- I'd be happy to have Heeney at Pies
So do you think the umps should have a list of every suspended player for the year & not give them votes because they are ineligible? Even if they've clearly been the best player?I'm paying close and serious attention to every word here..
IMO - Brownlow votes for Heeney from now on are illogical because the AFL has determined, from this point, he no longer meets the criteria of "fairest and best".
PS- I'd be happy to have Heeney at Pies
They probably should because the Brownlow is clearly for the "fairest and best" - even though it's widely referred to as "best and fairest"The thing is, do umpires ever consider who has been fairest when they award the votes for a game?
A scenario is a good way to make a case - thanksSo do you think the umps should have a list of every suspended player for the year & not give them votes because they are ineligible? Even if they've clearly been the best player?
How about this as a scenario.. Daicos is leading the Brownlow vote at Round 24 by 2 votes.. Bont is 2nd. The last game to be counted is the Dogs v Giants game. Bont has a great game, but Darcy is clearly the BOG with 8 goals including the sealer, but the umps don't give him the 3 votes because he's ineligible. So they give the 3 votes to Bont & he wins the Brownlow by 1 vote.. !
Can’t have a change mid race. If Heeney can take votes from n daicos in rd 1 he must be able to take votes from Bont in a fortnight
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Understand your argument NMBB but I think these two points made by Sidey are very valid and logical as to why they should still get votes even after being suspended.Because making Heeney ineligible to receive votes now would affect other players’ votes in future games. And would “hurt” players in previous games who polled less than him. He needs to be a constant.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
I think so mate. For that particular game I doubt he would have scored Brownlow votes. Fairest no points for.The thing is, do umpires ever consider who has been fairest when they award the votes for a game?
I've never thought it's straightforward.......Understand your argument @NMBB..
Except the umpires wouldn't have known that Heeney was going to be suspended for that incident when they did their votes.I think so mate. For that particular game I doubt he would have scored Brownlow votes. Fairest no points for.
Just my take
Leigh Mathews is the best ever and never won one. Obviously not the fairest.
I never watch or can be bothered with the Brownlow voting.
The coaches MVP is more prestigious in my mind.
They did for Leigh matthewsThe thing is, do umpires ever consider who has been fairest when they award the votes for a game?