Oppo Camp Other Club News/General Discussion

[ElliottsMaggies]

bottoms up!!!

 

[Jafo]

Might have to call Bear Grylls to get a few tips

 

[NMBB]

Clueless

Rubbish - if Heeney cannot win why award votes - you're the clueless one

 

[NMBB]

Bit 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.

Fair enough - interesting take

 

[NMBB]

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.

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"?

 

[sideswipe]

Rubbish - if Heeney cannot win why award votes - you're the clueless one

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

 

[jmac70]

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

I agree with you but there was no need to use the word clueless.

 

[NMBB]

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.

 

[The Magnificent Seven]

Everyone trying to mount a case before tonight as to why Heeney should get off can GAGF.

Even if it was accidental, you can’t somehow be absolved from the outcome. Jesus our game punishes you for accidentally kicking a ball of the side of your boot and rolling 50m over the boundary line. If you apply force and you smack someone in the schnoz you have to pay the price.

Plus he’s just part of the Sydney group of suckholes who believe they’re on a higher plane of consciousness to any other team.

Sucked in.

 

[sideswipe]

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.

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

 

[NMBB]

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

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.)

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

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"?

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.

No, I don't think they should stand on the podium next the eligible winner. Sadly, it has happened where a player has polled the most votes & not been eligible for the Brownlow.

It would be interesting to know if the umpires actually do vote differently for players which have been suspended like Heeney. I'd love them to tell us.

 

[sideswipe]

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.)

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

 

[NMBB]

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

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

 

[jmac70]

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

The thing is, do umpires ever consider who has been fairest when they award the votes for a game?

 

[sideswipe]

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

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

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

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?

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.. !

 

[NMBB]

The thing is, do umpires ever consider who has been fairest when they award the votes for a game?

They probably should because the Brownlow is clearly for the "fairest and best" - even though it's widely referred to as "best and fairest"

(In the middle of a Hawthorn premiership spree John Kennedy once said words to the effect. .. "Brownlows don't rate at Hawthorn" )

 

[NMBB]

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?

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.. !

A scenario is a good way to make a case - thanks

 

[ottoman]

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

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

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.

 

[Fat Jesus]

The thing is, do umpires ever consider who has been fairest when they award the votes for a game?

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.

 

[NMBB]

...Understand your argument @NMBB..

I've never thought it's straightforward....

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

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.

Except the umpires wouldn't have known that Heeney was going to be suspended for that incident when they did their votes.

 

[sam_e]

poor chuckie ..i'll give you a tip, check the 'free kick curnow' stat in that commensurate period !!

The surprising Charlie Curnow stat that highlights his recent struggles

“It’s a window where he’s been pretty poor. Is he injured?”

www.sen.com.au

 

[HoraceStrasbork]

The thing is, do umpires ever consider who has been fairest when they award the votes for a game?

They did for Leigh matthews