Buddy Reported

[Scotty]

i think every time the crows play the hawks craigy has money on the hawks!

You mean West Coast

[Scotty]

End of the day, what cost Adelaide the four points (no pun intended) was the execution of simple skills throughout the game. Hawthorn shouldn't have been that close.

[stevo]

I think there were skill errors by both sides actually (e.g. Buddy missed some chances that he may normally kick) so both sides could feel the same. The errors were probably just brought about by the pressure applied by both sides.

I also thought the umpires didn't pay a couple of free kicks to the Hawks in their forward 50 late in the game that they perhaps could have so Adelaide could also feel lucky that the game was still in the balance up until the siren went.

All in all was a great game though, played under finals type pressure, and both teams probably felt they deserved to win but obviously only one team can.

I think the difference in the end was the attacking potency of the Hawks. Adelaide smashed the Hawks in the clearances but just didn't have anyone to kick enough goals. Hawks on the other hand have Buddy, Roughy, Williams and Rioli, pretty hard to stop them all on the same night which is how it panned out really, Buddy wasn't his usual self but Roughead stepped up and kicked a few instead. If the Hawks had dominated the clearances as much as Adelaide did you can bet they would have won by a lot more!

[mr_niceguy_1979]

I also thought the umpires didn't pay a couple of free kicks to the Hawks in their forward 50 late in the game that they perhaps could have so Adelaide could also feel lucky that the game was still in the balance up until the siren went.

Having said that, there were also a few decisions inside 50 earlier in the game that didn't go the Crows way so it probably evened out in the end. Although the Crows might have been able to get a good break which may have been too much for the Hawks to peg back.

[maccatak11]

News just in.
Buddy has been charged with a level one rough conduct charge and can accept a reprimand with an early guilty plea.

Again comparing this to Shaun Burgoyne's one you can see the total lack of consistency (im a crows supporter by the way)

[BigPete33]

If his cape wasn't stepped on it wouldn't have happened.


GO YOU HAWKS!

[David]

I wonder ..


Let's say Buffy kicks 9 goals against the Crows.
He also, gets reported.




Do the field umpires then consider him for votes, even though he was reported? I say this because votes are given for the *fairest* and most brilliant player on the field - and if an umpire deems something "unfair", is it wrong to then give that player votes.

[bennymacca]

thats a good point david

especially if it was for going up and blatantly belting a bloke, instead of something like what franklin did which was a little more grey.

actually, thinking about it, the unpires must just vote on the 'best' players they think, and let the tribunal work out whether they were also 'fair'. corey mckernan would have won the brownlow (in 96?)had he not been suspended, and im sure he got brownlow votes after he was suspended - the umpires didn't just ignore him from that point on.

interesting point though

[David]

I guess in the end, even though the award goes to the "fairest and most brilliant" player - the points awarded each game are only for the "most brilliant" part.

Yes, Corey McKernan tied with Hird and Voss for the award.

The other player to lose this way was Chris Grant who polled the most votes in Robert Harvey's second award.

Garry McIntosh polled the motes votes as well in the Magarey Medal and didn't win.

Edit : might have been when Andrew Jarman won in 97? Not sure.

[David]

What's disappointing is that some of the things players have been suspended (or reprimanded) for this year, wouldn't have even been reportable 5 - 10 years ago.

With only two cases in history of players polling the most votes and not winning (except of course for countbacks) this number will surely increase in the coming years as players are rubbed out for lesser offences.

Rules are rules, I know. Yes, the award is for the fairest and most brilliant player. "Do you want a thug winning the award?" is the common argument for people not wanting to change the system.

Thing is, a thug doesn't always get reported. there have been some really dirty players over the years who have never been suspended.

Corey McKernan not only lost the Brownlow, but was also ineligable in this first year from winning the Norwich Rising Star award.

Both Grant and McKernan were suspended for offences that weren't that severe at all.