Buddy Reported

[maccatak11]

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.

Years ago player weren't as fit, weren't as skillful, were worse tacklers and got away with going for the man instead of the ball. Today's game is much better than it ever has been. The people who spout carp about the good old days don't understand the modern game. (this isn't you Dave btw)

Reports shouldn't be taken into account when giving votes. Best players are decided each game, whereas the fairest player is a reflection of the entire season.

Imagine Franklin gets reported, isn't considered for votes, later gets off his report and then loses the brownlow by one point.

Votes are given to the best players for each game, not the best and fairest in each game. Thats why McKernan etc were ruled out later.

[David]

Years ago player weren't as fit, weren't as skillful, were worse tacklers and got away with going for the man instead of the ball. Today's game is much better than it ever has been. The people who spout carp about the good old days don't understand the modern game. (this isn't you Dave btw)

Good

Reports shouldn't be taken into account when giving votes. Best players are decided each game, whereas the fairest player is a reflection of the entire season.

I know - but it's still "grey" to me.
McKernan was suspended for something that wans't too bad. What he did was nowhere near a reflection of his fairness over the entire season

Imagine Franklin gets reported, isn't considered for votes, later gets off his report and then loses the brownlow by one point.

I know. But it's an interesting question. If Barry Hall kicked 11 goals when he king hit Brett Staker, would you give him votes?

And, Hall was suspended.. why give him votes in later games, knowing that he isn't the fairest and best?

Again, not saying you shouldn't, just putting it out there..

Votes are given to the best players for each game, not the best and fairest in each game. Thats why McKernan etc were ruled out later.

Yup. I know how it works. I know why it works... I just think that it's unfortunate at times.

[David]

Another weird one was Andrew Osborne winning the Magarey Medal.

He didn't even poll 3 votes in any game - entirely 2s and 1s...

Ironic how the "best" player for the year was never the "best" player in one game.

[David]

And for the record .. I believe it should be at least 5-4-3-2-1 voting. Far more accurate.

[bennymacca]

And for the record .. I believe it should be at least 5-4-3-2-1 voting. Far more accurate.

if you wanna talk about being accurate, how about taking it away from the umpires!!

i remember a couple of years ago, andrew mcleod finish third i think in the brownlow, (2004 maybe?)

there was a game late in the season when mcleod got 35 touches, and basically had a gun game, and was named best afield by the press and most people watching it would have agreed.

but when it came to brownlow night, he didn't get a single vote!

i think in todays footy, it is asking too much of the umpires to umpire the game, and also watch it from a critical point of view to work out who the best players were.

i think it should fall to a representative slice of the media, similar to all australian teams, the showdown medal etc. the voting can then be a 3-2-1 for 5 different respected media personalities, and then votes given from 15-1 for each game.

[Scotty]

Greg Williams missed out on the Brownlow by 2 votes one year (can't remember which)

When they put the highlights up for the last round of games, the voice over proclaims that Williams had 40 disposals that day.



He received 0 votes.

[stevo]

I agree, the umpires can't even get the umpiring right let alone picking the best 3 players on the field!

It could be up to media representatives or the like but the problem there may be in getting an unbiased decision, I guess if they take the votes from a number of people they will hopefully get that. Another option may be to include votes from the respective coaches although that's what the coaches association award is for.

[David]

Yes and no.

I think the umpires have an extremely unique view, and feel, of the game.

The Andrew McLeod game you talk about, quite possibly could be against Fremantle in the final round?

He had 35 possessions. But, Bell Hazelby and I think .. someone else all got more than 35 possessions. Or around 35 possessions.

And Freo won, as well - made it easier to give them votes.

Greg Williams had 39 possessions in a game - and didn't get a vote either. Or something close to that. Might have been when Woewoden won.

[David]

Haha damn you Scott - I was writing about Diesel when you replied.

[rcon]

Or Jimmy H getting no votes after he has a blow up with Scott McLaren (???) and getting 36 touches?