Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
1. Lots of talk this week about amending the rules so Freo’s Nat Fyfe can be eligible for this year’s Brownlow Medal despite suspension. Fair enough, but first things first. Time to right an historic wrong and award Chris Grant the Brownlow everyone knows he won. His entitlement was stripped by a flawed tribunal decision initiated by a flawed tribunal process later amended by the AFL to bring its judicial system into line with modern legal standards. There’s been no fairer and better player in the game than Grant and it’s time the competition recognised it properly. Letter to Mike Fitzpatrick and to Gill ... let’s make this right.
So basically they are suggesting to strip Harvs of one of this Brownlow medals!?
Imagine all the extra games Bakes would have played if it weren't for a flawed tribunal process...
It angers me every time I hear that Chris Grant was robbed of the 97 Brownlow. Chris Grant was a victim of circumstance in 97, as was Robert Harvey.
I remember that it was fairly early that season (Rd 8-10 ?) that Collo put Grant up before the tribunal. Some of us still remember that the umpires refused to make a report, so Collo did it himself.
Earlier that season Chris Grant received 3 Brownlow votes under very dubious circumstances. There was one game where he received 3 Votes for a 3 kick, 6 handball game. In the same game Grant's direct opponent, David Neitz kicked 7 goals
People who believe in fairytales chose to ignore these facts as they would destroy the fairytale.
ROBERT HARVEY WON THE 97 BROWNLOW FAIRLY & SQUARELY
Chris Grant was merely a victim of the degree of honesty that was in the game at that time !!
Chris Grant snotted Nick Holland...Not sure how the umpires missed it. But the right decision was reached in the end.
There is no doubt Grant was a fair player but he made a blue that day and paid the price. It has worked the other way many times when players that crossed the line many times held it together for a season or two...Greg Williams, Robert DiPierdomenico and Tony Lockett spring to mind.
That's without going to that game against Melbourne.
I think Grant did it and deserved time. i also think the person who wins the brownlow must have the most votes whether they have been suspended or not. The problem is unlike when they changed the brownlow so that people who drew also got the brownlow is we have one year when Grant got the most votes but couldnt win it. If they change it obviously Harvey still wins the brownlow and there is an asterix to say Grant now also wins it because of a change of rules. The problem is it sort of devalues Harvs win. I suppose if they ask him first and he agrees then all good. it will be changed its just a matter of when. It looks like it will happen for a second time this year with Fyffe. That will lead to change IMO.
plugger66 wrote:I think Grant did it and deserved time. i also think the person who wins the brownlow must have the most votes whether they have been suspended or not. The problem is unlike when they changed the brownlow so that people who drew also got the brownlow is we have one year when Grant got the most votes but couldnt win it. If they change it obviously Harvey still wins the brownlow and there is an asterix to say Grant now also wins it because of a change of rules. The problem is it sort of devalues Harvs win. I suppose if they ask him first and he agrees then all good. it will be changed its just a matter of when. It looks like it will happen for a second time this year with Fyffe. That will lead to change IMO.
All this focus on Grant when the season before McKernan was denied sharing the medal with Voss and Hird because he was suspended.
Poor old Corey was also denied the Rising Star for a tripping by hand charge which no longer attracts a suspension!
plugger66 wrote:I think Grant did it and deserved time. i also think the person who wins the brownlow must have the most votes whether they have been suspended or not. The problem is unlike when they changed the brownlow so that people who drew also got the brownlow is we have one year when Grant got the most votes but couldnt win it. If they change it obviously Harvey still wins the brownlow and there is an asterix to say Grant now also wins it because of a change of rules. The problem is it sort of devalues Harvs win. I suppose if they ask him first and he agrees then all good. it will be changed its just a matter of when. It looks like it will happen for a second time this year with Fyffe. That will lead to change IMO.
All this focus on Grant when the season before McKernan was denied sharing the medal with Voss and Hird because he was suspended.
Poor old Corey was also denied the Rising Star for a tripping by hand charge which no longer attracts a suspension!
I suppose the difference is the way Grant was reported. Lets face it most on here wouldnt care who got the focus but because harvs won that year we do. No doubt Cory was unlucky but he will soon get both medals.
F**k Chris Grant, he put both knees square into the back of Max a year or two after that cowardly hit on Holland. He dropped his eyes, didn't go for the ball and was just intent on taking Max out.
Fair pfft - BS. Dog by name and nature.
And the Brownlow is FAIREST and Best. Harveys would never knee a bloke in the back of smack a bloke in the face from behind.
plugger66 wrote:I think Grant did it and deserved time. i also think the person who wins the brownlow must have the most votes whether they have been suspended or not. The problem is unlike when they changed the brownlow so that people who drew also got the brownlow is we have one year when Grant got the most votes but couldnt win it. If they change it obviously Harvey still wins the brownlow and there is an asterix to say Grant now also wins it because of a change of rules. The problem is it sort of devalues Harvs win. I suppose if they ask him first and he agrees then all good. it will be changed its just a matter of when. It looks like it will happen for a second time this year with Fyffe. That will lead to change IMO.
But why should it change. The Brownlow is the FAIREST and Best. Neither Grant nor Fyfe are eligible.
plugger66 wrote:I think Grant did it and deserved time. i also think the person who wins the brownlow must have the most votes whether they have been suspended or not. The problem is unlike when they changed the brownlow so that people who drew also got the brownlow is we have one year when Grant got the most votes but couldnt win it. If they change it obviously Harvey still wins the brownlow and there is an asterix to say Grant now also wins it because of a change of rules. The problem is it sort of devalues Harvs win. I suppose if they ask him first and he agrees then all good. it will be changed its just a matter of when. It looks like it will happen for a second time this year with Fyffe. That will lead to change IMO.
But why should it change. The Brownlow is the FAIREST and Best. Neither Grant nor Fyfe are eligible.
Tough titties for both.
That is the rule at the moment. I think it will change. You either dont or dont want it to which is fair enough. I dont think a player like Fyffe should lose a brownlow for something that wasnt even close to reportable 3 years ago. Yep its the rule now but he was still a little unlucky. I actually want it changed but the Harvey year is the real sticky point. I reckon had Grant drawn and not won on his own it would have been changed by now. I wouldnt class Lenny, Rooy or Fyffe as dirty players but they have all been suspended at least once and any Lennys case about 3 times.
Bunk_Moreland wrote:F**k Chris Grant, he put both knees square into the back of Max a year or two after that cowardly hit on Holland. He dropped his eyes, didn't go for the ball and was just intent on taking Max out.
Fair pfft - BS. Dog by name and nature.
And the Brownlow is FAIREST and Best. Harveys would never knee a bloke in the back of smack a bloke in the face from behind.
Grant would get five weeks nowdays for both acts.
Nice.
Also, Doggies supporters have a big chip on their shoulder when it comes to the Saints.
I don't mind the Doggies because like us, they are underdogs... but they hate us.
A guy I work with who follows the flogs was giving it to me about our GF record. Of course I responded with" "at least we play grand finals..." to which he responded...:what's the point of getting into them if you can't win one".. To which I responded; 'what's the point fo getting into 7 consecutive prelims in a row when you can' win one..." ha ha.
LOSER.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
Also, Doggies supporters have a big chip on their shoulder when it comes to the Saints.
I don't mind the Doggies because like us, they are underdogs... but they hate us.
A guy I work with who follows the flogs was giving it to me about our GF record. Of course I responded with" "at least we play grand finals..." to which he responded...:what's the point of getting into them if you can't win one".. To which I responded; 'what's the point fo getting into 7 consecutive prelims in a row when you can' win one..." ha ha.
LOSER.
I still laugh at the pathetic way they whinged about the Brian Lake free kick goal to Riewoldt. Fair enough if that was the only one he kicked, but he kicked another three after that including the sealer to win the PF.
My whole family are Doggie supporters and they definately would like to make a GF.
Still they all go silent when I used to point out the Brownlow was FAIREST and Best and Grant deserved at least two weeks for the weak act on Holland.
Also, Doggies supporters have a big chip on their shoulder when it comes to the Saints.
I don't mind the Doggies because like us, they are underdogs... but they hate us.
A guy I work with who follows the flogs was giving it to me about our GF record. Of course I responded with" "at least we play grand finals..." to which he responded...:what's the point of getting into them if you can't win one".. To which I responded; 'what's the point fo getting into 7 consecutive prelims in a row when you can' win one..." ha ha.
LOSER.
I still laugh at the pathetic way they whinged about the Brian Lake free kick goal to Riewoldt. Fair enough if that was the only one he kicked, but he kicked another three after that including the sealer to win the PF.
My whole family are Doggie supporters and they definately would like to make a GF.
Still they all go silent when I used to point out the Brownlow was FAIREST and Best and Grant deserved at least two weeks for the weak act on Holland.
I used to laugh at that idiot Bulldog supporter called Mark (I think) who would call SEN. He'd base arguments on pure lies and present fabricated statistics to suit his argument.
I never heard one Bulldog supporter blame Brian Harris for giving away the free right in front of the umpire after he was repeatedly warned not to manhandle Roo. It was smart play by Roo and a dumb act by Lake.
It wasn't like the Dogs lost the 2009 Prelim by a kick.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
stinger wrote:the umpires are supposed to award their votes to the FAIRESTand best players on the ground......end of story afaic...get lost dullbogs....
Sorry I dont get what that has to do with this topic.
Bunk_Moreland wrote:And the Brownlow is FAIREST and Best.
So is the Trevor Barker Award as far as I know. Still Stevie Baker won it one year. Not sure he'd come up too well in a "fairness" comparison with Grant.
Bunk_Moreland wrote:And the Brownlow is FAIREST and Best.
So is the Trevor Barker Award as far as I know. Still Stevie Baker won it one year. Not sure he'd come up too well in a "fairness" comparison with Grant.
you get rubbed out...no brownlow.....nothing to do with who wins the trevor barker award.....grant was rubbed out so he was ineligible...don't think the same rules applied in bakers case......anyway i remember the grant incident.....mongrel act ....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
Bunk_Moreland wrote:And the Brownlow is FAIREST and Best.
So is the Trevor Barker Award as far as I know. Still Stevie Baker won it one year. Not sure he'd come up too well in a "fairness" comparison with Grant.
you get rubbed out...no brownlow.....nothing to do with who wins the trevor barker award.....grant was rubbed out so he was ineligible...don't think the same rules applied in bakers case......anyway i remember the grant incident.....mongrel act ....
Mongrel act? You must get upset at least once a year at what our players do if that was a mongrel act. It was worth a week but it wasnt a mongrel act.
plugger66 wrote:I think Grant did it and deserved time. i also think the person who wins the brownlow must have the most votes whether they have been suspended or not. The problem is unlike when they changed the brownlow so that people who drew also got the brownlow is we have one year when Grant got the most votes but couldnt win it. If they change it obviously Harvey still wins the brownlow and there is an asterix to say Grant now also wins it because of a change of rules. The problem is it sort of devalues Harvs win. I suppose if they ask him first and he agrees then all good. it will be changed its just a matter of when. It looks like it will happen for a second time this year with Fyffe. That will lead to change IMO.
But why should it change. The Brownlow is the FAIREST and Best. Neither Grant nor Fyfe are eligible.
Tough titties for both.
That is the rule at the moment. I think it will change. You either dont or dont want it to which is fair enough. I dont think a player like Fyffe should lose a brownlow for something that wasnt even close to reportable 3 years ago. Yep its the rule now but he was still a little unlucky. I actually want it changed but the Harvey year is the real sticky point. I reckon had Grant drawn and not won on his own it would have been changed by now. I wouldnt class Lenny, Rooy or Fyffe as dirty players but they have all been suspended at least once and any Lennys case about 3 times.
If they change the rules, I doubt very much that it would be made retrospective. You can't take a Brownlow off someone and you can't say they both won it if they got different numbers of votes.
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
plugger66 wrote:I think Grant did it and deserved time. i also think the person who wins the brownlow must have the most votes whether they have been suspended or not. The problem is unlike when they changed the brownlow so that people who drew also got the brownlow is we have one year when Grant got the most votes but couldnt win it. If they change it obviously Harvey still wins the brownlow and there is an asterix to say Grant now also wins it because of a change of rules. The problem is it sort of devalues Harvs win. I suppose if they ask him first and he agrees then all good. it will be changed its just a matter of when. It looks like it will happen for a second time this year with Fyffe. That will lead to change IMO.
But why should it change. The Brownlow is the FAIREST and Best. Neither Grant nor Fyfe are eligible.
Tough titties for both.
That is the rule at the moment. I think it will change. You either dont or dont want it to which is fair enough. I dont think a player like Fyffe should lose a brownlow for something that wasnt even close to reportable 3 years ago. Yep its the rule now but he was still a little unlucky. I actually want it changed but the Harvey year is the real sticky point. I reckon had Grant drawn and not won on his own it would have been changed by now. I wouldnt class Lenny, Rooy or Fyffe as dirty players but they have all been suspended at least once and any Lennys case about 3 times.
If they change the rules, I doubt very much that it would be made retrospective. You can't take a Brownlow off someone and you can't say they both won it if they got different numbers of votes.
They will never take it Harvs. There maybe an asterix explaining why there are two. I doubt they will change the rules and not give it to previous winners. They wont change it if that is the case. I still say that is Fyffe wins this year then they may change it very soon. I remember Neil Roberts saying he would give it back if they changed the rules. Im going to a luncheon in October where he is speaking. I hope someone asks if he still feels that way.
stinger wrote:the umpires are supposed to award their votes to the FAIRESTand best players on the ground......end of story afaic...get lost dullbogs....
Sorry I dont get what that has to do with this topic.
Sorry, I don't get what that has not got to do with this topic.
PS: Flogs, Dullbogs, 'dog by name, dog by nature'... love it!
It's Dave, man. Will you open up? I got the stuff with me! -------Who?
Dave, man. Open up ------------------------------------------ -----Dave???
Yeah, Dave. ---------------------------------------------------------Dave's not here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOiG1hAr ... detailpage
skeptic wrote: ↑Tue 30 Jan 2024 8:07pmCongrats to Dave McNamara - hereby dubbed the KNOWINGEST KNOW IT ALL of Saintsational
