Are the Bulldogs serious?

[plugger66]

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!

Yep but arent we discussing if Grant should keep the award. Anyway the umpires just vote for the best. I think that maybe obvious with Plugger winning the brownlow. Dave you need to catch up. And they are hilarious names.

[stinger]

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!

.. ..exactly...but

not surprised dave, .......are you??....



from wikipedia...


"Although the award is generally spoken of the "best and fairest", the award's specific criterion is "fairest and best", reflecting an emphasis on sportsmanship and fair play (which also explains the decision to have the votes cast by the umpires), as the 1924 somewhat illuminated citation expressly states:

Mr. Edward Greeves

Geelong Football Club

[VFL EMBLEM]

THE CHARLES BROWNLOW TROPHY

Dear Sir,

On behalf of the Victorian Football League, we desire

to place on permanent record the appreciation of your excellent play
during the Season 1924.

You were selected as the fairest and best player and we have

pleasure in presenting the accompanying Gold Medal in recognition of those
sterling qualities.

Trusting that you will be long spared to interest yourself in the

adancement [sic] of the Game.

We are, yours sincerely

W. Baldwin Spencer (President),

M.E. Green (Treasurer), E. L. Wilson (Secretary)[1]

The VFL was the last of the four major mainland leagues to strike an award for league best and fairest: the SANFL's Magarey Medal had been awarded since 1898, while the WAFL's Sandover Medal (1921) and the VFA's Recorder Cup (1923) had been struck more recently. Over time, all of these awards have migrated towards similar rules regarding voting and eligibility.

But for the change of the monogram from VFL to AFL in 1990, the design, shape and size of the medallion itself has remained virtually unchanged from that of 1924."



hence grant was ineligible......

[Dave McNamara]

Yep but arent we discussing if Grant should keep the award.

Nope. We are discussing why he should not get the award.





PS: Glad though Pluggs that you are sharing in the hilariousness (is that a word?) of those apt names for the Poodles.

[plugger66]

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!

.. ..exactly...but

not surprised dave, .......are you??....



from wikipedia...


"Although the award is generally spoken of the "best and fairest", the award's specific criterion is "fairest and best", reflecting an emphasis on sportsmanship and fair play (which also explains the decision to have the votes cast by the umpires), as the 1924 somewhat illuminated citation expressly states:

Mr. Edward Greeves

Geelong Football Club

[VFL EMBLEM]

THE CHARLES BROWNLOW TROPHY

Dear Sir,

On behalf of the Victorian Football League, we desire

to place on permanent record the appreciation of your excellent play
during the Season 1924.

You were selected as the fairest and best player and we have

pleasure in presenting the accompanying Gold Medal in recognition of those
sterling qualities.

Trusting that you will be long spared to interest yourself in the

adancement [sic] of the Game.

We are, yours sincerely

W. Baldwin Spencer (President),

M.E. Green (Treasurer), E. L. Wilson (Secretary)[1]

The VFL was the last of the four major mainland leagues to strike an award for league best and fairest: the SANFL's Magarey Medal had been awarded since 1898, while the WAFL's Sandover Medal (1921) and the VFA's Recorder Cup (1923) had been struck more recently. Over time, all of these awards have migrated towards similar rules regarding voting and eligibility.

But for the change of the monogram from VFL to AFL in 1990, the design, shape and size of the medallion itself has remained virtually unchanged from that of 1924."



hence grant was ineligible......

I think my dead great grandmother knows that. It isnt the topic though.

[saintspremiers]

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 ....

Agree stinger.

Smackscray can wine all they like but I doubt they'll award it to any one with over 100 points demerited.

[ChelseaGuy]

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.

I accept that rules can change over time, what I don't understand is this concept of retrospectively changing rules to impact past awards. Seriously "integrity" of the game goes out the door

[stinger]

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 ....

Agree stinger.

Smackscray can wine all they like but I doubt they'll award it to any one with over 100 points demerited.

nice to converse with someone who understands the topic....and the reasons that the decision not to award the brownlow to that mongrel grant should never be reversed

[Munga]

Yep, lets retrospectively adjust medals, cups, umpiring, results. Maybe they'll take back Tom Hawkins goal/point.

Here's an idea, get over it!

AFL lost me after sirengate.

[Bernard Shakey]

....and the reasons that the decision not to award the brownlow to that mongrel grant should never be reversed

That mongrel Grant"?

How on earth did Dipper or Plugger win Brownlows? Compared to those two Chris Grant is an angel!

Amazing how one eyed people can be. Chris Grant was one of the fairest players to ever play the game.

[Life Long Saint]

Just for the sake of the discussion...How did Grant go in the other awards that year that don't require the fairness criteria?
Did he win the MVP, Herald-Sun, Age, coaches awards?
NOPE. Not one!
Not even the B&F at his club.
He won AA selection that year.

The Brownlow is, and should always be, for the fairest and best.
There are plenty of other awards that don't have the fairest criteria.

[plugger66]

Just for the sake of the discussion...How did Grant go in the other awards that year that don't require the fairness criteria?
Did he win the MVP, Herald-Sun, Age, coaches awards?
NOPE. Not one!
Not even the B&F at his club.
He won AA selection that year.

The Brownlow is, and should always be, for the fairest and best.
There are plenty of other awards that don't have the fairest criteria.

Probably just proves what i said previously. It has nothing to do with fairness. Its the best player. The umpires even have to give votes to players reported in the game just incase they are found not guilty. And as I said previously no one would care if this was changed if Harvs didnt win that year. Dont worry if it is changed he will keep the award. I have no idea why it matter how he went in other awards. Can you explain what that point it.

[matrix]

unreal
couldnt understand a buttered crumpet

[saintspremiers]

Just for the sake of the discussion...How did Grant go in the other awards that year that don't require the fairness criteria?
Did he win the MVP, Herald-Sun, Age, coaches awards?
NOPE. Not one!
Not even the B&F at his club.
He won AA selection that year.

The Brownlow is, and should always be, for the fairest and best.
There are plenty of other awards that don't have the fairest criteria.

Probably just proves what i said previously. It has nothing to do with fairness. Its the best player. The umpires even have to give votes to players reported in the game just incase they are found not guilty. And as I said previously no one would care if this was changed if Harvs didnt win that year. Dont worry if it is changed he will keep the award. I have no idea why it matter how he went in other awards. Can you explain what that point it.

I care if it's changed regardless of Harvs.

You have the MVP.

Brownlow is about the FAIREST and best.

[stinger]

....and the reasons that the decision not to award the brownlow to that mongrel grant should never be reversed

That mongrel Grant"?

How on earth did Dipper or Plugger win Brownlows? Compared to those two Chris Grant is an angel!

Amazing how one eyed people can be. Chris Grant was one of the fairest players to ever play the game.

fair players don't elbow their opponents in the face ffs....mongrel act...hence mongrel player....

[matrix]

wow plugger must be a dog mongrel of a bloke then

99% of players would have a brain fade on the field from frustration

if youve played footy and any decent level you might understand

[stinger]

wow plugger must be a dog mongrel of a bloke then

99% of players would have a brain fade on the field from frustration

if youve played footy and any decent level you might understand

yeah i played ...never hit an opponent in the face with a fist or an elbow.....ever..


also sat on tribunals for about 15 years ...chairman as well..how about we stay on the topic without the personal insults???

[matrix]

ummm
what the hell are you on about?
im answering the thread topic and the little off topics that have started like if we had the attitude that grant was a dirty dog how does plugger look???
secondly ive insulted no one personally
thirdly, how about YOU stop making it about YOU
?

good lord
no one cares what youve done or havent done in the football world
should i sprout my football achievements in the thread?

plugger was a dirty player when he wanted to be
grant had a squeaky clean career when comparing the two
but somehow me saying that and generally saying that 99% of people have a brain fade on the field and do something they regret has been linked to your post only in the thread

if i was talking about YOU i wouldve quoted your post
but i didnt

so, ill go about my business and you can go about thinking every post is directed at you

[stinger]

ummm
what the hell are you on about?
im answering the thread topic and the little off topics that have started like if we had the attitude that grant was a dirty dog how does plugger look???
secondly ive insulted no one personally
thirdly, how about YOU stop making it about YOU
?

good lord
no one cares what youve done or havent done in the football world
should i sprout my football achievements in the thread?

plugger was a dirty player when he wanted to be
grant had a squeaky clean career when comparing the two
but somehow me saying that and generally saying that 99% of people have a brain fade on the field and do something they regret has been linked to your post only in the thread

if i was talking about YOU i wouldve quoted your post
but i didnt

so, ill go about my business and you can go about thinking every post is directed at you

see you haven't changed.....and don't have the spine to stick by what you post...of course you were having a go at me.,....psst...i can hear big footy calling you back... ....it was f****** obvious your post was a comment on mine