Will Crippa win the rising star?

[ItsOurTime]

You would have a point if it was the 'best and fairest' award.  However, it is the 'fairest and best ' award and I reckon umpires are best placed to determine who that is.

Where does it say that one has priority over the other though? Lewis gave a very dirty whack to a player, cited by the umps, and still got 2 votes.

[DJC]

Where does it say that one has priority over the other though? Lewis gave a very dirty whack to a player, cited by the umps, and still got 2 votes.

In the past, a player who was reported could not be awarded votes in that game.  That was changed to cover the situation where a reported player is cleared by the tribunal.

The priority given to the 'fairest' element is demonstrated by the ineligibility rules and the fact that it is the umpires' award.

I don't mind the Brownlow going to the fairest and best player, particularly now that we have the coaches' award and the AFLPA award.  That should cover all angles.

[ItsOurTime]

In the past, a player who was reported could not be awarded votes in that game.  That was changed to cover the situation where a reported player is cleared by the tribunal.

The priority given to the 'fairest' element is demonstrated by the ineligibility rules and the fact that it is the umpires' award.

I don't mind the Brownlow going to the fairest and best player, particularly now that we have the coaches' award and the AFLPA award.  That should cover all angles.

There's plenty of unfair play that isn't reportable and fairest is not the same as not unfair. All that says is a suspension automatically makes you too unfair to win the thing, which is a silly rule.

[PassIt2Carrots]

Fairest should be replaced with 'not dirty'.

[DJC]

Fairest should be replaced with 'not dirty'.

It's just another quirky traditional aspect of our game.  Apart from Neil Roberts handing his Brownlow back if "fairest" is dropped, what would be the consequences of making the change? 

[ItsOurTime]

It's just another quirky traditional aspect of our game.  Apart from Neil Roberts handing his Brownlow back if "fairest" is dropped, what would be the consequences of making the change?

Can you denounce your win?  ;D The AFL would probably be happy to add it to their museum collection.

[Dominator_7]

I hope everyone can temper their expectations of Cripps for next year. While I expect him to become a great 200+ game player for us, I also kind of expect him to have some 2nd year blues next year.

He hasn't really been tagged yet, next year clubs will put a lot more time into trying to stop him. Until he learns to play with high expectations and a lot closer attention from opposition teams his output may be lower than we are expecting of him.

Let him get to 50 games and then really watch him take off !!

That's my fear.
That Cripps will be put under  too much pressure by supporters looking for a messiah to lead us out of  trouble, and the kid won't be able to cope.
Then again, he was being tagged the 2nd half of the year, and the Cripps bandwagon was getting pretty crowded, and he was able to cope just fine.
Here's hoping, like Juddy before him, he s one of those young players that has no trouble coping with pressure and expectation.

[LP]

Hump it on him, if he doesn't break he's a keeper!

Cruel but fair! :o

[kruddler]

In the past, a player who was reported could not be awarded votes in that game.  That was changed to cover the situation where a reported player is cleared by the tribunal.

The priority given to the 'fairest' element is demonstrated by the ineligibility rules and the fact that it is the umpires' award.

I don't mind the Brownlow going to the fairest and best player, particularly now that we have the coaches' award and the AFLPA award.  That should cover all angles.

That is a crock.

Firstly, fairest and best is the same thing as best and fairest.

There was some discussion about it on Footy Classified.

They used the example of Jordan Lewis giving someone a coathanger in a marking contest, getting reported at the time, and getting 2 votes for the game. They were arguing that the brownlow should simply be awarded 'best' player as the umpires obviously don't take into account the 'fairest' element when giving votes. FYI, Lewis got 2 (or 3) weeks because of the hit.

As it turns out, the umpires simply award the votes to the best players.
The tribunal works out the fairest element.

In any event, i put more stock in things like the AFLCA player of the year award. THEY are the ones that are best placed to decide the best player.

[PaulP]

...

In any event, i put more stock in things like the AFLCA player of the year award. THEY are the ones that are best placed to decide the best player.

Very much agree.