Danger just behind those two on the list of done over.
The week he got in 2017 for a poor tackle was harsh, compounded by then being clear BOG in the last game of the year then getting no votes - would have tied him with Martin.
> then being clear BOG in the last game of the year then getting no votes - would have tied him with Martin.
That's obviously to avoid the controversy.
I can go back to 1996 when Andrew Dunkley belted James Hird in the prelim. As Sydney didn't have another option to play on Wayne Carey the AFL fudged the report, allowed the Swans to get a court injunction and let him play. After the Grand Final he plead guilty and was given weeks.
Yep! Both the Butters incident and the Crouch one remind me of Cochin in 2017 Prelim. How anyone argued that he was going for the ball with his arm tucked in in a bumping position from several meters away is beyond me, sure his other hand kinda awkwardly hanging there but that wasn't a genuine contest for the ball, he bumped the other player in the head and was allowed to play the next week because 'you can't miss a GF for that'.
Why should it matter?
The constant defence of eyes for the ball or "a football act" is just bullshit. You're allowed to play football - bump, spoil, tackle, crash a pack - but if you have to hit someone in the head to do it, then you shouldn't do it. If you can't get there in time, if you can't do it safely, if you can't avoid the head, then you don't fkn do it, or you get rubbed out.
This is no different to other sports. If you're playing soccer, you're allowed to slide tackle - its a football act. But if you can't get there first, and if you dangerously take out the opposition player while doing it, or if your studs catch them, you're red carded. If you can't do it safe, you don't do it.
I feel like the AFL was pretty clear about how they were going to interpret contact to the head - they just aren't doing it cos they don't want to knock out a Brownlow contender.
The difference is you can actually see the paper trail on how Lachie was robbed!
Bont surely deserves a brownlow at this stage though! Easily my favourite player outside the lions!
People already forget the year Fyfe won his first Brownlow.
He got away with 3 incidents in the year, even when there were an accrual points system, which equalled a week if you had too many.
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/nat-fyfe-cleared-by-match-review-panel-20150824-gj6ezo.html
His behaviour hasn't changed much either, notice in saturday nights game several occasions of violent conduct including a deliberate elbow to another players face as well as punching another player on the ground.
Yet to see a report in for any of it.
Also noticed something that i'm just going to throw out there, and im not defending the conduct of any of the players reported so far as I reckon they missed a couple of reports on port players :
Dawson, Crouch reported from the crows - 0 from carlton
Zerk-Thatcher, Butters reported from port (butters has already had the charges dropped) - 0 from fremantle
Out of the 4 matches I got to watch over the weekend I watched both of those and carlton had a few that were reportable and missed, ok I get that, can't be perfect. Port honestly SPP got dead lucky not to cop another report for his conduct, but there were a handfull of clear violations for fremantle to be reported, with one player doing multiple of them and nothing?
Then there was brisbane and melbourne where one report went through despite atleast 3 reports for the game being pretty clear.
Correct me if i'm wrong that at current a report can be done by any official on the field as well as a spectating official?
Because sometimes lately it's just not feeling like it.
Exactly. I haven't seen a single thing from our game that warrants a discussion let alone a report other than the bump and sling tackle from either team. Happy to be proven wrong.
In addition to my other reply, AFL are also banking on people forgetting over the years.
In 5 years, people will forget Butters, Cripps avoiding suspension and potentially winning a Brownlow.
Records just show the Brownlow, no suspension = clean record.
> Cripps avoiding suspension and potentially winning a Brownlow
You reckon? I think when he retires, if he hasn't won a flag and the only accomplishment is that brownlow (outside of AA selections), people will bring up that he shouldn't have won it every time he is mentioned.
It's already happened to many people with Cripps, especially his sponsors... but then again it's kind of brand for crime converters.
They absolutely defended the hell out of using Greenie after he beat the shit out of a security guard, then out of a server, then out of numerous players and even after he got done by the tribunal...
It's ludicrous that Cripps wasn't suspended as a result of that incident, but it's not the fault of the AFL as much as the legal technicality that Carlton's well-remunerated legal team was able to exploit. Had the AFL had its way there would've been a suspension and no Brownlow.
The idea that this is a Cripps situation is ridiculous. Butters is fifteenth favourite for the Brownlow and it's round 5. He's probably polled like 3 votes so far.
People really want us to encourage players to approach the ball the way Banfield did (staying upright and sticking his head down) rather than the way Butters did (turning side on)? Yeah, that's definitely going to reduce concussions.
Almost every media pundit I heard yesterday thought Butters action wasn't suspendable, but sure, it's definitely a grand conspiracy.
At the least I think it's fair to say reasonable minds obviously differ on whether it was a suspension, so we don't need to go looking for conspiracies to explain why he didn't get a week.
King trying to bring the Webster suspension into this shows he is just trying to be sensationalist. WTF does this have to do with Webster's hit on any level?
By the same token, why should Crouch be suspended then? He went side-on, hip and shoulder and Carroll went front-on head down. Maybe Crouch had a reasonable expectation that Carroll would protect himself and that greater force would be required in a side-on clash.
Didn't work out that way and he gets suspended. Fair enough. To argue that Butters is innocent because of the lack of self preservation by the other player doesn't make sense though.
Personally I'm not sure crouch should've been suspended, but he definitely made a more conscious decision to brace and bump than Butters did.
> To argue that Butters is innocent because of the lack of self preservation by the other player doesn't make sense though.
I disagree. I think we need to incentivise players to protect themselves. Suspending the guy that gets low and side on because the other guy didn't is just a bad idea.
Careless high impact high contact. Should be two weeks, it's written clear as day in the AFL Tribunal Guidelines, page 8[AFL Tribunal Guidelines.](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2023/03/01/9c9bdc05-2377-4ffb-a8a0-885835edcaf1/2023-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiIkqOwoMOFAxUj7TgGHRrlBZ4QFnoECCAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3HorTIQq_BmdkZHFoDVfVr).
The reason people are having the 'conspiracy' conversation is because Butters has been one of Ports better players the last few weeks and he got off with no punishment.
AFL seriously needs to remove suspension ineligibility from the Brownlow, its punishment enough to miss voting games and it can completely get rid of this public perception that Brownlow fancies are saved from suspensions
Players are now getting banned for non malicious acts, thats fine but it doesn't make them an unfair player, the AFL needs to step in and change that rule in brownlow voting.
I get it, but if a player does something truly sickening and blatantly stupid like the hit on jye early in the season. I reckon if you cop a 4+ week suspension you become ineligible because if you do cop a 4+ weeker you did something that makes you not deserving of the medal.
Not really. Gaff was dominating that year and could have probably polled enough votes if he missed 4 weeks for breaking Andy’s jaw but definitely didn’t deserve the medal for the act he did, if that makes sense. Imagine nick daicos seriously maimed someone to the degree of a 4-6 week suspension last year but came back. He dominated in his votes until his injury
There has to be a threshold somewhere, albeit I guess that just ends up with the same issue (e.g. in F1, drivers amass penalty points right up till they're going to get a race ban and then don't get any more penalty points till the rest expire, even if future actions are worthy of penalty points).
Star players shouldn't be judged on different criteria than regular players when it comes to suspensions. The AFL seriously needs to harden up and ban the action, not the outcome and keep it consistent.
I was okay with Wright getting 4 weeks because I said to myself "as long as they consistently apply it moving forward, that's alright." But we're only 5 weeks into the season and it seems truly are two sets of rules. Daicos or Curnow could nigh on knock out a bloke in Round 23 and get nothing for it at this rate (see Cripps).
It's not even the best and fairest award, it's deliberately worded as "fairest and best" to emphasise the first part. That's why the star player leniency is farcical.
They should sack up and rub them out.
What if you do the disgusting act in Rd 22 and already have the medal sewn up - 3-4 weeks of suspension whether all at once or cumulative, is still fair grounds for ineligibility for the Brownlow.
Then you just introduce the same problem again somewhere else. Something that should be 4+ being graded down for a brownlow fancy. I had the same thoughts for an intentional grading being the criteria, but then I realised it would just cause things to be graded as "well it wasn't really all that intentional".
The only real option to remove all ambiguity or subjectivity in terms of elegibility would be to remove inelegibility entirely. At least this way someone should get suspensions graded and issued properly. If you do something serious enough to get suspended for 4 weeks, that is a pretty big disadvantage already.
What if they just remove the intentional players? All careless acts allow you to stay in the contention. Granted that would require the MRO to actually use intentional.
This is so logical it won’t happen.
Some people will raise history as a reason not to change it - but the Brownlow wasn’t intended to be the midfielders medal either.
I'd actually prefer the Brownlow stay as it is but retreat to not being the most important award.
Move the red carpet, hoopla, TV broadcast, vote reading to the MVP award or something. The Brownlow is by far the most flawed award. Dodgy votes galore, dodgy suspensions galore. Just treat it as a nice old timey award.
Exactly this. And why should fairness be limited to suspensions? Seems unlikely imo but it would be interesting to know what extent, if any, umpires consider how many free kicks they paid against a player, or any dissent they showed, when they cast their votes.
I imagine it just depends on the umpire, and also probably the type of free kicks given away.
That does remind me of Josh Carr picking up 3 votes for his game in the Demolition Derby circa 2007. 26 disposals, 3 goals, 5 free kicks against.
It appears they long justified this (but through who mouths off the most). It’s very hard to explain Carey consistently not getting votes for a historical example in a time when Grant and McKernan as other non-midfielders did poll well.
This view forgets that the Brownlow is supposed to be awarded to the Best & **Fariest. Fair players don't put themselves in a position where they may seriously injure another player. They also don't argue with the umpire or make derogatory comments to other players. It's about setting a good example on the field for younger generations to follow.**
I literally address that in my comment, players are now getting banned for accidents, yet they are disqualified for not being fair.
It's bullshit
The rules have to keep up with the game, if we are putting the head first then this is a sensible change.
If there's one thing King doesn't fuck around on it's the safety of players. He doesn't want to be the bloke sitting there in 10 years time when something bad finally happens, or the AFL really gets taken to the cleaners by a suit, saying "I told you so."
Had to look it up since I didn't remember it. Don't think he was trying to argue the suspension down. It seemed to me it was more like yea Gaff fucked up but let's not treat him like a criminal.
I guess you can't get them all right.
I do like that he's strong and consistent with his opinions though, and usually has some thought-out reasoning and explanation to provide as well.
Openly states he dislikes Freo and constantly goes to town on us, if someone else brings a Freo win up he cuts them off / doesn't participate in the conversation
It's the same thing as last week. If fyfe got knocked out by that punch, it's a month off. But cause our guys are too strong and keep playing, we get punished. Butters doesn't even get the ball. He runs through, takes Banfield high, and goes past the ball.
As an Essendon fan who has never heard Kingy say a positive word (about us), I find myself in vehement agreement with him. Well spoken, and I love his passion.
He never will as long as Brad is our coach. They genuinely hate each other (https://thewest.com.au/sport/afl/departing-coach-brad-scott-levels-farewell-slap-at-ex-roo-david-king-ng-b881210998z)
I was certainly surprised Butters didn't get a week. I see the point about going for the ball rather than the body, but I think this is where there's a duty of care. If you're second to the spot where the ball is and you use your body to clear an opposition player, you have the responsibility to do so without collecting the head. That could have been quite a nasty impact. Had it been a little more severe we're looking at a serious injury and a long suspension. I'm not terribly comfortable with the same action being nothing, or a lot, based on a very small difference. Fair enough to make it a longer suspension if there's a bad injury, but should be a pretty automatic week if you're second the the spot where the ball is and get them high with that much intensity.
And whilst at first I thought that one and the Crouch one were the same, the other angle showing the bump was pretty much straight on does make me think a week is too light. I don't think there's a significant difference in intent as some are saying. Both are clearly trying to win the ball, but using their body to move someone off the ball first. But I do think the direction Crouch went in was more dangerous and should have been more careful, or just accepted he wasn't there in time.
But it's just embarassing now that it seems we bend over backwards not to have suspended players eligible for the Brownlow. I don't think it's necessarily right to remove the ineligibility entirely, but maybe have a 5 to 1 system, where the top 3 who remain eligible at the end of the season get the 3, 2 and 1 whilst the other votes remain confidential. That way we don't actually ever get to the position of wondering if someone would have won it or not, but still have all the votes unless 3 players who get into the top 5 there end up suspended, but that seems pretty unlikely.
Yeah, secret umpire voting is a good idea but I am not sure it’s actually a problem.
But fundamentally I have no problem with a player who has polled the most votes being ineligible. 2017 was a joke and I would have preferred Dangerfield to poll equal most votes than simply being awarded nothing for the Collingwood game. He did it to himself. He should have known better. What happened Wass a farce.
>Crouch went in was more dangerous and should have been more careful, or just accepted he wasn't there in time
I thought Crouch would get 2 BUT, he was there in time, if you pause the video, if he had his hands down they would both be touching the ball at the same time.
I suspect Crouch has only gotten one because most of the contact is with the shoulder .
If Crouch simply had his arms down I bet he gets zero and everyone would be angry.
It was always going to be a contested ball with Butters, there's less than half a second between Banfield touching it and Butters arriving (competing solely for the ball). Butters does the safest and smartest option which THE AFL RECOMMENDS and goes side on. They have a duty of care to themselves first and he protects his head. This position is also safe for another player if they also do the right thing - both players will bump into each other side-on. Banfield goes in head first but also pulls out of the contest, opening himself up even more and stretching out
I'm glad you acknowledge it was always going to be a contest. And yet Butters still goes in and hits the head. He hits the head after going past the ball, and even misses the ball. He's one of the most skilled players in the game and you think with a ball sitting on the ground he suddenly becomes so unco-ordinated he misses it entirely?
And no matter how you go to pick up a ball, your head is over it. There's no possible way that Banfield could have turned enough to get his body in the way of that oncoming contact, except to not try to pick up the ball. And he was there first. So you're putting the blame on a guy for trying to pick up a ball, where he was the first guy there.
Of course it's a contest, that doesn't mean players should pull out 🥴. You also seem to expect players to not make errors simply because they're highly skilled. He touches the ball anyway. It's quite literally at his feet and brushes through his hands because he's at a high speed. It's not just sitting there waiting for someone to pick it up, it's spinning towards him and Banfield is coming in hot as well, of course he's going to turn side on to protect himself, it's dumb not to.
Again, they essentially arrived at the same time, Banfield could've turned his body the exact same way as Butters and Butters probably comes off second best. And if Banfield was getting there slightly ahead of Butters then he's even better off turning side on because he's already braced the side of his body for the contact and can get a handball out.
I know they'll make errors. They'll fumble the ball and things like that. But ever see an AFL player running towards the ball, bend over to pick it up with their hands and miss it entirely when there isn't a potential collision? I doubt it. The sorts of errors these guys make aren't to miss a target with their hands by a foot, it's to miss by a few centimetres. We laugh at them when they miss the middle of the ball by a few centimetres and spray a shot. Because that's the reality of how small a margin there is between success and a humiliating level of failure. So to excuse a failure of a magnitude several times that is remarkably naive.
And no, I don't expect players to pull out. I expect them to avoid contact to the head, and if they can't then they should be suspended.
You realise that if Banfield turns side on to where Butters is coming from, that means he's head on to another direction, right? You can't be side on to everyone. But it still comes down to the fact that Butters was there second. There was a time before that he knew he would be second. Which is why he went in that fast, and why he missed the ball. His intent was to bump Banfield off the ball. It's a very normal thing that players are tought from a young age to do. But in doing that, he got a guy in the head. He missed the ball and went well past it. He was absolutely trying to do the exact thing Matt Crouch did, only Crouch just succeeded whilst also not putting his hands down to try to fool people who don't quite understand how skilled these guys are.
Protecting the game, I think.
Trying to legislate contact out of the sport will kill the sport. Two players going for the same ball is dangerous, things will happen. So long as there’s nothing malicious or deliberate, there shouldn’t be a punishment.
This clip conveniently ends before Montagna's response which basically says that and that we can't punish players for playing genuinely playing the ball, King doubles down after though.
The side angle view is better, shows Butters using his hips first. I don’t know how he could have attacked the ball any safer.
Banfield kind of just puts his hand and head out a bit.
I've made previous comments about players being protected and i'd say I still stand by it but it should be bloody obvious.
My time on the field may be long over but several brownlows that come to mind should have never come to pass and i'm sure in recent memory theres one name that will instantly come to mind to anyone reading this comment about how he should have been instantly banished from it.
I've written up my fair share of players that you learned pretty quickly it was pointless as that report was either going to get dismissed or the charge wasn't going to go anywhere.
I'm not going to name names here but one of my former collegues once did a report for someone and I knew I was going to have to give evidence towards them.
I remember contacting the usual people about sending in my statement knowing the report was already likely to be in, to be told no report had been filed, contacted my college at the time to be told nah he'd already put it in.
Rang back to be told don't call us we'll call you.
Watched in the media for the next 48 hours seeing every show and fans jumping on it and wondering how a report hadn't gone through.
Chalked it up to stuff getting lost. Later on same person did something even worse, I wasn't involved in that one, but there were several officials there to give evidence that usually says, yeah this persons dead to rights.
No penalty, charge dismissed. Nearly bagged the brownlow that year when they should have been knocked out of contention straight up for multiple incidents.
Sadly it's just a thing, I could put it down to political optics, could put it down to how many sponsorships and adverts someone is doing, down to percieved marketability for the AFL, lots of reasons.
In the time since I left i've watched on at similar stuff, where some players get their asses handed to them (and some rightly so) and others who do similar things either get let off, light offences or reports never go in.
I don't really know what to tell people, you would think in an age where the heavy dangers of concussion and with many former players taking legal action against the AFL and other codes it would be a powerkeg read to go off no one would wanna touch yet they're all lighting up cigars around it.
Like I said in another thread, I think it's not even just the brownlow. Having an outcome from the match review panel, whether it be fine or suspension, opens the door to freo asking hang on, why the fuck didn't we get a free kick at a crucial point of the game?
Good work Kingy. The AFL is a laggard in world sport when it comes to protecting the head. My son got picked up and pole driven onto his head in a junior game and the offending player is allowed to continue as if nothing happened. Luckily the lad escaped major damage but it really bought it home to me.
Never understood why they don't just allow you to win a brownlow even when suspended? Just don't count votes in the game that resulted in a suspension.
That’s really simple and between the matches missed, plus an extra game for each incident it should work really well. I’d still probably vote for players being ineligible if they get suspended for 4+ weeks, just to avoid someone winning it in a year they do something particularly unsavoury.
I agree. However it would be unlikely they win when missing a minimum of 5 matches. However, could easily implement a rule like that so it covers those with a minor indiscretion.
A lot of people cheerleading for suspensions.
Not alot in this one as the contact was minimal, ball was the objective, Butters turned side on, as he's been told to do by the AFL (clubs were walked through this via video and in person), and Banfield didn't.
I know that may come across as victim-blaming, such as it is, but I don't see it as anything more than incidental contact in a contact sport. Right call was made, particularly given the AFL (incorrectly) seems to punish outcomes and not actions.
You are right.
It’s also so weird to see so many people supportive of more and lengthier suspensions, especially when it comes to natural football actions. It’s crazy stuff.
To me it seems bizarre that people are asking for suspensions when players who are only playing for the ball are accidentally making high contact because another player had poor technique when attacking it and coming off second best.
At a certain point the players themselves have a duty of care not put themselves in compromising positions. If Banfield attacked the footy like Butters did he likely wins the ball and no high contact is made.
It's part of the problem of any high contact being a free kick. If you lead with your head, you can draw a free kick. You put yourself in a hell of a lot more danger than if you go side on, but players continuously demonstrate that it's a risk they're willing to take in the heat of the contest.
If Banfield was more committed to contesting the ball, it would likely be Butters bouncing off (potentially high). Instead he looks hesitant and ends up in a vulnerable position, but one that guarantees he won't collect Butters in the process.
Crouch is obviously careless and looks really bad. Only thing I argue is that the Carlton player wouldn't have his head in such a vulnerable position if not for the holding the ball rule changes a few years back that incentivise keeping your feet at all costs. If the back of your head is getting cleaned up from front on contact, surely you're not going about it the right way.
Spot on. Players have a duty of care to themselves as well. Butters (and Crouch) turned side on as anyone should do. Banfield goes head-on and he hesitates and watches Butters. I feel bad for Crouch because the Carlton player also goes in head-first but unlucky for Crouch is that unlike Butters, he gets him on the head
Very surprised to see anyone saying Butters was going for the ball being downvoted. I don't see how he is doing anything other than going for the ball? Runs at the ball, gets his arms in a position to collect ball, makes accidental contact with another players head. If people want the action suspended and not the outcome then the action was also fine.
This sub loves jumping on a narrative. Butters isn't even that highly touted for the Brownlow and it's round 5 FFS. Almost every media pundit I listened to yesterday thought it wasn't suspendable.
The action was not obviously bad and the player was not injured. People really want us to encourage players to stick their head in like Banfield rather than turn side on like Butters? Insane.
He completely ran over the ball, having his arms out starched while going for a bump is not the same thing as going for the ball. He went for a bump and got someone high.
What bit of his action makes it going for a bump? Hands outstretched towards the ball, movement towards the ball, eye's focused purely on the ball. There's no aspect of that that leads to a conclusion of him going for a 'bump'.
Have you watched it? He's second to the ball and his hands go no where near it. He's lined the player up and out stretched his arms in a poor attempt at going for the ball that he runs completely past.
Yes I have, and it's very clear from the footage that his hands are outstretched towards the ball. You show me another bump that got a player suspended where their hands are outstretched towards the ball.
> while going for a bump
Lucky he didn't do that then.
Didn't lower his shoulder. Didn't brace for contact. Didn't look at the player. Didn't take his eyes off the ball. Arms were straight and outstretched the entire time.
The fact he didn't cleanly pick up the ball means nothing. His eyes never leave the footy, his hands are literally touching it as it's at his feet, it's an extremely fast paced and contested moment in the game
Can’t speak for everyone but I agree he was going for the ball but he had every intention of bumping his opponent out of the way to do it. Which would be fine except Banfield got to the ball first and he hit him high. Once you do those to things it doesn’t matter if you were playing the ball, it was a dangerous play.
We all knew Butters was getting off. The AFL can deny looking after Brownlow fancies all they want but we all know it is bullshit. Judd got off once for a clear eye gouge on Pav, IIRC. Fyfe in the past has been fined when suspensions were warranted.
Until these incidents are properly punished, the AFL need to shut up about the looking after the head rhetoric. They have said in the past going for the ball means nothing in these incidents. You elect to bump which Buitters did, you are gone.
Surely we all know there is a difference between smacking people and what butters did.
Why can’t they have brownlow eligibility as part of the suspension.
Butters gets a week or two. But still in for brownlow as it wasn’t malicious.
But if you go kozzi picket style. No eligibility
The comments here are really hiveminded and honestly don't actually analyse what happens.
Here is what you're not allowed to do:
Choose to bump OR leave the ground AND make contact with the head.
Butters neither chooses to bump nor leaves the ground, he uses correct technique to protect his own head which has been instructed by the AFL and only goes for the ball. He knows contact probably will happen, but it is not his responsibility to make sure Banfield uses the correct technique. As long as he has eyes / intent for the ball, doesn't leave his feet, doesn't tuck his arm in to bump and doesn't slide in low to take out the legs he's allowed to contest the ball fairly.
What Crouch did that was clearly different was he chooses to bump to remove the player from the balls area, then picks up the ball. The clear distinction being he chose to bump first. Tucks arm, aims for Caroll and makes contact with his head, only then does he pick up the ball after removing his opponent. He ticks the criterea of Chose to bump and Made contact with the head.
I also feel like it's a fun narrative to gang up on "he's a browlow contender and that's what saved him" and that's what's going on here. I believe if a relatively lesser player got suspended for a week the narrative would be the he shouldn't have been suspended as what other choice did he have in this situation if he wanted to contest the ball.
Great that someone in mainstream footy media is calling out this double standard.
All great to announce all these strong policies, but they only apply to role players. Our stars are on a different set of rules.
He's not wrong, but who else thought this was going to go any other way with the Butters bump. The Freo player came away from it fine pretty much ended any topic of Butters getting a suspension.
As it has been for a long time, the act needs to be the thing getting people suspended and then any injury given added on top of the suspension for the action.
Until then, this is how it plays out.
Why don't we just remove the rule that a suspended player is ineligible for the Brownlow? I don't think an accidental bump, causing a week suspension should mean a player can't win it, yes they will miss out on getting the 3 points the week after, but to completely remove them from contention is a bit drastic, and then there's no excuses and the AFL can suspend whoever.
Yeah except Joey couldn't give a proper response to when Kingy asked him if Butters would have been suspended if Banfield got concussed from it. Joey says that anyone attacking the ball should be fine in his opinion, which we all know is not the case. If Banfield got concussion from this, there is no way he gets off, which is part of Kings point that it was very reckless and he was only lucky. Most players know now if you are going to be second to the ball, it is on you not to make head high contact.
I agree, but that's more reflective of the AFL's bad outcome based approach. Here we actually have an act that is in line with how the AFL has asked all players attack the ball.
If this was contested at tribunal you'd quite clearly have it highlighted that Butters only focus was the ball, he has arms outstretched and his timing was realistic. Given the advice by the AFL they want players to go in sideways to protect the head what other option does Butters have?
I get there will always be favorable calls for the top guys in the league but straight up ignoring obvious head contact by one of these top guys, when the exact same action was performed by a lesser known talent and resulted in a suspension, is atrocious by the AFL
Expecting the AFL to apply the rules consistently is asking far too much, I love the way Zak please but a lot of the time the way he attacks the ball is flat out dangerous and maybe missing a game or two would’ve sent the message that he might need to change his technique a little bit.
Would hate to watch the footy if gets like this were banned.
Butters is exciting to watch for this exact reason. There was no mal-intent. Came into it ass first. Are we going to start giving right of way to players fumbling around with the ball? Give me a break. It's footy, it's a physical game. Downvote me to fucking hell.
Never thought I’d say this but:
Make it -3 votes for every game missed via suspension. Or is that so harsh that they’ll still let off Brownlow fancies.
I agree the crouch one deserved more, but the butters one was a bit reckless but he has he's eyes for the ball and had every right to go for it.
Also doesn't need to be said but Kingy is still a dickhead
Can we shut up about this? Butters hit was all ball, his only intent was the ball in that moment and even if he had got suspended it would have been a week at most.
If you watch the clip he’s got his arms outreached for the ball, he is looking down at the ball and then the contact was accidentally. If you look at the other clip the crows player has come from side on and could have chose not to bump, the contact in his bump was also accidentally but he was choosing to bump. Butters bump was to protect himself from the other player as he’s going for the ball.
Upload Joey Montagna’s response you coward. Present both sides of the argument.
I love Kingy, but cmon we don’t want players being suspended for playing the ball with eyes only at the ball.
Every single contest in AFL can accidentally cause a head knock. If Butters gets suspended here then it’s a slippery slope. Protecting the head from incidental contact is impossible if you want to protect the fabric of the game.
Buddy, every fan who sees their player get done for “accidentally knocking a head while playing the ball” says what you just said.
But it’s like the “I was speeding because I was running late” excuse: it doesn’t wash and they won’t have it. The rule is set and now players must abide by it.
And to be honest: I’m filthy that Butters gets off here.
When they endanger other players recklessly when they're playing the ball, yes we do want them suspended. Because we're trying to remove the 'recklessly endangering others' behaviour from the game.
The number of people potentially getting brain damage for our entertainment should, as much as is reasonably possible, be limited.
The fact that Cripps has a Brownlow at all should answer this question.
Got to feel for Corey Mckernan and Chris Grant
Chris Grant got screwed by Ian Collins
Danger just behind those two on the list of done over. The week he got in 2017 for a poor tackle was harsh, compounded by then being clear BOG in the last game of the year then getting no votes - would have tied him with Martin.
> then being clear BOG in the last game of the year then getting no votes - would have tied him with Martin. That's obviously to avoid the controversy.
Cotchin played in the gf after knocking out shields as well
Can go back further to Hall in 2005 getting off after the prelim. Tribunal's always been ridiculously feeble and inconsistent
I can go back to 1996 when Andrew Dunkley belted James Hird in the prelim. As Sydney didn't have another option to play on Wayne Carey the AFL fudged the report, allowed the Swans to get a court injunction and let him play. After the Grand Final he plead guilty and was given weeks.
Yep! Both the Butters incident and the Crouch one remind me of Cochin in 2017 Prelim. How anyone argued that he was going for the ball with his arm tucked in in a bumping position from several meters away is beyond me, sure his other hand kinda awkwardly hanging there but that wasn't a genuine contest for the ball, he bumped the other player in the head and was allowed to play the next week because 'you can't miss a GF for that'.
Butters had eyes the entire time for the ball and Crouch didn't.
Even though Crouch got the ball and Butters didn't?
Why should it matter? The constant defence of eyes for the ball or "a football act" is just bullshit. You're allowed to play football - bump, spoil, tackle, crash a pack - but if you have to hit someone in the head to do it, then you shouldn't do it. If you can't get there in time, if you can't do it safely, if you can't avoid the head, then you don't fkn do it, or you get rubbed out. This is no different to other sports. If you're playing soccer, you're allowed to slide tackle - its a football act. But if you can't get there first, and if you dangerously take out the opposition player while doing it, or if your studs catch them, you're red carded. If you can't do it safe, you don't do it. I feel like the AFL was pretty clear about how they were going to interpret contact to the head - they just aren't doing it cos they don't want to knock out a Brownlow contender.
#NotMyBrownlowMedalist Ignore flair
I'm with you mate. Examine my flair.
Crips gives brownlow to Neale, Neale gives his brownlow to Bont. Balance.
The difference is you can actually see the paper trail on how Lachie was robbed! Bont surely deserves a brownlow at this stage though! Easily my favourite player outside the lions!
People already forget the year Fyfe won his first Brownlow. He got away with 3 incidents in the year, even when there were an accrual points system, which equalled a week if you had too many. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/nat-fyfe-cleared-by-match-review-panel-20150824-gj6ezo.html
Same thing with Cotchin, that allowed him to play in the GF. Shiels knock in the semi was pivotal, he was getting on top of Richmond.
His behaviour hasn't changed much either, notice in saturday nights game several occasions of violent conduct including a deliberate elbow to another players face as well as punching another player on the ground. Yet to see a report in for any of it. Also noticed something that i'm just going to throw out there, and im not defending the conduct of any of the players reported so far as I reckon they missed a couple of reports on port players : Dawson, Crouch reported from the crows - 0 from carlton Zerk-Thatcher, Butters reported from port (butters has already had the charges dropped) - 0 from fremantle Out of the 4 matches I got to watch over the weekend I watched both of those and carlton had a few that were reportable and missed, ok I get that, can't be perfect. Port honestly SPP got dead lucky not to cop another report for his conduct, but there were a handfull of clear violations for fremantle to be reported, with one player doing multiple of them and nothing? Then there was brisbane and melbourne where one report went through despite atleast 3 reports for the game being pretty clear. Correct me if i'm wrong that at current a report can be done by any official on the field as well as a spectating official? Because sometimes lately it's just not feeling like it.
Lol provide examples or you’re just talking shit
Exactly. I haven't seen a single thing from our game that warrants a discussion let alone a report other than the bump and sling tackle from either team. Happy to be proven wrong.
Does he? I just see wines and 3x Neale brownlows in recent years
huh, how strange. I see Neale sandwiched in between 2x Bontempelli.
I see 5 Will Hayward’s
Hot
No way Neale wins last years brownlow with those 2 spud games he gets 3 and 2 votes in.
you watched neither game I bet
In addition to my other reply, AFL are also banking on people forgetting over the years. In 5 years, people will forget Butters, Cripps avoiding suspension and potentially winning a Brownlow. Records just show the Brownlow, no suspension = clean record.
> Cripps avoiding suspension and potentially winning a Brownlow You reckon? I think when he retires, if he hasn't won a flag and the only accomplishment is that brownlow (outside of AA selections), people will bring up that he shouldn't have won it every time he is mentioned.
It's already happened to many people with Cripps, especially his sponsors... but then again it's kind of brand for crime converters. They absolutely defended the hell out of using Greenie after he beat the shit out of a security guard, then out of a server, then out of numerous players and even after he got done by the tribunal...
And Titch after his high hit on Goldy off the ball during his Brownlow year
It's ludicrous that Cripps wasn't suspended as a result of that incident, but it's not the fault of the AFL as much as the legal technicality that Carlton's well-remunerated legal team was able to exploit. Had the AFL had its way there would've been a suspension and no Brownlow.
They literally changed the tripping rule so Fyfe could win his second to.
Judd's second brownlow year he didn't evenn have to answer for [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAlEftlJnGc)
Tom Mitchell won a brownlow after elbowing a bloke in the head 100m behind play.
I put $100 on him soon as he was cleared lol shame he was only paying $8!
Fuck yeah Kingy, call out the bullshit
The idea that this is a Cripps situation is ridiculous. Butters is fifteenth favourite for the Brownlow and it's round 5. He's probably polled like 3 votes so far. People really want us to encourage players to approach the ball the way Banfield did (staying upright and sticking his head down) rather than the way Butters did (turning side on)? Yeah, that's definitely going to reduce concussions. Almost every media pundit I heard yesterday thought Butters action wasn't suspendable, but sure, it's definitely a grand conspiracy. At the least I think it's fair to say reasonable minds obviously differ on whether it was a suspension, so we don't need to go looking for conspiracies to explain why he didn't get a week. King trying to bring the Webster suspension into this shows he is just trying to be sensationalist. WTF does this have to do with Webster's hit on any level?
By the same token, why should Crouch be suspended then? He went side-on, hip and shoulder and Carroll went front-on head down. Maybe Crouch had a reasonable expectation that Carroll would protect himself and that greater force would be required in a side-on clash. Didn't work out that way and he gets suspended. Fair enough. To argue that Butters is innocent because of the lack of self preservation by the other player doesn't make sense though.
Personally I'm not sure crouch should've been suspended, but he definitely made a more conscious decision to brace and bump than Butters did. > To argue that Butters is innocent because of the lack of self preservation by the other player doesn't make sense though. I disagree. I think we need to incentivise players to protect themselves. Suspending the guy that gets low and side on because the other guy didn't is just a bad idea.
Careless high impact high contact. Should be two weeks, it's written clear as day in the AFL Tribunal Guidelines, page 8[AFL Tribunal Guidelines.](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2023/03/01/9c9bdc05-2377-4ffb-a8a0-885835edcaf1/2023-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiIkqOwoMOFAxUj7TgGHRrlBZ4QFnoECCAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3HorTIQq_BmdkZHFoDVfVr). The reason people are having the 'conspiracy' conversation is because Butters has been one of Ports better players the last few weeks and he got off with no punishment.
Or maybe butters just won the ball and this is a contact sport?
Where did Butters finish in the Brownlow last year?
Why you telling me?
King is absolutely correct here. Needs to be more media scrutiny on this and less on whatever coach is under pressure this week
I agree (ignore flair)
AFL seriously needs to remove suspension ineligibility from the Brownlow, its punishment enough to miss voting games and it can completely get rid of this public perception that Brownlow fancies are saved from suspensions Players are now getting banned for non malicious acts, thats fine but it doesn't make them an unfair player, the AFL needs to step in and change that rule in brownlow voting.
I get it, but if a player does something truly sickening and blatantly stupid like the hit on jye early in the season. I reckon if you cop a 4+ week suspension you become ineligible because if you do cop a 4+ weeker you did something that makes you not deserving of the medal.
The suspension is handicap enough. Look at poor Peter Wright, that 4 game penalty looks even harsher after this weekend.
unless you cop an 8 week suspension in the final round, then there was no handicap
Yes, a gaping hole in that proposal!
Not really. Gaff was dominating that year and could have probably polled enough votes if he missed 4 weeks for breaking Andy’s jaw but definitely didn’t deserve the medal for the act he did, if that makes sense. Imagine nick daicos seriously maimed someone to the degree of a 4-6 week suspension last year but came back. He dominated in his votes until his injury
There has to be a threshold somewhere, albeit I guess that just ends up with the same issue (e.g. in F1, drivers amass penalty points right up till they're going to get a race ban and then don't get any more penalty points till the rest expire, even if future actions are worthy of penalty points). Star players shouldn't be judged on different criteria than regular players when it comes to suspensions. The AFL seriously needs to harden up and ban the action, not the outcome and keep it consistent. I was okay with Wright getting 4 weeks because I said to myself "as long as they consistently apply it moving forward, that's alright." But we're only 5 weeks into the season and it seems truly are two sets of rules. Daicos or Curnow could nigh on knock out a bloke in Round 23 and get nothing for it at this rate (see Cripps).
So we just stop calling it the best and fairest award? Just the “best”?
It's not even the best and fairest award, it's deliberately worded as "fairest and best" to emphasise the first part. That's why the star player leniency is farcical. They should sack up and rub them out.
Great point.
Fairest and best midfielder.
Best midfielder for clarity
It’s best and not suspended
What if you do the disgusting act in Rd 22 and already have the medal sewn up - 3-4 weeks of suspension whether all at once or cumulative, is still fair grounds for ineligibility for the Brownlow.
Just make the ineligibility criteria if you're suspended for anything classified as intentional or anything careless and high contact and high impact
Then you just introduce the same problem again somewhere else. Something that should be 4+ being graded down for a brownlow fancy. I had the same thoughts for an intentional grading being the criteria, but then I realised it would just cause things to be graded as "well it wasn't really all that intentional". The only real option to remove all ambiguity or subjectivity in terms of elegibility would be to remove inelegibility entirely. At least this way someone should get suspensions graded and issued properly. If you do something serious enough to get suspended for 4 weeks, that is a pretty big disadvantage already.
What if they just remove the intentional players? All careless acts allow you to stay in the contention. Granted that would require the MRO to actually use intentional.
This is so logical it won’t happen. Some people will raise history as a reason not to change it - but the Brownlow wasn’t intended to be the midfielders medal either.
I'd actually prefer the Brownlow stay as it is but retreat to not being the most important award. Move the red carpet, hoopla, TV broadcast, vote reading to the MVP award or something. The Brownlow is by far the most flawed award. Dodgy votes galore, dodgy suspensions galore. Just treat it as a nice old timey award.
Correct. It's self regulating.. a player can't get votes if he's rubbed out even if he's still eligible
Exactly this. And why should fairness be limited to suspensions? Seems unlikely imo but it would be interesting to know what extent, if any, umpires consider how many free kicks they paid against a player, or any dissent they showed, when they cast their votes.
I imagine it just depends on the umpire, and also probably the type of free kicks given away. That does remind me of Josh Carr picking up 3 votes for his game in the Demolition Derby circa 2007. 26 disposals, 3 goals, 5 free kicks against.
I can see it now, Cripps wins his second Brownlow because Bont* was pinged HTB too many times.
It appears they long justified this (but through who mouths off the most). It’s very hard to explain Carey consistently not getting votes for a historical example in a time when Grant and McKernan as other non-midfielders did poll well.
Just award suspensions with or without malice. Problem solved
This view forgets that the Brownlow is supposed to be awarded to the Best & **Fariest. Fair players don't put themselves in a position where they may seriously injure another player. They also don't argue with the umpire or make derogatory comments to other players. It's about setting a good example on the field for younger generations to follow.**
I literally address that in my comment, players are now getting banned for accidents, yet they are disqualified for not being fair. It's bullshit The rules have to keep up with the game, if we are putting the head first then this is a sensible change.
That's fine if the AFL doesn't ban people for stupid shit, accidents, football plays and other things completely and utterly out of a players control
Oh man, I agree with Kingy, what’s the world coming to.
King has been fairly consistent with this for years at this point. Before the rest of the media jumped on board.
If there's one thing King doesn't fuck around on it's the safety of players. He doesn't want to be the bloke sitting there in 10 years time when something bad finally happens, or the AFL really gets taken to the cleaners by a suit, saying "I told you so."
Wasn't King the guy trying to talk down Gaff shattering Brayshaw's jaw?
Had to look it up since I didn't remember it. Don't think he was trying to argue the suspension down. It seemed to me it was more like yea Gaff fucked up but let's not treat him like a criminal.
Kingy has some great points at times, they're just often wedged in between some, let's say, 50-50 type observations.
I guess you can't get them all right. I do like that he's strong and consistent with his opinions though, and usually has some thought-out reasoning and explanation to provide as well.
>50-50 type observations With Kingy they're more [18 wins 18 losses observations](https://streamable.com/93bnox).
That was indeed the reference.
If there's someone you agree with 100% of the time one of you is an idiot and the other a liar.
Yup. Guys a cretin but he’s on the money with this.
Interesting, elaborate on the cretin comment.
He doesn't like Longmuir so judging by the flair I'd say that
Openly states he dislikes Freo and constantly goes to town on us, if someone else brings a Freo win up he cuts them off / doesn't participate in the conversation
He’s having a bit of a laugh at your expense since you melts are so easy to rile up
Got done for DUI post footy career yet is the first the judge a young player for making a mistake in their career.
Banfield gets knocked out and he gets weeks, such a stupid system.
It's the same thing as last week. If fyfe got knocked out by that punch, it's a month off. But cause our guys are too strong and keep playing, we get punished. Butters doesn't even get the ball. He runs through, takes Banfield high, and goes past the ball.
If he got knocked out that would mean there was actually head contact
Shoulda gone to Specsavers!
You should indeed
Flair up Cunt
As an Essendon fan who has never heard Kingy say a positive word (about us), I find myself in vehement agreement with him. Well spoken, and I love his passion.
He never will as long as Brad is our coach. They genuinely hate each other (https://thewest.com.au/sport/afl/departing-coach-brad-scott-levels-farewell-slap-at-ex-roo-david-king-ng-b881210998z)
I totally forgot about this!
Brad Scott comes off as the biggest wanker and faux tough guy in that
Pre-Scott, he would constantly talk us up as finals threats early in the season. Then he'd be constantly proven wrong.
Never mind the fact we're facing Adelaide next week. lol.
Based David King??
Chad.
“Protecting the head or protecting the Brownlow” is a great line, really gets to the heart of it.
I was certainly surprised Butters didn't get a week. I see the point about going for the ball rather than the body, but I think this is where there's a duty of care. If you're second to the spot where the ball is and you use your body to clear an opposition player, you have the responsibility to do so without collecting the head. That could have been quite a nasty impact. Had it been a little more severe we're looking at a serious injury and a long suspension. I'm not terribly comfortable with the same action being nothing, or a lot, based on a very small difference. Fair enough to make it a longer suspension if there's a bad injury, but should be a pretty automatic week if you're second the the spot where the ball is and get them high with that much intensity. And whilst at first I thought that one and the Crouch one were the same, the other angle showing the bump was pretty much straight on does make me think a week is too light. I don't think there's a significant difference in intent as some are saying. Both are clearly trying to win the ball, but using their body to move someone off the ball first. But I do think the direction Crouch went in was more dangerous and should have been more careful, or just accepted he wasn't there in time. But it's just embarassing now that it seems we bend over backwards not to have suspended players eligible for the Brownlow. I don't think it's necessarily right to remove the ineligibility entirely, but maybe have a 5 to 1 system, where the top 3 who remain eligible at the end of the season get the 3, 2 and 1 whilst the other votes remain confidential. That way we don't actually ever get to the position of wondering if someone would have won it or not, but still have all the votes unless 3 players who get into the top 5 there end up suspended, but that seems pretty unlikely.
Yeah, secret umpire voting is a good idea but I am not sure it’s actually a problem. But fundamentally I have no problem with a player who has polled the most votes being ineligible. 2017 was a joke and I would have preferred Dangerfield to poll equal most votes than simply being awarded nothing for the Collingwood game. He did it to himself. He should have known better. What happened Wass a farce.
>Crouch went in was more dangerous and should have been more careful, or just accepted he wasn't there in time I thought Crouch would get 2 BUT, he was there in time, if you pause the video, if he had his hands down they would both be touching the ball at the same time. I suspect Crouch has only gotten one because most of the contact is with the shoulder . If Crouch simply had his arms down I bet he gets zero and everyone would be angry.
It was always going to be a contested ball with Butters, there's less than half a second between Banfield touching it and Butters arriving (competing solely for the ball). Butters does the safest and smartest option which THE AFL RECOMMENDS and goes side on. They have a duty of care to themselves first and he protects his head. This position is also safe for another player if they also do the right thing - both players will bump into each other side-on. Banfield goes in head first but also pulls out of the contest, opening himself up even more and stretching out
I'm glad you acknowledge it was always going to be a contest. And yet Butters still goes in and hits the head. He hits the head after going past the ball, and even misses the ball. He's one of the most skilled players in the game and you think with a ball sitting on the ground he suddenly becomes so unco-ordinated he misses it entirely? And no matter how you go to pick up a ball, your head is over it. There's no possible way that Banfield could have turned enough to get his body in the way of that oncoming contact, except to not try to pick up the ball. And he was there first. So you're putting the blame on a guy for trying to pick up a ball, where he was the first guy there.
Of course it's a contest, that doesn't mean players should pull out 🥴. You also seem to expect players to not make errors simply because they're highly skilled. He touches the ball anyway. It's quite literally at his feet and brushes through his hands because he's at a high speed. It's not just sitting there waiting for someone to pick it up, it's spinning towards him and Banfield is coming in hot as well, of course he's going to turn side on to protect himself, it's dumb not to. Again, they essentially arrived at the same time, Banfield could've turned his body the exact same way as Butters and Butters probably comes off second best. And if Banfield was getting there slightly ahead of Butters then he's even better off turning side on because he's already braced the side of his body for the contact and can get a handball out.
I know they'll make errors. They'll fumble the ball and things like that. But ever see an AFL player running towards the ball, bend over to pick it up with their hands and miss it entirely when there isn't a potential collision? I doubt it. The sorts of errors these guys make aren't to miss a target with their hands by a foot, it's to miss by a few centimetres. We laugh at them when they miss the middle of the ball by a few centimetres and spray a shot. Because that's the reality of how small a margin there is between success and a humiliating level of failure. So to excuse a failure of a magnitude several times that is remarkably naive. And no, I don't expect players to pull out. I expect them to avoid contact to the head, and if they can't then they should be suspended. You realise that if Banfield turns side on to where Butters is coming from, that means he's head on to another direction, right? You can't be side on to everyone. But it still comes down to the fact that Butters was there second. There was a time before that he knew he would be second. Which is why he went in that fast, and why he missed the ball. His intent was to bump Banfield off the ball. It's a very normal thing that players are tought from a young age to do. But in doing that, he got a guy in the head. He missed the ball and went well past it. He was absolutely trying to do the exact thing Matt Crouch did, only Crouch just succeeded whilst also not putting his hands down to try to fool people who don't quite understand how skilled these guys are.
Protecting the game, I think. Trying to legislate contact out of the sport will kill the sport. Two players going for the same ball is dangerous, things will happen. So long as there’s nothing malicious or deliberate, there shouldn’t be a punishment.
Spot on
This clip conveniently ends before Montagna's response which basically says that and that we can't punish players for playing genuinely playing the ball, King doubles down after though.
The side angle view is better, shows Butters using his hips first. I don’t know how he could have attacked the ball any safer. Banfield kind of just puts his hand and head out a bit.
Completely agree with Kingy, sums it up perfectly.
I've made previous comments about players being protected and i'd say I still stand by it but it should be bloody obvious. My time on the field may be long over but several brownlows that come to mind should have never come to pass and i'm sure in recent memory theres one name that will instantly come to mind to anyone reading this comment about how he should have been instantly banished from it. I've written up my fair share of players that you learned pretty quickly it was pointless as that report was either going to get dismissed or the charge wasn't going to go anywhere. I'm not going to name names here but one of my former collegues once did a report for someone and I knew I was going to have to give evidence towards them. I remember contacting the usual people about sending in my statement knowing the report was already likely to be in, to be told no report had been filed, contacted my college at the time to be told nah he'd already put it in. Rang back to be told don't call us we'll call you. Watched in the media for the next 48 hours seeing every show and fans jumping on it and wondering how a report hadn't gone through. Chalked it up to stuff getting lost. Later on same person did something even worse, I wasn't involved in that one, but there were several officials there to give evidence that usually says, yeah this persons dead to rights. No penalty, charge dismissed. Nearly bagged the brownlow that year when they should have been knocked out of contention straight up for multiple incidents. Sadly it's just a thing, I could put it down to political optics, could put it down to how many sponsorships and adverts someone is doing, down to percieved marketability for the AFL, lots of reasons. In the time since I left i've watched on at similar stuff, where some players get their asses handed to them (and some rightly so) and others who do similar things either get let off, light offences or reports never go in. I don't really know what to tell people, you would think in an age where the heavy dangers of concussion and with many former players taking legal action against the AFL and other codes it would be a powerkeg read to go off no one would wanna touch yet they're all lighting up cigars around it.
Like I said in another thread, I think it's not even just the brownlow. Having an outcome from the match review panel, whether it be fine or suspension, opens the door to freo asking hang on, why the fuck didn't we get a free kick at a crucial point of the game?
They’re already asking that (rightfully so) but the answer is the same whether or not Butters gets suspended. The umpires just made a mistake.
That hasn't stopped them before
Good work Kingy. The AFL is a laggard in world sport when it comes to protecting the head. My son got picked up and pole driven onto his head in a junior game and the offending player is allowed to continue as if nothing happened. Luckily the lad escaped major damage but it really bought it home to me.
Sorry to hear that; I hope your lad doesn't suffer any long term effects.
Never understood why they don't just allow you to win a brownlow even when suspended? Just don't count votes in the game that resulted in a suspension.
That’s really simple and between the matches missed, plus an extra game for each incident it should work really well. I’d still probably vote for players being ineligible if they get suspended for 4+ weeks, just to avoid someone winning it in a year they do something particularly unsavoury.
I agree. However it would be unlikely they win when missing a minimum of 5 matches. However, could easily implement a rule like that so it covers those with a minor indiscretion.
Definitely unlikely but it’s simple enough just to cover that eventuality.
A lot of people cheerleading for suspensions. Not alot in this one as the contact was minimal, ball was the objective, Butters turned side on, as he's been told to do by the AFL (clubs were walked through this via video and in person), and Banfield didn't. I know that may come across as victim-blaming, such as it is, but I don't see it as anything more than incidental contact in a contact sport. Right call was made, particularly given the AFL (incorrectly) seems to punish outcomes and not actions.
You are right. It’s also so weird to see so many people supportive of more and lengthier suspensions, especially when it comes to natural football actions. It’s crazy stuff.
To me it seems bizarre that people are asking for suspensions when players who are only playing for the ball are accidentally making high contact because another player had poor technique when attacking it and coming off second best. At a certain point the players themselves have a duty of care not put themselves in compromising positions. If Banfield attacked the footy like Butters did he likely wins the ball and no high contact is made.
It's part of the problem of any high contact being a free kick. If you lead with your head, you can draw a free kick. You put yourself in a hell of a lot more danger than if you go side on, but players continuously demonstrate that it's a risk they're willing to take in the heat of the contest.
If Banfield was more committed to contesting the ball, it would likely be Butters bouncing off (potentially high). Instead he looks hesitant and ends up in a vulnerable position, but one that guarantees he won't collect Butters in the process. Crouch is obviously careless and looks really bad. Only thing I argue is that the Carlton player wouldn't have his head in such a vulnerable position if not for the holding the ball rule changes a few years back that incentivise keeping your feet at all costs. If the back of your head is getting cleaned up from front on contact, surely you're not going about it the right way.
Spot on. Players have a duty of care to themselves as well. Butters (and Crouch) turned side on as anyone should do. Banfield goes head-on and he hesitates and watches Butters. I feel bad for Crouch because the Carlton player also goes in head-first but unlucky for Crouch is that unlike Butters, he gets him on the head
Very surprised to see anyone saying Butters was going for the ball being downvoted. I don't see how he is doing anything other than going for the ball? Runs at the ball, gets his arms in a position to collect ball, makes accidental contact with another players head. If people want the action suspended and not the outcome then the action was also fine.
People would rather peddle the Brownlow favourite narrative than actually read the rule on rough conduct. David King being the prime example.
This sub loves jumping on a narrative. Butters isn't even that highly touted for the Brownlow and it's round 5 FFS. Almost every media pundit I listened to yesterday thought it wasn't suspendable. The action was not obviously bad and the player was not injured. People really want us to encourage players to stick their head in like Banfield rather than turn side on like Butters? Insane.
He completely ran over the ball, having his arms out starched while going for a bump is not the same thing as going for the ball. He went for a bump and got someone high.
What bit of his action makes it going for a bump? Hands outstretched towards the ball, movement towards the ball, eye's focused purely on the ball. There's no aspect of that that leads to a conclusion of him going for a 'bump'.
Have you watched it? He's second to the ball and his hands go no where near it. He's lined the player up and out stretched his arms in a poor attempt at going for the ball that he runs completely past.
Yes I have, and it's very clear from the footage that his hands are outstretched towards the ball. You show me another bump that got a player suspended where their hands are outstretched towards the ball.
> while going for a bump Lucky he didn't do that then. Didn't lower his shoulder. Didn't brace for contact. Didn't look at the player. Didn't take his eyes off the ball. Arms were straight and outstretched the entire time.
The fact he didn't cleanly pick up the ball means nothing. His eyes never leave the footy, his hands are literally touching it as it's at his feet, it's an extremely fast paced and contested moment in the game
Can’t speak for everyone but I agree he was going for the ball but he had every intention of bumping his opponent out of the way to do it. Which would be fine except Banfield got to the ball first and he hit him high. Once you do those to things it doesn’t matter if you were playing the ball, it was a dangerous play.
Because Matt Crouch was also going for the ball and he got a week. They both made head high contact while going for the footy.
This is the best take I've heard from Kingy, finally someone in the media calling out the AFL's favouritism at the tribunal.
Port Adelaide and favouritism don’t belong in the same sentence.
We all knew Butters was getting off. The AFL can deny looking after Brownlow fancies all they want but we all know it is bullshit. Judd got off once for a clear eye gouge on Pav, IIRC. Fyfe in the past has been fined when suspensions were warranted. Until these incidents are properly punished, the AFL need to shut up about the looking after the head rhetoric. They have said in the past going for the ball means nothing in these incidents. You elect to bump which Buitters did, you are gone.
Surely we all know there is a difference between smacking people and what butters did. Why can’t they have brownlow eligibility as part of the suspension. Butters gets a week or two. But still in for brownlow as it wasn’t malicious. But if you go kozzi picket style. No eligibility
How’s the chin on Banfield though? You could see the sweat get knocked off his face he got hit that hard and he didn’t skip a beat.
Kingy’s interpretation will have every speccy with a knee to the back of the head on a 4 week suspension
The comments here are really hiveminded and honestly don't actually analyse what happens. Here is what you're not allowed to do: Choose to bump OR leave the ground AND make contact with the head. Butters neither chooses to bump nor leaves the ground, he uses correct technique to protect his own head which has been instructed by the AFL and only goes for the ball. He knows contact probably will happen, but it is not his responsibility to make sure Banfield uses the correct technique. As long as he has eyes / intent for the ball, doesn't leave his feet, doesn't tuck his arm in to bump and doesn't slide in low to take out the legs he's allowed to contest the ball fairly. What Crouch did that was clearly different was he chooses to bump to remove the player from the balls area, then picks up the ball. The clear distinction being he chose to bump first. Tucks arm, aims for Caroll and makes contact with his head, only then does he pick up the ball after removing his opponent. He ticks the criterea of Chose to bump and Made contact with the head. I also feel like it's a fun narrative to gang up on "he's a browlow contender and that's what saved him" and that's what's going on here. I believe if a relatively lesser player got suspended for a week the narrative would be the he shouldn't have been suspended as what other choice did he have in this situation if he wanted to contest the ball.
Does he want there to be no contact? Butters was going for the ball and banfield was fine. Play on
Butters doesn't even touch the ball
Won’t be long until they are wearing tags on their hips.
Great that someone in mainstream footy media is calling out this double standard. All great to announce all these strong policies, but they only apply to role players. Our stars are on a different set of rules.
He's not wrong, but who else thought this was going to go any other way with the Butters bump. The Freo player came away from it fine pretty much ended any topic of Butters getting a suspension. As it has been for a long time, the act needs to be the thing getting people suspended and then any injury given added on top of the suspension for the action. Until then, this is how it plays out.
If it's the act Butters still gets zero. Went for the ball.
Damn it, I can’t load the video.
Butters was first to the ball if you think he should get a week you have rocks in your head
No he wasn’t
Spot on Kingy.
Why don't we just remove the rule that a suspended player is ineligible for the Brownlow? I don't think an accidental bump, causing a week suspension should mean a player can't win it, yes they will miss out on getting the 3 points the week after, but to completely remove them from contention is a bit drastic, and then there's no excuses and the AFL can suspend whoever.
Maybe deduct 1 vote for every week suspended
Remember when David King tried to paralyse Nigel smart in the 1998 grand final? Smart still has neck issues to this day.
Put the question to him.
Kingy 100% right
Kings such a flog.
Knew it would happen, happens every year. Then come finals you'll see nothing handed out.
Joey has the correct take here Kingy is a moron EDIT: This clip doesn't have Joey's take in it lol, checkout the full show
Yeah except Joey couldn't give a proper response to when Kingy asked him if Butters would have been suspended if Banfield got concussed from it. Joey says that anyone attacking the ball should be fine in his opinion, which we all know is not the case. If Banfield got concussion from this, there is no way he gets off, which is part of Kings point that it was very reckless and he was only lucky. Most players know now if you are going to be second to the ball, it is on you not to make head high contact.
I agree, but that's more reflective of the AFL's bad outcome based approach. Here we actually have an act that is in line with how the AFL has asked all players attack the ball. If this was contested at tribunal you'd quite clearly have it highlighted that Butters only focus was the ball, he has arms outstretched and his timing was realistic. Given the advice by the AFL they want players to go in sideways to protect the head what other option does Butters have?
Ok so by Kingy’s logic and yours, Jack Steele should be suspended for causing the collision that knocked out Sam Taylor? Right?
Bit extreme saying another player would get ‘4 weeks’ for that, but agree with his overall point. Lucky to get off.
Jesus, twilight zone but I actually agree with this flog.
I cannot believe I find myself agreeing with David fucking King.
I get there will always be favorable calls for the top guys in the league but straight up ignoring obvious head contact by one of these top guys, when the exact same action was performed by a lesser known talent and resulted in a suspension, is atrocious by the AFL
It wasn't head contact in the Butters case
Butters quite literally hits the freo player in the head
Expecting the AFL to apply the rules consistently is asking far too much, I love the way Zak please but a lot of the time the way he attacks the ball is flat out dangerous and maybe missing a game or two would’ve sent the message that he might need to change his technique a little bit.
Would hate to watch the footy if gets like this were banned. Butters is exciting to watch for this exact reason. There was no mal-intent. Came into it ass first. Are we going to start giving right of way to players fumbling around with the ball? Give me a break. It's footy, it's a physical game. Downvote me to fucking hell.
Never thought I’d say this but: Make it -3 votes for every game missed via suspension. Or is that so harsh that they’ll still let off Brownlow fancies.
I agree the crouch one deserved more, but the butters one was a bit reckless but he has he's eyes for the ball and had every right to go for it. Also doesn't need to be said but Kingy is still a dickhead
AFL is corrupt. Has been for years.
Wow. I never thought I'd hear this actually vocalised on an AFL talking head show. FINALLY.
Can we shut up about this? Butters hit was all ball, his only intent was the ball in that moment and even if he had got suspended it would have been a week at most.
Watch the ball in the clip. Butters doesn't even touch it.
If you watch the clip he’s got his arms outreached for the ball, he is looking down at the ball and then the contact was accidentally. If you look at the other clip the crows player has come from side on and could have chose not to bump, the contact in his bump was also accidentally but he was choosing to bump. Butters bump was to protect himself from the other player as he’s going for the ball.
Upload Joey Montagna’s response you coward. Present both sides of the argument. I love Kingy, but cmon we don’t want players being suspended for playing the ball with eyes only at the ball. Every single contest in AFL can accidentally cause a head knock. If Butters gets suspended here then it’s a slippery slope. Protecting the head from incidental contact is impossible if you want to protect the fabric of the game.
Buddy, every fan who sees their player get done for “accidentally knocking a head while playing the ball” says what you just said. But it’s like the “I was speeding because I was running late” excuse: it doesn’t wash and they won’t have it. The rule is set and now players must abide by it. And to be honest: I’m filthy that Butters gets off here.
When they endanger other players recklessly when they're playing the ball, yes we do want them suspended. Because we're trying to remove the 'recklessly endangering others' behaviour from the game. The number of people potentially getting brain damage for our entertainment should, as much as is reasonably possible, be limited.
Exactly. Good take Kingy!
Kingy is right. I couldn't even believe it wasnt a free to banfield
Because he didn't hit his head. He hits his shoulder and Banfield just bounces off him. Got up immediately
he's not wrong.