Malceski chance for All Australian ?

**ScottH** · 16th July 2007, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by NMWBloods

Yes, but he is still a combo, and his disposal is below the quality of the top midfielders.

That should read "his disposal by foot".

His quick hands are his greatest asset.

**cressakel** · 16th July 2007, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by liz

He got a reprimand after the Port game when he bumped Chad Cornes front on. Was a bit stiff IMO (and the Fox Sports News team) because he was contesting the ball rather than bumping a player already with his head over the ball. And when he realised he was going to collide front on with Cornes he did all he could to shift his body so that most of the contact was to the shoulder rather than head on. But it was deemed to be negligent contact by the MRP and the Swans chose not to fight it, given he'd have missed a game had he lost.

Kirky is still eligible for the Brownlow. Placed some hard earned on Kirky at $61 for Charlie after the Geelong game in Round 13. I asked the bloke at the TAB if Kirky was still eligible and he said if he listed he is eligible. I believe a reprimand still makes you eligible for the Brownlow. If he isn't eligible, the guy at the TAB has a lot to answer for.....

I think Kirky has a big chance as the games we have lost by small margins he has been our best and will possibly get a vote or two. The games we have won Kirky has been front and centre in our best.

NB: I think you will also find Spida will have 3 or 4 BOG's and possibly 10-12 votes in the Brownlow at this stage of calculations. IMO he was BOG in the Richmond, Hawthorn and Carlton games.

**ugg** · 16th July 2007, 11:40 AM

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownlow_Medal

Since 2005, the criterion for ineligibility is to have 100 base points levied by the Tribunal for an infraction in the season. This means that it is now possible for a player to be suspended, but still win the Brownlow. As an example, a player carries 93.75 points from a reprimand from the previous season, and commits an infraction worth 75 base points ? this brings his tally to 168.75, which is enough for a one-week suspension, even with an early plea. Despite the suspension, this player would still be eligible for the prize. Similarly, a player can be ineligible, despite not having been suspended. This most commonly happens when a player is levied 125 base points, but it is reduced to 93.75 with an early plea ? sufficiently low to avoid a suspension. This new system is slightly more confusing and slightly controversial, but also slightly fairer, since a bad tribunal record from previous years will not affect a player's chances of being the fairest and best in a single year.

How many base points was Kirk charged with?

***NMWBloods*** · 16th July 2007, 12:08 PM

I assume it must be below 100 as he didn't get suspended.

**reigning premier** · 16th July 2007, 12:25 PM

If Eski doesn't make AA, it will be the biggest travesty of justice since Goodes was legged running into goal in the 2005 Qualifying final.

**ugg** · 16th July 2007, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by NMWBloods

I assume it must be below 100 as he didn't get suspended.

But isn't that why the Swans pleaded guilty? If they had contested and lost he would have been suspended so that suggests the base points was greater than 100.

***goswannie14*** · 16th July 2007, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by ScottH

That should read "his disposal by foot".

His quick hands are his greatest asset.

Some of his handballs yesterday were as good as I have seen on footage of Polly Farmer! A couple of them went 30-40 metres to either hit a team-mate on the chest or allow him to run on to them, simply amazing. I think his work by hand has improved markedly this season...as well as his kicking...well for goal at least.

**reigning premier** · 16th July 2007, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by goswannie14

Some of his handballs yesterday were as good as I have seen on footage of Polly Farmer! A couple of them went 30-40 metres to either hit a team-mate on the chest or allow him to run on to them, simply amazing. I think his work by hand has improved markedly this season...as well as his kicking...well for goal at least.

His hands and feet were all pretty good yesterday....

He coughed up one by foot in the third quarter after a great run through the corridor, straight doen the throat of a defender...

And in the last he was trying a one-two through the centre with B1 and they managed to cough it up and turn it over to an opponent who put it on the chedst of a Cralton fwd for a goal.... Though to be honest, they were showboating a bit..

The game was well and truly over and they had switched into training drill mode...

**garethb83** · 16th July 2007, 01:55 PM

Brett Kirk accepted a reprimand and 70.31 carry forward points towards future charges.

Now if my understanding is correct, that means the initial charge would have been somewhere around 94-95 points. Don't you get a 25% reduction for pleading guilty?

**liz** · 16th July 2007, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by garethb83

Brett Kirk accepted a reprimand and 70.31 carry forward points towards future charges.

Now if my understanding is correct, that means the initial charge would have been somewhere around 94-95 points. Don't you get a 25% reduction for pleading guilty?

He would have been eligible for two 25% discounts - one for a good record of at least 5 years and another for pleading guilty. Gross up twice by that 25% discount from his carry over points and my maths suggests the base points would have been 125 points. It is pretty much impossible to escape with fewer than 100 base points if the incident you're charged with involves head high contact.

My understanding is that base points greater than 100 means you're not eligible for Charlie.

Cressakel - I think you've been dudded by your bookie.