By Bruce Walkley
September 24th 2008 @ 7:28am
Put the red marker pen through Brownlow ineligible players
It’s time to stop awarding Brownlow Medal votes to players after they become ineligible to win it.
Umpires should be given a red marker pen before each game and use it to put a line in the Football Record through all players who have been ruled out in earlier matches, like Buddy Franklin and Adam Goodes were this year.
Why? Because the three votes Franklin got from umpires Simon Meredith, Scott McLaren and Ray Chamberlain in Hawthorn’s game against the Brisbane Lions at York Park in round 19 could well have cost Lions champion Simon Black a second medal to add to the one he won in 2002.
Black, who finished one behind the Western Bulldogs’ Adam Cooney on Monday night, polled his 23 votes in eight of the first 16 games (he missed round seven) and didn’t score in the remaining six.
But consider this: when the Hawks played the Lions in round 19, the votes went to Franklin (3), Cyril Rioli (2) and Stuart Dew (1) in a one-sided game that Hawthorn won by 69 points, 16.14 (110) to 5.11 (41).
One reputable list of best players in that game disagreed with the umps by naming Dew as only the Hawks’ sixth-best player, in a cast of thousands, behind Franklin, Rioli, Luke Hodge, Cameron Stokes and Sam Mitchell.
The same list, not surprisingly in view of the score, deemed only four Lions players worthy of mention – Black, Jared Brennan, Travis Johnstone and Luke Power, in that order.
And it’s not all that unusual for the best player in a team that gets thrashed to be rated the third-best overall.
So if ineligible players had been barred from receiving votes, the top three players probably would have been Rioli, Dew and either Hodge, Stokes or Black (Mitchell was also ineligible).
If Black had got the nod for that one vote it would have been enough to give him another medal, as he would have finished tied on 24 votes with Cooney.
Franklin, who became ineligible after round 12, also got one vote in round 15 against the Sydney Swans and three in round 18 against Collingwood, so he should have finished with 13 votes instead of being sixth on 20.
Goodes, unable to win after round 11, picked up two votes against Fremantle in round 19, so should have finished with 19 votes, tied with Geelong’s Joel Selwood, instead of 21.
Apart from Black, plenty of other players would have picked up votes along the way if errant players had been ruled out from the time they became ineligible.
That said, it wasn’t much of a surprise to me that Cooney won.
I had a gut feeling that the winner would come from the Bulldogs, as there were too many Geelong and Hawthorn players taking votes from each other, and Gary Ablett missed three games at a vital time.
When my wife asked me just before the count started who would win, I nominated Ryan Griffen, whom I also picked in a nationwide tipping contest, but said I thought Cooney might cost him the medal by taking a few top votes for some outstanding performances.
Griffen started like a house on fire, with six votes after four rounds, but faded to total 10 up to round 14. He missed the following week’s game and didn’t score again.
The Brownlow night tribute to retired dual medallist Robert Harvey was a nice touch, and brought the staggering observation that there are 173 AFL-listed players who weren’t born when he played his first game in 1988 at the age of 16.
It was no surprise to hear that the St Kilda coach who threw him in at the deep end that day was Darrel Baldock.
The Doc was given his baptism of fire in official senior football for Tasmanian club East Devonport at the same age, after playing in a practice game when he was 12.
East’s coach was Lindsay Webb, one of the best Tasmanian footballers never to play in the VFL/AFL.
Baldock, who reportedly isn’t in the best of health these days, turns 70 next Monday. Happy birthday, Doc.
And a pat on the back to the AFL and Channel Ten for allowing Fox’s Main Event channel to air the Brownlow count live in NSW and Queensland. Pity about those finals games, though. Maybe next year.
Premiership pick: Cats by 11, coming from nine down at three-quarter-time. Last week 1 from 2 (never again, Saints), total so far 118/183.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(28)
There are certain sentences a rugby writer believes he will never write and one them was (notice the past tense): 'Al Baxter monsters Andrew Sheridan...'
Mick of Newie said | September 24th 2008 @ 7:59am | Report comment
ridiculous suggestion.
Rich_daddy said | September 24th 2008 @ 8:54am | Report comment
The whole point of the Brownlow is that it is the BEST and FAIREST. You cannot have one without the other. If you put a red line through ineligible players, then it takes the credit away from the person who ends up with the Brownlow. Also it is rare that the player who receives the highest number of brownlow votes, is ineligible because of suspension. The only time this happened in recent history is when Corey McKernarn was cost the brownlow by a dubious suspension I think in 1996. The votes should go to thes best three players on the day, regardless of whether they are ineligible. Otherwise it makes a mockery of the best and fairest process.
Redb said | September 24th 2008 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Too many people want to mess with tradition. everyone knows the rules, you get suspended there goes your Brownlow chances.
There are ample other awards like the AFLPA MVP, media awards,etc for the ‘best’ players to win as subjective as that is.
Redb
Pippinu said | September 24th 2008 @ 9:25am | Report comment
You have to be amongst the best three players to get a vote on the day - end of story - that Black may have missed out by a vote is hardly grounds to reconsider the whole shebang.
Michael C said | September 24th 2008 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Ah, but then those votes NOT awarded will go to someone less deserving on the day.
Each day is judged in isolation,
and the winner is the who’s sum total of ‘isolated days’ is the season best - and fairest.
Absolutely fine.
And if the odd player is left to rue their indiscretions by NOT being awarded the medal despite the most votes - - then, ought not the community be pleased that there has been seen to be real consequences!!!
btw - if we wanted ‘media’ votes - - then it’s be probably a whole lot more predictable who wins, and the media seem to rely too much on superficial statistics. The 3 umpires out there, with the different views each has but the far closer ‘connection’ to the ‘vibe’ of each match - - they have a pretty good idea of who was significant in each match.
Too often as well, people look at ’stats for’ for a midfielder and forget the direct opponent on the day.
Millster said | September 24th 2008 @ 11:27am | Report comment
I like the responses above, which are largely spot on. This suggestion is simply dumb. Are you AFL guys looking for the best? Or the best of whose left? Also how does the suggestion Bruce puts counter for the baises in counting that would occur based on WHEN a player was struck out? A player struck out late in the season could ’soak up’ a whole heap of votes prior to their suspension, whereas a player struck out early would see their votes distributed to the ‘next best’ almost all season.
Bruce your game is down. 2 columns in a row that are not well thought out.
Now as a neutral I happen to like the idea of best and fairest, and think awards like the Brownlow and Dally M are good. But why not separate the two and have two medals? One for the most dominant player of the season irrespective of whether they have been a good or a bad boy (I’d call that medal the Brereton), and one - as it is now - for the best of the fair players.
Simple because both would be derived form the same votes. But each year you’d have a ‘genuine best’ and a ‘best and fairest’ - and some years you’d have those legends that achieve the ‘Brownlow/Brereton’ double - that is, that are the genuine best AND don’t get charged with any offences during the year.
Oh the one thing you got right Bruce was your second last paragraph. Yes indeed it is a pity that the live finals were not shown on Fox’s Main Event this year, and rather that disinterested NSW and QLD folk had to be subjected to them in FTA prime time that could have been better used showing something else that was more relevant in those markets. As you say, maybe next year…
catlover said | September 24th 2008 @ 11:42am | Report comment
Get real - the AFL is 150 years old and simplydoes not have a grasp on reality as it is today. Its ridiculous that players who have got a suspension for breaching one ot the stupid rules cannot still be considered for the Brownlow - but that said under the current rules - Bruce is spot on - Black has been hard done by.
What you guys above want is to have your cake and eat it to - it just can’t be done
hugo said | September 24th 2008 @ 11:44am | Report comment
What dreamtime are you guys living in - if someone is elimated from the running they should not recieve votes - Black should get himself a good lawyer and sue on the basis of denial of natural justice - the people running the AFL are a joke - the game will never take off with the current lot at the helm - they cannot get anything - not even their top award - right -
brissyfan said | September 24th 2008 @ 11:59am | Report comment
I agree with the above 2 - what planet are you other people on - that is why AFL will die- because all you old foggies cannot move with the times and live in ther real world
As a lions fan I am apalled that Black has been wrongly denied his second Brownlow - he was not suspended so why should he lose votes to those that were
But all this …. about best and FAIREST - is just that - do we really think that players being eliminated for one game proves they are not FAIR- if you do crawl back under the rock you came from and stay there
Millster said | September 24th 2008 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
Um - hugo - and I say this as a lover of football not AFL - the game HAS ‘taken off’, in a way that no other sport has at domestic level in this country. Just check comparative live attendances and the value of their TV rights to see for yourself - they are numbers that NRL, Super 14 and football would each dream of at the moment. So without being someone that would usually stick up passionately for AFL myself, I think your broad swipe is a bit silly. The AFL does pretty damn well for what it is.
Millster said | September 24th 2008 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
And to catlover - I don’t follow your logic. Under current rules the result was known Monday night. What you’re suggesting in agreeing with Bruce about Black’s case is not the status quo. It is a change to the current state of affairs. So in short your post doesn’t adhere to the basic principles of logic.
Bruce Walkley said | September 24th 2008 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
Hey, guys, I didn’t say Black WOULD have got the extra vote - just that it was possible he COULD have done. A lot of other players could have polled, too, if votes which were effectively dead weren’t wasted on ineligible players. Another solution, of course, would be to scrap the “fairest and best” requirement, remove the idea of making players ineligible, and just vote on the best players. After all, a lot of water has gone under the bridge since 1924.
Michael C said | September 24th 2008 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Millster -
there’s an irony of course, in that Best & Fairest could perhaps also, like the Hall of Fame, include a ‘character’ component!!
Is it the Dally M where you actually score a negative 3 or something for a week if you are suspended - - or was I dreaming that??
Bruce et al
The Brownlow shouldn’t be studied too greatly - - it’s one of the vestiges of tradition and romance - - and so, treat it subjectively rather than overly objectively. Part of the romance is the uncertainty.
Otherwise, we can apply a mathmatical statistical rankings system that will deliver, statistically and weighted, the best player.
But - - as it is, sometimes, umpires might just get caught by the ‘beauty’ of a particular player…………….and, why not!!!!!
btw - I’m not for a minute suggesting that Adam Cooney is ‘beautiful’.
Pippinu said | September 24th 2008 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Many have written critiques of the Brownlow over its 84 year history, and in truth, no one has ever come up with a convincing alternative.
At the end of the day, the umpires are the only ones who share the playing arena with the players, and have the most unique perspective of pretty much anyone.
They give the 3,2,1 to the three best players on the day from their perspective - end of story.
Rich_daddy said | September 24th 2008 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
Bruce,
Regard your comment
“Another solution, of course, would be to scrap the “fairest and best” requirement, remove the idea of making players ineligible, and just vote on the best players.”
You can’t seriously believe this is a viable alternative. This means Barry Hall could have potentially won the Brownlow medal this year. I’m sure the AFL would love to send this message out “yes smack the hell out of people and we will turn a blind eye and give you a medal”. Of course you could argue they do that already
But my point is, the Brownlow medalist should be someone everyone can look up to, not based purely on talent. If you want to reduce the number of ineligible players, then the tiggy touchwood rules that come become the tribunal should be addressed.
Pippinu said | September 24th 2008 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
Re the issue of a suspended player being able to win it - it’s worth recalling that a suspended player has only ever been in the picture to win the medal on two occasions, and that was quite recent too.
In other words, I don’t think it’s even a big deal - leave the rules as they are.
Millster said | September 24th 2008 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
Rich-Daddy - what sort of a fairy kingdom do you live in? To me it is entirely conceivable that a season can be ruled or dominated by one player, irrespective of what mischief that player may get up to on or off the field. Using your example, irrespective of his king-hitting skills, if Barry Hall was the one player all year from any club that was the most tactically astute, that showed sublime precision and skill, that kicked numerous critical goals, and that was consistently the difference between success and defeat, then surely wouldn’t it be just utterly hollow and rubbish for any other player to be given the premier award for the season?
How would you feel if it was you getting the Brownlow when everyone in the land knew that someone else was the season’s REAL impact player?
Using the Hall example again, he obviously didn’t get any votes in the weeks he was scratched out. So if - even with 5 or 6 or 8 weeks missing - he can amass more points than any other player (including those that played, and could have gained votes, every game all season) isn’t that even more of a demonstration of a justified recognition of his performance?
Note all I am using the Hall example theoretically to make the point.
brissyfan said | September 24th 2008 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
At last some sense Millster - its like I said who can judge this fairness crap- and yes if players are elimated for one or more weeks surely it is punishment enough that they cannot get any votes that week
And to all of you who say never change anything - pls try to get a grip on the real world - things change all the time - and sometimes, believe it or not, for the better
Rich_daddy said | September 24th 2008 @ 2:18pm | Report comment
Millster,
The whole point of the BEST and FAIREST is to provide an incentive to play the game fairly. Surely the message the AFL wants to present to players and youngsters is “play hard, play tough but play fair”. If the brownlow medal was awarded to a player who bites, scratches, punches, and fingers (yes Hoppa reference) other players, this hardly presents a good image for AFL. Under the current system, if a player is good but ill disciplined and he wants to win a brownlow, he understands that if he is ever going to, then he needs to address his discipline problem, regardless of his talent.
Anything that discourages dirty on field behaviour is a good thing, and I’m sure Cameron Ling and Brent Staker would agree with me.
Millster said | September 24th 2008 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
Yep fairy kingdom. All of a sudden the individual pinnacle of a sporting code is not just skill and game-impact. You’d prefer to retain this kind of prissy finishing-school, behaviour-changing element to the award. We just simply have to differ.
Also note that in my earlier post I didn’t suggest scrapping the award as-is. I understand the tradition behind it, and even the intention (though I think it is awfully naive). All I said is that a second equally-regarded award should be given to the outright best - irrespective of conduct.
Pippinu said | September 24th 2008 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
As I already wrote, on only two occasions has a suspended player ever been in the hunt to win the medal (coincidentally, in consecutive years: 1996-1997) - so I think people are really exaggerating the issue - there is no issue.
Michael C said | September 24th 2008 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
Millster -
it’s actually something that can be taken for granted - the BEst and Fairest - - in that at many local clubs the ‘Fairest’ element may not be considered.
However, from a club perspective, - where being suspended will rarely prohibit a player from winning the club B&F - - the question has to be asked just what ‘fairest’ means,
Most clubs already have a “Most determined”, a “Best clubman”, a “Most dedicated” things like that that account for less of the absolute on-field results.
The B&F is almost a hollow title at club level.
The Brownlow - - certainly has that ‘fairest’ stipulation that also applies to the Rising Star award. As a North supporter, we were dirty that Corey McKernan missed the Norwich Rising Star (at the time) via a report and suspension for a trip by hand (the most minor of tripping charges - - which was only for a short time deemed worthy of suspension, let alone reporting and these days is plain and simply a free kick with a trip by foot- that old hacking style motion - the frowned upon infraction).
And then Corey tied for the Brownlow in ‘96 with Hird and Voss but missed out on the basis of a 1 week suspension for a pretty minor incident. The main thing at the time that made is palatable was that North were due to front up in the ‘96 GF and McKernan was able to focus his energies on gaining a premiership medallion (which he did).
So - as North supporters, and Pippinu as a Footscray man via Chris Grant who would have won outright the year he was ‘denied’ - - well, we probably have a more vested interest that the ‘fairest’ component should perhaps be watered down a little…………especially now that we have all these points based offences and reprimands and carried over points and the like.
Perhaps on a case by case basis the tribunal/match review panel should adjudicate as to whether an incident should be deemed worthy of causing disqualification for the Brownlw - such that purely clumsy and limited liability reckless acts of relatively minor nature would not disqualify the player - - but obvious perhaps violent acts such as B.Hall on Staker WOULD effect a disqualification.
Millster said | September 24th 2008 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
MC - have to be short now as in a teleconference but yes I agree that either tribunal discretion, or a ‘penalty points’ threshold, should be applied so that players are only disqualified through what one would call “gross” offences.
Bruce Walkley said | September 24th 2008 @ 6:31pm | Report comment
One point to remember - the Brownlow is for the fairest and best, not the other way around, as in most other awards.
pussiesforever said | September 25th 2008 @ 10:45am | Report comment
The whole concept of the Brownlow is flawed because it does not throw up the best and fairest- there is no doubt it should have been Gary Ablett this year - but as Bruce pointed out the points system means fellow Geelong players took away his precious votes. It should be one point for the best player on the day in each match - and no more - that way an exceptional player - who just happens to also be in an exceptional team- would not miss out on the award he deserves
Mick of Newie said | September 25th 2008 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
The brownlow is a funny little award that is a product of its rules. Its kind of cute but not worth this amount of handwringing.
If we take Bruce’s suggestion to its illogical conclusion you should retrospectively take earlier earned points of people who are subsequently suspended and then reallocate them to the 4th, 5th, or 6th best on ground on the day.
Imagine how long the count would then take.
Any by the way what is with the glass of champagne!!
pussiesforever said | September 26th 2008 @ 11:24am | Report comment
At least we know that the cats will win the grand final - and if there is any justice Ablett will win the Norm Smith medal - much more important than the Brownlow
Peter Russo said | September 29th 2008 @ 3:35pm | Report comment
As a former VFL/AFL field Umpire I have a different slant on the Fairest and Best Brownlow Medal and that is that the field umpires should award 3,2,1 votes as required by the AFL (as it is now) but when the count takes plece at the end of the season the players that are ineligble to win should be crossed out and the next player in line given their no of votes with one exception where the third player selected (no 1 vote) is ineligble he should be wiped right out and no one take his number 1 vote.
Also spectators and players should be aware that umpires are like elephants and have long memories, therefore Barry Hall from Sydney will find it very hard to ever win a Brownlow on what he did this year,regardless of how well he plays.