The Roar
The Roar

AFL
Advertisement

Brownlow in Danger! MRP offers Paddy a week for rough conduct

Expert
30th July, 2017
Advertisement
Patrick Dangerfield to win it all again on Brownlow night in 2017? (AAP Image/Julian Smith)
Expert
30th July, 2017
142
1948 Reads

Patrick Dangerfield has been offered a one-week ban by the Match Review Panel which, if he accepts, will render him ineligible to win the 2017 Brownlow Medal.

There is yet to be any indication from Dangerfield and Geelong as to whether or not they will opt to challenge the ruling.

If they do and succeed, he will be free to play and remain eligible for the award, but if they fail he will not only be ineligible but will be suspended for two weeks.

If Dangerfield is made ineligible for the award, it will almost certainly guarantee that Dustin Martin of Richmond wins the award.

Martin is already into $1.18 favouritism to win following news of Dangerfield’s possible suspension.

It has been a matter of significant debate since Dangerfield’s dangerous tackle on Kreuzer on Saturday night whether or not he would, or should, be banned.

Regardless of the result, this incident was one that shows it is time for a re-think of the Brownlow eligibility rules.

I know, I know – every man and his dog has come forward with a hot take on this subject in the past 48 hours or so.

Advertisement

Here’s my thinking, though – the Dangerfield verdict could’ve gone one of two ways.

Option one – the MRP suspends him, and he is ineligible for the Brownlow Medal despite his offense not really being something that most would feel should disqualify him for the award.

Option two – the MRP lets him go, and he escapes a ban that he probably should’ve gotten solely so the AFL can avoid the infamy of an ineligible Brownlow winner.

Neither of these is a good result. So what’s the answer?

Brownlow criteria around suspensions should be revised so that only a suspension for an incident that is assessed as intentional should make a player ineligible for the Brownlow.

At the moment, offences are divided into either ‘careless’ or ‘intentional’. Based on similar incidents in the past, this would likely be ruled careless – Dangerfield hasn’t intentionally committed a dangerous tackle, but he has neglected his duty of care to not do so.

There are plenty of ‘careless’ incidents each year that deserve suspensions, but at the same time it would be silly for a player to miss out on a Brownlow because of an act they didn’t intentionally commit.

Advertisement

It is true that players can sometimes pull dirty acts that disguised well enough to only be considered careless – but the MRP should also be empowered to name intentional contact where they see it.

In these circumstances, I believe it would be a relatively easy decision for the MRP to suspend Dangerfield for what most of the time should be a suspendable offense, without the potential headache of knowing it could – unfairly in the eyes of many – cost him the league’s highest individual honour.

close