With eight rounds yet to go Nat Fyfe is the runaway favourite to win this year’s Brownlow medal. This is in spite of two incidents this season that could – and some argue should – have destroyed his chances.
Fyfe was only fined $1500 for his spoiling attempt gone wrong on Hawthorn’s Taylor Duryea. Back in Round 7 he was also only fined – just $1000 on that occasion – for tripping the Western Bulldogs’ Koby Stevens.
Nat Fyfe is having a charmed season.
Back in 2010 Chris Judd was similarly having a charmed season. In Round 13 he threw an elbow out at Fremantle’s Matthew Pavlich, who was on the ground next to him, and got him right on the cheek. The match review panel cleared him. No case to answer.
Judd won the Brownlow with 30 votes. This season, reports have Fyfe on 29 votes after Round 15, well on track to eclipse Dane Swan’s record of 35 in 2011.
Let’s pause for a second and remember what the Brownlow Medal is awarded for: the player who is fairest and best in the home-and-away season. Not just the best – which Judd arguably was in 2010 and Fyfe certainly is so far this year – the fairest and best.
When I think of fairest in regard to the Brownlow the following terms come to mind: honest , upright, honourable, trustworthy, above board and lawful. Basically, upstanding players. Clean players. Players who don’t bend the rules or push the boundaries wherever possible.
But is that what actually happens? While you do get players like Paul Kelly, Robert Harvey, Simon Black and Jim Stynes wearing ‘Chas’ at the end of the night, you also get players who are less than angelic. Basically, ‘fairest’ is now effectively decided by whether you got suspended during the season or not.
And now what players used to get suspended for can be adjudged to only be deserving of
a fine. If the match review panel believes that the incident was non-intentional and low impact then you just pay the clerk on your way out. Case dismissed. You are sort of guilty, but not guilty enough to rub you out for the Brownlow. That’s the way it has played out twice this season for Nat Fyfe.
But it wasn’t that way back in 1996 and 1997. In both those years the player that topped the votes at the conclusion of the Brownlow counts was not eligible due to paltry one-match suspensions that would now result in only a fine. Corey McKernan and Chris Grant are the only players this has happened to.
Just have a look at the video and judge for yourself if there is any real difference between them. Personally I believe the Judd incident is by far the worst.
The Chris Grant contact on Nick Holland in Round 7, 1997 is – to my mind – lower impact than Fyfe’s contact on Duryea. Corey McKernan’s knees into John Barnes could clearly be argued to be accidental and I believe it to be the most innocuous of the four.
Earlier this year, McKernan – after Fyfe was fined for tripping – raised the idea that, now that the rules have been changed, that perhaps he might get his Brownlow.
“It does really seem to me now the rules have changed, it’s different. We all agree the incident with Nat Fyfe, like I keep saying it’s great he gets off but in terms of where you stop with those trivial incidents, in my eyes it seems you’ve changed the nature of how you interpret the award.”
When McKernan’s point was raised with AFL chief Gillon McLachlan he was quick to swat it away: “The rules of the day were applied to Corey. They were rules.”
However, he then went on to make an excellent argument for why those rules of the day weren’t fair and why they are no longer the rules,
“We seem to have a situation with Nat Fyfe where I think Mark Evans last year worked through some really sensible and pragmatic changes to the MRP, and I think it’s working well this year.
“I think broadly, everyone feels it was the right outcome where I think the level of force meant Fyfe wasn’t suspended, and is eligible. I think if Nat Fyfe would have been suspended, which probably would have happened under last year’s rules, we probably would have had cars on fire outside AFL house.”
So let me get this straight, it’s great that changes have now been made so Nat Fyfe can still win the Brownlow but the changes shouldn’t apply retrospectively no matter how logical or fair we now think them to be because no one’s rioting about the injustice to Grant and McKernan?
Wouldn’t you just do it because it was the right thing to do and it didn’t harm a soul to do it?
I would suggest all that need be done is for Gillon to recognise that there is a clear precedent for awarding retrospective medals to Grant and McKernan and that he realise that it would be a good decision.
In 1980 it was decided that there would no longer be count backs to determine a winner when two or more players were tied. Rather each one would be awarded the medal. But they went further. They addressed the wrongs of the past and awarded ‘Chas’ retrospectively to all eight players in Brownlow history who had lost on count back.
As a result Harry Collier, Allan Hopkins, Des Fothergill, Herbie Matthews, Col Austen, Bill Hutchison, Verdun Howell and Noel Teasdale were all rightly awarded the Brownlow they had been denied by the rules of the day.
Sure it would have been great had they won it on the night of the count all those years before, but the main thing is that they were eventually awarded it. The mistakes of the past were rectified.
However, McLachlan argues that using this precedent along with the MRP changes to give Grant and McKernan the Brownlow is actually a double-edged sword.
“I’m not sure that it indicates we should be going back. What about all the guys who won Brownlows, who based on the new interpretation of head-high contact would probably need to lose them?”
Seriously Gillon? That’s your argument?
McLachlan is a qualified lawyer. Surely he understands the legal principle of double jeopardy that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction.
Why would that principle not apply here as well?
No one is suggesting for a minute that we go back and re-evaluate the old incidents to remove Brownlows from recipients. That would be ludicrous. However, surely we can right the wrongs of the past to award one.
What it takes is a big man to do it. A man of integrity. A man of ration and logic.
What harm can it possibly do to honour these two former stars of the game? It doesn’t take away from James Hird, Michael Voss or Robert Harvey, the other winners from ’96 and ’97. No one for a moment thinks that any of them are anything but 100 per cent worthy of their Brownlows. All three are behemoths of our game.
Mr McLachlan, please explain to me why you wouldn’t want to give Grant and McKernan their medals. I can see no valid arguments against it whatsoever.
Just get Voss, Hird and Harvey on stage at the beginning of this year’s count, call up McKernan and Grant, put the medals around their necks and toast their excellence.
What a great event. What a way to celebrate Aussie rules. What a good news story. The vast majority of people will almost certainly praise McLachlan for doing it.
And then when Nat Fyfe gets his medal at the end of the night there will be no hypocrisy or controversy. I just can’t see a downside…
It’s a total no brainer.
Perry Bridge
Guest
I was so very dirty on the McKernan one. To me - it was more accident than anything. It was a typical stitch up - and sure as day had it been a Swans player in a prelim the week before a GF - would've got off.
9 Monkeys
Roar Rookie
Agreed.
Me Too
Guest
Hard to understand people who want to change history, especially over a subjective award. How about we award st kilda the premiership in 2009 based on a clear foul on schneider in the last quarter when running towards a sure goal - can't have a mistake by an AFL official preventing justice. And Hawkins poster would be picked up nowadays thanks to video review being introduced one bloody year too late. And the law now would mean Norm Smith medalist Chapman would not have been allowed to play - again a rule one year too late. Surely it's the right thing and all. Your entire argument just opens a massive can of worms and stretches the boundaries so that claimants further from respectability would now be closer. Carn the Saints - we need it, be fair! And we'll take 2010 too, once future testing proves the Pies guilty!
Josephine
Roar Pro
In my opinion the 'fairest' part of the award has always been overlooked by the 'best' part. You don't watch a game and think "Wow he was the fairest he should get the votes" it's always "He played amazing 30+ disposals, etc.
johno
Guest
Naitanui is also still eligible after being found guilty of exactly the same offence as Fyfe (tripping). So is Mitch Duncan .... funnily enough for tripping Nat Fyfe in round 2. Note - last year when Roughhead was suspended for tripping it was only due to the carry forward rule (which was bl00dy stupid in my opinion) If not for the carry forward he would have gotten a reprimand (not a fine ... a reprimand) Here's a list of players still eligible after being only fined (melle's excluded) 1. Firrito (striking) 2. Duncan (tripping) 3. Naitanui (tripping) 4. Tom Lynch (tripping) 5. Coniglio (rough conduct) 6. Luke Parker (rough conduct) 7. Jetta (rough conduct) 8. Trengrove (striking) 9. Longer (striking) 10. Laideler (striking) 11. SK Thompson (tripping) 12. J Cameron (forcefull contact) 13 S Mitchell (striking and kneeing) 14. T Goldstein (you know the another warm favourite for the medal) (striking) 15. J Gibson (striking) 16. B Stratton (striking) 17. A Swallow (tripping) 18. Stokes (umpire contact) I've probably missed a few but you get the gist - It's not a Fyfe rule that he can win the Brownlow - its a lot of other (including Mitchell and Goldstein who'll both be up there) Some may think its a chip, I just think that its looking at the whole issue and not just pin pointing one bloke to make it seem like he's getting favourable treatment. If Goldstein wins you won't hear a murmur about the rule changes
Me Too
Guest
You can hardly be advocating a change in brownlow eligibility based on what was or wasn't a suspension offence back twenty years ago as opposed to today? Now imagine in twenty years fyfe's offence is considered worthy of at least a week's suspension - do we retrospectively take the brownlow it off him and award it to this years runners up, as in the eyes of the future, that player was robbed of his rightful win by the same fact - the decisions of the rules tribunal were not in sync with current rulings? Sorry but your argument is simply ridiculous.
slane
Guest
Because Fyfe is the out-and-out favourite to win the Brownlow this year?! He is even predicted to break Dane Swans record. Jeeze Johno, it must be tiring to carry such a massive chip on your shoulder.
johno
Guest
No probs. But why use Fyfe as the example? Any payer who ha been fined this year can get the award Sam "three knees" Mitchell can get it, why not use him as an example as well?
Tim Gore
Expert
Justice for Grant. Justice. He should never have been suspended. Now Nats gonna get one after an identical offence. It sucks. Not that Fyfe gets one, that Grant doesn't.
spruce moose
Guest
Sorry tim, If the brownlow rightfully belongs to grant then it rightfully doesn't to harvey. Its not a Hollywood film with a honey soaked happy ending. Sometimes that's just the annoyances of sport. I'm sure the USA would like the ussr to have their gold medal for basketball stripped cause of dodgy refereeing. Ditto the American who got silver in boxing in 1988 when the bias judges gave it to the korean. Barrichello probably wants the austrian gp in 2002 to say that he won instead of schumacher. It sucks, but that's how it is.
Tim Gore
Expert
Johno, I didn't say he was dirty, I didn't say he shouldn't get the Brownlow. I pointed out that now he could get the award though his crimes were no better than McKernans and Grants. My solution: not stop Fyfe, give the other two the medal too. I'm not having a go at Nat, or Freo. Promise.
Tim Gore
Expert
Who said Fyfe shouldn't win? I didn't. Where's the double standard.
Cugel
Roar Rookie
I'm baffled by the idea that this highly selectable Ministry-Of-Truth style altering of history could be taken seriously by anyone. The word "click" drifts through the mind, will it find the word "bait"?
mattyb
Guest
*jax
mattyb
Guest
This might be a sports website but that is one of the best questions I've heard asked on here Ajax.Why do we accept this as a society?Probably because the gov gives us shiny tinkly things so we let it pass and don't care sadly.
johno
Guest
Freo has been sh@t on by the AFL and all and sundry for 21 years, this year one bloke is playing who might win something the AFL public puts on a pedestal. He didn't write the rules, didnt apply the fines or get reported for one of the incidents (note the umpires did not report him for the Duryea incident) and articles like this start coming out saying "oh if he can get a medal (cos he's dirty) then let's give one to these two guys as well." I'm sick of the inferences that he's dirty. If you want Grant and McKernan to get medals then great, but don't link it to Fyfe or say "because Fyfes getting one all dirty players should get one". It stinks and smacks of condescension and arrogance. Treat it as a separate incident and deal with the Robert Harvey issue at the same time. Don't link it to one bloke who hasn't even won the stupid thing, and don't infer he's a dirty player, which you do by referring to fairest and best as clean players. The incidents that he's been done for are ones other players have not even been looked at for. What wrong is it righting anyway? They got suspended for incidents that most likely would have seen them spend a week on the sideline this year as well.
9 Monkeys
Roar Rookie
Absolutely. For mine Grant and McKernan were unlucky but if you want to selectively right wrongs then let's strip Judd of his second Brownlow. He deliberately elbowed Pavlich in the head. The strike drew blood and required stitches. It was outside of the rules then and for mine wrongly dealt with by the judiciary of the day. So let's right that wrong, right? Wrong. If you start doing that where do you stop? If you want to use today's interpretation of the rules do we revisit 2003 to see if Ricciuto ironed anyone out with one of his famouse hip and shoulders? He conceded himself last year after Fyfe's first suspension that if he had to play under the then MRP rules he would have got 5-6 weeks for his infamous hit on Dean Kemp (not in his Brownlow year I know).
BigAl
Guest
Pretty much agree with this. The Brownlow is the Brownlow ! A few duds have won it and heaps of all out champions have not - it is what it is, with it's own rich folklore. Making changes just chips away at all this - like re-writing history? #THEBROWNLOWISTHEBROWNLOW
TomC
Roar Guru
I haven't read through the comments so apologies if I'm covering old ground. I'm pretty sure that Brownlows were awarded retrospectively to players who were previously tied for votes and lost on countback, so I suppose there's a precedent for this sort of thing. Nevertheless this feels somewhat different. 'Fairest' is such a subjective term and I think it makes more sense to judge it on the standards of the time, rather than look back and figure it out. Not that Tim is suggesting this, but it seems that using the same logic you could justify going back and retrospectively stripping away a Brownlow from someone who you now believe should have been suspended for an incident based on today's standards. Tim's big argument is 'where's the harm?' and I guess there isn't any, but that's not the point. What makes awards like the Brownlow so special is that they're rarely won. Every time you expand the group of people who get them you ever so slightly dilute the significance of the award. Cold comfort for Grant and McKernan, maybe, but there have been plenty of deserving candidates who never won a Brownlow: Carey, Ablett Snr and Matthews, for example. The fact that some people who possibly should have won the award never did only adds to the exclusivity and value.
Mitcher
Guest
^^^ 100% this.