For years I defended the purity of the Brownlow medal. I waxed lyrical about its sacredness and fawned over the word ‘fairest’ in its description.
I particularly liked the way the word ‘fairest’ came before the word ‘best’, setting it apart from most other awards. Like a gigantic moral compass it swung its needle towards scrupulously fair players such as Dick Reynolds and little Bobby Skilton.
There was the odd glitch of course, like when Dipper won it in ’86, but for the most part uncouth villains like Dyer, Whitten or Brereton were never in the hunt.
I must admit I wavered slightly in my holy belief when Chris Grant was denied in 1997. If ever someone deserved the accolade of being lauded as the competition’s ‘fairest and best’ player it was him.
Instead he was ineligible after being found guilty of an offence that was little more than incidental contact.
Grant was one of football’s gentlemen, and I was devastated for him. But I also felt sorry for Robert Harvey who was forced to accept the award that night despite not polling the most votes.
His interview with Bruce McAvaney post count was awkward and flat. It was a horrible situation. While the rules stated that Harvey had won the Brownlow, it didn’t feel as though he was the rightful winner. Even the man himself acknowledged that it felt more like a consolation prize than the real thing.
Just a year earlier, Corey McKernan also missed out on taking Charlie home after being found guilty of an indiscretion, but the fact that he would have been an equal winner and not an outright winner, lessened the overall impact of the situation.
James Hird and Michael Voss were able to step forward and accept their medals with the knowledge that they would have been there anyway, regardless of McKernan’s eligibility status, an honour that was denied the hapless Harvey in 1997.
Fortunately for Harvey he did poll the most votes a year later, winning by eight from Nathan Buckley. It was as if the Footy Gods were trying to put things right.
But the Footy Gods can only do so much. As time passed and players began to get reported and suspended for incidents that would have barely earned a free kick historically, some of the games greatest stars suddenly found themselves ineligible to win due to being involved in negligent rather than unfair play or because of incidental contact.
Where once players were only suspended for hardcore offences, now they could find themselves in hot water because of an accident.
The dreaded asterisk, that symbol of doom which appears next to ineligible players’ names on Brownlow night rendering their votes worthless, began to make its presence felt at the top of the leader boards.
Time and again the footy world would hold its collective breath as ineligible players raced to an early lead or made a late surge during the count.
Thankfully the cleanskins have prevailed and we haven’t had a repeat of the 1997 debacle, but it is more through luck than good management despite the AFL tinkering with the eligibility rules.
Now a player can be found guilty of an offence but still win the Brownlow, depending upon the charge. While this is a step forward from the previous blanket ban on any player suspended, it can cause confusion, and cries of bias are not uncommon if a hot favourite suddenly finds himself free to play after a contentious incident.
So finally, after 40 years of following this great game and holding the Brownlow medal voting criteria in high esteem, I have changed my mind.
The time is right to finally open up the medal to everyone, whether they have been suspended or not. You wouldn’t even have to change the description of the award.
Fairest and best would still suffice because the days of outright thuggery on a football field are over and deliberate acts of violence are thankfully few and far between. As such it would be highly unlikely that a grossly ‘unfair’ player would win the medal anyway.
The AFL coaches agree. In a recent survey more than half of them thought that suspended players should still be eligible to win and it would be interesting to find out what the players themselves think.
I’m all for it.
What do my fellow Roarers think?
ColinWood
Guest
I strongly disagree with the premise here. The MRP is broken so focus on fixing that, don't mess with the most prestigious individual award in our comp. Quite frankly it's thinking like this that has led the AFL to where it is now- too quick to tinker with rules and too often 'fixing' something that was never broken. Consequences are part of life (ie Brereton) and life isn't always fair (ie McKernan). The sentiments in this piece smack of encouragement award thinking and the misguided sense that rules,laws of game and legacy/history are fluid rather than meaningful.
Vocans
Guest
The umps are also in a good position to judge fairness. Like the players on the ground, they've got a good sense who goes about it in the right way, and who doesn't. Let's continue to valorize the fairness and best, lest the best brings with it approval, or even valorization, of the worst.
jax
Guest
I've been against the fairest component since I saw McKernan and Grant miss out. I thought it was unjust then and nothing has changed. It's very subjective. Just look at the Cooney penalty and compare it to LeCras to see how inconsistent the MRP is.
Minz
Guest
I'm not sure Judd would ever have turned up on a list of fairest players...
Minz
Guest
I think it'd be nice if they also let key position players win the medal, as well as midfielders. I mean, possessions are great (as seen with Priddis), but what you do with the ball should also count, surely!
Steve
Guest
Or take Marc Murphy and Jay Schulz for example, They both tackled a player in the exact same way. One cops 3 weeks, the other 0 weeks...one is available for the Brownlow, the other is not
Billy
Guest
Leave it the way that it is...the one thing I would say would be to have the umpires look beyond the on ballers and reward all the other players on the field. Just because someone gets 40 possessions, does not mean they are the best player on the field!!!!!!
sheek
Roar Guru
I hope the Brownlow is never won by a serial bovver-boy. If this means some deserving player occasionally misses out due to an unfortunate indiscretion, so be it. You don't have to be a saint, but you should play hard with integrity. Leave the conditions of the Brownlow as they are. Fair & best go hand in hand.
Wilson
Roar Guru
I think this years Brownlow will be interesting with the Change to the MRP rules with players Like Mitchell, Fyfe who with there indecent that they had this year would most likely had them Suspended last year. But in saying that Both are on there Final warning all it take is one indecent in the last 3 round and both of them could be out of the Running for the brownlow.
johno
Guest
Judd got the Cooney defence ..."he's a good bloke". He had used the "Campbell Brown is telling the truth even though everything else points to him being a liar" defence previously. Cooney should be sitting out a minimum of 2 games at the moment, but fortunately he's a good bloke. Unlike Fyfe who's a dirty cheat and his hit on Rishitelli last year should have seen him lynched (according to the MRP). Someone should get the old 911 is a joke song by Public enemy and change it to MRP is a joke!
reuster75
Guest
Perhaps a simple tweaking could suffice - players found guilty of a charge that was deemed negligent and low impact by the MRP are still eligible but only if they aren't found guilty again of something else that season (besides a fine for melee etc.)
no one in particular
Roar Guru
If it ain't broke...
Don Freo
Guest
Perhaps we could have MRP or tribunal include "Brownlow ineligibility" as part of the penalty for the worse instances such as Barry Hall on Staker or Mitchell's knee on everybody. The incidental stuff doesn't rule players out. I suppose all Hawthorn players would always remain eligible.
Balthazar
Guest
Hmmm. Sam Mitchell could poll very well this year. Would I want him to win after a deliberate act clearly impeded Fyfe for weeks after, and given that he had pulled a similar stunt on Tex? Nope. I agree there's merit in saying minor incidents should not prevent someone taking the Brownlow home. The difficult question would then be where to draw the line. Maybe there'd need to be some form of recidivist test On the other hand, there are also past winners who have not met the existing "fairest" criterion. I don't understand, for example, how Chris Judd was not suspended for his elbow to Pav's face
Paul D
Roar Guru
I wouldn’t have an issue with a suspended player winning the medal. As it stands being suspended already makes it much harder to win it obviously, since you’ve got less games to poll votes. A change would be welcome, if only to avoid tiptoeing around Nat Fyfe for the next decade every time he decides to bump someone in the head.
BigAl
Guest
That's right ! As I've said on this site ad infinitum . . . the Brownlow is the Brownlow.
Rich_daddy
Roar Guru
No I don't, but the current eligibility requirements for the Brownlow are sound. If we are concerned about players being rubbed out (thus ineligible for the Brownlow) because of innocuous incidents, we must look at the guidelines surrounding the MRP and penalties for various suspensions. It seems silly to change the Brownlow rules simply to accommodate the increasingly ridiculous (and inconsistent) MRP rulings.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
"even negligent incidents" yes.
TomC
Roar Guru
And I think that's enough to keep the award unique.
Sean Lee
Expert
Agreed Dutski, you have to abide by the rules. But what if the rules are applied beyond what they were originally meant to govern? Or what if so many rules and regulations have been added that we end up with a confusing mess of charges that nobody really understands? MRP decisions sometimes seem like a lottery. Should a dicey tribunal decision for something accidental lead to a player being ineligible for the Brownlow? I'm happy to play by the rules, but sometimes it seems the rules themselves are wrong, or if not wrong, the punishments associated with them out of whack. By the way, it has taken me years to arrive at this view.