It clearly didn’t sit well with the AFL community that three relatively minor incidents could cost someone the Brownlow Medal.
We can only imagine the outrage had Nat Fyfe been given his third fine from the match review panel on Monday. It would’ve been mayhem.
Either way, plenty made their views known this week and it wasn’t hard to come around to the idea that the Brownlow Medal eligibility criteria must change.
But there was a problem – all the answers presented were either too drastic or too much of the same.
Rohan Connolly in The Age wrote that the ‘fairest’ element of the game’s fairest and best award should be removed. I’m not so quick to put a fork in 91 years of tradition, especially when it involves spreading what is surely an undesirable message.
It’s no longer important to be the fairest? Being the best is all that matters? Call me idealistic but we’ve got to do better than that.
Others, like Mark Ricciuto in The Advertiser, advocated what you might term a re-drawing of the line. In Ricciuto’s case, he suggested players whose suspension count sits at two weeks or less should be eligible.
This wouldn’t actually kill off the debate, it would shift it.
So the guy that gets a light two-week ban is eligible, but the guy who cops three separate minor bans isn’t? Outrageous!
Blowing up the fairness element doesn’t cut it. Re-drawing the line isn’t the answer.
The place to look is asking why we even have a line at all.
As it stands, the criteria for being the ‘best’ player is pretty stringent – it’s a breakdown of 1188 votes across the season. A player can have anywhere between zero votes and 66. It’s a pretty comprehensive system.
The criteria for being the ‘fairest’, though? That’s actually still decided by whether you are on one side of a line or the other.
A player can only be ineligible or eligible.
You’ll have to excuse me for this, but is that really, well, fair?
We need to add a bit more flexibility to the ‘fairest’ equation and there’s a pretty obvious way to do it: if you are penalised by the match review panel, you lose votes on Brownlow night.
I’ll repeat to let it sink in: if you are penalised by the match review panel, you lose votes on Brownlow night.
For example, a player who receives a fine may lose one vote. Perhaps each week missed to suspension costs three votes.
You’re still eligible to become the fairest and best player, but from now on your claim to being the best will have to be strong enough to outweigh your indiscretions.
Under such a system, had Fyfe copped his third fine this week he would’ve started Brownlow night on -3 votes, and gone from there.
As an alternative to not letting him win at all, that works. As an alternative to letting him win a ‘fairest and best’ award without any consideration of the fines at all, it’s not the worst idea.
Is there an alternative that works better?
You might say that under such a system, Fyfe missing out the medal by two votes would be highly controversial. But that controversy could only be fuelled by those who legitimately believe the Brownlow should be reserved for the best player only, no consideration for anything else. That wouldn’t be a majority.
Besides, players would have one very simple way around that situation – avoiding fines and suspensions.
We don’t need to change what the Brownlow Medal represents, we just need to put a little more effort into how we decide who best lives up to what it represents.
marto
Guest
Who cares really.. Votes are allocated by those white maggotts...It`s the NORM SMITH which is more valuable .. Go ask Luke Hodge..HAHAHAHA
DingoGray
Roar Guru
What's wrong with 91 years worth of tradition? I reckon it's last the Test of time... Don't change it.
9 Monkeys
Roar Rookie
True, but if either of them played under the current rules I fear they would have missed out. We have to be careful comparing eras.
9 Monkeys
Roar Rookie
G'day Jax, The tribunal didn't come out and say he only got two weeks because the act was involuntary. That's just how you're reading it. You might be right, but alternatively the soft suspension (given the charge) might just be more evidence that the tribunal sometimes makes some pretty odd calls.
Gremlins
Guest
Fully agree that the Fairest is crucial. If your independent panel is convened, then the Brownlow might stop being a mid-fielders' award. Because umpires see more of the mid-field, that's where the votes inevitably go. When did a full back or full forward last win a Brownlow? Sometimes they are the outstanding players, and can win matches. From memory (admittedly very flawed), the last FB to almost win was Phil Hay who came second the year the Charlie was won by Alistair Lord. And that was 50-odd years ago.
Dean N
Guest
Cheaters should not get rewarded for cheating.
Brad
Guest
This is the best idea I have read on the Brownlow thus far!!
jax
Guest
Cuz was one of the fairest elite players that I've seen. He was man handled every week and never retaliated.
Don Freo
Guest
That's pathetic, Michael. You don't mean, "if" at all. No one has suggested this is an ego thing for Fyfe but you. You think that and it is disgusting. This bloke is a gem...and a very humble man.
Don Freo
Guest
The tribunal didn't call it deliberate because it wasn't. It was reflex to stop his opponent. Not a kick. Not a trip. Just a something that they could penalize. The boy plays the ball at all times and sometimes someone gets in the way or, as in this case, he slipped on the wet surface. You may call it dirty from your position of bias but, in doing so, realize you are declaring your ignorance of how athletic motion works. BTW...just to highlight your bias, it was one player he was charged with tripping. Call it "several" if that empowers your argument but don't expect anyone to value your comment.
slane
Guest
I'm not sure Fyfe is a player that I'd immediately associate with a 'hard-edge'. He just gets a little too excited when he tackles sometimes.
Anthony Maguire
Guest
Well he does mate. Not often but he does. He's deliberately tripped several players.
Don Freo
Guest
You're making things up now, Ant.
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
I actually quite like this.
Wayne
Roar Guru
I think it should stay best and fairest. The coaches award, players association award etc caters to "best" player, the brownlow medal should remain fairest and best. Don't trip, spit and illegally shove and you'll be fine
Wayno
Guest
I don't see why Fyfe needs to tone down his attack on the ball. Personally it's that on the edge attack that appeals to me. I realise this opinion may be considered a little 'old school' but those players that have the hard edge sometimes maybe a teeny step over the line attack on the ball are the ones that end up the greats .. Fyfe is heading that way ..
jax
Guest
When was the last time you heard a commentator or journalist say - gee Fyfe was the fairest player today, or a newspaper headline saying - Buddy was at his fairest today. We never hear it so why keep it?
jax
Guest
In that case Masten would still be eligible seeing that it wasn't intentional. That's why he only got 2 weeks instead of the 6 weeks they wanted. It was one mans word against the other.
juan dos
Guest
Actually, if this system was applied, only Chris Grant and Corey MacKernan would be eligible for retrospective medals, and seeing as they would have only tied and won by one vote respectively, it's unlikely either would win in a system which takes away votes for suspension. Players never used to be able to poll votes in games in which they had been reported, but this would be impossible to go back and rectify because by definition they never received any votes, and it becomes akin to players surprisingly missing votes which happens every year.
Glen
Guest
Addressing your comments about professional sport, Major League Baseball probably had similar views when it overlooked players using steroids. Lots of money and whatever it takes, but unfortunately the line has to be drawn somewhere or you cannot possibly have a level playing field. Now back on topic, as far as the AFL is concerned, it is certainly not just about winning. West Coast fans seemed to be a bit irked by Brent Harvey knocking the ball out of Priddis' hands and winning a 50 metre penalty. I think the concept of fair play came up in the aftermath didn't it? The ignored issue at that time was the same ignored issue this time. Harvey didn't award the 50, the umpire did as they do with the Brownlow and the umpire is there to ensure fairness. What also gets overlooked, until it is highlighted on Brownlow night, are the instances where a player that is universally thought to have been the best in a game didn't get 3 votes because the umpire doesn't have a viewers perspective. If Fyfe loses the Brownlow by 1 vote after only receiving 2 votes in one of his early games, we are going to hear different arguments at that time. Don't change the Brownlow, there isn't a better way to do it and the unfair players can try and win the awards given by coaches and players.