Patrick Dangerfield isn’t eligible to win tonight’s Brownlow Medal. He should be.
While Dangerfield appears unlikely to match Richmond’s Dustin Martin tonight in votes, he is sure to be high on the leaderboard and his one-match suspension is certain to provide an awkward moment or two during the broadcast – so today is as good a day as any to talk about what’s wrong with the Brownlow.
We all know what the Brownlow Medal aspires to be – an award for the competition’s “fairest and best” player.
But it’s ironic the Brownlow’s framework for deciding on who meets these criteria is blatantly unfair.
Riddle me this: to work out if someone qualifies as the ‘best’ player, we get umpires to cast 3-2-1 votes in all 198 AFL home-and-away matches. A player can have anywhere between zero and 66 votes, a pretty comprehensive range of outcomes.
Yet to qualify for the ‘fairest’ player, it’s just binary. There’s two outcomes. If you’ve been suspended or given three fines you’re on one side of the line. If not, you’re on the other.
How lazy.
It’s pretty harsh that a one-match suspension means it’s all decided, Player X is unfair. Meanwhile, if the match review panel concludes Player X’s indiscretion was actually worth slightly fewer points and didn’t warrant a suspension, he’s somehow the bloody epitome of fairness.
The way to fix this is simple. Let’s apply just the slightest bit more comprehensiveness to the fairness equation.
How about this: for every week a player misses due to suspension, he gets docked two votes.
Yep, instead of a binary, in-or-out approach to fairness, we’d actually accept there’s a little bit more nuance to the question of whether a player is fair or not.
(AAP Image/Julian Smith)
If they do the crime, there’s a punishment on Brownlow night. But that punishment isn’t the death penalty.
Under this system, in Dangerfield’s case, the Geelong star would start the night on -2 votes and have to work his way back from there.
If he wins, full credit to him. His qualifications as the best player outweigh the impact of the solitary mark against his status as a fair player.
If he falls one vote short of Martin, tough luck. He was beaten by a fairer player.
You could even apply this to fines.
Instead of an arbitrary line being drawn at three fines, make it that each fine costs a player one Brownlow vote.
And as for the player rubbed out for a lengthy period of time – say three weeks – he gets to start Brownlow night on -6 votes. That’s as good as being ineligible anyway.
Done, problem solved.
Perhaps you think this is all a little too complicated. It’s actually something the average footy fan could very easily wrap their heads around.
On Brownlow night, instead of an asterisk next to a player’s name, you’d see their penalty (a -2 or -6 or whatever it may be). Easy.
There’s an argument to say just -2 votes for each game missed might be too light, and coming from the system we’ve used up until now that’s a fair discussion point.
(AAP Image/Joe Castro)
But it also needs to be remembered players who are suspended miss games of football, which means they are also denied the opportunity to poll votes in those games.
The player rubbed out for three weeks isn’t just docked six votes – those three missed games are another nine potential votes that could have been his.
With this in mind, -2 per game probably feels about right.
I first proposed a similar change to the Brownlow in 2015, when Fremantle’s Nat Fyfe was on the verge of a third fine for the season, which would’ve ruled him ineligible for the medal he eventually won.
That we have been through this discussion twice in three years is evidence enough is enough.
Dangerfield’s tackle and subsequent suspension should absolutely be a factor in whether we can happily put him on a stage and declare him the competition’s ‘fairest and best player’.
There’s just now good reason why it should be the only factor.
Tonight is the game’s grandest individual stage, however there’s nothing grand about the possibility in future years of a champion being denied a Brownlow over a single borderline act. We need to change.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
The suspension has always been there for the Brownlow. If suspended a player was not eliigible. This has been freed up to a point with fines taking the way of some suspensiion.
King Bob
Guest
I would prefer an award to the Best Player. Fairness is too subjective as Crotchin and Martin were not fairer than Danger as they were penalised twice. Removing Fairness would fix the problem of the MRP under pressure not to penalise players because it affects their Brownlow eligibility. How would Richmond fans feel if Martin had got a 3rd strike?
Lesley Anne Mortimer
Guest
I support the proposition and second the motion. It should be adopted from the 2018 season..as unfortunately the count is underway this year. Why wasn't this adopted in 2015? Was everyone with a brain out to it?
Alicesprings
Guest
+1 Leave the Brownlow as is.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Thanks Dexter. The change over time is another important point. A lot of one-match suspensions today would not have been looked at 20 years ago. Yes, of course change happens and I'm not saying those one-match suspensions shouldn't exist, but maybe we don't go and brand players 100% unfair because of them.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Not a bad thought, anon.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Thanks for the comment Justin. I don't think it's unnecessarily complicated. Where today we have an asterisk next to an ineligible player's name, we have a -2 or a -4. It's easy enough for punters to wrap their heads around.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Robbie, thanks for reading. You raise a good point yourself! The Cotchin/Dangerfield one is interesting. Both would start -2 under this system (Cotchin for having two fines and Danger for his suspension). Danger would have the added penalty of being unable to poll votes in the match he missed. That's a fair representation of how "fair" each of these players' seasons were I would've thought.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
DonsR, thanks for reading. Would love to see a defender win it.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Don't get me started on the sky, BigAl.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Thanks for the comment Axle and the Guru, and the replies Tony and guttsy. Good points all round. My view is the fact we're still here being able to present reasonable arguments both ways as to the merits of Dangerfield's suspension is another reason we should consider judging fairness with a bit more acknowledgement there's different levels of it.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Thanks Neil.
damo
Guest
So ah Crotchin? Reckon he might have had a week off if his 'fair play' happened earlier in the season then or what ?!?
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Thanks for the comment dangertoy. I don't think it sends a message that performance is more important than integrity. It merely accepts that fairness isn't so black and white. I get what you're saying that being ineligible means a player has crossed a line somewhere, but players flirt with the line all the time and get away with it. Players who don't intend to flirt with the line but mistime their tackle can find themselves on the wrong side of it. As another commenter said, it's not like we are still living in the days when blokes were being rubbed out for clobbing each other. Let's acknowledge this. I'd also argue fairness still comes first - indeed, we'd know where a player stands on the fairness count before any votes are read out, so in the literal sense it comes first. But my view is that it would give the fairness consideration more respect and apply it properly in a 2017 context.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Thanks for the comment Liam. I'd argue quite strongly that this system would not be taking away the fairest component. The opposite is true, it actually embraces the fairness component by treating it with more respect. A binary system assumes fairness is simpler than it actually is. As has been pointed out in these comments, Trent Cotchin is eligible tonight while Patrick Dangerfield is ineligible. Did Cotchin, who had two fines but didn't miss football due to suspension, have an objectively fairer season than Dangerfield? Don't know about that
anon
Roar Pro
Everytime a player is caught diving or ducking they should lose a Brownlow vote. It's best and fairest after all.
guttsy
Guest
What's broken about the Brownlow Medal award is that it has become entirely a midfielders award. To counter this very arguably the AFL somehow needs to create an award system that compares small forwards, big forwards, midfielders (inside and outside), rucks, small backs, big backs and utility players fairly to work out who is the best player over the year. I agree that this would be very difficult but I think everyone could agree that the current Brownlow doesn't even come close to doing this. Maybe a way of doing this is 1) create an AFL back award for the best back of the year, which includes the small and big back players. 2) get the brownlow back of fairly covering the ruck position (it once did this very well with rucks winning close to 10 times in the 60's, 70's and 80's and the last ruck Jim Stynes won in 91) to give them a chance in winning the award 3) accept that the Coleman Medal is for the best forward. This then only leavs utility players, who move back and forward who aren't adequately covered by an award. However the problem with this approach is that it risks creating award fatigue given the AFL has already created the "Best Finals Player" this year. But I think there is at least some benefit in doing something that somehow getts the ruck position back into Brownlow contention)
guttsy
Guest
Dangerfield by choosing to pin the arms and bring Kruezer forcefully to ground took on a duty of care with a very high standard of care attached to protect Kruezer's head. The standard of care to protect Kruezer's head is above that owed to other players in other many other situations on the playing field because by pinning the arms he has taken away Kruezer's ability to protect his head by using his arms to cushion his fall. And when Kruezer sustained the concusion Dangerfield had demonstratably failed in his duty of care to Kruezer and as a result he deserved his suspension and his loss of the right to win the Brownlow. Having said this I am not a fan of a minor finable offence being used to rub a player out of a grandfinal or out of the Brownlow under the three fines rule but at the same time understand the need to have a suspension sanction for players who keep racking up fines. I also see the past Brownlow Medal winners who so are against a player who has been suspended during the season winning the Brownlow that they are prepared to send their Brownlow back if the rule is even slightly modified. This wouldn't be a good look either. I think the AFL are caught between a rock and a hard place on this one.
Justin
Guest
The system mentioned in the article is unnecesaarily complicated. The underlying issues is that due to wishing to protect the head etc it is now much easier than it was when the Brownlow was first given to be suspended for accidental or unintentional acts. Given the change in rules over time, I would base ineligiblity not simply on being suspended but if the act that resulted in the player suspended is deemed as intentional. Patrick Dangerfield is not a dirty player, Barry Hall was a dirty player. Dangerfield should still be eligible.
Robbie148
Guest
This article raises a good point, how is Dangerfield considered "unfair" for laying a tackle, yet players like Cotchin and Martin are eligible despite the tribunal recognising that they threw punches at the opposition, where they were fined?