Given I was alive when Neil Roberts won the 1958 Brownlow Medal, it’s obvious that what follows is the work of a baby-boomer. Which is a nice way of saying getting on a bit, even if vigorously resisting the notion.
‘Coco’ Roberts is an inspiration to many of my vintage. For he shows how youthful in spirit a person can remain into one’s seventh, eighth, and even ninth decades.
Despite having just turned 85, he still looks good enough to play the part of a mature-aged leading-man in a Hollywood movie.
Then there’s the Coco who can be seen on one given Saturday in early January each year. As competitors step onto the ramp to head down into the water for the annual Pier-to-Pub event at Lorne, there’s Coco shepherding them along the way.
And, when you yell a slightly tense g’day to him, he recognises you even behind goggles and under a bathing cap.
As for his humour, it’s old-school but – so long as you don’t mind a bit of irreverence – invariably funny. Which makes the position he’s always taken on the ‘fairest’ aspect of the Brownlow Medal so significant.
Coco has long said that if ‘they’ ever take that condition out of the award, he’ll send his medal back. He takes this very seriously.
Now the debate’s being warmed up again and the worry is that, so prone to pragmatism is the modern AFL, this might be the time when it rolls over. Since 1924, the ‘fairness’ clause has been a symbolic plank of its competition.
You can imagine the furore if Nat Fyfe is the leading vote-getter this year. The talk will be of a tarnished medal won by the hypothetical unfortunate who wins it. The fact that it would be the second occasion on which Fyfe was ruled out through suspension, when a leading contender, will be highlighted.
Fyfe will have been ‘robbed’ of a second medal; denied ‘football immortality’.
The AFL will, of course, be nervous about such an outcome. As I’m sure it is about there being any other candidates ruled ineligible before the big night comes around in late-September.
As I’ve previously discussed here, this year’s stripping of any last vestige of independence from the Match Review process was one of the AFL’s most reckless decisions. If nothing else, it can leave judgements made by the judicial process open to a perception of being compromised.
[latest_videos_strip category=”afl” name=”AFL”]
If the concept of justice being seen to be done is worth anything, management should have nothing to do with how the game’s judicial cases are assessed.
Last season, Patrick Dangerfield was controversially suspended for an injurious tackle on Carlton’s Matthew Kreuzer in Round 19. Dangerfield was the previous year’s Brownlow winner and appeared the only player who might upset Dustin Martin on the big night of 2017.
His suspension rendered the contest for the medal a one-horse race.
A horse named Dusty duly bolted in and the disqualified Dangerfield was the only player within a bull’s roar. The AFL’s ‘Night of Nights’, and the high-rating telecast thereof was thus diminished by the predictability of the outcome.
Who could possibly want that to happen again?
Of course, it may be pure coincidence but some of the stars of this year in Tom Mitchell, Luke Parker, Nat Fyfe (once, before copping it for a second breach), Buddy Franklin, and this week Dusty Martin, have already survived near-death experiences in relation to the Brownlow.
Martin’s anxious moment in recent days prompted some extraordinary footwork from Match Review Officer, Michael Christian. Previously, players accused of deliberate contact with umpires have been sent straight to the tribunal.
Indeed, when the tribunal didn’t impose a suspension on Carlton’s Ed Curnow, the AFL took the matter of contact with umpires so seriously that it appealed the case – and Curnow was suspended.
Yet Martin, whose action appeared at least as deliberate and, I would argue, more disrespectful than the actions of Tom Hawkins (who was suspended over a Round 7 incident) and Curnow, was adjudged to have made only careless contact with umpire Jacob Mollison. And this was ticked off without demur by the AFL.
The point of all this is that the debate as to ‘fairness’ now has a new ingredient. One can imagine the AFL’s major events honchos would be heavily in favour of such a dated – and inconvenient – concept being given the old heave-ho. There would be those in the offices of decision-making who might be swayed by the appeal of their argument.
So, what happens then? Does Coco Roberts finally get to send his 1958 Brownlow back? Do Chris Grant and Corey McKernan receive retrospective Charlies because they lost on the fairness criterion?
Most importantly, how would such a change be framed to ensure a player found guilty of a serious infraction (which these days might cost him only three weeks) couldn’t receive the award?
Plenty to look forward to. And, of course, we’ve still got ten weeks of MRO-watching to anticipate and study before all this year’s votes are in.
Chuznut
Guest
I disagree on the Coleman Medal including the finals. Why should a great goalkicker be penalised when they have had a standout season, in spite of playing in a team that wasn't good enough to make the finals? Even John Coleman himself didn't make the finals in one of the years where he kicked the most goals. Using your Coleman logic, should we also extend the Brownlow voting into the finals too, so that the great players who get their teams into the finals don't get penalised for it?
Leonard
Guest
DO.NOT.CHANGE.CHARLES BROWNLOW TROPHY'S.'FAIREST & BEST'.CRITERION.EVER!!!!! There's plenty of other tinware for champion players who are hazy about or contemptuous of the concept of 'Fairest'. And just because other Australian top tier competitions don't do 'Fairest' is NOT A REASON for changing our Brownlow. And even more so just because foreigners' top tier competitions don't do 'Fairest' is NOT A REASON for changing our Brownlow. (The last bit would be an instance of our sad old cultural cringe.) But these two are on my list of the 'changeworthy': (i) extend the Coleman Medal to the Finals - why should great goalkickers whose efforts got their teams into the Finals get penalised for doing so? (ii) limit the Norm Smith to the best players in premiership sides - Smith himself was the epitome of 'winning', and handing out 'his' medal to losers disses his memory. (Agree with some of the negative comments about Judd, the dude who jumped the Good Ship Eagles when sailing got tough. Reckon he'll be one of those very good on the field types who'll be 99% forgotten in 20 years time. But do like his not becoming just another sad sack media-deprivation bore, like a dozen or we could all name.) And, in case you've forgotten: mmm
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Whether it would be a suspension or not in previous eras, it would be fair to say that those sorts of things would be a lot less likely to be picked up in previous eras (i.e. those without video review and/or with one umpire). This is where the "tradition" argument struggles.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
What the umpires will do is downgrade him in the votes wherever possible from now on. But theoretically you could win the Brownlow with say six 3 voters, then tally-up with five or so 2 vote games and some 1 voters sprinkled in, easy.
Chuznut
Guest
Only time will tell, but that's a bold call considering that even in their 77 point loss to Richmond, a lot of people think that he'll get the 3 points.
User
Roar Rookie
Still won't be the winner
GOB
Guest
And what about buddy elbowing Hamling in the face, breaking his teeth and concussing him to the point that he not only misssed the rest of that game but the following one as well? And what about Mitchell elbowing Goldstein in the head behind play? Seems to me your sportsmanship towards Fyfe is rather ... unfair and not that good.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
It should, however, be called the "best that hasn't been caught being dirty". It is never the best and 'fairest". No umpire ever considers the fairest in any game. It's for this reason that they may as well remove the fairest furphy.
Dexter The Hamster
Guest
Tim, I have long thought the "fairest" element was a strange one. Yes, back in the day when there were a few thugs knocking about, we wanted to avoid giving them the biggest prize. But do we have thugs anymore?? And what if I'm suspended last year, and next year? The fact I kept my nose clean (or got away with it) this year, does that make me "fair" and eligible? No-one seems to have an issue with someone suspended for 2 out of 3 years being classified as "fair", but one minor error of judgement in the year I play my best footy means I miss the prestige of the top personal honour in the game?? Lets adopt the NRL method with the Dally M criteria.
Dexter The Hamster
Guest
He has had quite a few BOG's already, and its only June.
Dexter The Hamster
Guest
Agree. As a fan of both NRL and AFL, I can say this is probably the only thing the NRL gets right over the AFL.
Paul D
Roar Guru
As others have said, Dustin Martin did exactly what Steven May did, was demonstrating something, May got fined. Perfectly consistent and normal outcome. Diminishes the article to say it was part of some sort of conspiracy the facts just don't support it
Minz
Guest
Fyfe's suspension in 2014 was absolute rubbish, just ridiculous. Not sure why it was even a charge, and there were plenty of other players getting away with similar things. I don't mind this one at all though - deserved IMO. I'd like to see Fyfe eliminate this sort of thing from his game, and hopefully the suspension will assist.
Minz
Guest
It's not exactly accidental, is it? Judd never was "fairest" tho...
Razzar
Guest
Christian’s explanations of why Dusty only deserves just a fine, utterly belys belief. You are not sleeping well are you Michael after such a baffling and ridiculous decisision. Dusty on what we see is in a robust disscusion with an umpire, then he is the proactive one that approaches and puts his forearm into the umpire. You have nowhere to go Mr Christian, but to find him guilty of deliberately touching an umpire. But you haven’t. When can we see your resignation?... Super Fail Sir
Ray Hammond
Roar Rookie
I too remember Roberts and Skilton, and Skilton, and Skilton winning Bownlows. I loved their fairness and understand that the Award is for the Fairest and Best. However, in those days - 50's-70's there was a lot more leniency on rough play. You could bump and knock players out and not be suspended and therefore still eligible for the "fairest and best". What needs to be changed is the definition of which suspensions disqualify a player from the Brownlow. Fyfe's and Dangerfield's bumps wouldn't have got a 2nd look back in the day and many past players won Brownlows who under todays stricter punishments on accidental bumpings would have been suspended. Fyfe and Dangerfield were not guilty of being unfair, they were rubbed out for much lesser offences. This is where Brownlow interpretations of fairness need to clarified, so that what was "fair" in Robert's days can still be called "fair" today, even if the player was suspended due to tighter rules and TV coverage.
User
Roar Rookie
I highly doubt fyfe would win it this year anyways, freo won't win enough for him to be a factor at end of season.
gameofmarks
Roar Guru
It seems all the debates these days are with respect to the interference of the AFL administration in the game. I guess they are just trying to justify their ridiculous salaries....to the detriment of the game.
anon
Roar Pro
Sorry, here's the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAlEftlJnGc
anon
Roar Pro
Hard to believe Judd won a Brownlow despite this elbow. At the end of the day, it won't hurt Fyfe's legacy and might even help much like it did with Chris Grant getting robbed in 97. Most people couldn't name the 98 or 99 Brownlow Medalists but they know that Grant was robbed in 97 and McKernan was robbed in 96.