Brownlow: Time to remove ‘fairest’ in best and fairest

[Purple7x08_24]

The best player is the best player, and the winner of the Brownlow is the Best and Fairest. If you get suspended, no win.

Yeah, well it's stupid.

 

[Purple7x08_24]

You don't even need to be clumsy now, you can attack the footy in a text book manner and but the other player contesting the ball can be the klutz that puts their head in a vulnerable position simply to draw a free and suddenly you have a holiday.
Agree entirely with the OP. When the rule was initially included in the award it was in the days where you had to go out of your way to punch or kick a bloke to cop a suspension. Applying it now where pure football actions and just simply good tackles have the potential to cost a player a Brownlow just doesn't make sense.

It also means that the AFL will tie itself in knots to not suspend someone for an action that anybody else who wasn't a Charly fancy would get rubbed out for. Chad Warner was the most recent one that springs to mind when he fended with a elbow. I said to my non-footy following mates at the time that I reckon he gets off because he is a red hot fav and what do you know, he gets a massive fine (relative to fines handed out for on field stuff) and no suspension. The size of the fine alone tells you the AFL knew it was worth a stint on the sidelines. So not only does it sometimes cost a fair player the chance at a Brownlow, it also incentivises the AFL to continue with inconsistent application of the rules.

I think it should be a case of intent of the action. It you get rubbed out for careless actions then you are still eligible. If the action is deemed intentional, then you are ineligible.

People also can't see the problem with integrity in sport where a few people can decide the fate of a player. Imagine how much money could be made if Daicos got reported. Granted he'd unlikely go in hard but you never know.

 

[Purple7x08_24]

Yeah, it's the Midfielders' Medal these days.

When I first started following the game, you had players like Thompson, Moore, Dempsey, Teasdale, Moss, Quinlan, Round etc who won the Brownlow. Non-midfielders such as those players have no hope of winning these days.

Realistically, we could all get to the point where we look at the AA side and say they were the best players. And Serong was the best Mid, Pearce was the best defender, and Ben King was the best forward.
AFL coaches votes are good but I see a lot of the time there's variance between both coaches due to the players coach having a different expectation of what that player brought to the game. Something the other coach may not have identified which resulted in more or less votes than the players coach.

If you really wanted to get a true representation of who the best player is you could have a panel of people for each game that awards votes like they do for the norm smith. I susupect though it would be similar to coaches votes. Coaches votes are likely to take defenders and forwards into consideration.

Take this game for example where both coaches identified Marshall's influence on the game where JHF was clearly best on ground

 

[Doashuey]

People also can't see the problem with integrity in sport where a few people can decide the fate of a player. Imagine how much money could be made if Daicos got reported. Granted he'd unlikely go in hard but you never know.

Daicos isnt a bull but its a falacey he doesnt get any hard ball. Dude is amazing. That said, his style of play is less likely to see him suspended as he is definitely outside leaning and not an agressive tackler.
Harley by contrast is a very physical, stong and agressive player. The way he goes about it means that he will run into his fair share of suspensions. Not because he is dirty, just the way footy is now, hard nuts will hurt players or "have potential to hurt" players and get rubbed out even though they are just playing the game how it was intended.

 

[Purple7x08_24]

Daicos isnt a bull but its a falacey he doesnt get any hard ball. Dude is amazing. That said, his style of play is less likely to see him suspended as he is definitely outside leaning and not an agressive tackler.
Harley by contrast is a very physical, stong and agressive player. The way he goes about it means that he will run into his fair share of suspensions. Not because he is dirty, just the way footy is now, hard nuts will hurt players or "have potential to hurt" players and get rubbed out even though they are just playing the game how it was intended.

Do you think it would be hard for a panel to manipulate the betting markets?

 

[Wallaby]

If you don't like the Brownlow - you can ignore it. No one is making you watch it or bow down to the winner.
I think 'Fairest' is a perfectly good attribute to include in one (of the many) awards given out to players.

Every other award gets howled down because of perceived biases of coaches, commentators or other players. BY DEFINITION, the umpires are the most neutral observers of the game (pause for jokes - thank you. Oh wait, there's more? - OK). The umpires also have a unique viewpoint on the game.

 

[Engimal v3]

Yeah, well it's stupid.

I know you are, but what am I?

 

[Purple7x08_24]

I know you are, but what am I?

A serpent

 

[Doashuey]

Do you think it would be hard for a panel to manipulate the betting markets?

Not at all, it was a reasonable point. I was responding more to the Daicos doesnt get a hard ball comment and then went off on a tangent.

 

[thefreodockers]

Player suspensions are just not a reflection of player fairness any more. The tribunal being the chook raffle it is and the nature of what now constitutes a suspendable act.

The penalty of the suspension on the players chances of winning is enough.

They should just get rid of ‘clean sheets’ as a requirement for any medals/awards.

 

[Underarm]

You don't even need to be clumsy now, you can attack the footy in a text book manner and but the other player contesting the ball can be the klutz that puts their head in a vulnerable position simply to draw a free and suddenly you have a holiday.
Agree entirely with the OP. When the rule was initially included in the award it was in the days where you had to go out of your way to punch or kick a bloke to cop a suspension. Applying it now where pure football actions and just simply good tackles have the potential to cost a player a Brownlow just doesn't make sense.

It wasn't textbook, it wasn't a good tackle. He slung him into the ground causing him to leave the field with a blood nose and a potentional concussion.

It also means that the AFL will tie itself in knots to not suspend someone for an action that anybody else who wasn't a Charly fancy would get rubbed out for. Chad Warner was the most recent one that springs to mind when he fended with a elbow. I said to my non-footy following mates at the time that I reckon he gets off because he is a red hot fav and what do you know, he gets a massive fine (relative to fines handed out for on field stuff) and no suspension. The size of the fine alone tells you the AFL knew it was worth a stint on the sidelines. So not only does it sometimes cost a fair player the chance at a Brownlow, it also incentivises the AFL to continue with inconsistent application of the rules.

Nah they routinely let those go, regardless of whether its a bronlow fancy or not. You have just fallen for the overreaction from the media about it. The point of suspensions is to minimise player caused injuries, and Warners strike was never causing an actual injury.

I think it should be a case of intent of the action. It you get rubbed out for careless actions then you are still eligible. If the action is deemed intentional, then you are ineligible.

Jimmy Webster and Luke Parker's incidents were both considered careless.

 

[Underarm]

There have been 13 suspensions out of 4876 games played. This is a mountian out of a mole hill.

 

[Doashuey]

It wasn't textbook, it wasn't a good tackle. He slung him into the ground causing him to leave the field with a blood nose and a potentional concussion.

I'm not referring to any particular tackle- I'm not even sure which one you are referring to here. There are text-book tackles in our game that have unintended consequences and now result in a suspension. This was never previously the case until probably 4-5 years ago.

Nah they routinely let those go, regardless of whether its a bronlow fancy or not. You have just fallen for the overreaction from the media about it. The point of suspensions is to minimise player caused injuries, and Warners strike was never causing an actual injury.

Sorry what? Lifting your elbow into someone's head wont cause injury? Righto. You did read that I said this at the time of the incident right? IE before any media had the chance to talk about it.

Jimmy Webster and Luke Parker's incidents were both considered careless.

Yes, not intentional. There could probably be a combination of intent and weeks given to determine eligibility. Just a rough idea that could be worked on so that reasonable footy actions dont kill off someones chance at a brownlow.

 

[RAPPA]

I wonder if there was this debate happening when McKernan and Grant were denied a brownlow by reason of suspension?

Suspension automatically results in ineligibility - that is a cruel stick in the situation but it has been in place since day dot (assumption) so it has been well understood and accepted, even as the years have gone on and suspensions have been given for acts that probably didn’t get cited in previous years.

If you’re going to alter the stance then there still needs to be an appropriate stick other than missing games like suspension eg penalty of loss of Brownlow votes for the relevant year.

Leave it as is.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

You can keep the 'fairest' aspect by making players ineligible if they commit a non-football act like a strike, trip, off the ball incident, or if a football act like a bump or tackle is graded as intentional.
Careless or incidental contact during the course of reasonable and fair play, leaves a player still eligible.