What’s in a word?

Regular visitors to AussieRulesBlog will not be shocked to read that we take words pretty seriously. Often there are a number of words that might suffice, but generally there’s only one that’s just right.

 

Tonight, Brownlow Night, we want to take issue with the use of the word win in relation to the Brownlow Medal. Chris Judd has not won his second medal. Rather, it was awarded to him by the umpires who, it is assumed, are are the least biased judges close to the action.

 

So words like received, or conferred or awarded are far more appropriate than win.

 

Why is it important? It’s to do with how the award was gained and whether the recipient had the award in mind during the contest. And we stress here that we are not supported by dictionary definitions.

 

So, for instance, a player who takes a contested mark wins the contest. The winning of many such contests, or at least many more than are lost or halved, may result in media judges conferring an award on the player, as it may also result in the match committee conferring the honour of the best and fairest award. Just as in the Brownlow scenario, these awards are incidental to the actions and attitudes for which they are awarded, and therefore are not won.

 

Unfortunately, what tends to happen is that favoured players are artificially placed into symbolic combative and adversarial roles such that they contest the Brownlow Medal with their peers. The mainstream mass media think they need such adversarial drama to create tension, gain an audience and, therefore, sell more advertising. This effect has been exacerbated with the increasing number of betting markets that are framed about institutions like the Brownlow.

 

It’s not a big issue, but it did get the bee buzzing in our bonnet tonight. And, Yes!, we certainly are a card-carrying pedant!