That perennial discussion has erupted again, this time apparently because Sam Mitchell nearly ‘won’ the Brownlow Medal but would have been ineligible to take the prize having pled guilty to an MRP charge.
It seems to be forgotten — every year — but the Brownlow is awarded to the fairest and best player as judged by the field umpires. There’s a reason that the Brownlow is held in such high esteem.
Players who flagrantly transgress the laws of the game can win any one of almost countless media awards. There’s a reason that those media awards aren’t seen as equivalent to the Brownlow.
It’s one word — fairest. This award is about the game being played in the finest spirit of sportsmanship and what a fine ideal that is to emphasise.
The guys to whom we entrust the control of each game, and whom we trust to exercise that control disinterestedly, are the closest to the game and they see a lot more than media pundits do, and often a lot more than television, for all its technical wizardry, does.
The umpires don’t have access to statistics when casting their votes — a scandal according to some. Surely we have enough recognition of players based on their statistical output already? Media award voting seems to be, generally, stats-based assessment. Eight goals will get Lance Franklin three votes, but eight perfect kicks to teammates won’t get the centre half-back more than a pass mark.
The latest calls for change would have minor misdemeanors discounted to maintain Brownlow eligibility. Why? Did Sam Mitchell do something that contravened the laws of the game? Yes, he did. His guilty plea says he admits guilt. If he hadn’t dome anything wrong, he wouldn’t have been charged. And, if you asked him, he’d surely answer that team success means far more to him than individual honours.
Let’s say it again: the Brownlow recognises the player who plays the game according to the highest traditions of sportsmanship and is the best player according to that criterion.
Change? Why? What is it that is broken about the current system?
Posts
4 comments:
I don't remember seeing what Mitchell did to be discounted from the Brownlow race. Apparently, it was for high contact with Steve Johnson in round 5. Considering that the MRP has been somewhat inconsistent with its ruling, isn't it likely that Mitchell may not have been charged had the offence been against another play, team or round? I don't know if it warranted the ruling, but lots of others do. It seems like he's being punished for something not necessarily intentional, and barely worthy of a free.
However, I do enjoy watching Mitchell play, so I am biased.
G'day again, Navaneethan.
I too enjoy watching Mitchell and I'd agree that the round 5 "offence" was petty, but I think that's irrelevant to the argument I'm making (and in that respect Mitchell was a poor choice of example!!).
The MRP's assessments and adjudications are already deeply flawed. Overlaying the complication of a player's potential to vote well in the Brownlow has no place in the consideration of purported infractions against the laws of the game, whether we agree with the laws, or the interpretations, or the assessments or not. The laws were infringed or they weren't, via the processes in place to determine such things. If they were, there are prices to pay, including ineligibility for the Brownlow.
At the end of the day, this question turns on idealism. If your ideals say that sportsmanship is sacrosanct, then there's no case for change. If the chance to win supercedes everything else, then anything goes.
I do hope the game I love can continue to hold sportsmanship as an ideal to be valued.
I completely agree - it shouldn't matter that the player will poll well or not. I'm just saying that the infringement did not warrant an MRP review, and that the interpretations are not consistent. If every high contact was adjudicated the same way, there probably will be now Brownlow winner. I don't think the infraction meant that Mitchell is not sportsmanly. It was unfortunate, and that sort of thing determining his eligibility (or anyone else's) is very sad.
Good to see we're in furious and heated agreement!
In my view, consideration of MRP assessments and inconsistencies and Brownlow criteria should be deliberately and obviously separate.
Post a Comment