10-01-2015, 08:25 AM
(09-30-2015, 11:13 AM)DJC link Wrote:In the past, a player who was reported could not be awarded votes in that game. That was changed to cover the situation where a reported player is cleared by the tribunal.
The priority given to the 'fairest' element is demonstrated by the ineligibility rules and the fact that it is the umpires' award.
I don't mind the Brownlow going to the fairest and best player, particularly now that we have the coaches' award and the AFLPA award. That should cover all angles.
That is a crock.
Firstly, fairest and best is the same thing as best and fairest.
There was some discussion about it on Footy Classified.
They used the example of Jordan Lewis giving someone a coathanger in a marking contest, getting reported at the time, and getting 2 votes for the game. They were arguing that the brownlow should simply be awarded 'best' player as the umpires obviously don't take into account the 'fairest' element when giving votes. FYI, Lewis got 2 (or 3) weeks because of the hit.
As it turns out, the umpires simply award the votes to the best players.
The tribunal works out the fairest element.
In any event, i put more stock in things like the AFLCA player of the year award. THEY are the ones that are best placed to decide the best player.