THE RULES around Brownlow eligibility need to change for next season.
Paddy Dangerfield’s suspension for a 'dangerous tackle' is the flashpoint for the discussion, but it would be just as hot if Dustin Martin, who is just one fine away from being ruled ineligible, finds himself in the same position.
The only thing that can stop a Dusty Brownlow romp
Let's get one thing straight to start with: I have no argument with the MRP decision on Dangerfield.
It's applied to protect player welfare, and that is important.
The player suspended, however, did not do anything unfair.
Danger's Brownlow hopes dashed
He failed, in the Match Review Panel's opinion, to apply a proper duty of care to Carlton's Matthew Kreuzer.
For that he misses a game and, if he was a Brownlow chance, any chance to poll votes.
That is a fair penalty.
It is not fair such a player may also miss out on winning a Brownlow Medal if he subsequently polls enough votes to lead the award on the night.
Leave the Brownlow rules alone: Lynch
When you examine history, you can tell how mixed the fairness determination message has become in recent times.
Did you know the Western Bulldogs' Chris Grant received three Brownlow votes in 1997 in the same game the AFL later suspended him for striking Hawthorn's Nick Holland?
Grant was so unfair that day he was ruled ineligible to win the medal, yet the umpires voting on the same criteria, fairest and best, awarded him three votes.
Admittedly he was suspended, as players so often are these days, due to video evidence rather than an umpire's report, but the example serves to illustrate the changed environment in which players are suspended.
Recent winner, Nat Fyfe, polled a vote in round two, 2014 and was suspended for two weeks for a head clash with Gold Coast's Michael Rischitelli, while former Cat Steve Johnson polled five votes in two games in 2013 and was later suspended for his actions in the games.
A player could punch someone's lights out in the first three weeks of finals and then accept the Brownlow Medal on the Monday night of Grand Final week.
Geelong coach Chris Scott said on Wednesday he thought if a player was good enough to win after missing games through suspension, then good luck to them with 35 players already ineligible to win this year's medal.
You lost it – who cares? McKernan's advice for Danger
However, I'm certain the industry can debate the subject hard enough during the off-season to find a middle ground ruling players out for being ineligible for unfair acts on the football field.
We all know the difference.
The punch Melbourne's Tomas Bugg laid on the Sydney Swans' Callum Mills was unfair, as was the arm Richmond's Bachar Houli flung back to knock out Carlton's Jed Lamb.
Both received lengthy suspensions. Both should be ineligible to win this year's Brownlow Medal.
Two options are available to deal with this properly: either the length of the suspension or the MRP could rule a player ineligible or eligible when a decision is made.
Fairness has a place.
But players being ruled ineligible when they fail to apply a duty of care is unfair.
It's time to change the definition of fairness.
