Do you have an opinion or something on your chest you want to share with our readers? If so send it to us and we will publish it if it meets our criteria. Mike did this and below is his opinion about the joke of the Brownlow.
In my personal opinion the Brownlow Medal is a joke. It rarely goes to the best player. Oh no, it goes to the player who the umpires think is the best.
Umpires make mistakes and is it a mistake getting the umpires to vote on the Brownlow?
Let me ask you this question, with the amount of shocking decisions we see week in, and week out from the men in yellow, green or whatever colour they wear these days, why are they the ones left in charge of deciding who becomes the Fairest and Best every year? Does anyone else think that if they get simple decisions wrong in a game they just maybe might get it wrong when it comes to who played the best?
Umpires are bias. Yes this is a bold statement but it is also true. It is a known fact that the “Stars” of the game receive more leniency and attention from the umpires than the average footballer. Fair enough you say? Maybe. But when it comes to voting the best on ground do you ever think that just maybe if a player questions an umpire’s decision (especially poor ones) or makes any remarks at anytime that they would take that into consideration when voting?
Or maybe if a player gives away a few too many free kicks in a game but is still the Best On Ground (BOG)?
For example, a player like Brendan Fevola will never win a Brownlow because even if he kicks 150 goals a year and is obviously the best player in the league, because he has a big mouth and often questions the umpires. They will not give him the votes because they are offended or annoyed that a player would speak to them in such a manner. And they are probable right, we probably should treat them with respect, as should they treat the players with respect.
However if an umpire takes his own feelings into consideration when on the field and gives away free kicks and 50m penalties as a result, is it possible he would do the same when voting for the BOG? Do you not think then that the votes would reflect a Bias attitude and a flawed vote?
There is no possible way that with the umpires casting the votes, that we will ever get a fair Brownlow Medal count. It is simply impossible. Is there another way? Maybe the commentators should do it? I am not 100% sure what the best avenue for a correct and fair count is, but I know which is the worst, and that is the umpires.
And honestly, that is why I do not rate the Brownlow as anything more than a bias unfair, incorrect award.
Oh and by the way, if you ever make it to the AFL and want to win a Brownlow, don’t worry about trying to be the best, just be a good midfielder and suck up to the umpires and you’re in with a chance
Loading ...
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Oh and i forgot to add, i think Ablett shouldn’t have gotten the three votes against the dogs in round 21, and there was a game or two where i reckon Judd should have received 3 votes in one and at least 2 votes in the other.
redo it in your head, Ablett 27 judd 27-28
wow funny that
Mike´s last blog ..Threadless Tshirt Giveaway at jaypeeonline.net
[Reply to Comment]
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Alright, The umpires are so biased. How can Gary win by so much. He was always going to win but not like that. What happened to Swan as well? The most shocking thing was when Melbourne beat Port by a good 25 points and Melbourne didn’t get 1 vote. THAT IS APPALLING!
[Reply to Comment]
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
My point exactly. like you said he probably was always going to win, but it just seems a little strange the way the voting ended up on the night, a true indication that the voting system is seriously flawed and in need of a change
Mike´s last blog ..Threadless Tshirt Giveaway at jaypeeonline.net
[Reply to Comment]
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
@Mike – The votes no matter who castes them will always be challenged as there were there other games that Judd got votes that he probably should have not got.
Swan has never got many votes from umpires, so when looking at history, no real surprise and one last thing is that the Brownlow is the Fairest & Best. Fairest first and best second…
[Reply to Comment]
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Just in case you missed it:
“I cannot say I agree with removing the voting from the Umpires. Half the “romance” if you will surrounding the Brownlow is that the best player is not always the winner and despite this anomaly there are so many “player of the year” awards in the media including print and radio that the great players get recognised and rewarded handsomely anyway. Taking the voting away from the umpires would further sterilise what is becoming a very sanitised league. But the AFL loves fixing things that aren’t broken so nothing surprises me anymore.”
[Reply to Comment]
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
being a dogs man i am not particularly fond of the ‘little maggots’ at the moment and i too agree that the brownlow has become a little predictable. was it something like 8 out of the last 10 winners have been midfielders who are involved in the GF??? that says enough doesn’t it. having said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all commentators and media alike too have teams they support and players they admire. I think the AFLPA MVP has becme the award that is most respected by players as it is voted for by them, perhaps it is time we started talking up that award a bit more…
@Mike – spot on mate, Ablett probably touched the ball 40 odd times against us in round 22 but i wouldn’t have had him in the top 6 players, 3/4 of his possessions were pissy little one-two handballs, he got most of his possessions in the back half, he did not influence the scoreboard (directly or indirectly) and his team was beaten…something smells
[Reply to Comment]
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:50 am
One of the things people are overlooking is the criteria ‘fairest’. The Brownlow doesn’t go to the ‘best’ player. It goes to the ‘best & FAIREST’ player. Regardless of how inept some of the umpires are, they are in the best position to determine who is the fairest on the field. That being written, I think the problem lies with how quickly the umpires have to make their decision. Since technology (video replays) is used regarding reports and suspensions, the AFL should employ the video replay to determine best on ground. Make the umpires rewatch the entire match before casting their votes. They get paid enough to make that part of their job. I’ve umpired footy. It’s so hard to pick best on ground in matches where there is no standout player. Plus, your decision depends upon which position you played as a footballer. How many backmen end up umpiring footy? Not many. Then you’ve got things like memory. We remember the most recent things usually. How many matchwinners have got votes when they’ve done nothing all day? Leave it with the umpires (only from a tradition standpoint) but make them re-watch the match afterwards before casting their vote. This is such a contentious issue, there’s too much to write on it. As for the ctiticisms Ablett gets regarding his one-two handballs? They’re called skill. If they’re so easy to get how come other players don’t get them?
[Reply to Comment]
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:22 am
other blokes do get them, they’re called receivers. Robert Harvey based his career around it. do yourself a favour and watch the Dogs v Cats Rnd 21 game again and tell me if he deserved three votes.
Leigh Matthews put him in his top4 on the night and then wrote an article on the monday morning wishing he could take it back because he got sucked in by the numbers rather then the influence on the game.
I’ll take quality over quantity every time
[Reply to Comment]
September 23rd, 2009 at 8:09 am
I’m a brownlow advocate. For starters Ablett won every award given to the best player around: and it was Judd who picked up the three votes when Fev kicked 9 over Richmond, so don’t tell me that Judd was robbed. I don’t like the umpires either, but I don’t think that there’s a better model around. The closest I can see is actually the coaches medal: at least there it’s a round by round vote. The Players association is too prone to media speculation (players are people too), and because the votes happen once the season is done, doesn’t give a player with a good start to the season any chance.
Are umpires biased? Sure. But they’re the least biased of anyone, so what choice do we really have?
Richo for the brownlow in 2010!
[Reply to Comment]
September 23rd, 2009 at 9:32 am
I like the idea of the umpires having more time to cast their votes and if they watched the game it may remind them of something in the first quarter or something that could change their mind. Good point Dogsbody!
Jermayn´s last blog ..The Modern Day Pharisee
[Reply to Comment]
September 24th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Agree will it all.
The umpires love to be best buddies with players- I hate it how they suck up the well known players and they shouldn’t be on first name basis with the players. If they were truly independent they would be dispassionate about their decisions which they obviously aren’t judging by they way they act and talk on the field.
[Reply to Comment]
September 24th, 2009 at 10:41 am
I am no rugby expert or fan but I like the relationship they have with the players better than the way in the AFL where the umpires try to be buddy buddy with them all.
Jermayn´s last blog ..Western Bulldogs 2009 Season Report
[Reply to Comment]
September 24th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
not trying to start an argument, but the relationship between rugby league (if thats the code you mean) umpires (referees) and players is no better, players MUST address the referee as “Sir” and are not allowed to talk to the umpire 9/10 times otherwise they are sin binned. and they also quite often use players first names, union is a bit better where they generally use the numbers of the players rather than any names.
i’m not a fan of the umpires (in AFL) using first names but it just bugs me when they use the player’s nicknames, that absoultely annoys the crap out of me.
Mike´s last blog ..Threadless Tshirt Giveaway at jaypeeonline.net
[Reply to Comment]
September 24th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Yes agree with umpires using nicknames, its funny when they get it wrong as well. Why cant the players address the umpire as ‘sir’ and the umpires refer to players as numbers rather than name? Keep it professional….
[Reply to Comment]