Nothing 'fair' in Brownlow Medal ruling

SAM Mitchell didn't miss a game, so should he have been ruled out  of the Brownlow? Mike Sheahan and Bruce Matthews debate.

Sam Mitchell

HAWTHORN midfielder Sam Mitchell didn't miss a game after being reported, so should he have been ruled out of the Brownlow Medal?

CASE FOR - Mike Sheahan

IN normal circumstances, it would have been a scandal - Luke Hodge publicly declaring he didn't want teammate Sam Mitchell to score any more Brownlow votes.

It wasn't a slip of the tongue from the Hawthorn captain Monday night, either, for he expressed the sentiment four or five times as the medal count neared its climax.

These, though, were not normal circumstances.

Mitchell was at the top of the leaders' board after 20 of the 24 rounds, yet couldn't win - ineligible thanks to a dubious rough conduct penalty as a result of front-on contact with Geelong's Steve Johnson in Round 5.

Back then, he chose to accept the 125 points and a reprimand in return for an early plea (25 per cent discount). A challenge would have seen him risk missing a game.

The decision, though, left him above the 100-point threshold that determines Brownlow eligibility. What resulted was the ridiculous situation where a player's misdemeanour isn't so serious as to automatically cost him a game, yet serious enough to rule him out of the biggest award in the sport.

Thankfully, Dane Swan came home over the top to win by four votes, but Mitchell's tally of 30 would have won him the Brownlow outright or jointly in the previous 12 years.

Docklands, we have a problem.

A Mitchell "win" would have been a giant anti-climax and a hollow victory for whoever finished next best in the vote.

It had been bad enough in 1997 when Chris Grant topped the poll when ineligible, but Grant had been found guilty of striking. While emotions ran high at the time, for the Footscray star was a ball player, he had struck an opponent (Hawthorn's Nick Holland) to the head, concussing him.

Mitchell was the victim of a new rule, a rule introduced to minimise the risk of head and neck injuries to players over the ball.

Fundamentally, it is about protection rather than eliminating thuggery. It's not really about intent.

I'm happy for the Brownlow to continue to be based on the "fairest and best" criteria, but the AFL Commission needs to grapple with the unexpected consequences of a much more stringent behaviour code these days. Mitchell and a host of others ineligible on Monday night aren't dirty players. By anyone's definition.

CASE AGAINST - Bruce Matthews

SAM Mitchell was suspended for one match for rough conduct.

Let's get that clear for starters.

He avoided having to serve the penalty by taking the bait, the lure of a percentage points discount for pleading guilty to the charge.

The "loophole" that allowed him to accept what can only be loosely referred to as a reprimand and keep playing despite admitting guilt was considered by Hawthorn to be far more important than risking the one-game ban to clear his name.

So, it's difficult to sympathise with Mitchell sitting at home as the Brownlow votes leader with only three rounds left to count.

Simply, the midfielder and his club placed more importance on winning games than individual awards.

Hawthorn's outrage, led by outgoing president Jeff Kennett, is understandable, but misguided.

To suggest any player who doesn't serve a suspension should be eligible to win is irrational and ill-informed.

Under Hawk rules, you can admit guilt, accept the figurative wrist slap and continue playing.

Wow, where does the queue form for offending footballers to get away with that one?

The AFL Commission has already once rejected an approach to waive the Brownlow eligibility base points ceiling and it should stand firm against the latest pressure.

The umpires got it right when they ignored Mitchell's 29-possession performance when he was cited in Round 5.

No, he wasn't among the three best and fairest that day.
 

But they treated every other game on its merits, awarding him votes in 10 games, eight times the maximum three.

As for AFL embarrassment on national TV, only once in nearly 90 years has an ineligible player topped the count in his own right. And no one could argue "runner-up" Robert Harvey wasn't a worthy 1997 Brownlow winner.