Did Robert Harvey deserve his first Brownlow?

[perfectionist]

Once again, the perennial of the criteria for winning the Brownlow - fairest and best or is that best and fairest - has been called into question. This time, it was due to Sam Mitchell's ineligibility. Ironically, in 1997, he would have been eligible had he received a reprimand. Up until the time that the MRP was introduced, a suspension during the H&A away games of the season was required to remove eligibility for the Brownlow. A reprimand or fine was OK.

For those who saw Robert accept the Brownlow in 1997, we know that he thought that it should have gone to Chris Grant and seemed most embarrassed in accepting it. Fortunately, his win the following year removed any questions regarding his worthiness in the eyes of doubters. However, whilst I thought the incident which saw Chris Grant suspended was borderline, they were the rules. What had changed over the years was an unwritten rule of not giving votes to suspended players. In the past, when a player was suspended, he rarely got votes in subsequent games even if he deserved them. This avoided embarrassing situations later in the year. But our friends in the media began to pick up on this practice. So more and more, votes were given to ineligible players.

So, should there be a change back to the old rule i.e. non suspension should deem eligibility or should we stick with what we have or perhaps try something different?

[Spinner]

Reprimands didnt exist before the match review panel... Well not in their current form.



Everybody knows the rules going in. Mitchell got a weeks suspension, lets not forget that. It was an early plea that allowed him to play. Technically his offence earned a weeks suspension.



Everybody knows the rules going in. Just like the draw. Dont think Sam should have been reported at all but thats not the point.


Best and Fairest. Thats it.

[saintdooley]

no

[St Lenny]

The Brownlow Medal is for the Best and Fairest player in the league. Not the great player who thinks its ok to give someone a smack in the mouth. Rule should not be changed, regardless of the report. And as far as Rob Harvey is concerned, go stand in the naughty corner and have a think about it

[White Winmar]

I think he did deserve to win it. He had an outstanding year, the voting was close and the other guy was disqualified. Tough call, but they're the rules. What irks me more is the number of references to Matthews and Fothergill holding the previous record of 32 votes. I've heard it mentioned several times since the count, without a single reference to Harvs, who also polled 32 votes in 1998. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[The Fireman]

no

I jest...he won the medal under the criteria it was designed for pure and simple.
When you think about it, the medal was designed for players just like R Harvey.

[stinger]

Once again, the perennial of the criteria for winning the Brownlow - fairest and best or is that best and fairest - has been called into question. This time, it was due to Sam Mitchell's ineligibility. Ironically, in 1997, he would have been eligible had he received a reprimand. Up until the time that the MRP was introduced, a suspension during the H&A away games of the season was required to remove eligibility for the Brownlow. A reprimand or fine was OK.

For those who saw Robert accept the Brownlow in 1997, we know that he thought that it should have gone to Chris Grant and seemed most embarrassed in accepting it. Fortunately, his win the following year removed any questions regarding his worthiness in the eyes of doubters. However, whilst I thought the incident which saw Chris Grant suspended was borderline, they were the rules. What had changed over the years was an unwritten rule of not giving votes to suspended players. In the past, when a player was suspended, he rarely got votes in subsequent games even if he deserved them. This avoided embarrassing situations later in the year. But our friends in the media began to pick up on this practice. So more and more, votes were given to ineligible players.

So, should there be a change back to the old rule i.e. non suspension should deem eligibility or should we stick with what we have or perhaps try something different?

the brownlow is for the best and fairest...or the fairest and best......thugs don't win brownlows....carey was the best...but definitely not in a bulls roar of being the fairest...hence he never won a brownlow...this is the afl ...not a gladiator ring....

[jonesy]

The last round Grant got votes in were comical anyhow...a Robert Clomp type BOG

[Dave McNamara]

The last round Grant got votes in were comical anyhow...a Robert Clomp type BOG

+1.

If I remember correctly that was the day Chris Grant had 4-5 goals kicked on him playing as a defender and yet received votes. (If it wasn't that match, then it was another match in 1997, which further strengthens the argument for Harves.)

[jonesy]

The last round Grant got votes in were comical anyhow...a Robert Clomp type BOG

+1.

If I remember correctly that was the day Chris Grant had 4-5 goals kicked on him playing as a defender and yet received votes. (If it wasn't that match, then it was another match in 1997, which further strengthens the argument for Harves.)

I just went back and had a look at the stats,and they weren't that bad. But I specifically remembered that game at the time ,and your recollection of him being towelled up in defence might have been the case. I remember them saying how poor a day he had and it instantly came back on Brownlow night.

He also had a game at the start of the year against Melbourne. 3 kicks,7 handballs,1 mark,0 goals....3 votes...oh dear

[perfectionist]

The last round Grant got votes in were comical anyhow...a Robert Clomp type BOG

+1.

If I remember correctly that was the day Chris Grant had 4-5 goals kicked on him playing as a defender and yet received votes. (If it wasn't that match, then it was another match in 1997, which further strengthens the argument for Harves.)

I just went back and had a look at the stats,and they weren't that bad. But I specifically remembered that game at the time ,and your recollection of him being towelled up in defence might have been the case. I remember them saying how poor a day he had and it instantly came back on Brownlow night.

He also had a game at the start of the year against Melbourne. 3 kicks,7 handballs,1 mark,0 goals....3 votes...oh dear

Can't remember the game, but the stats show that James Cook kicked 7 and didn't get a vote. Full forwards would, say " Nuthin' unusual about that!"

[BigMart]

Won

Age player of the year
Herald sun MVP
AFL Players association MVP
Stk best and fairest (minor premiers)
Most possesion inthe league by a mile

I think he may have deserved it

[Eastern]

The last round Grant got votes in were comical anyhow...a Robert Clomp type BOG

+1.

If I remember correctly that was the day Chris Grant had 4-5 goals kicked on him playing as a defender and yet received votes. (If it wasn't that match, then it was another match in 1997, which further strengthens the argument for Harves.)

That might have been the game where Grant had 5 goals kicked on him yet still received 2 votes. Combine that with the 3 kicks-3 votes game and it really becomes a non-debate. Harvs deserved his Brownlow !!

[perfectionist]

... Combine that with the 3 kicks-3 votes game ...

Not quite the point I was making, but for those interested see here:

http://stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/game ... 70418.html

To be fair, there could be other anomalies in Brownlow voting, but I haven't bothered to look for them. Chris Grant was a very good player whom I admired. Doesn't mean he deserved the medal that year though.

[Bernard Shakey]

Reprimands didnt exist before the match review panel... Well not in their current form.



Everybody knows the rules going in. Mitchell got a weeks suspension, lets not forget that. It was an early plea that allowed him to play. Technically his offence earned a weeks suspension.



Everybody knows the rules going in. Just like the draw. Dont think Sam should have been reported at all but thats not the point.


Best and Fairest. Thats it.

Reprimands certainly did exist before the match review panel and I can remember much discussion about whether or not players who got a reprimand should be eligible. I'm pretty sure there have been a couple of Brownlow winners who actually got reprimands, The old brain just won't release the names.

[plugger66]

Once again, the perennial of the criteria for winning the Brownlow - fairest and best or is that best and fairest - has been called into question. This time, it was due to Sam Mitchell's ineligibility. Ironically, in 1997, he would have been eligible had he received a reprimand. Up until the time that the MRP was introduced, a suspension during the H&A away games of the season was required to remove eligibility for the Brownlow. A reprimand or fine was OK.

For those who saw Robert accept the Brownlow in 1997, we know that he thought that it should have gone to Chris Grant and seemed most embarrassed in accepting it. Fortunately, his win the following year removed any questions regarding his worthiness in the eyes of doubters. However, whilst I thought the incident which saw Chris Grant suspended was borderline, they were the rules. What had changed over the years was an unwritten rule of not giving votes to suspended players. In the past, when a player was suspended, he rarely got votes in subsequent games even if he deserved them. This avoided embarrassing situations later in the year. But our friends in the media began to pick up on this practice. So more and more, votes were given to ineligible players.

So, should there be a change back to the old rule i.e. non suspension should deem eligibility or should we stick with what we have or perhaps try something different?

the brownlow is for the best and fairest...or the fairest and best......thugs don't win brownlows....carey was the best...but definitely not in a bulls roar of being the fairest...hence he never won a brownlow...this is the afl ...not a gladiator ring....

Good sensible post. Tony Lockett.

[Spinner]

Reprimands didnt exist before the match review panel... Well not in their current form.



Everybody knows the rules going in. Mitchell got a weeks suspension, lets not forget that. It was an early plea that allowed him to play. Technically his offence earned a weeks suspension.



Everybody knows the rules going in. Just like the draw. Dont think Sam should have been reported at all but thats not the point.


Best and Fairest. Thats it.

Reprimands certainly did exist before the match review panel and I can remember much discussion about whether or not players who got a reprimand should be eligible. I'm pretty sure there have been a couple of Brownlow winners who actually got reprimands, The old brain just won't release the names.

I think you're wrong... But even if reprimands did technically exist, they are not the same as current form.

The current points system allows players to receive points when less than a weeks damage is derived. It also allows players to play that should have got a week.


I'm fairly certain they didn't exist because the points based system was introduced.

[Ghost Like]

Won

Age player of the year
Herald sun MVP
AFL Players association MVP
Stk best and fairest (minor premiers)
Most possesion inthe league by a mile

I think he may have deserved it

+1,000,000

[J-Boy061979]

I know stats dont always tell the full story but the below comparison of vote getting games show clearly Harvs deserved the medal
Chris Grant
Round 2 - 3 votes for 17 possesions and no goals
Round 4 - 3 votes for 10 possesions and no goals
Round 6 - 3 votes for 23 possesions and 1 goal
Round 7 - 3 votes for 29 possesions and 2 goals
Round 13 - 3 votes for 30 possesions and 2 goals
Round 14 - 3 votes for 27 possesions and 4 goals
Round 16 - 1 vote for 20 possesions and 2 goals
Round 20 - 3 votes for 19 possesions and 2 goals
Round 21 - 3 votes for 18 possessions and 3 goals
Round 22 - 2 votes for 25 possesions and 1 goal

Robert Harvey
Round 1 - 2 votes for 32 possesions and 1 goal
Round 6 - 2 votes for 25 possesions and no goals
Round 7 - 3 votes for 38 possesions and no goals
Round 10 - 1 vote for 24 possesions and 1 goal
Round 11 - 3 votes for 35 possesions and 2 goals
Round 15 - 3 votes for 43 possesions and 2 goals
Round 16 - 3 votes for 40 possesions and no goals
Round 18 - 3 votes for 36 possesions and 1 goal
Round 19 - 3 votes for 35 possessions and 2 goals
Round 22 - 3 votes for 40 possesions and no goals

[python]

The award is for the best and fairest of that particular year, it completely ignores all other years. Mitchell was given one week for his actions this year, it was only his good track record from other years that enabled him to drop the suspension. All this talk about whether he should have been eligible is inane imo.

[joffaboy]

The Bulldog table didn't think he deserved it - they booed him when he received the award.

Typical loser, victim mentality of the Bulldogs. Saw it again prelim night 2009 crying because Lake was a moron and gave a way a free kick to Riewoldt resulting in a goal (he then kicked three more)

Apparently that was all our fault as well.

[HSVKing]

Chris Grant
Round 4 - 3 votes for 10 possesions and no goals

What?

And they lost to Melbourne by 2 points.

He didn't deserve to have the most votes.

AND... Neitz kicked 7 and didn't get a vote... Wow... Just wow.

[Munga]

The Brownlow is for FAIREST and best.
If you want to get suspended and still win something, the MVP's, B&F's, Coaches awards etc are for you.

[Munga]

Chris Grant
Round 4 - 3 votes for 10 possesions and no goals

What?

And they lost to Melbourne by 2 points.

He didn't deserve to have the most votes.

Even worse, he only had 3 kicks ffs!

[maverick]

Reprimands didnt exist before the match review panel... Well not in their current form.



Everybody knows the rules going in. Mitchell got a weeks suspension, lets not forget that. It was an early plea that allowed him to play. Technically his offence earned a weeks suspension.



Everybody knows the rules going in. Just like the draw. Dont think Sam should have been reported at all but thats not the point.


Best and Fairest. Thats it.

Reprimands certainly did exist before the match review panel and I can remember much discussion about whether or not players who got a reprimand should be eligible. I'm pretty sure there have been a couple of Brownlow winners who actually got reprimands, The old brain just won't release the names.

I seem to remember Lockett getting a reprimand for hitting David Witty in a practice game before the start of the '87 season.

Is this correct?