HOW would the 2012 Brownlow count have unfolded if Jobe Watson and every banned Essendon player was ineligible to receive a vote?
After Watson handed his Brownlow back last Friday, the big question is what happens to the medal now? The AFL Commission will try to come up with an answer when it meets on Tuesday, and it has several options.
RECAP THE REVISED 2012 BROWNLOW COUNT BELOW
It could hand the Brownlow to runners-up Sam Mitchell and Trent Cotchin, following the principle employed when a player is ineligible due to suspension (as Chris Grant was in 1997 and the medal went to Robert Harvey, who polled the second-most votes) and in the Olympics when a gold medallist fails a drug test.
JON RALPH: IT MAKES NO SENSE TO DENY MITCHELL, COTCHIN
MYSTERY: WHERE IS JOBE’S BROWNLOW EXACTLY?
ADAM COONEY: INSIDER’S TAKE ON JOBE AND BOMBERS SAGA
DRAFT PREVIEW: CHAMPION DATA’S TOP 30 PROSPECTS
But that isn’t perfect. Some past medallists say the award would be tainted and it doesn’t really cover the fact Watson wasn’t the only banned Essendon player who polled votes that year.
In fact, 10 Essendon players were awarded votes on Brownlow night — and they were all among the 34 banned for 12 months for taking part in the club’s infamous supplements program. Those players polled a combined 59 votes in the 2012 medal.
The commission could remove the Essendon games from the count altogether — leaving Adelaide’s Scott Thompson as the Brownlow medallist — but that isn’t fair on those who played against the Bombers twice that season, including Mitchell and Cotchin.
The other alternative would be to revisit every Essendon game that season and recast the votes removing all members of the Essendon 34. That would take a lot of time, but we’ve taken a stab at it in the SuperFooty office.
Our formula uses the Herald Sun player of the year award to inform who should be in the 3-2-1 in place of ineligible Bombers, then defaulting to the best players published in the next day’s Herald Sun to fill any remaining gaps.
It isn’t perfect, but it’s a fair idea of who the umpires would have rewarded if they had known it wasn’t fair to give any votes to Essendon players who would later be banned for a year.
So how does the revised count play out? Follow it “live” below from 9am EDT.