Why Isaac Heeney's ban exposes an outdated Brownlow Medal; AFL Finals; Sydney Swans; AFL Grand Final; Sydney Swans; Brisbane Lions

In reality, the term “fairest” meant that you had avoided suspension. In theory, referees might have been more inclined to award votes to the “fairest” player – the one who rarely, if ever, displays questionable violence on the field – rather than to the less scrupulous player. But that wasn’t necessarily true.

Heeney’s case should prompt a review of the Brownlow Medal rules and whether the ban on suspended players should be upheld.

I would say that, given the revolutionary and welcome changes in the way the game is controlled on the pitch, it is slightly absurd to deprive a player of his medal by handing him a one-match ban for a careless tackle or something similar.

Today’s AFL players are suspended for acts that would often not have resulted in a free kick a few decades ago.

Heeney’s punishment was not exactly heinous. His suspension came about because he threw an errant arm back – apparently to free himself – and thus collected St Kilda’s Jimmy Webster, as he took an unopposed mark.

The court case and appeal were widely discussed, with public opinion and pundits divided over whether or not Heeney deserved a week off (it was definitely free).

But the fact that the incident was questionably reported – a split-second incident that bordered on acceptable aggression, much like some overly forceful tackles – highlighted the problem that contemporary refereeing and “clean” rules have created for the Brownlows.

Players in recent years have been sidelined, often for a week, for collisions that lie in the twilight zone between accident and “negligence.”

When Brownlow’s decision not to suspend the player was made, it was obviously to exclude players who had engaged, even once, in much more serious acts of violence – punches, elbows, forearms. In the old days, footballers could be sent off for what was considered a “fair punch” and the referee would stop play.

Fortunately, the clean-up of the game has eradicated most acts of violence, and the AFL – ever mindful of concussions and the local ecosystem – has cracked down on incidents that do not involve deliberate attempts to cause harm. High hits are particularly dangerous and should result in a suspension if, as the league has decreed, the player chooses to be hit.

When Chris Grant (Bulldogs) lost his Brownlow in 1997 it was with an arm injury that clearly warranted a two-week suspension; where he was stiff was that it was then AFL football boss Ian Collins who stepped in to have him charged.

North Melbourne’s Corey McKernan was unlucky in 1996 when he drew with James Hird and Michael Voss, spending the night at home after a one-match ban for jumping on Geelong’s John Barnes.

These suspensions were handed down for more serious incidents than Heeney’s. It will be fascinating to see how Heeney fares in the polls up to this point in the 17th round, and beyond. Herein lies another problem: could a player’s ineligibility skew future votes?

Heeney is not a foul player. Patrick Cripps is not a foul player, but – on a comparative basis – he is fortunate to have retained his Brownlow given his collision with Callum Ah Chee in 2022.

If the rules are not changed – and one-match bans are no longer disqualifying, or the ban on suspensions is removed altogether – then we will see more players unfairly excluded from the Brownlow starting grid.

Stay up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up to the Real Footy newsletter.