How did the umpires give Matt Rowell three votes for his 16-possession and eight-clanger game in Round 7? How did Nasiah Wanganeen-Milera not poll the full three votes for his match-winning performance against the Dees?
These were just a couple of the questions being asked after Monday night’s Brownlow Medal, with calls from fans and media for voting on the coveted AFL award to be reviewed.
At the crux of their argument are questions about how on-field umpires, whose job it is to officiate a lightning-quick game by applying an ever-changing set of rules, can be expected to accurately judge the best afield and most impactful players without having access to statistics and replays after the game.
In an era where data is king, perhaps the same system that worked 50 years ago doesn’t work as well today.
Data is also king in racing and those same questions can be asked of several of the sport’s top awards, like the Scobie Breasley Medal in Victoria and the John Letts Medal in South Australia.
Each award is the respective state’s premier accolade for jockeys and both are voted on in a similar manner by racing’s umpires, its panel of raceday stewards.
After the races are done and all enquiries are finalised, the stewards at each meeting vote on what they consider to be the best rides. While they have access to replays, they don’t yet have available the sectional data or performance ratings that punters have access to in the 24-48 hours after a race meeting.
Rides that are visually stunning or appear to have some degree of technical difficulty are often rewarded, while others that might be viewed as regulation or ‘sit and steers’ can be overlooked, even if sectional data shows there was more skill and craft involved that first thought.
And given stewards are the ones charged with policing the sport and dishing out penalties to those that fall foul of the rules, it’s hard to imagine that some stewards don’t have their favourites, which might also influence how rides are viewed and votes are cast.
Like Rowell, there is little doubt that each winner of the Scobie or the Letts has enjoyed a brilliant season. Blake Shinn won this year’s Scobie Breasley Medal, while Rochelle Milnes claimed her first John Letts Medal in Adelaide. Few would argue there was a better rider in each state. But there are sometimes inconsistencies that are hard to explain.
In 2023, leading SA rider Jake Toeroek won the Adelaide Jockey Premiership, some 13 wins clear of his nearest rival, but failed to finish in the top five in the John Letts Medal.
Back in 2010, Luke Nolen won both the Melbourne and Victorian Jockey Premierships by significant margins during an all-conquering season, yet could only manage seventh on the Scobie votes tally.
Does this mean that these awards shouldn’t be coveted? Of course not. It just means that they need to be accepted for what they are, which is one subjective view of an athlete’s performance and not a definitive measure of greatness.
Could the voting be fine-tuned? Could trainers or form analysts somehow be involved in the voting process? Will the value of other awards like the Jockeys Association MVP, which is voted on by peers, increase over time?
All of those questions are up for debate.
