FIRST things first. A huge set of congratulations to Dane Swan for not just winning the 2011 Brownlow Medal, but gaining the most votes - 34 - by a winner in the history of the award. For years, we wondered at the remarkable performances of Herbie Matthews and Des Fothergill who tied in the 1940 Medal with 32 votes apiece, from 14 games.

In 1998, Robert Harvey joined that illustrious duo, with 32 votes, again from 14 games (Harvey played 22 games in that season; Fothergill-Matthews achieved their tally from 18 games). Swan, too polled in 14 games, this time from 21 matches played.

Congratulations too, to Sam Mitchell whose 30 votes in second place on the tally - putting aside his ineligibility - would have won him every medal bar three - those won by Harvey, Fothergill-Matthews and Swan.

And perhaps the most congratulations of all to the AFL's football operations manager, Adrian Anderson, who wondered aloud at the end of the count whether Mitchell's outstanding performance (he polled in 13 matches, with eight best on ground efforts, and led the count until round 21), would lead to a re-cut of the system that stops players with demerit points in the 125 range from winning the Medal.

The Brownlow has always disallowed disqualified players from winning, and much has been made of the fact that the Medal is awarded to the "fairest and best" player in the season. The emphasis, say those who support the status quo, is on "fairest" as the founders wanted it to be.

Fact is, that's not quite so; the minutes of February 29, 1924, describe the state of mind of the delegates of the VFL, when the Medal was conceived: "To perpetuate the memory of the late Charles Brownlow and his many years of most valuable service to the Australian game both as a player, club secretary, delegate and vice-president of the League and president of the Australian Football Council, a gold and enamel medal to the value of £10 to be presented annually by the League for the best and fairest player in premiership matches each season. The medal to be called the Brownlow Medal".

The reference to "fairest and best" comes from the same minutes, denoting either minute-taker's error, or lack of real concern as to the order of importance: "The field umpire of each match shall post weekly, by first post after the match, his idea as to the fairest and best player in the match umpired by him…"

Still later in the minutes, outlining the wording for the form to be filled in by the field umpire, there is even more variance: "In my opinion the fairest and most brilliant player in the match ….. v ….. was …… of the ……….. club."

The first Medal winner was announced following at a meeting of the League on October 17, 1924.

Again the minutes are revealing: "It was reported that on an examination of voting papers of field umpires of matches of the first round, for the best and fairest player, resulted in Greeves of Geelong Club (writing is unclear, probably 'received') the highest number of votes and is therefore entitled to the Brownlow Medal. It was agreed that design for the Medal be invited."

The Medal was as much a tribute to the memory of Charles Brownlow as it was a tribute to fair play, or brilliant play, or best play; its prominence was to come much later - perhaps not until the count was televised live from 1970, although a rather subdued affair by today's standards.

Just as times change in the world of television, so too does on-field behaviour.

The Match Review Panel decided that Mitchell's rough conduct offence against Geelong's Steve Johnson in round five was "negligent contact (one point), low impact (one point), and high contact (two points) … resulting in a level one offence, drawing 125 demerit points. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 93.75 points and a reprimand." Putting team first, Mitchell took the plea, did not miss a game, but the guilty plea made him ineligible to win the Medal.

In 1924, Mitchell's 'negligence' would have been run of play, as it would have been in every season until the 2005 season, when the decision-making was removed from the hands of the umpires, and handed to reviewers of video - aka the Match Review Panel, a panel that would make decisions based on charts and prescriptions, with scrupulous adherence to the grading of penalties regarding 'conduct' (negligent, reckless, intentional), 'impact' (low, medium, high, severe), and 'contact' (high/groin, body).

Such grading provides a reasonably consistent application of the laws (and community standards) - with minor variations of interpretation possible, and often hotly-debated - but it also has seen what would once have been dismissed as 'part of the rough'n'tumble of the game', as to be assessed and more often than not penalised.

This is where the lawmakers have let change pass them by, and lost sight of the Medal's wonderful history and traditions, and why Anderson was musing about remedy on Monday night in the wake of the Mitchell drama.

And that remedy must come from the same source as that which imposes justice. Just as violence is now graded and assessed by the Match Review Panel, and prescribed penalties imposed, so too must fairness - or more likely, grades of unfairness - be marked to allow for players nailed for minor versions of negligent or reckless behaviour to remain eligible to win the Brownlow.

This is the crux of it - to provide a formula with a capped level of demerit points in the order of 125 to 225, depending on the offence (some offences can never be considered negligent or reckless) - that retains the concept of fairness to the total playing group, while being fair to the player currently rated as ineligible.

Those who struck the Medal in 1924 were about recognising 'brilliance' and eliminating any rogue players from being linked with Charles Brownlow, a man described in 'The Football Record' on his passing as being "always mindful of the good name of football, and (he) always set himself against any hanky-panky business".

Mitchell was not indulging in 'hanky-panky business', when he made negligent contact with Johnson. He is a player 'mindful of the good name of football' and his minor indiscretion - and anything similar in seasons to come - should never cost players like him a Brownlow Medal.

PS: And, just as the AFL must find a way to ensure that a player saddled with a minor offence, a la Mitchell, it must also find a way to ensure that a player found to have committed racial or religious vilification upon another player on the field, must never be eligible for the Brownlow in that season. Right now, the laws allow him to win it.

Geoff Slattery is the managing editor of AFL Media.

The views in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the AFL or its clubs