What do u think if the sudden talk of changing Best and Fairest Rules just because Buddy got ruled out?

Question

I have to admit my annoyance that the media and others were not too concerned about "head contact" ruling players out of Brownlow contention until it happened to Sir Lance! Yes he's an exciting player, yes he's leading the Coleman count, but come on, how about the same rules for all players?! I didn't see anywhere near the amount of concern when others were ruled out of Brownlow contention and if i were one of them I would feel very annoyed that it takes Sir Lance's misdemeanor to encourage talk of changing the rules! He's not even considered club senior yet!

Answer 1

I think that the reason they are talking about changing the rule is because there is a high amount of quality players who have the potential to win the Brownlow, that are now ineligible due to offences. And it's not only Buddy. There's Sam Mitchell, Adam Goodes, Chad Cornes, Travis Cloke, etc, who are all ruled out of winning the Brownlow. If any of these players polls the highest amount of votes, which is reasonably likely, they still won't win the award. Can you imagine if they did change the rule though - How angry would those such as Corey McKernan, Chris Grantand even Mark Ricciuto be. They all would have won a medal (or in Ricciuto's case, two), if they weren't ineligible.

Answer 2

I am one that does agree with you - this bleating about awarding the medal, even if a player has been found guilty of an offence by the tribunal, only raised it's head after Franklin was convicted.

At the time he was ruling medal favourite or near to it. Nothing was said when WCE's Daniel Kerr had the same thing happen to him. Druggie Franklin is the golden haired boy of the AFL at the moment with some commentators carrying on about him in a manner that reminded me of how Bruce McAvaney carried on about Wayne Carey.

My answer is that it should stay the same as it is. If they change it do they do it retrospectively & award others who have missed out over the years? And can you imagine awarding the medal to Barry Hall this year?

Answer 3

I think, if the misdemeanour only gets less than one week, it's hardly an unfair action its more of an accidental bump which I don't think deserves not to be able to win the brownlow, just because of a clumpsey action some one could still be best and fairest. thats my say

Answer 4

what a load of cr@p

if youfront up to the tribunial and are found guilty then you are not the fairest and shouldnt get the brownlow

if they want to change it to being best only i feel that luke darcy might have a valid reason to feel a bit wrong done by

leave it as it is

you are right mark chris grant instead of darcy

so shoot me

Answer 5

"luke darcy" ?

when was he close to a brownlow?

do you mean chris grant (1997) ?

Answer 6

I am not sure that it ws soley Buddy that caused this discussion to be raised. I think he may have just been the last player to get rubbed out for getting a reprimand that could have been a contender to win the brownlow??

(For the record, I think that if you are reported and found guilty then you should not b able to win the Brownlow. It should stay as fairest and best.)