View Full Version : Father Son Rule
marcmurphy3
16 Sep 2006, 23:27
As a result of Geelong picking up a 1-5 pick in Hawkins this year everyone is talking about changing the father son rule. Personally I like the current rule rule. People are saying the rule should be changed so that a club can nominate its father son selections at the start of each round and if they don't that player can be picked by any club. This would cause a number of problems. Say a club finished in the bottom 3 and they had an eligble father son that was likely to go 10-15. They couldn't really take that father son selection over a top three gun player and there father/son would get picked up by another club. I think its nice for clubs to be able to keep family traditions. Also, while I do agree with the current draft system it is sometimes exciting for a club to get a really good player they otherwise may not have been able to obtain.
What are your thoughts on this issue?
blitzer
16 Sep 2006, 23:32
I think its a nice tradition to be able to acquire father-son combo's through the father-son rule. I see it as kind of a reward for those long term supporters who will get to see 2 (or more) generations playing for their beloved team whoever it may be. It would be dissapointing if the rule was changed like you said to being able to nominate at the start of each round because coaches would not be able to draft the 10-15 players with top 3 picks and justify it in good faith to their club but it would leave supporters dissapointed at the same time. I like it the way it is in summary.
Stupid Vic-centric rule in a stupid Vic-centric competition.
LukeHodge15
16 Sep 2006, 23:51
Stupid Vic-centric rule in a stupid Vic-centric competition.
Someone still bleeding over gibbs.
Someone still bleeding over gibbs.
Yep, I'm also bleeding over Luke Darcy, The Robran brothers and the Cornes brothers.
TheGeneral
17 Sep 2006, 00:03
Stupid Vic-centric rule in a stupid Vic-centric competition.
Go and follow the SANFL.
Whingers.
SeymourLions
17 Sep 2006, 00:27
i think its fair, 100 VFL/AFL games is the equivelant of what is it 200 now? SANFL games. :p
The rule is great, and its a good reason why clubs dont necessarily need to bottom out.
I think its just that Hawkins is a Key position player, that this media scrutiny is coming on.
Recent ones from memory who would have been top 5:
Travis Cloke (coll)- was regarded as top 10
Jesse Smith (roos)- top 5
Jarred Morton (wce) - top 3
Gary Ablett Jnr - top 15
Jobe Watson - " " "
Ablett wasn't considered a top 15 player within his draft class coming out of the junior ranks. Nowhere near it.
I think that the round nominating is a good idea and the idea had was that if your son-father is valued as round one draft pick, then the club would have to give up a second pick for the player. If the club thought the player was a second round pick , then they would have to give up a third round pick. Then other clubs could only pick that player in the first round of picks. Example Hawkins this year is considered to be a first round pick and the Cats would have to give up their 2 round pick for instead of the third round pick. I think that this rule protects the son-father principle at the same time making the pick closer to the players value.
jules101
18 Sep 2006, 00:06
Stupid Vic-centric rule in a stupid Vic-centric competition.
Yeah but how many clubs are associated to Adelaide? 4 or 5? You have 4 or 5 times more players playing 100 games
Yeah but how many clubs are associated to Adelaide? 4 or 5? You have 4 or 5 times more players playing 100 games
Adelaide's complaint has never been about the number of games required to qualify (though 150 games would be better, as it would bring them into line with the WAFL equivalent).
Adelaide have 4 clubs aligned with them, Port have 6 (4 standalone, plus two clubs which merged).
Adelaide's complaints centred around the timeframes over which the rule was applied.
Bluebear
18 Sep 2006, 14:29
Adelaide's complaint has never been about the number of games required to qualify (though 150 games would be better, as it would bring them into line with the WAFL equivalent).
Adelaide have 4 clubs aligned with them, Port have 6 (4 standalone, plus two clubs which merged).
Adelaide's complaints centred around the timeframes over which the rule was applied.
I think Gibbs should wear number 4.......what do you think?:D
I think Gibbs should wear number 4.......what do you think?:D
He would look alright in Clarkey's number after he comes home in 2 years;)
cschreuder61
18 Sep 2006, 18:19
Stupid Vic-centric rule in a stupid Vic-centric competition.
Vic centric competition? That's why they have won so many flags over the last few years...
You guys whinge and don't see how the competition is actually benefiting interstate teams rather than Victorian teams at the moment because of its saturated market.
Get over it.
matty_hawk
18 Sep 2006, 19:18
I think Gibbs should wear number 4.......what do you think?:D
GOLD! id like to see him wear number 1 but then u have to kick walker out of it. its worth it. gibbs deserves 1!!!
danzan22
18 Sep 2006, 19:22
i like the rule as it is, its up to the player mainly as well, he can choose to be draftedunder the rule or not e.g. marc murphy
mediumsizered
18 Sep 2006, 19:56
Stupid Vic-centric rule in a stupid Vic-centric competition.
I'm sure Eagles' fans of Ben Cousins would disagree. As would the Power fans of Brett Ebert. Throw in Brisbane fans of Jonathan Brown. Maybe even Sydney fans of Sean Dempster. Do you reckon Freo fans of Brett Peake would agree with you?
Carlton23
18 Sep 2006, 23:53
I'm sure Eagles' fans of Ben Cousins would disagree. As would the Power fans of Brett Ebert. Throw in Brisbane fans of Jonathan Brown. Maybe even Sydney fans of Sean Dempster. Do you reckon Freo fans of Brett Peake would agree with you?
Add Judd into that list..... another Victoria playing interstate. One of the elite...
Im Sure all of the other clubs would kill to have him... But the draft is set in a way that any club can benefit from the draft, regardless of where they came from....
Crow-mo
19 Sep 2006, 03:02
Someone still bleeding over gibbs.
well when his old man is identified by NAME as an eligible father, when the boundaries were drawn up by the AFL - I think we can be a bit miffed.
Ross Gibbs was named as one of the guys we got when they drew it up. only through a loop hole in the AFL's data collection, have they managed to weasel out of it.
but time to move on, we'll just console ourselves with another deep campaign for the flag.
Crow-mo
19 Sep 2006, 03:07
You guys whinge and don't see how the competition is actually benefiting interstate teams rather than Victorian teams at the moment because of its saturated market.
actually the "competition/league" doesn't benefit us, the increased competition from the efficiently run clubs has merely raised the bar to a level that surburban based organisations struggle to keep up with.
the aggregation of resources into a centralised state level club is always going to win out against a surbuban one. and if you think about it, that's why it's unlikey to change in future. even President jeff agrees ;)