View Full Version : AFL say 'No' to Brad Smith's Potential Rookie Spot
sdb4884
21 Nov 2006, 18:56
Just heard 10 news. "AFL says no to the Eagles"
Guess we just have to draft him.
The AFL can be real tossers sometimes
nah its fair enough, and not unexpected.
redraft him
Sportaus
21 Nov 2006, 19:33
Confirmation from the West Coast Eagles (http://sportsaustralia.com/articles/news.php?id=125) this evening that the AFL has indeed rejected the Mature Rookie request.
The_Eagles
21 Nov 2006, 19:44
yeah cancer is kind of a different ball park to just plain bad luck with knees
FiveStrings
21 Nov 2006, 19:44
Pick 80 - Eagles select Brad Smith.
Do it.
Boy from the West
21 Nov 2006, 21:58
Fair dinkum. I think both applications were out of line. The mature age rookie spot is clearly meant for someone who has never been on a list before.
Essendon get a 160 game player added while we can't get a player who has only been on a list but hasn't played a game a spot.
It smacks of rules for some and rules for others.
It was clearly both or none.
As usual we will cop the rubbish, corrupt decision from the AFL and march on.
I agree that we draft him back at 80 and wish him a massive change in luck.
markfarmer
21 Nov 2006, 22:17
Thats wrong....He deserves it.. Hasn't played an AFL game and is of Mature age.......Thats Wrong...
I think it has to be approved by the other 15 Clubs,,
,Obviously some of the Clubs have voted no just to "Deny the Grand Finalist West Coast Eagles an advantage."
Brad Smith should be issue not the Eagles....The Afl or who-ever presented it to the other Clubs should have emphasised that.
Brad's manager is seeking to get it overturned or for AFL to re-review it.
So don't give up hope.
I think common sense should prevail and will....:thumbsu:
Thats wrong....He deserves it.. Hasn't played an AFL game and is of Mature age.......Thats Wrong...
I think it has to be approved by the other 15 Clubs,,
,Obviously some of the Clubs have voted no just to "Deny the Grand Finalist West Coast Eagles an advantage."
Brad Smith should be issue not the Eagles....The Afl or who-ever presented it to the other Clubs should have emphasised that.
Brad's manager is seeking to get it overturned or for AFL to re-review it.
So don't give up hope.
I think common sense should prevail and will....:thumbsu:
Unfortunately the AFL doesnt have very much of it
Fair dinkum. I think both applications were out of line. The mature age rookie spot is clearly meant for someone who has never been on a list before.
Essendon get a 160 game player added while we can't get a player who has only been on a list but hasn't played a game a spot.
It smacks of rules for some and rules for others.
It was clearly both or none.
As usual we will cop the rubbish, corrupt decision from the AFL and march on.
I agree that we draft him back at 80 and wish him a massive change in luck.
yeah, its a bit of a rip, neither should have been allowed i reckon
nibbles
21 Nov 2006, 23:54
yeah, its a bit of a rip, neither should have been allowed i reckon
ditto
smith at pick 80 i reckon would be an ok move - not set in stone though, someone who they really rate might slip - but id like to see smithy get another crack :thumbsu:
CharlieG
22 Nov 2006, 00:25
Fair dinkum. I think both applications were out of line. The mature age rookie spot is clearly meant for someone who has never been on a list before.
Essendon get a 160 game player added while we can't get a player who has only been on a list but hasn't played a game a spot.
It smacks of rules for some and rules for others.
It was clearly both or none.
As usual we will cop the rubbish, corrupt decision from the AFL and march on.
I agree that we draft him back at 80 and wish him a massive change in luck.
I disagree - cancer is a completely different situation. Knee injuries are part and parcel of footy... cancer isn't.
At the same time, I didn't see the need for the clause that prevents players from being rookied that have been on a list before. The spirit of the rule - to allow players over 23 to have a shot at making the grade - would have comfortably been met if the rule had been that a player could not have actually played senior footy. That would have allowed Brad Smith to be rookied, I believe. It would also offer a second chance to the huge number of players who are drafted, never get a game and then perform very at a slightly lower level as they reach their mid-20s.
Bestbird
22 Nov 2006, 02:44
I'm with the neither camp
No doubt Rama having the big C is sad and i wish him a speedy recovery
But Essendon could quite easily have left him on the list and promoted 1 of their 6 rookies.
I gather the strength of the draft has motivated both clubs to seek an exemption
Budda 230
22 Nov 2006, 07:49
Very harsh by the AFL. Did the clubs have any say in it?
sydney eagle
22 Nov 2006, 09:12
Not at all unexpected really. Knee injuries don't have the ability to generate sympathy that cancer does. I would like to see the Eagles redraft Smith.
I'm with the neither camp
No doubt Rama having the big C is sad and i wish him a speedy recovery
But Essendon could quite easily have left him on the list and promoted 1 of their 6 rookies.
I gather the strength of the draft has motivated both clubs to seek an exemption
Yep, if they were both good enough, draft them.
Really I think it should have been a yes both ways or no both ways, not a split. I find it hard to even consider Rama a rookie (100+ games !!!), they should just use their last draft pick.
Yep, if they were both good enough, draft them.
Really I think it should have been a yes both ways or no both ways, not a split. I find it hard to even consider Rama a rookie (100+ games !!!), they should just use their last draft pick.
i completely agree with you.
though their reasons for not being able to play were considerably different, how can one who's played so many games be considered 'rookie' again and one thats not been able to play any yet, not be?
OK, Ive heard all the arguments for and against Brad Smith's elevation, but what happens to him now, does he have to nominate for Saturdays National Draft or the PSD, so the Eagles or whoever can select him.:confused:
At the same time, I didn't see the need for the clause that prevents players from being rookied that have been on a list before. The spirit of the rule - to allow players over 23 to have a shot at making the grade - would have comfortably been met if the rule had been that a player could not have actually played senior footy.
The problem is the letter of the law is ripped to shreds for a player that's a 100 game veteran and former premiership player, while it can't even be bent in the spirit of the law for a guy that's never played a game. Rama being permitted on the rookie list isn't even in the spirit of the rule - it's just the right thing to do. You'd wonder why Smith isn't a more compelling case because he would be the very definition of a mature age rookie.
We're not talking a guy who's not played a game because he couldn't break into the side, we're talking a guy who's football career over the last two years has consisted of one half of one intraclub game. In his time on an AFL list, he hasn't even been able to play one game of footy anywhere; if he was a young draftee, he'd be eligible to be rookie listed.
CharlieG
22 Nov 2006, 16:52
The problem is the letter of the law is ripped to shreds for a player that's a 100 game veteran and former premiership player, while it can't even be bent in the spirit of the law for a guy that's never played a game. Rama being permitted on the rookie list isn't even in the spirit of the rule - it's just the right thing to do. You'd wonder why Smith isn't a more compelling case because he would be the very definition of a mature age rookie.
We're not talking a guy who's not played a game because he couldn't break into the side, we're talking a guy who's football career over the last two years has consisted of one half of one intraclub game. In his time on an AFL list, he hasn't even been able to play one game of footy anywhere; if he was a young draftee, he'd be eligible to be rookie listed.
I agree that he should be eligible, as I said in my previous post. I just don't see that the Ramanauskas issue is particularly relevant. Rama's situation is more akin to the Broadbridge/Motlop request. Please don't misunderstand that comment - it's not a comment on Rama's health or chances of recovery. More that the current rules fail to allow for an unforeseen circumstance, and the AFL decided to ignore the rules on compassionate grounds.
Smith, however, has suffered from a standard footballer's injury. Sad, but not something to circumvent the rules over. Maybe change them, because the current rules suck. But it creates a dangerous precedent that the Rama case simply doesn't create because the odds of it happening again are much lower - and if it did happen again, the AFL would make the decision again in any case.
royalist
22 Nov 2006, 22:17
nah its fair enough, and not unexpected.
redraft him I agree Zero. What,s the problem, redraft.
sdb4884
24 Nov 2006, 21:03
If we redraft him I hope he gets a better number than 15. Maybe number 1?
Going by what people are saying about Smithy, it looks like we'll redraft him.
royalist
24 Nov 2006, 21:36
Going by what people are saying about Smithy, it looks like we'll redraft him. It,s the right thing to do for the kid.
Look he was a top full forward for Subi. He was drafted in his prime and had bad luck. Most of us want to see if he,s got it.His old man played for Geelong and West Perth as a full forward. He,s a good looking bloke, so he obviously gets that from his mother.COME ON WHOOSH. Give him a break.
sydney eagle
25 Nov 2006, 07:02
If we redraft him I hope he gets a better number than 15. Maybe number 1? Give him Andrew McDougall's old number ! ("2" wasn't it ?) :p
nibbles
25 Nov 2006, 22:42
im pouring out some liquor for my homie...
poor bloke :(
Apparantly Eagles are looking at appealing the decision. In the appeal medical evidence will be shown which will show just how volatile his knees are and just how much damage has been done over the past 2 years.
Medical evidence should show no one in there right mind would of given him a permanent spot on the list hopefully. I dont think its the end of this anyway
Big Cox
26 Nov 2006, 11:59
Theres a article in the paper saying that all 16 clubs agreed to let Smith onto the rookie list but rather it was the AFL that overruled the decision. It also said a appeal will be made so all isnt lost yet.
********en AFL :thumbsd::mad::thumbsd:
Mr Eagle
26 Nov 2006, 13:38
The AFL needs to get rid of this vague "apply for exception" crap. Set a rule on exactly what qualifies you for the mature age rookie list, and stick with it.
nibbles
26 Nov 2006, 14:12
exactly
if you're going to make a rule or regulation work, it needs to be in black and white - all this grey area crap is not good enough and only adds to the confusion, and messes with peoples' lives
sort it out afl ffs - its only going to get worse
94_Eagles
26 Nov 2006, 14:35
Does this mean we've seen the last of Brad Smith?