View Full Version : Should the father-son rule be changed because Geelong was able to pick up Tom Hawkins?
Just interested in people's opinions on this one... Neale Daniher had a winge about the father-son rule after today's game. Should the rule be changed? ie - ratings for potential father/son picks from the draft
delirious1
15 Apr 2007, 19:40
it probably will go with everyone whining about hawkins, dont think it should go, but just tweeked, would be a shame to see former club champions sons running around for the opposition:thumbsd:
trueblue_91
15 Apr 2007, 19:42
it probably will go with everyone whining about hawkins, dont think it should go, but just tweeked, would be a shame to see former club champions sons running around for the opposition:thumbsd:
Exactly. They shouldn't change the rule.
dutchy12
15 Apr 2007, 21:24
Yeah i reckon the AFL should embrace the concept
mudgeathon
15 Apr 2007, 22:42
Nope we got Cousins and Morton out of it. I'm happy enough with how it is
Hairy Cat Mooney
15 Apr 2007, 22:45
Nope we got Cousins and Morton out of it. I'm happy enough with how it is
He could have come to geelong under the father-son rule as well. If only he wasn't raised in WA :mad:
estibador
16 Apr 2007, 08:26
It's a great concept but perhaps needs a little tweaking to make it fairer. The idea of a top 5 rated prospect being drafted with a 3rd round pick seems to go against the whole concept of the draft.
I like the idea where before every round in the draft a club can nominate that they will draft the kid that round. The FS club can then match them and use that round's pick to get him. If they choose not to then the club that nominated him has to draft him that round.
The only problem could be a kid rated 15th being eligible for FS for the club with the 1st pick. If the club with the 16th pick nominated him then the FS club would be forced to waste their no1 pick on him. So perhaps it could be that you use the closest pick to the nominating club's - ie the FS club could use their pick 17 instead.
BK Eaglesfan
16 Apr 2007, 09:54
The only problem could be a kid rated 15th being eligible for FS for the club with the 1st pick. If the club with the 16th pick nominated him then the FS club would be forced to waste their no1 pick on him. So perhaps it could be that you use the closest pick to the nominating club's - ie the FS club could use their pick 17 instead.
Agree. Perhaps rate the kid between a range of 16 pick numbers, and the club has to nominate prior to the first in that range that they will exercise their option to take him under the F/S. Big question of course is how he is rated, but I'm sure they could find a way.
Does seem to be the one flaw in the current system, I mean I'm not complaining when we have a Brownlow winner picked up the same way, but what good does the equalisation affect of the draft have, when Carlton finish last and Geelong finish 10th and pick up Hawkins with a third round pick?
Say the bulldogs put up their 11th pick for Hawkins, the Cats have to match that or better it with their pick that they used for Selwood.
CyberKev
16 Apr 2007, 10:11
No!
Its always been a great thing.
Its NEVER been about equity, its been about promoting family lineages at clubs.
Leave it as it is.
Kaiser Powser
16 Apr 2007, 10:19
Leave it as it is.
It would be a shame to see these kids at other clubs.
The fact that Silvangi has three boys who will in all likely hood be guns, is just good fortune to Carlton I would in no way want to see them playing for a different club. And I hate Carlton.
Clubs like Adelaide will love it in a few years time when they get a champion kid out of their initial players.
Partridge
16 Apr 2007, 11:19
No!
Its always been a great thing.
Its NEVER been about equity, its been about promoting family lineages at clubs.
Leave it as it is.
Exactly. And people have short memories, they'll go on about quality players you receive under father/son but they'll get amnesia about the duds. They don't all become superstars.
vinnie_vegas69
16 Apr 2007, 11:22
West Coast got Ben Cousins, Brisbane got Jonathan Brown... It's not the first time a team has picked up a superstar of the competition through father-son.
sydney eagle
16 Apr 2007, 12:25
Well I think that it should be changed, but not for that reason. I prefer the "auction" system by which, at the start of each round of the draft, all clubs are asked whether they have any "father/son" selections. If they do not nominate a player then he can be taken by any other club that has a selection ahead of the club with the potential father/son selection in that round. The same thing happens in the next round and so on. Therefore if say Hawkins was rated as a top 3 selection Geelong would still have an opportunity to draft him under "father/son" but would have had to give up their first round pick for him or risk him being drafted by another club in the first round if they did not rate him as highly as other clubs.
grantyc77
16 Apr 2007, 13:09
iM A CATS MAN, SO I SAY LEAVE AS IS.
bzparkes
16 Apr 2007, 13:11
Same thing happened when Cuz went to WCE. People will ALWAYS whinge about the father-son rule if a team other than theirs picks up a gun player under it.
Kaiser Powser
16 Apr 2007, 13:15
Exactly. And people have short memories, they'll go on about quality players you receive under father/son but they'll get amnesia about the duds. They don't all become superstars.
That's a good point. A lot of duds are taken whom you do not hear much about.
I think it is a very novel concept and while the national draft is fair, this is the last link to dynastic drafting, since zoning was abolished.
I suppose if they were going to make changes to it, they could make it a second round pick other than a third. But I'm not sure whether that is warranted either.
Bloody lloydy had a baby girl recently. C'mon mate, get back in the saddle and have another go. Hirdy's got two boys you better follow suit.
Claude Balls
16 Apr 2007, 16:09
Say the bulldogs put up their 11th pick for Hawkins, the Cats have to match that or better it with their pick that they used for Selwood.
That's a flawed suggestion though in the case of Hawkins... it would only work with a player that was regared as, say a top 12 or top 15 talent. If that were to happen, the Cats would be forced to spend a pick 4 selections higher than what the Dog's would use, and thus would recieve no benifit whatsoever for recruiting a player whose father played for the club in the past... The player may as well be on the open market.
It's purely luck of the draw, considering how talented the kid may be. Perhaps to cover the likes of Hawkins and Brown and Murphy etc, the rules should be changed to a second round pick instead - this way players like Hawkins would still be picked up with second round picks, for a higher price, but less talented players may be overlooked by their father's club, in preference of more talented open-market players.
S "Thinks He's Daicos" J
21 Apr 2007, 12:37
Exactly. And people have short memories, they'll go on about quality players you receive under father/son but they'll get amnesia about the duds. They don't all become superstars.
Callan, Woolnough...
kane249
21 Apr 2007, 17:58
Nope, on a side note i want to petition the Eagles to make viagra a compulsary serving to all members of the 92,94 and 06 premiership teams :p
Metallica_Man
21 Apr 2007, 18:03
wait until we get Couch and Donahue. but then still dont change it
sydney eagle
21 Apr 2007, 18:17
The team with the most father/son selections since the rule was introduced in 1986 is Collingwood with 14. The lowest number of father/son selections is Fremantle with 1 (Brett Peake). West Coast Eagles have had possibly the greatest success out of the rule with 477 games between only 3 father/son selections and only Richmond and West Coast have two father/son selections that have played more than 200 games for the club.