Opinion AFL rules discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

I like the father son and believe it should be extended to grandfathers

Going to get messy working those rules out! How about including games by (blood-relative) uncles and grand-uncles as well?

At one point, games as a coach counted towards F/S too (which would have had Choco's kids eligible for us as well as Collingwood)...

I think you have to 'snip' the father/son thing at some point (ouch!).
 
Going to get messy working those rules out! How about including games by (blood-relative) uncles and grand-uncles as well?

At one point, games as a coach counted towards F/S too (which would have had Choco's kids eligible for us as well as Collingwood)...

I think you have to 'snip' the father/son thing at some point (ouch!).

I wouldn't mind uncles as well

sure there would be issues but in the scheme of things, it would be simpler than understanding and adjudicating the holding the ball rule
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I still can't comprehend why anyone would want to get rid of the father son. Yes it compromises the draft system, but it compromises it EVENLY for all teams. As PAFC we could argue that the system hasn't worked for us since we're relatively new in the AFL and the SANFL FS rule is crap.. So why the hell would people argue to get rid of the rule just as we stand to benefit from it with our AFL players coming of age? It would be the priority pick fiasco all over again. Honestly.. The mind boggles
 
Think Ollie's mum wants a brother brother rule lol

I think that would be fair, good for families and good for clubs

as long as the draft selection was reasonable (which a good system is already in place)
 

Portia

#DrewBlood
30k Posts 10k Posts TheBrownDog Port Adelaide - Jesse Palmer Player Sponsor 2017 Podcaster Port Adelaide - Riley Bonner Player Sponsor 2016 Port Adelaide - Brendon AhChee Player Sponsor 2014 Port Adelaide - Jarrad Redden Player Sponsor 2014 Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013 Port Adelaide - Captains Club 2012 Sponsor Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
Oct 7, 2001
50,502
24,862
Fragile bastion of liberalism
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Muckbuckle Dolmens
Father son rule is one of the few rules created for fans, and not for footballers or the league's profits (although both can benefit). Keep it.

If it wasn't there, sons would still play AFL just fine, parents would adjust, money would be made, but fans are the ones that would get angsty about Tex Wanganeen being a Crow.
 
Father son rule is one of the few rules created for fans, and not for footballers or the league's profits (although both can benefit). Keep it.

If it wasn't there, sons would still play AFL just fine, parents would adjust, money would be made, but fans are the ones that would get angsty about Tex Wanganeen being a Crow.
fu-computer.gif
 
Apr 6, 2014
6,644
9,635
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Father-Son rule is more than just for the fans. It is skewed towards the Vic greats. It was balanced a little by the bidding system. Whilst the Vic greats can't stomach their sons playing for the foe this rule will remain.
 

*PAF

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts Port Adelaide - Nathan Krakouer Player Sponsor 2015 Port Adelaide - Brendon AhChee Player Sponsor 2014 Port Adelaide - Jarrad Redden Player Sponsor 2014 Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013 Port Adelaide - Foundation Sponsor Port Adelaide - Captains Club 2012 Sponsor Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
Feb 17, 2005
22,024
10,285
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
How the f do you post .png from a phone?
Anyone?
 

*PAF

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts Port Adelaide - Nathan Krakouer Player Sponsor 2015 Port Adelaide - Brendon AhChee Player Sponsor 2014 Port Adelaide - Jarrad Redden Player Sponsor 2014 Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013 Port Adelaide - Foundation Sponsor Port Adelaide - Captains Club 2012 Sponsor Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
Feb 17, 2005
22,024
10,285
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Father-Son rule is more than just for the fans. It is skewed towards the Vic greats. It was balanced a little by the bidding system. Whilst the Vic greats can't stomach their sons playing for the foe this rule will remain.

Here we go again. This bloody chip on the shoulder "boo hoo th eBig Bad Vics iz against Sarf Orstraliaz" thing again.

The rule was invented in the 1960s for Ron Barassi/Melbourne. It wasn't about a bloody football "foe" it was an appeal on compassionate grounds. You want to blame someone for the blended-changing-rules over time in SA blame the bloody SANFL more than anyone for not letting a proper bloody club in in 1990 (for us the rules could have been very bloody simple: same as everyone else). Blame them for foisting a Frankenteam without any "parents" upon the VFL and for forcing arbitrary rule changes just to make things a little fairer for the composite side. You know, the Big Bad Vics could have done nothing and just said ... wait 20 years, suckers. With one composite side and one "real" club, the rules in SA are going to be a compromise, imperfect, a dogs breakfast even, until the kids of the two AFL sides grow up, and hopefully most people in SA have grown out of the 1970s attitude to Vics by then.

It's the so called VIC-dominated AFL that introduced the bidding system and who have been trying to integrate the system better with a draft system. It's the VICs who let Jonathon Brown to ... the Bears. More than a few to Sydney. And between Ash McIntosh and Cousins probably West Coast of all non-Vic sides have benefited from the rule, not in numbers but in quality - probably a flag in the Cousins pick alone for them. But yeah it's skewed to the Vics. It's all biased, waa waa waa.

Priceless. Welcome to SA.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Father-Son rule is more than just for the fans. It is skewed towards the Vic greats. It was balanced a little by the bidding system. Whilst the Vic greats can't stomach their sons playing for the foe this rule will remain.
It's mindless opinions like this which undermine our actual meritorious grievances and complaints of inequality (I.e. our terrible stadium deal or scaling back the priority pick just as we stood to benefit from it).

How can a blanket rule for all 18 clubs be biased in favour of Victorian clubs? You would have had a leg to stand on 20 years ago before our retired AFL players were of age but not now.

Quintessential pie floater opinion.
 
Here we go again. This bloody chip on the shoulder "boo hoo th eBig Bad Vics iz against Sarf Orstraliaz" thing again.

The rule was invented in the 1960s for Ron Barassi/Melbourne. It wasn't about a bloody football "foe" it was an appeal on compassionate grounds. You want to blame someone for the blended-changing-rules over time in SA blame the bloody SANFL more than anyone for not letting a proper bloody club in in 1990 (for us the rules could have been very bloody simple: same as everyone else). Blame them for foisting a Frankenteam without any "parents" upon the VFL and for forcing arbitrary rule changes just to make things a little fairer for the composite side. You know, the Big Bad Vics could have done nothing and just said ... wait 20 years, suckers. With one composite side and one "real" club, the rules in SA are going to be a compromise, imperfect, a dogs breakfast even, until the kids of the two AFL sides grow up, and hopefully most people in SA have grown out of the 1970s attitude to Vics by then.

It's the so called VIC-dominated AFL that introduced the bidding system and who have been trying to integrate the system better with a draft system. It's the VICs who let Jonathon Brown to ... the Bears. More than a few to Sydney. And between Ash McIntosh and Cousins probably West Coast of all non-Vic sides have benefited from the rule, not in numbers but in quality - probably a flag in the Cousins pick alone for them. But yeah it's skewed to the Vics. It's all biased, waa waa waa.

Priceless. Welcome to SA.
Yeah, that's all great but Ross Oakley himself said the Vic's wanted a composite side in, just like the Eagles.

Port forced everyone's hand...thankfully.
 
Father son rule is one of the few rules created for fans, and not for footballers or the league's profits (although both can benefit). Keep it.

If it wasn't there, sons would still play AFL just fine, parents would adjust, money would be made, but fans are the ones that would get angsty about Tex Wanganeen being a Crow.

The father son rule wasnt created for the fans. It was created for the son of a footballer, the footballer went and served his country in WWII, died in battle at Tobruk, the kid became a legacy kid and had to move out of the his family house as Mum couldn't afford the upkeep and therefore out of the zone that allowed him to play for his father's club.

It was created for the son and his desire to honour his father and play for his club despite not living in the correct zone and a football club wanting to honour one of its fallen players who made the ultimate sacrifice for his country. The rule was introduced in 1953 to allow a 16/17 year old Ron Barassi Jnr to play for his father's club after losing him when he was only 5 years old and barely knowing him.

The rule has now become one for the fans to gush over, but lets not forget the reason why it was introduced.
 
Last edited:

Portia

#DrewBlood
30k Posts 10k Posts TheBrownDog Port Adelaide - Jesse Palmer Player Sponsor 2017 Podcaster Port Adelaide - Riley Bonner Player Sponsor 2016 Port Adelaide - Brendon AhChee Player Sponsor 2014 Port Adelaide - Jarrad Redden Player Sponsor 2014 Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013 Port Adelaide - Captains Club 2012 Sponsor Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
Oct 7, 2001
50,502
24,862
Fragile bastion of liberalism
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Muckbuckle Dolmens
Too late, already did! Its been around the whole time Port has been in the AFL, and I've never heard that story before right now.
 
Apr 6, 2014
6,644
9,635
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
It's mindless opinions like this which undermine our actual meritorious grievances and complaints of inequality (I.e. our terrible stadium deal or scaling back the priority pick just as we stood to benefit from it).

How can a blanket rule for all 18 clubs be biased in favour of Victorian clubs? You would have had a leg to stand on 20 years ago before our retired AFL players were of age but not now.

Quintessential pie floater opinion.

Well, it is evolving now as the cows, us and West Coast have been in the competition long enough but falling back even 3 or more years ago and the conditions of the father-son rule was not equitable. Brett Ebert was drafted by us under the father-son rule but the AFL erred under its own rules and he was ineligible. Would that have been the case with the Vic clubs?

Gurnuto mialo.
 
Apr 6, 2014
6,644
9,635
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Here we go again. This bloody chip on the shoulder "boo hoo th eBig Bad Vics iz against Sarf Orstraliaz" thing again.

The rule was invented in the 1960s for Ron Barassi/Melbourne. It wasn't about a bloody football "foe" it was an appeal on compassionate grounds. You want to blame someone for the blended-changing-rules over time in SA blame the bloody SANFL more than anyone for not letting a proper bloody club in in 1990 (for us the rules could have been very bloody simple: same as everyone else). Blame them for foisting a Frankenteam without any "parents" upon the VFL and for forcing arbitrary rule changes just to make things a little fairer for the composite side. You know, the Big Bad Vics could have done nothing and just said ... wait 20 years, suckers. With one composite side and one "real" club, the rules in SA are going to be a compromise, imperfect, a dogs breakfast even, until the kids of the two AFL sides grow up, and hopefully most people in SA have grown out of the 1970s attitude to Vics by then.

It's the so called VIC-dominated AFL that introduced the bidding system and who have been trying to integrate the system better with a draft system. It's the VICs who let Jonathon Brown to ... the Bears. More than a few to Sydney. And between Ash McIntosh and Cousins probably West Coast of all non-Vic sides have benefited from the rule, not in numbers but in quality - probably a flag in the Cousins pick alone for them. But yeah it's skewed to the Vics. It's all biased, waa waa waa.

Priceless. Welcome to SA.

I'm not talking about the initial implementation of the father-son rule from the 50s/60s. I'm talking about its conditions under the AFL being skewed towards the Vic clubs. I believe from memory that Brisbane and Sydney's conditions differ from the SA and WA clubs. You can list those examples but our own Brett Ebert was an oversight error as admitted by the AFL. It is not a chip on the shoulder comment, it is a system that is skewed towards the Vic clubs, whether by way of the sanfl or the afl, it is still skewed, and there are legit reasons for it being skewed, such as not being allowed to be treated as a long established club. Cry cry, boo hoo, waa waa and jump to conclusions to what it meant all you like ... it just illustrates comprehensive ineptness.
 
Last edited:

Canoogs

Club Legend
Apr 29, 2012
1,643
2,157
Not Canada
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I'm not talking about the initial implementation of the father-son rule from the 50s/60s. I'm talking about its conditions under the AFL being skewed towards the Vic clubs. I believe from memory that Brisbane and Sydney's conditions differ from the SA and WA clubs. You can list those examples but our own Brett Ebert was an oversight error as admitted by the AFL.
Yes, there was some issues with it earlier, but I don't have a problem with its current incarnation. If you're going to bag the father/son rule, provide more details in regards to what about it you don't like. At this point in time, it's not skewed towards any teams, and the people who ultimately bear responsibility for the shambles it was initially are the SANFL.
 
Apr 6, 2014
6,644
9,635
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Yes, there was some issues with it earlier, but I don't have a problem with its current incarnation. If you're going to bag the father/son rule, provide more details in regards to what about it you don't like. At this point in time, it's not skewed towards any teams, and the people who ultimately bear responsibility for the shambles it was initially are the SANFL.

Not bagging it, just stating that it is skewed towards the Vic clubs. Separate to this, whilst the Vic clubs see value in it, the rule will remain. Some people's mental states then flipped.

I'm in favour of it but the conditions of eligibility are inequitable, and I wonder when it will reach equality, will it be when the sons of the Suns and Giants players are old enough to be drafted? Admitting I haven't checked the conditions of the two most recent clubs but going back before they entered the competition, the SA clubs were disadvantaged, this depending on the perspective you see it from. My perspective as a Port supporter it has been a disadvantage to us relative to the Vic clubs. Fortunately Brett Ebert stumbled to us under error and we haven't had other sons capable of being drafted (by memory). If the son of Russell Ebert was an oversight, I think that is enough to suggest the rule is skewed.

I don't believe the crows and us should have pickings of Westies sons, however yes the SANFL pushed for it and what we've got are conditions that did not allow Aish and Gibbs to be picked under the father-son. Some years ago we dissected the conditions on TPFP and the eligibility restrictions were so improbable of the two based SA clubs benefiting.

Now we edge closer towards those sons that are eligible are sons of AFL players of the crows, which begins balancing the ledger, unfortunately we are not quite there yet ourselves.

Should the father-son rule continue? What should make the son of a great anymore exalted than the son of the local small business owner?
 
Who is going to be a father-son for GWS? Nobody wants to stay there for a season let alone 100 games. :p

reduce the threshold to 22 appearances and include preseason games and training sessions
 
Well, it is evolving now as the cows, us and West Coast have been in the competition long enough but falling back even 3 or more years ago and the conditions of the father-son rule was not equitable. Brett Ebert was drafted by us under the father-son rule but the AFL erred under its own rules and he was ineligible. Would that have been the case with the Vic clubs?

Gurnuto mialo.
Most Port supporters would agree that the modified Father Son rule (for teams new to the AFL) was poorly conceived and deprived us of actual players who we would feel we have rightful traditional access to. However doing away with this rule now (just as we stand to benefit) makes no sense. And the rule itself is an objectively fair rule for all clubs as it applies to all-
-there are no arbitrary judgements on merit (i.e. with the priority picks or free agency compensation)
-no inherent advantage to already strong clubs (I.e. free agency)
-no reward for failure (I.e. the draft pick system)
-no bias towards strong drawing clubs (I.e. the fixture and disequalisation philosophy)
-and no situation/setup dependant advantages (I.e. stadium deals).

A footballer plays 100 games for your club, any club, and you have access to their son. It's simple, it applies to all, and it introduces a traditional component into the meat-market draft system.

What's there not to like?
 

Portia

#DrewBlood
30k Posts 10k Posts TheBrownDog Port Adelaide - Jesse Palmer Player Sponsor 2017 Podcaster Port Adelaide - Riley Bonner Player Sponsor 2016 Port Adelaide - Brendon AhChee Player Sponsor 2014 Port Adelaide - Jarrad Redden Player Sponsor 2014 Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013 Port Adelaide - Captains Club 2012 Sponsor Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
Oct 7, 2001
50,502
24,862
Fragile bastion of liberalism
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Muckbuckle Dolmens
There is actually a bias towards (on field) strong clubs, because they are more likely to have a stable side that can create a greater pool of 100+ game players for the club.

Shitty sides that churn through low-grade players and lose others to trades early are not going to rack up 100+ game players at anything like the same rate.

The pool should always be larger of potential fathers will always be bigger at successful clubs (unless a s**t club tries to game the system weirdly by trading every player out after their 100th game)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back