2015 Non-Crows AFL Discussion - Pt. 1

[Elite Crow]

If I remember correctly didn't Rucci get in touch with the AFL re Gibbs?

 

[Roo Lives Again]

We are 4/7 Carlton Friday night games into the season. What a fixturing disaster

I really can't believe that there are people making millions of dollars a year, whether that be at the AFL or Channel 7, who actually make these decisions. If I was the boss of the guy who put Carlton on Friday night more than twice Id ******* sack the campaigner.

 

[Geoffa32]

I really can't believe that there are people making millions of dollars a year, whether that be at the AFL or Channel 7, who actually make these decisions. If I was the boss of the guy who put Carlton on Friday night more than twice Id ******* sack the campaigner.

I bet plenty of people, me included, watched the after match stuff as well as the game. Probably more people than any other team. That equals ratings and the person in charge of scheduling and requesting such games on Friday night probably got a bonus due to the rise in ratings.

Carlton have all these games not because they are good to watch, but we all love watching the theatre of a man about to get the sack.

 

[adelaidecrows]

If I remember correctly didn't Rucci get in touch with the AFL re Gibbs?

Wasn't Brett Ebert ineligible as well?

 

[Moonwatcher]

Maybe the Friday night games are payment for taking Trigg.

 

[adelaidecrows]

I really can't believe that there are people making millions of dollars a year, whether that be at the AFL or Channel 7, who actually make these decisions. If I was the boss of the guy who put Carlton on Friday night more than twice Id ******* sack the campaigner.

Thy are trying for crowds, that's it.

The AFL want Collingwood, Sydney games around the Saturday Night timeslot to engage audiences and they were hoping Carlton who usually are a big draw of crowds would guarantee around 50k crowds Friday night. The AFL have earmarked AO to host games in the troubled Sunday twilight timeslot because sadly they know we actually support our teams by turning up. Ensuring Fox get some ratings. That's how the decisions would have come about. I think the AFL, 7 and Fox need to establish every team must play the equivalent games in each time slot. Its the only way to help the teams that struggle financially.

 

[Mattrox]

Edit.
Sorry reading 2 threads at once.

Oops

From digging around Capel wrote an article the day AFTER the news broke.

 

[treeman]

Wasn't Brett Ebert ineligible as well?

Yes I believe he was too.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Wasn't Brett Ebert ineligible as well?

yes

 

[Moonwatcher]

Who did the Crows draft with the pick we would have given up for Gibbs?

 

[Roo Lives Again]

I bet plenty of people, me included, watched the after match stuff as well as the game. Probably more people than any other team. That equals ratings and the person in charge of scheduling and requesting such games on Friday night probably got a bonus due to the rise in ratings.

Carlton have all these games not because they are good to watch, but we all love watching the theatre of a man about to get the sack.

I don't. I like to see a good contest. Carlton are an absolute joke of a team.

 

[Roo Lives Again]

Yes I believe he was too.

What a joke. Port should've been able to get Ebert, and Gibbs should've been ours.

 

[rocket18]

It was definetly Rucci who alerterd the SANFL/AFL, but he had help. Did not do the grunt work in finding the data.

Had those on the Port board not been inclined to have done the research, Gibbs would have been a Crow.

Gee, we dodged a bullet there.

 

[treeman]

Gee, we dodged a bullet there.

Why Gibbs as a crow would have been better than the Gibbs at Carlton.

 

[DJ75]

Wasn't Brett Ebert ineligible as well?

Correct. Funnily enough that one went through without a phone call from Rucci.
Yeh he plays it fair at all times and isn't your typical Port toss bag at all....

 

[Bacon8]

Who did the Crows draft with the pick we would have given up for Gibbs?

Assuming someone bid, we used our first round pick on James Sellar

 

[headache1]

Assuming someone bid, we used our first round pick on James Sellar

I don't think the bidding system was in place back then.

 

[treeman]

Assuming someone bid, we used our first round pick on James Sellar

I don't think the bidding system was around back then?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

triggy still great at saying a lot while saying nothing at all

would be a great politician

& also does little in the way of any good...

 

[Moonwatcher]

Looks like it would have been Gibbs over Mackay.

 

[Bacon8]

I don't think the bidding system was around back then?

I don't think the bidding system was in place back then.

Good point. Came in the next year.

Then David Mackay.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

It was definetly Rucci who alerterd the SANFL/AFL, but he had help. Did not do the grunt work in finding the data.

RussellEbertHandball

What part did you play in this?

If I recall correctly it was you that scoured the old SANFL Budgets and totalled up the actual League games and preseaon (Escort Cupt etc) games that were not eligible. Finding that Gibbs snr did not play the required 200 games during the period needed. Was you or at least someone from the Bigfooty Port board who did all that work.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/the-f-word.1015882/page-13#post-29629626

So what were the mechanics of this being discovered and how much effort did you guys go through, given SANFL records of that era are not that easy to find?

Had those on the Port board not been inclined to have done the research, Gibbs would have been a Crow.

It all started innocently on ANZAC day 2005 on the Adelaide board. MR Crow asked how does the Father Son rule work for SA and WA clubs. I knew how the rule worked because every year since 1996 I bought the AFL Record annual season guide book and it was published in the draft section. By absolute fluke a mate from footy and uni days come over to my place in Sydney that morning and asked a question about Sturt's history - he was a Sturt man and I pulled out my copy of the official SANFL book published in 1977 after the centenary season to look up something to answer his question. After he left I looked at some other stuff in the book for half our to an hour, and then a couple of hours later Mr Crow's post came up. As I put in pt 4 of my answer - see

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/how-does-father-son-rule-work-in-sa.166579/

4. I have an official SANFL book published in 1977 after the centenary season. It shows Russell Ebert had played 222 by season end and 24 games in 1977, making a total of 198 games at the end of 1976. Russell played 392 games for Port so if the cut of rule was after the 1977 season not before it, Brett would not have qualifed under the father son rule. How bizare would that have been.

- but something at the back of my brain kept ticking away that this might not be right.

Then on the 9th May 2005 on the Port board there was a thread about the eligibility Martin Leslie's boys titled - if "martin leslie junior." I reposted the exact post that I put on the Adelaide board on the 25th April and then added

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/if-martin-leslie-junior.169391/

SINCE I POSTED THIS I HAVE WORKED OUT THAT TECHNICALLY BRETT EBERT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE UNDER THE ABOVE FATHER SON RULE.
Russell played 392-198 =194 games for Port between 1977 and 1997.

Ford questioned whether I was right and wrote that state games were included in totals which was partly right. He was partly right as the SANFL counted in total games in the SANFL comp but kept club + state game separate totals as well.

There was the odd post here and there about it and during that time it dawned on me that the SANFL would count Coca Cola Cup, Escort Cup etc pre season and night series games in club totals and that the AFL didnt and the 200 rule only applied to premiership point games and finals games. i didnt book mark those other threads as they werent father son specific threads.

So after 2 months discussing it on and off Ford Fairlane started this thread on the Adelaide board on 11th July 2005 - Father-son eligibility.... a question, raised Gibbs and the rest as they say, is history. See

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/father-son-eligibility-a-question.182377/

I knew I was right and more importantly that the SANFL had completely forgotten about how they counted games. In the 1960's the WAFL, SANFL, VFL and Tassie League(s) introduced a 200 club - when there wasnt much money in the game - as way to start up a bit of a pension/benefits fund for players, partly because interstate carnivals and state games were played when the normal season was on, the great players might miss 20 or so home and away games as a result, so all the leagues decided to count those games towards 200 game eligibility. The WAFL VFL and TSL all counted normal games + cup games + state games as 3 separate totals but if they added up to 200 you got into he 200 club. The SANFL counted normal games + cup games as one total and then added that to state games and if those 2 amounts added up to 200 you got in the 200 club. From memory 1990 was the last year of the Foundation cup preseason games. So when the crows and SANFL go and loby the AFL about a father son rule in 2001 they have corporate amnesia and forget about how the SANFL counted games in players official totals and just handed over the 200 club figures and as a result of that the number of eligible fathers were compared to VFL and WAFL eligible fathers.

The other thing I picked up that was totally ignored by everyone was that the crows were being disadvantaged by 1 season which didnt make any sense to me. As I wrote in my reply to Mr Crow back on ANZAC day 2005 - "Adelaide get 20 seasons (1991-2010) to recruited from SANFL fathers and Port get 21 seasons (1997-2017). Unless there is an error in the above 2 paragraphs. The rules under WCE and Freo section are for 21 seasons."

The other thing that I didnt spell out in that post but was inconsistent with the rules and out by 1 year was that Adelaide entered in 1991 but the father's games had to be played between 1970 and 1990. Port came in 1997 but they could count games between 1977 and 1997. West Coast came in 1987 but could count games between 1967 and 1987 and Freo 1995 and could count games between 1975 and 1995. Once again Adelaide was disadvantage by a year, not in total, but the others counted 1 year of state league games after they entered the AFL, whereas the crows fathers' had to play their games before the crows entered the AFL.

So after that innocent post back on ANZAC day 2005, every time I looked at the rules or someone made a post I just knew they were wrong and inconsistent. When the Gibbs thing came up it was pretty obvious to me that he was going to miss out because there was no way Gibbs played 25 eligible games every year in the 8 years leading up to the crows. He may played 25 games the SANFL counted, but not what the AFL counted as eligible games.

No better example of this was when Peter Carey was inducted into the Hall of Fame and Tim Lane in his interview was astounded by the fact that Carey averaged almost 25 games a year for the 17 years straight he played. Carey didnt bat an eyelid just said he had few injuries. Under the final 5 system that meant every year you would have played in a PF or GF to rack up 25 games a year in the premiership season. But of course Super forgot his total included Coca Cola Cup, Escort cup, Wills Cup and Foundation cup games.

 

[headache1]

Good point. Came in the next year.

Then David Mackay.

Wow, didn't realise it was that close. Thought it was much more recent than that for some reason.

 

[Geoffa32]

It all started innocently on ANZAC day 2005 on the Adelaide board. MR Crow asked how does the Father Son rule work for SA and WA clubs. I knew how the rule worked because every year since 1996 I bought the AFL Record annual season guide book and it was published in the draft section. By absolute fluke a mate from footy and uni days come over to my place in Sydney that morning and asked a question about Sturt's history - he was a Sturt man and I pulled out my copy of the official SANFL book published in 1977 after the centenary season to look up something to answer his question. After he left I looked at some other stuff in the book for half our to an hour, and then a couple of hours later Mr Crow's post came up. As I put in pt 4 of my answer - see

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/how-does-father-son-rule-work-in-sa.166579/


- but something at the back of my brain kept ticking away that this might not be right.

Then on the 9th May 2005 on the Port board there was a thread about the eligibility Martin Leslie's boys titled - if "martin leslie junior." I reposted the exact post that I put on the Adelaide board on the 25th April and then added

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/if-martin-leslie-junior.169391/

Ford questioned whether I was right and wrote that state games were included in totals which was partly right. He was partly right as the SANFL counted in total games in the SANFL comp but kept club + state game separate totals as well.

There was the odd post here and there about it and during that time it dawned on me that the SANFL would count Coca Cola Cup, Escort Cup etc pre season and night series games in club totals and that the AFL didnt and the 200 rule only applied to premiership point games and finals games. i didnt book mark those other threads as they werent father son specific threads.

So after 2 months discussing it on and off Ford Fairlane started this thread on the Adelaide board on 11th July 2005 - Father-son eligibility.... a question, raised Gibbs and the rest as they say, is history. See

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/father-son-eligibility-a-question.182377/

I knew I was right and more importantly that the SANFL had completely forgotten about how they counted games. In the 1960's the WAFL, SANFL, VFL and Tassie League(s) introduced a 200 club - when there wasnt much money in the game - as way to start up a bit of a pension/benefits fund for players, partly because interstate carnivals and state games were played when the normal season was on, the great players might miss 20 or so home and away games as a result, so all the leagues decided to count those games towards 200 game eligibility. The WAFL VFL and TSL all counted normal games + cup games + state games as 3 separate totals but if they added up to 200 you got into he 200 club. The SANFL counted normal games + cup games as one total and then added that to state games and if those 2 amounts added up to 200 you got in the 200 club. From memory 1990 was the last year of the Foundation cup preseason games. So when the crows and SANFL go and loby the AFL about a father son rule they have corporate amnesia and forget about how the SANFL counted games in players official totals and just handed over the 200 club figures and as a result of that the number of eligible fathers were compared to VFL and WAFL eligible fathers.

The other thing I picked up that was totally ignored by everyone was that the crows were being disadvantaged by 1 season which didnt make any sense to me. As I wrote in my reply to Mr Crow back on ANZAC day 2005 - "Adelaide get 20 seasons (1991-2010) to recruited from SANFL fathers and Port get 21 seasons (1997-2017). Unless there is an error in the above 2 paragraphs. The rules under WCE and Freo section are for 21 seasons."

The other thing that I didnt spell out in that post but was inconsistent with the rules and out by 1 year was that Adelaide entered in 1991 but the father's games had to be played between 1970 and 1990. Port came in 1997 but they could count games between 1977 and 1997. West Coast came in 1987 but could count games between 1967 and 1987 and Freo 1995 and could count games between 1975 and 1995. Once again Adelaide was disadvantage by a year, not in total, but the others counted 1 year of state league games after they entered the AFL, whereas the crows fathers' had to play their games before the crows entered the AFL.

So after that innocent post back on ANZAC day 2005, every time I looked at the rules or someone made a post I just knew they were wrong and inconsistent. When the Gibbs thing came up it was pretty obvious to me that he was going to miss out because there was no way Gibbs played 25 eligible games every year in the 8 years leading up to the crows. He may played 25 games the SANFL counted, but not what the AFL counted as eligible games.

No better example of this was when Peter Carey was inducted into the Hall of Fame and Tim Lane in his interview was astounded by the fact that Carey averaged almost 25 games a year for the 17 years straight he played. Carey didnt bat an eyelid just said he had few injuries. Under the final 5 system that meant every year you would have played in a PF or GF to rack up 25 games a year in the premiership season. But of course Super forgot his total included Coca Cola Cup, Escort cup, Wills Cup and Foundation cup games.

So if it was not for you and Ford , Gibbs would have been a Crow?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

We only have one more Sunday home game at AO.



So if it was not for you, Gibbs would have been a Crow?

Probably and that's what my Norwood and crowie mate, who knew Gibbs thru junior footy circles has been reminding me of since 2006. Not so much these days.