Resource FAQs: Rules, Regulations and Resources for Player Movements in the AFL

[slugger01]

Rookies to be upgraded to the senior list are automatically counted against your last pick/s without actually being formally called out on draft night. They’re not available to be drafted to other clubs, but count as your “must use three picks in the draft”.

Players to be moved from the senior list to the rookie list have to nominate for the draft and are available to anyone - except this year they can move automatically between the national draft and the rookie draft.

Players to be re-drafted as a rookie have to nominate for the draft and are available to anyone, but for this year only, rookie can stay on the list for four seasons without being re-drafted due to effectively missing a year of development with the pandemic.

Brilliant.
Thanks. So Collingwood can Rookie Cox, Lynch, Thomas, even Pendles if they wish automatically this year. Sounds like a great loophole.
Pies delist 8 players to use picks on draft night to match a bids. They use all those picks to match a bid. They then use another 6 picks (picks 90 and over) to promote 6 rookies to their senior list.
After the draft, rookie the 6 players they delisted (not including Pendles).
Effectively match a bid on pick 1 without risk??

 

[Lore]

Brilliant.
Thanks. So Collingwood can Rookie Cox, Lynch, Thomas, even Pendles if they wish automatically this year. Sounds like a great loophole.
Pies delist 8 players to use picks on draft night to match a bids. They use all those picks to match a bid. They then use another 6 picks (picks 90 and over) to promote 6 rookies to their senior list.
After the draft, rookie the 6 players they delisted (not including Pendles).
Effectively match a bid on pick 1 without risk??

I think if you’re moving them to the rookie list after the draft they would have to still be on your senior list after the national draft, otherwise it’s not different from the rule they had last year that they have deliberately gotten rid of. But don’t quote me on that.

My comments above are from here, and they don’t specify;

AFL confirms 2022 list sizes, tweaks rule for rookies

Any players in their third season as a Category A or B rookie will be eligible to spend another season as a rookie in 2022

www.afl.com.au

 

[slugger01]

I think if you’re moving them to the rookie list after the draft they would have to still be on your senior list after the national draft, otherwise it’s not different from the rule they had last year that they have deliberately gotten rid of. But don’t quote me on that.

My comments above are from here, and they don’t specify;

AFL confirms 2022 list sizes, tweaks rule for rookies

Any players in their third season as a Category A or B rookie will be eligible to spend another season as a rookie in 2022

www.afl.com.au

Ok. My bad. Looks like my first part was correct, but rookie-ing delisted players is not allowed.. They have to nominate for the rookie draft…
Thanks for educating me.

 

[Giant Strides]

Lore - question regarding this year's father/son bid matching that's come out of the current mock drafts.

If a club matches a bid outside the first round for their father/son draftee with a very close pick (e.g. bid at #34 matched with #38) do the surplus points create a new pick (which is now an additional pick to the original pick/spaces matched number of picks) OR do the points go into the ''surplus bank''? My belief would be that it is the former, notwithstanding it creates an extra pick, while someone else believes it's the latter. I think the latter only applies to a first round bid matched with a single first round pick.

Thanks in advance.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Lore and Taylor I have a question you might know the answer to, but I haven't been able to find it in this thread or elsewhere. It relates to the difference between a player in an NGA vs Club Academies of the 4 northern clubs.

When the AFL announced the changes to the NGA bidding system on 4 November 2020 they said.

AFL scraps top-20 NGA picks, new mid-season draft plan

The AFL has changed its Next Generation Academy rules for top-end talent

www.afl.com.au

JAMARRA Ugle-Hagan will be the last of his kind, with the AFL changing its Next Generation Academy rules to disallow clubs having access to top talents under the program.

As first revealed by AFL.com.au in August, the AFL will put into place a 'protected' zone for NGA players in the first 20 picks of the draft.

It means from 2021 Academy players, such as Ugle-Hagan with the Bulldogs and Lachie Jones for Port Adelaide this year, who attract bids in the first 20 picks will fall into the open pool with their NGA clubs not being able to match the bids.

Under the revised rules, players who attract bids in the 20-40 range will have to be matched under usual Academy rules while all players selected from pick No.41 onwards can be matched by their club using the next available selection. The phase out of the NGA program will continue in 2022, with bids on nominated NGA prospects only able to be matched from pick 41 onwards.

However it was silent about the 4 northern Club Academies.

In the 16 February 2021 AFL rules document Rule 14 covers Club Academies (4 northern clubs) and Rule 15 NGA's covering all 18 clubs. Yes the northern clubs have NGA zones as per the maps in this post in this thread. The GWS have a different NGA zone to their Club Academy zone.

Resource - FAQs: Rules, Regulations and Resources for Player Movements in the AFL

List sizes Club age and height profiles Salary cap information Trading rules including salary dumps Father/son & academy draft bids Free agency compensation formula & more

www.bigfooty.com

Do you know if the northern clubs can still match a bid on one of their players in the pick 1-20 zone for this year and picks 1-40 in 2022 onward??

Have they amended the 16 February 2021 Rules?? I can't find anything specific about it, but Rule 6 is about the draft and specifically about the bidding system it refers to;

6.6 Determination for the National Draft Bidding System

(a) The General Counsel may make a Determination for the National Draft Bidding System.

(b) The Determination shall provide a mechanism by which relevant Clubs have the right to select the following Players on a priority basis during the National Draft Selection Meeting:
(i) Players eligible to be included on the Primary List of a Club under Rule 8 (Father-Son Rule); and
(ii) Players eligible to be included on the Primary List of a Club under Rule 14 (Club Academies).


So my question is, if Sydney ( or the other 3 northern clubs) have Isaac Heeney

5

Isaac Heeney

Age

27

Ht

185cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.2

5star

K

10.4

4star

HB

7.7

5star

M

4.9

5star

T

4.1

5star

CL

2.2

4star

D

14.3

3star

K

8.8

4star

HB

5.5

3star

M

4.8

4star

T

2.5

3star

CL

0.8

3star

D

10.4

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

3.2

3star

M

2.8

3star

T

2.4

4star

CL

0.8

3star

version 2.0 in their club academy and not in their NGA, ie he isn't aboriginal or meets the Cultural And Linguistically Diverse country/player definition, and is regarded as the 5th best player in this year's or future years draft, can Sydney ( or other 3 clubs) match the bid for him??

If you don't know, no dramas, but if you do know, do you have any relevant links confirming the position??

 

[Lore]

Lore and Taylor I have a question you might know the answer to, but I haven't been able to find it in this thread or elsewhere. It relates to the difference between a player in an NGA vs Club Academies of the 4 northern clubs.

When the AFL announced the changes to the NGA bidding system on 4 November 2020 they said.

AFL scraps top-20 NGA picks, new mid-season draft plan

The AFL has changed its Next Generation Academy rules for top-end talent

www.afl.com.au

JAMARRA Ugle-Hagan will be the last of his kind, with the AFL changing its Next Generation Academy rules to disallow clubs having access to top talents under the program.

As first revealed by AFL.com.au in August, the AFL will put into place a 'protected' zone for NGA players in the first 20 picks of the draft.

It means from 2021 Academy players, such as Ugle-Hagan with the Bulldogs and Lachie Jones for Port Adelaide this year, who attract bids in the first 20 picks will fall into the open pool with their NGA clubs not being able to match the bids.

Under the revised rules, players who attract bids in the 20-40 range will have to be matched under usual Academy rules while all players selected from pick No.41 onwards can be matched by their club using the next available selection. The phase out of the NGA program will continue in 2022, with bids on nominated NGA prospects only able to be matched from pick 41 onwards.

However it was silent about the 4 northern Club Academies.

In the 16 February 2021 AFL rules document Rule 14 covers Club Academies (4 northern clubs) and Rule 15 NGA's covering all 18 clubs. Yes the northern clubs have NGA zones as per the maps in this post in this thread. The GWS have a different NGA zone to their Club Academy zone.

Resource - FAQs: Rules, Regulations and Resources for Player Movements in the AFL

List sizes Club age and height profiles Salary cap information Trading rules including salary dumps Father/son & academy draft bids Free agency compensation formula & more

www.bigfooty.com

Do you know if the northern clubs can still match a bid on one of their players in the pick 1-20 zone for this year and picks 1-40 in 2022 onward??

Have they amended the 16 February 2021 Rules?? I can't find anything specific about it, but Rule 6 is about the draft and specifically about the bidding system it refers to;

6.6 Determination for the National Draft Bidding System

(a) The General Counsel may make a Determination for the National Draft Bidding System.

(b) The Determination shall provide a mechanism by which relevant Clubs have the right to select the following Players on a priority basis during the National Draft Selection Meeting:
(i) Players eligible to be included on the Primary List of a Club under Rule 8 (Father-Son Rule); and
(ii) Players eligible to be included on the Primary List of a Club under Rule 14 (Club Academies).


So my question is, if Sydney ( or the other 3 northern clubs) have Isaac Heeney version 2.0 in their club academy and not in their NGA, ie he isn't aboriginal or meets the Cultural And Linguistically Diverse country/player definition, and is regarded as the 5th best player in this year's or future years draft, can Sydney ( or other 3 clubs) match the bid for him??

If you don't know, no dramas, but if you do know, do you have any relevant links confirming the position??

Northern clubs and father/sons aren’t changing, you can still match at pick 1.

NGAs are being wound down.

 

[Lore]

Lore - question regarding this year's father/son bid matching that's come out of the current mock drafts.

If a club matches a bid outside the first round for their father/son draftee with a very close pick (e.g. bid at #34 matched with #38) do the surplus points create a new pick (which is now an additional pick to the original pick/spaces matched number of picks) OR do the points go into the ''surplus bank''? My belief would be that it is the former, notwithstanding it creates an extra pick, while someone else believes it's the latter. I think the latter only applies to a first round bid matched with a single first round pick.

Thanks in advance.

Surplus banking occurs in the first round. Beyond that the relevant example is this;


Melbourne finished 17th that year, with the example based on a standard draft hand of picks 2, 20, 38, etc. before compensation and priority picks are applied.

It appears that pick 30 is effectively created out of thin air, and the next available pick is moved back with the remaining points.

Presumably the last pick in the draft would also be deactivated so that you have the same number of available picks (the limiting of available picks post-dates the introduction of the bidding system so thereisn’t any guidance about it).

If there are still points left over then they would be banked though I think, e.g. pick 38 above becomes pick 71, even though it has 32 points and 71 is only worth 29. The remaining 3 points would be banked. Certainly it doesn’t create infinite additional picks, it’s not like getting change for a pineapple.

 

[Giant Strides]

Surplus banking occurs in the first round. Beyond that the relevant example is this;

Melbourne finished 17th that year, with the example based on a standard draft hand of picks 2, 20, 38, etc. before compensation and priority picks are applied.

It appears that pick 30 is effectively created out of thin air, and the next available pick is moved back with the remaining points.

Presumably the last pick in the draft would also be deactivated so that you have the same number of available picks (the limiting of available picks post-dates the introduction of the bidding system so thereisn’t any guidance about it).

If there are still points left over then they would be banked though I think, e.g. pick 38 above becomes pick 71, even though it has 32 points and 71 is only worth 29. The remaining 3 points would be banked. Certainly it doesn’t create infinite additional picks, it’s not like getting change for a pineapple.

Thanks for that. Wow, that was one of the earliest formal pieces of information from AFL House. It makes it clear there's an extra pick created.

 

[Lore]

Thanks for that. Wow, that was one of the earliest formal pieces of information from AFL House. It makes it clear there's an extra pick created.

Yeah. There are parts of that document that have been superceded, like it makes no mention of surpluses at all.

Still one of the best things we have available though, cobbled together with whatever we can glean from observations and tidbits over the last few years.

 

[freo_leo29]

If a club is delisting a player and rookieing them, is there any reason for that player to nominate for the draft and risk being picked up by another club?

Can that player not just be listed as an SSP a little further down the line, like McCartin/Schlensog seem to be doing

For example: Freo have delisted Crowden and will rookie him, why do we risk him getting stolen in the draft? Surely we can tell him to not nominate and then pick him up as an SSP player?



Or is there a rule against this? Thanks

 

[Lore]

If a club is delisting a player and rookieing them, is there any reason for that player to nominate for the draft and risk being picked up by another club?

Can that player not just be listed as an SSP a little further down the line, like McCartin/Schlensog seem to be doing

For example: Freo have delisted Crowden and will rookie him, why do we risk him getting stolen in the draft? Surely we can tell him to not nominate and then pick him up as an SSP player?



Or is there a rule against this? Thanks

There's a rule against it.

Any player delisted in a previous year qualifies to sign with any club in the SSP, but teams cannot cut a footballer then re-recruit them via this method in the same year.

The only scenario where that could happen is if that player goes undrafted before the SSP.

That means clubs still risk losing a player when they delist them with a promise to re-rookie them.

What will likely become known as the Mumford rule allows the same luxury for a retired footballer and/or a player who delisted himself and has not been on an AFL list for at least one year.

A player who retires cannot sign in the SSP in the same year unless they nominate and are overlooked in the drafts.

Zac's back: Ex-Docker gets green light to join Essendon

Ex-Docker free to join Bombers and Giant comeback a step closer

www.afl.com.au

The mid-season draft has the same rule – cannot go back to former club within 12 months unless they've nominated for the national draft and gone undrafted.

Under AFL rules if a player has not nominated for the previous year's draft, they cannot then be selected by their original club again at the following mid-season intake.

Mummy's shock draft call, every player who's nominated

Former Giants ruckman Shane Mumford has nominated for the draft, just weeks after his retirement

www.afl.com.au

 

[swuzzlebubble]

There's a rule against it.

Zac's back: Ex-Docker gets green light to join Essendon

Ex-Docker free to join Bombers and Giant comeback a step closer

www.afl.com.au

The mid-season draft has the same rule – cannot go back to former club within 12 months unless they've nominated for the national draft and gone undrafted.

Mummy's shock draft call, every player who's nominated

Former Giants ruckman Shane Mumford has nominated for the draft, just weeks after his retirement

www.afl.com.au

So Carlton could in theory do this to replace Jones?
IE instead of promoting a rookie (Young) and demoting a senior (Cottrell) to rookie, we could leave current rookie on RL and do the demotion via SSP?

Question: when are rookie promotions locked in? Are they done in real time in the draft or is AFL notified before the draft at some point?

 

[Lore]

So Carlton could in theory do this to replace Jones?
IE instead of promoting a rookie (Young) and demoting a senior (Cottrell) to rookie, we could leave current rookie on RL and do the demotion via SSP?

Er yes I think. Although you still need to adhere to the list size requirements and three picks must be used in the national draft (including rookie upgrades).

Question: when are rookie promotions locked in? Are they done in real time in the draft or is AFL notified before the draft at some point?

Not sure.

The process this year appears to be that they take their live selections and then 'pass'. Then after Day 2 of the draft there's a rookie upgrade period at 10pm for an hour (the same time as another delisted free agency period).

We've never had a rookie upgrade period before and there's no information around about how it works, but it might just be a window to lodge the appropriate paperwork.


There used to be a bit of paper they had to submit before the draft for that but I can't see the deadline included in the key dates anywhere so it might've been removed and then they just do it in that upgrade window instead.

They also used to read the names out at the draft, but then they stopped doing that a few years ago (it still technically happened that the player was drafted with that pick, but they didn't waste time on re-announcing it on the night).

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Er yes I think. Although you still need to adhere to the list size requirements and three picks must be used in the national draft (including rookie upgrades).


Not sure.

The process this year appears to be that they take their live selections and then 'pass'. Then after Day 2 of the draft there's a rookie upgrade period at 10pm for an hour (the same time as another delisted free agency period).

We've never had a rookie upgrade period before and there's no information around about how it works, but it might just be a window to lodge the appropriate paperwork.


There used to be a bit of paper they had to submit before the draft for that but I can't see the deadline included in the key dates anywhere so it might've been removed and then they just do it in that upgrade window instead.

They also used to read the names out at the draft, but then they stopped doing that a few years ago (it still technically happened that the player was drafted with that pick, but they didn't waste time on re-announcing it on the night).

I doubt we're going this way but sounds at least in theory it could be done. Whilst we missed the list lodgement date, it would run salt into the wound if we were also already locked into a rookie upgrade that'd we'd now like to back out of.

 

[Lore]

I doubt we're going this way but sounds at least in theory it could be done. Whilst we missed the list lodgement date, it would run salt into the wound if we were also already locked into a rookie upgrade that'd we'd now like to back out of.

The date for lodging rookie upgrades iirc was about 2 days before the draft, so it would've probably been Monday if it was done like that this year.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

The SPP can be used to fill a vacant rookie list spot? Not just senior (inactive/LTI)?

 

[Lore]

The SPP be used to fill a vacant rookie list spot? Not just senior (inactive/LTI)?

Any vacant spots can be filled with a rookie during SSP. You can make more spots with inactive/LTI.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Any vacant spots can be filled with a rookie during SSP. You can make more spots with inactive/LTI.

Cheers. Must have been thinking of DFA as needing senior list vacancy.

 

[Lore]

Cheers. Must have been thinking of DFA as needing senior list vacancy.

The senior list and the rookie list have their own minimum and maximum, but between both you have to have no more than 42 players. So if you have less seniors you can have more rookies.

 

[footyfan1978]

The senior list and the rookie list have their own minimum and maximum, but between both you have to have no more than 42 players. So if you have less seniors you can have more rookies.

Is it 42 or 44? as I seeing some with over 42 even before going to category B rookie guys that beyond that.

 

[Lore]

Is it 42 or 44? as I seeing some with over 42 even before going to category B rookie guys that beyond that.

Cat B are the last 2 to make it up to 44. See post on list sizes for details;

List Sizes

 

[footyfan1978]

Cat B are the last 2 to make it up to 44. See post on list sizes for details;

List Sizes

Gold Coast over 44 so assume the vague rules around their list size is still not easy to find for fans.
I thought they had to be in lien with others after a few years of assistance package.

 

[Lore]

Gold Coast over 44 so assume the vague rules around their list size is still not easy to find for fans.
I thought they had to be in lien with others after a few years of assistance package.

They only got one year of the assistance package announced in 2019, then the pandemic hit and it all got wound back. They are supposed to be in line with everyone else now. Not sure of their exact circumstances but some of their fans may have a better idea of who is re-signed and what might be a glitch or out of date on their club website or whatever.

 

[footyfan1978]

They only got one year of the assistance package announced in 2019, then the pandemic hit and it all got wound back. They are supposed to be in line with everyone else now. Not sure of their exact circumstances but some of their fans may have a better idea of who is re-signed and what might be a glitch or out of date on their club website or whatever.

Site I'm looking at has the following:

AFL Clubs	Primary List	Rookies
Adelaide	38 players	6 (+0 cat B)
Brisbane	39 players	3 (+2 cat B)
Carlton	36 players	6 (+1 cat B)
Collingwood	36 players	7 (+1 cat B)
Essendon	34 players	7 (+2 cat B)
Fremantle	36 players	6 (+0 cat B)
Geelong	38 players	3 (+1 cat B)
Gold Coast	38 players	6 (+1 cat B)
Greater Western Sydney	37 players	6 (+1 cat B)
Hawthorn	34 players	7 (+0 cat B)
Melbourne	36 players	6 (+0 cat B)
North Melbourne	37 players	4 (+1 cat B)
Port Adelaide	37 players	6 (+0 cat B)
Richmond	36 players	6 (+1 cat B)
St Kilda	38 players	4 (+0 cat B)
Sydney	37 players	5 (+1 cat B)
West Coast	38 players	3 (+0 cat B)
Western Bulldogs	36 players	7 (+1 cat B)

 

[footyfan1978]

They only got one year of the assistance package announced in 2019, then the pandemic hit and it all got wound back. They are supposed to be in line with everyone else now. Not sure of their exact circumstances but some of their fans may have a better idea of who is re-signed and what might be a glitch or out of date on their club website or whatever.

Just trying to follow up an update on this.
Originally in 2019 this is what it shows on Wiki where someone listed 2019 Draft
Gold Coast concessions
Due to poor on-field results and issues with player retention, prior to the draft, the AFL announced a "rescue package" for Gold Coast [172] which included:

• The first pick of the first round of the 2019 National Draft (pick #1).
• The first pick of the second round of the 2019 National Draft (pick #22, since traded to Carlton, then on-traded to Port Adelaide and then Brisbane Lions).
• A mid-first round pick in the 2020 AFL draft (pick #11, since traded to Geelong at the 2019 National Draft, then on-traded to GWS).
• The first pick of the second round of the 2021 AFL draft (pick #19, since traded to Fremantle).
• Darwin was added to its Academy zone
• The ability to be able to pre-list Academy players.
• An expanded Category A rookie list of up to ten players, with the club having a maximum roster of 53 players.