Tex can’t father them all
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Bigman’s Training Reports
- Thread starter bigman
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Mar 20, 2013
- 5,672
- 6,009
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
How does FS work for surrogates?
Our AFL team could support our AFLW team in their dream to have a family
On the flipside, can Chelsea Randell and MJs son play AFL under the Mother-Son rule ??
That's a really tricky one.
A separate question... How many games for an AFLW player to qualify for mother/son?
On SM-A256E using BigFooty.com mobile app
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
As of the 2024 edition, the AFL Rules document defines only a Father/Son rule, though the language used has been modified to make it applicable to both sons & daughters. There is no Mother/Son, or Mother/Daughter rule mentioned. That's not to say that such a rule doesn't exist - just that the AFL in their sheer incompetence haven't made it public. We know that the Inactive List replaced the Long-Term Injury list as early as 2021 (possibly earlier), and they didn't bother updating the AFL Rules document until 2024 - so it's quite possible the publicly available AFL Rules document is similarly obsolete as regards F/D, M/S, and M/D rules.
The AFL Rules document defines Father/Son eligibility (in Section 8.1) as follows:
Section 8.2 discusses SANFL & WAFL F/S eligibility, but the language is the same - "if the person's father".
The phrase "person's father" is clearly worded to cover both F/S and F/D eligibility.
No attempt is made to define who a person's father is. I guess it's never been challenged.
Given the lack of definition, the AFL would probably accept a broader definition than just a biological relationship. I suspect they would also accept adopted sons, or children born through surrogacy or sperm donors, provided a genuine father/son relationship exists between the pair (i.e. the father having played an active role in the son's life & development).
The same language appears in the 2025 AFL Rules document.
Last edited:
dogs105
Sweet Kennels Proprietor
Talented mid heading to Geelong under father-daughter rules
The list of father-daughter prospects has been named ahead of December's AFLW draft
www.afl.com.au
As I said... the rule probably exists, but the AFL is VERY slow in updating their publicly available policy documentation.Talented mid heading to Geelong under father-daughter rules
The list of father-daughter prospects has been named ahead of December's AFLW draft
The language has been updated to refer to "a person" and the "person's father", which is obviously aimed at broadening the old F/S rule to become a defacto F/D rule.
There is nothing I can find which defines a M/S or M/D rule.
dogs105
Sweet Kennels Proprietor
I thought you might be interested - the article mentions 1 vfl/afl game as the requirement
Interesting... F/S requires the father to have played 100 games, whereas F/D only requires the father to have played 1 game.
There is no mention of the F/D, M/S, or M/D rule in the 2025 AFL Rules document. As with the Inactive List, they appear to be several years late in updating their publicly available policy documents.
It took them at least 4 years to acknowledge that the LTI list had been replaced by the Inactive List, and to define how the inactive list works. We shouldn't be surprised that the terminally incompetent AFL are taking just as long, if not longer, to update their documentation re: F/D, M/S and M/D rules.
Gtowncrow
Premiership Player
- Jul 6, 2021
- 3,748
- 4,975
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Adoptive dads or mums? Step dads or mums? Permanent guardians? Legal kinship parents? IVF using donor biological sperm, eggs or embryos? Surrogate mothers?
The law recognises that parenthood can be complex. The afl one day might need to address a tricky definition under the father son rules.
I'm sure they'll need to address it one day. For now though, all it says is "the person's father", without defining what "father" means. As you say, it could mean a lot of things, to different people.
Fortunately, no club has gone out of their way to abuse the seemingly ill defined rule. Then again, maybe they've been provided with a more comprehensive rule definition than what the AFL has put out in the public domain.
Coopers
Brownlow Medallist
I doubt it's incompetence. I think it's more likely intentional non-disclosure so they don't have to commit to any in stone at this point.
However, that's the problem. I'd expect they should be looking to get ahead of this and define some rules, especially given the AFLW has been a thing for a while now.
Then again, maybe the idea is to just hope no complicated family relationships will occur. It's certainly one strategy.
Did Dani Laidley have a draft eligible son? Are you still the father if you've transitioned to being a female?
Nah... it's either laziness, incompetence, or both (probably the latter).
We know they have a rule in place, because we've already seen players selected under the Father/Daughter rule. Maybe they don't have a M/S or M/D rule yet, but they definitely have a F/D rule.
Failure to document their policies correctly is just laziness and/or incompetence. It took them 4 (possibly more) years to document the Inactive List in the AFL Rules document. We know that it existed in 2021, because it was reported that we were placing Gibbs on the Inactive List. The Inactive List wasn't mentioned in the AFL Rules document until the 2024 edition.
I wouldn't put it past them not to have come up with a M/S & M/D rule yet. There is no doubt that they are both incompetent & lazy enough to have avoided doing this, no doubt figuring that they have years left before any AFLW player has a child who is old enough to be drafted.
There is no excuse for them failing to publicly document a rule which the clubs are already making use of. It's not "intentional non-disclosure so they don't have to commit", because they've already committed - players have already been selected under the F/D rule. It's just laziness and/or incompetence that they have failed to publicly communicate the rule.
Coopers
Brownlow Medallist
I just don't see an organisation with the cashflow of the AFL not being able to find an intern to draft a policy and then have it talked through and agreed to.
So clearly they don't want to. And with all things AFL, I have to assume it's a conspiracy until proven otherwise. In this case they are probably waiting for some way to prioritize Geelong, because I'm not sure they've had much of a free hit recently. Like it's been months since an over compensation for a free agent, a favourable trade overruling, a top 3 player discount via an academy or someone paying them a first round pick to take another first round draftee off their hands. It's just been an awful period for them.
I buy laziness, that's a good argument too.
... and yet, here we are!
Given that clubs are already making use of the F/D rule, it has obviously been agreed to. They just haven't documented it publicly. The policy/rule exists - it's just the public documentation which is MIA.
It took them 4 (or more) years to update their documentation, when they changed the LTI List to the Inactive List. They have form.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Crows trained today according to insta
Give the man a gold watch and long service leave
