AFL probes Ebert f/s draft

[Holden Hillbilly]

The Age 29/7

Russell Ebert, left, in his time with North Melbourne, and his son Brett, at Port Power.


The AFL is investigating whether Port Adelaide player Brett Ebert was wrongly allowed to be drafted by the Power under the father-son rule.

Ebert is the son of former Port Adelaide legend Russell Ebert, who played 392 games in the South Australian National Football League and won four Magarey Medals, but it has been brought to the AFL's attention that Ebert might not have been eligible to be a father-son recruit under the specifics of the rule when he was recruited in 2002.

The AFL is now assessing the information it was provided by the SANFL in 2002 to see whether Ebert was really eligible.

The Ebert inquiry is part of the AFL's request that the SANFL and the West Australian Football League provide further information to clarify the status of current and future father-son recruits.

In a strange turn of events, the AFL was alerted to the possibility that Ebert's famous father might not have played the mandatory 200 games for Port Adelaide between 1977 and his retirement in 1985.


The father-son rule allows only a 20-year "window" for SANFL players, whose sons can be recruited by Port or the Crows. A Port father-son is eligible only if the father played his 200 games between 1977 and 1997, the year the Power entered the AFL competition.

Although Russell Ebert is among the most decorated players in the history of South Australian football, there is doubt that he played 200 of those 392 games in the relevant time period. One count has Ebert snr playing only 194 games, with 15 state games.

Ebert's eligibility became an issue when the AFL ruled that a highly promising potential Adelaide father-son, Bryce Gibbs, was not eligible for the Crows because his father Ross Gibbs had not played 200 games within the required time frame (1970-1990), though he played 253 games for Glenelg.

Gibbs is considered a prospective top-five draft pick in 2006 and would have been Adelaide's first father-son recruit. Ebert, taken in the third round of the 2002 national draft, is the sole father-son drafted by Port since it joined the AFL.

Port Adelaide was the club that alerted the AFL to the possibility that Gibbs was ineligible. It was when the AFL ruled against the Crows that the status of Ebert came to the fore.

The AFL's football operations manager, Adrian Anderson, said the league was investigating the records it had been provided with by the SANFL and WAFL that formed the basis of father-son eligibility.

Anderson confirmed it was possible that Ebert should not have been eligible. "We don't have an answer on that," he said of the Ebert records.

"There is a fair bit of work to be done."

One of the key issues is whether SANFL clubs counted pre-season games, night games or state games - not simply premiership matches - as part of the father's games aggregate.

 

[rayven]

Seriously what can they do now if he didnt qualify?
Whats going to happen the afl ceo will stand up on the premiership dias after the grand final and say "port adelaide you were wrong"

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Seriously what can they do now if he didnt qualify?
Whats going to happen the afl ceo will stand up on the premiership dias after the grand final and say "port adelaide you were wrong"

More appropriate is "Port Adelaide WE were wrong, or Port Adelaide the SANFL stats were wrong."

 

[Ripper]

They could penaise some draft picks for "cheating"

 

[Macca19]

I dont see why Port Adelaide should be penalised if it was the SANFL that gave the AFL the information. I also dont see why Port Adelaide should be penalised if the AFL couldnt be bothered doing the figures themselves.

Penalising us for the AFLs complete incompetence would be utterly ridiculous.

 

[Sandola]

I dont see why Port Adelaide should be penalised if it was the SANFL that gave the AFL the information. I also dont see why Port Adelaide should be penalised if the AFL couldnt be bothered doing the figures themselves.

Penalising us for the AFLs complete incompetence would be utterly ridiculous.

Being utterly ridiculous has never stopped them before.

 

[missionpossible]

I have to laugh at this. Surely it is up to the AFL to inform the clubs if a player is elligable for the the father/son rule. I can just see that if one leaves it to the clubs everyone would be elligable.

Mind you what can they do, fine themselves for making an error.

Or remove Brett Ebert from our list and in return we are compensated with the player that was taken with the next pick after Ebert that wasn't a father son selection. This would mean we get Anthony Corrie from the Lions.

The AFL just need to have some balls and come out and say sorry but we stuffed up but there is no fair way to fix the problem, so everything will remain as is.

 

[noddy]

The AFL just need to have some balls and come out and say sorry but we stuffed up but there is no fair way to fix the problem, so everything will remain as is.

But just to show good faith & not to look like they were showing favoritism to any one club over others then they should in all fairness allow the AFC to claim young Gibbs under the FS rule.


Then we can all rest just a little easy.

Problem fixed.

 

[MrMeaner]

If, as I understand it, the AFL approves the drafting of players under the father/son rule on the basis of information provided by the relevant league, there is absolutely no basis upon which to penalise Port. To do so would be unreasonable and warrant legal challenge.

Ultimately, if the son of someone who has played more than 300 games for a club could possibly be ineligible for consideration under the father/son rule, it shows the asinine drafting and application of the rule.

It may just be that the AFL is investigating to see if they have made a mistake and ensure that it is not made in the future.

I'd better go, my flying pig is readying for takeoff.

 

[missionpossible]

I'd better go, my flying pig is readying for takeoff.

NOw that I know This I can rest in comfort knowing that primus, Bishop and Francou are late withdrawls and in comes Chaplin, Salopek and Thomson

 

[noddy]

I'd better go, my flying pig is readying for takeoff.

& you're one of our "learned" friends

 

[*PAF]

The whole FS qualifying scenario doesn't make any sense from a logic point of view. Drawn up by incompetent lunatics.
They want to allow players that have played 200 SANFL games or 150 WAFL games in a 20 year period because somehow that will give roughly similar numbers to all clubs when compared to the 100 game qualifier for ex VFL clubs.
That bit is kinda fair enough at first glance.

Now comes the good bits.

Crows have a 20 year window 1970-1990.
Port 1977-1997.

Now why the difference?

The Crow's one makes more sense as in 1997 Port are "double dipping". that is having players qualifying in both the SANFL and the AFL at the same time.

However, it also means that in a 4 and a bit years period for the Crows and a 3 and a bit year period for Port (and WCE +Freo) there are NO players that could even remotely reach the magical mark as it take nearly 5 AFL years for someone to qualify.

Why have a qualifying period at all? Not too many real oldies will have teenage kids at this point in their life. Some will have kids at a lateish age, but they are few and far between, then there is the question of their kids sex and even if males they may not be good enough etc.

To be fair it should be SANFL clubs from 2000bc to 5 years after the clubs joined the AFL. The years before the "20" year period will not give them any advantage, and the 5 years afterwards will redress an error that favors ex VFL clubs.

Will that 5 years make a difference? Yes, it will remove the 5 year gap in players that can qualify.

 

[macca23]

The whole FS qualifying scenario doesn't make any sense from a logic point of view. Drawn up by incompetent lunatics.
They want to allow players that have played 200 SANFL games or 150 WAFL games in a 20 year period because somehow that will give roughly similar numbers to all clubs when compared to the 100 game qualifier for ex VFL clubs.
That bit is kinda fair enough at first glance.

Now comes the good bits.

Crows have a 20 year window 1970-1990.
Port 1977-1997.

Now why the difference?

The Crow's one makes more sense as in 1997 Port are "double dipping". that is having players qualifying in both the SANFL and the AFL at the same time.

However, it also means that in a 4 and a bit years period for the Crows and a 3 and a bit year period for Port (and WCE +Freo) there are NO players that could even remotely reach the magical mark as it take nearly 5 AFL years for someone to qualify.

Why have a qualifying period at all? Not too many real oldies will have teenage kids at this point in their life. Some will have kids at a lateish age, but they are few and far between, then there is the question of their kids sex and even if males they may not be good enough etc.

To be fair it should be SANFL clubs from 2000bc to 5 years after the clubs joined the AFL. The years before the "20" year period will not give them any advantage, and the 5 years afterwards will redress an error that favors ex VFL clubs.

Will that 5 years make a difference? Yes, it will remove the 5 year gap in players that can qualify.

One of the most sensible posts re the father son rule that I have read yet.

Without that 5 year minimum period extension from the date that the clubs entered the AFL, the non-Victorian clubs are being robbed blind as the meter stops ticking for them, while for the Victorian clubs, new F/S candidates can be generated.

Good work PAF. A very sensible solution.

 

[Macca19]

This is the list of Father/Son players I believe to be eligible for the Power:

Centrals:

P Bubner
P Krieg
R Van Dommele
M Prior
T Roe
R Girdham
P Beythein

Possibles:
S Schwerdt
S Lee

Port Adelaide:
G Phillips (damnit)
S Williams
D Smith
T Ginever
R Johnston
P Belton
B Abernathy
D Borlase
R Delaney
G Fiacchi
R Smith

North:
P Arnold
P Bennett
T Clisby
M Redden
J Riley
D Tiller

West:
R Bennett
G Fielke
L Grosser
P Winter
R Mckinnon
P Patterson

Torrens:
R Enright
B Lindsay
L Robson

Woodville
M Parker

Possible:
R Sewer

 

[crazy_big_al]

I thought we had North not South

 

[Macca19]

oh maybe....i dunno...I always thought we had South.

 

[outback jack]

i agree that its a shame the port power club dobbed the crows in to the AFL. Pretty poor form, lets hope that either Gibbs is allowed to go to the crows, or port power are severely penalised.

 

[Portia]

Its a pretty funny scenario. Do you think this might be the first time that the AFL will be forced to publicly admit fault? I still reckon they'll weasel out of it.

 

[Wishinman]

The Age 29/7

Although Russell Ebert is among the most decorated players in the history of South Australian football, there is doubt that he played 200 of those 392 games in the relevant time period. One count has Ebert snr playing only 194 games, with 15 state games.

15 state games! Would these State games have been during the times when players would forgo club games to represent their state?
Would be a very harsh penalty to penalise a player for representing their state it that was the case.

 

[rayven]

More appropriate is "Port Adelaide WE were wrong, or Port Adelaide the SANFL stats were wrong."

But if your club dosn't know when and how many games any player let alone a favourite son played for you who the bloody hell would?

 

[arrowman]

...The Crow's one makes more sense as in 1997 Port are "double dipping". that is having players qualifying in both the SANFL and the AFL at the same time.

However, it also means that in a 4 and a bit years period for the Crows and a 3 and a bit year period for Port (and WCE +Freo) there are NO players that could even remotely reach the magical mark as it take nearly 5 AFL years for someone to qualify.

Why have a qualifying period at all? Not too many real oldies will have teenage kids at this point in their life. Some will have kids at a lateish age, but they are few and far between, then there is the question of their kids sex and even if males they may not be good enough etc...

Excellent post.

The 4-5 year "black hole" you mention needs to get more airtime in this discussion. This includes the fact that players who left the SANFL to join Crows/Port could have played 199 SANFL games plus 50 for the AFL club, and not be eligible fathers.

The whole rule is an attempt to measure the unmeasurable, to define the indefinable. Roll on 2010.

 

[Toots Hibbert]

Excellent discussion about the f/s rule.

Wouldn't it be funny if Port managed to pick up Bryce Gibbs in the draft? Would be excellent to see Ross Gibbs in the Port rooms in a few years after a flag singing the Port song!

Chad and Kane could take Bryce under their wing and Graham Cornes could give Ross some advice on how to handle the grieving process.

 

[portentous]

I think that it's the AFL bosses that need to be "probed"

 

[PAFC2004]

Whinge whinge whinge.
And they say we complain too much

 

[noddy]

Excellent discussion about the f/s rule.

Wouldn't it be funny if Port managed to pick up Bryce Gibbs in the draft? Would be excellent to see Ross Gibbs in the Port rooms in a few years after a flag singing the Port song!
Chad and Kane could take Bryce under their wing and Graham Cornes could give Ross some advice on how to handle the grieving process.

You can be a very sick person at times Toots.


In fact most times.