AFL - Tampering rules?

[1000Islander]

Can somebody explain the AFL's rules with regards to players who are approaching Free Agency?

I see a lot of instances, most recently with Travis Cloke and Freemantle, where contract offers are being discussed seemingly both privately and publicly. As well, this seemed very common with the GC and GWS expansion.

Here in North America, this would be both frown upon, and against league rules, defined as tampering.

See example below...

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2009/10/07/sp-hockey-leafs-fine.html

Could Freemantle publicly expressing their interest in Cloke not have a conscious or subconscious affect on how he plays against them in Rd 14, for a variety of reasons?

 

[JeffDunne]

Trying to compare how the AFL runs it's competition compared to other professional sports will do your head in.

In relation to tampering, the AFL and it's franchises are the biggest offenders. So they are hardly going to bring in rules that would limit their ability to rig the competition.

 

[vapours]

Fremantle

 

[Furuncle]

Can somebody explain the AFL's rules with regards to players who are approaching Free Agency?

Crucial rules such as these are not made available to the public. There is always a murk surrounding the rules on tribunal procedures, salary cap exemptions, player movement and the rules for the new franchises. Basically, this enables the AFL to make it up as they go along. Free agency is new. Another idea stolen from the NFL. People are kidding themselves if they think the AFL have it all worked out in advance. They don't. It's open season.

A knowledgeable football media analyst might weigh into a debate and say, "But the rules clearly forbid the clubs from poaching players who are still under contract..." Based on history and past utterances from AFL HQ, he would be correct. The problem is that these rules rarely stick. Clubs break them and everyone is outraged for five seconds. The AFL demonstrate (once again) they have no idea about running a fair competition with consistent rulings. On and on we go, from one shambles to the next. Sort of a constant Brave New World, but with clowns in charge.

As long as the money keeps rolling in, nobody cares. Just us, the diehard fans.

 

[summers12]

I must admit i was under the perception before Gold Coasts arrival that players were forbidden to be approached by an opposition club until seasons end. When Gold Coast arrived all of a sudden we were told that they could sign players a year out from there contract and it had to be done in a small window before Christmas, same as GWS. However what happened I think caught the AFL by suprise especially from a crows point of view was two crows players walked out before the end of the season to sign. This was an obvious loophole I think the AFL overlooked.

I think player managers are too media friendly and hence why in Dangerfields case did we see the media flock to Essendon and talk to players about it, we heard Geelong were making offers and Ratten was even interviewed about the clubs interest in Dangerfield. It was insane. Its no doubt a tactic used to negotiate as higher contract deals as possible but to be allowed to become a distraction during a season is becoming annoying.

I think the AFL need to put a stop to it. They should fine clubs for talking about any possible interest in an opposition player and perhaps fine or suspend managers who clearly use the dumbass media commentators for leverage for better player contracts.

The AFL have to be careful with ignoring this and I will use Travis Cloke as an example.

 

[Brown Bottle]

aren't we moving closer to the NRL model where everyone can know that a player is leaving well before the season concludes?

 

[tigs2010]

Fremantle

A full generation needs to die off before people start spelling it right.