Any father-son/father-daughter picks coming up in the near future?

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

What happens if it is their partner that gets pregnant and they have no biological connection?

I'm assuming they would need to be married/in a relationship before they had the child together for it to qualify.
 
But the child and player would have no biological connection.

It's a different set of parameters though if it's a same sex relationship for obvious reasons.

Denying them the right to be a mother - son/daughter pick could almost be seen as discrimination.

So only real qualifier you can put in is that the couple were together before the partner had a child.

Similar to the mens where a footballer couldn't marry a lady who already had a child, and then claim that kid as father son/daughter if they had no biological connection to them.

Essendon tried something similar to this a few years back when they used to allow club administrators as part of parent/son, and one of their admin tried to adopt Richard Cole. In fairness to her she had played some part raising him I think, but the league still knocked it back. Cole eventually ended up at Essendon anyway, but he was a spud so it was all moot.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Mother/son might take a while but I'd like to think any 90's Eagles players with teenage daughters who play footy we'd get first dibs at

Does anyone know of any daughters-of-guns who are running around the juniors at the moment?
 
Not going to get many if playing 50 games is the qualification mark for the ladies.
Don't want to make it too low a number such that every (wo)man and dog qualify.

I think 50 would be about right. If the competition expands and the number of games per season increases then 50 may not be enough. Approximately 5 x number of games in a season pretty close to what should be aimed at.

There wouldn't be many qualified at the moment, but the comp is only just getting going, and within a couple of years 50 games will be quite common.
 
Don't want to make it too low a number such that every (wo)man and dog qualify.

I think 50 would be about right. If the competition expands and the number of games per season increases then 50 may not be enough. Approximately 5 x number of games in a season pretty close to what should be aimed at.

There wouldn't be many qualified at the moment, but the comp is only just getting going, and within a couple of years 50 games will be quite common.

So under what you are proposing then, Daisy Pearce, Erin Phillips and Chelsea Randall kids wont be eligible, I think that is flawed.

I have no problem reviewing it when they play more games.

All players get injured but say a hammy injury is 5-6 weeks, for the guys thats a quarter of their season, the gals ping a hammy after week 3 then thats a season ending injury, that seems disproportionately harsh.

50 seems to high IMO.

Agree to disagree.
 
AFL footy is so weird, like in any other context you'd be some horrific eugenicist for being like, looks like good genes, athletic build - good offspring on the way.

When Sam Butler and Nat Medhurst had a kid my first thought wasn't good for him, after a marriage breakup, that's lovely - it was, look at those genes! Now that's a good bloodline - lock 'em in for 200 games.
 
AFL footy is so weird, like in any other context you'd be some horrific eugenicist for being like, looks like good genes, athletic build - good offspring on the way.

When Sam Butler and Nat Medhurst had a kid my first thought wasn't good for him, after a marriage breakup, that's lovely - it was, look at those genes! Now that's a good bloodline - lock 'em in for 200 games.

I'm assuming Ms Medhurst was more durable than Sam "12 games a year" Butler?
 
As someone with a half decent sense of humour, I like that from Tom.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top