Crows Chat That 'Doesnt Deserve Its Own Thread' Thread part 2

[Betts are off]

Lol, Harry Schoenberg just posted a picture of Patrick Parnell in his Glenelg Tigers Kit.

He still looks more like the work experience kid then a player.

Hilarious to think he's a former AFL player, if we drafted him this year I would still think he needed 2-3 years in the weights room.

 

[1970crow]

honestly i dont give a shit. but clearly everyone seems to get offended over it. Being literal about it is kind of not even getting the point.

You said clubs were breaking the rules. The only reason people care so much is because of this urban myth that rules are being broken.

 

[adelaidecrows]

You said clubs were breaking the rules. The only reason people care so much is because of this urban myth that rules are being broken.

i couldnt give a crap if we just lost to collingwood by 100 points and rankine met with McRae the next day. Why? its a professional sport. Good systems keep players. If West Coast fans are upset at Oscar for it, then they are mad at the wrong thing. The club is whats wrong.

 

[PeterSalt]

Houston given 2 weeks

 

[PeterSalt]

They're ok if he leaves.

They just want to extract as much value as they can, or at least ensure they get band 1 compo

 

[jenny61_99]

honestly i dont give a shit. but clearly everyone seems to get offended over it. Being literal about it is kind of not even getting the point.

Dangerfield and Lever were the ones that pissed me off most because they’d boldfaced lied when asked if they were going. I remember ROB saying to us “ask him if he’s staying” when we were interviewing Lever at a post match. But with Dangerfield, they’d promised as a group that they’d stick together and get the job done after Walsh was killed… and he couldn’t get out of their quick enough. Just tell the truth FFS.

 

[1970crow]

i couldnt give a crap if we just lost to collingwood by 100 points and rankine met with McRae the next day. Why? its a professional sport. Good systems keep players. If West Coast fans are upset at Oscar for it, then they are mad at the wrong thing. The club is whats wrong.

Why did you post that rules were being broken. Nothing you posted above addresses the fact that you posted something that is false. Answering yes or no, do you agree that talking to players in season doesn’t break an AFL rule?

 

[skam85]

Dangerfield and Lever were the ones that pissed me off most because they’d boldfaced lied when asked if they were going. I remember ROB saying to us “ask him if he’s staying” when we were interviewing Lever at a post match. But with Dangerfield, they’d promised as a group that they’d stick together and get the job done after Walsh was killed… and he couldn’t get out of their quick enough. Just tell the truth FFS.

Danger and Lever never said they were staying

 

[adelaidecrows]

Why did you post that rules were being broken. Nothing you posted above addresses the fact that you posted something that is false. Answering yes or no, do you agree that talking to players in season doesn’t break an AFL rule?

Its a rule!

The specific rule you're referring to in the AFL is outlined in the AFL's Player Movement Rules, particularly under the "Tapping Up" regulations, which are part of the AFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and are also reinforced in the AFL's Rules and Regulations.


While there isn't a single rule number that directly states "clubs cannot talk to contracted players," the following are key components that govern this behavior:

1. Rule 14.1 (Player Contracting & Player Movement Rules)​

• This rule covers the general structure of player contracts, including terms of when clubs can engage with players, how long contracts can be, and the circumstances under which a player can negotiate with another club.

2. "Tapping Up" Prohibition​

• Under the AFL’s Tapping Up Rule, clubs are prohibited from approaching players who are under contract with another club before their contract expires or without permission from the player’s current club.
• This behavior is considered an illegal attempt to persuade a player to breach their existing contract, and it’s subject to investigation and penalty.

3. AFL Rules 4.10 (Player Movement and Transfers)​

• This section deals with the broader framework of player movement, including the rules surrounding trade periods, free agency, and the conditions under which clubs can approach players who are out of contract or eligible for movement.

The AFL takes violations of these rules seriously, and clubs can face significant penalties if found guilty of "tapping up" a player. Penalties could include fines, loss of draft picks, or sanctions on the involved parties.


If you’re looking for the exact rule citation, it would be part of the AFL’s internal rulebook under the player movement or contracting clauses, which often aren’t referred to by rule number in public-facing materials, but generally referenced as part of the collective agreements and AFL player movement policies.

 

[1970crow]

Its a rule!

The specific rule you're referring to in the AFL is outlined in the AFL's Player Movement Rules, particularly under the "Tapping Up" regulations, which are part of the AFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and are also reinforced in the AFL's Rules and Regulations.


While there isn't a single rule number that directly states "clubs cannot talk to contracted players," the following are key components that govern this behavior:

1. Rule 14.1 (Player Contracting & Player Movement Rules)​

• This rule covers the general structure of player contracts, including terms of when clubs can engage with players, how long contracts can be, and the circumstances under which a player can negotiate with another club.

2. "Tapping Up" Prohibition​

• Under the AFL’s Tapping Up Rule, clubs are prohibited from approaching players who are under contract with another club before their contract expires or without permission from the player’s current club.
• This behavior is considered an illegal attempt to persuade a player to breach their existing contract, and it’s subject to investigation and penalty.

3. AFL Rules 4.10 (Player Movement and Transfers)​

• This section deals with the broader framework of player movement, including the rules surrounding trade periods, free agency, and the conditions under which clubs can approach players who are out of contract or eligible for movement.

The AFL takes violations of these rules seriously, and clubs can face significant penalties if found guilty of "tapping up" a player. Penalties could include fines, loss of draft picks, or sanctions on the involved parties.


If you’re looking for the exact rule citation, it would be part of the AFL’s internal rulebook under the player movement or contracting clauses, which often aren’t referred to by rule number in public-facing materials, but generally referenced as part of the collective agreements and AFL player movement policies.

So Hawks will be investigated and penalised.

 

[Cromulant]

So Hawks will be investigated and penalised.

Unlikely.

You'd be penalising every club

 

[adelaidecrows]

So Hawks will be investigated and penalised.

hahahahahahahahahahahaha not a chance. Good joke though.

 

[119others]

Don’t think anyone posted this. Clearly a suspension and de-registration coming up here

"On purpose": Curnow didn't interview well with Crows to get to Blues in 2015 Draft

“Charlie should have gone number one in my opinion.”

www.sen.com.au

How Curnow tanked Crows draft interview to get to Blues with brother Ed

“He was clearly going to be a great player and what he'd done in the juniors was really impressive.
“Then it was just hoping that no other club would take him beforehand.”
It wasn’t always a fait accompli that Charlie would end up at Ikon Park though, with Adelaide who held the pick prior at No. 11 holding significant interest in the young forward.
With a desire to get to the Blues, Ed, who spent one year on Adelaide’s list in 2008, revealed that Charlie purposely tanked his interview with Crows recruiters.

 

[Cromulant]

Don’t think anyone posted this. Clearly a suspension and de-registration coming up here

"On purpose": Curnow didn't interview well with Crows to get to Blues in 2015 Draft

“Charlie should have gone number one in my opinion.”

www.sen.com.au

How Curnow tanked Crows draft interview to get to Blues with brother Ed

“He was clearly going to be a great player and what he'd done in the juniors was really impressive.
“Then it was just hoping that no other club would take him beforehand.”
It wasn’t always a fait accompli that Charlie would end up at Ikon Park though, with Adelaide who held the pick prior at No. 11 holding significant interest in the young forward.
With a desire to get to the Blues, Ed, who spent one year on Adelaide’s list in 2008, revealed that Charlie purposely tanked his interview with Crows recruiters.

It's been well known for a long time he tanked

 

[FR0GGY]

It's been well known for a long time he tanked

Has it been officially spoken about though before or just well know hearsay?

 

[Cromulant]

Has it been officially spoken about though before or just well know hearsay?

I mean the only people who 100% know would have been in the room, but it came out pretty quickly afterwards that Charlie made it known he didn't want to be here.

 

[skam85]

Eh, play on.
We could have still drafted him regardless.

 

[Cromulant]

Eh, play on.
We could have still drafted him regardless.

We went for Milera instead.

 

[Mutineer]

Eh, play on.
We could have still drafted him regardless.

Yeah and he'd have really had his heart in it, and likely did a JHF after 1 year or definitely be gone in 2 years, we lose the player and the 2 years development we could have put into another player?

 

[skam85]

Yeah and he'd have really had his heart in it, and likely did a JHF after 1 year or definitely be gone in 2 years, we lose the player and the 2 years development we could have put into another player?

Best case we flip a profit at the trade table like we did with Lever

 

[Mutineer]

Best case we flip a profit at the trade table like we did with Lever

The problem with that it puts list management/playerdevelopment back a minimum of 2 years with that list spot.

 

[skam85]

The problem with that it puts list management/playerdevelopment back a minimum of 2 years with that list spot.

Not saying we should have, saying we could have.
Irrelevant now pretty much but more the point of the Ed interview is "so what". A player tanking an interview doesn't really compromise the draft as at the end of the day the clubs have all the power as to who they do and don't select.

 

[Cleric]

How many games do you expect the Crows to win this year?
I have them down for 17 wins, which if they do get that many, it's a top 4 finish.

 

[robboaustralia]

Does anyone know who the "Crows were robbed, right in front of me" guy is? Does he live in Adelaide or Melbourne? He could be making a killing this week if he showed his face again.

 

[FR0GGY]

Not crows , but footy related, pretty annoyed with the southern football league atm.
One of my girls played under 7’s last year in a mainly boys team/comp we thought this year they’d be able to play u7 again as an overager (would have to wear an armband).
This year her twin sister wanted to play and it would be her first year of footy.
They aren’t big girls and would still struggle to get the footy more than Murphy during a game even as overagers.
Apparently they’ve changed the rules so overagers can’t play now, so my girls would have to play either u9’s mixed or u11 girls, my son played in u9s last year so I know the standard and they wouldn’t get a touch.
U11 girls would also be far too big a jump for them, so basically mine plus about 4 other girls are going to be lost to footy as I can’t see them coming back from here.
Very disappointed