Resource FAQs: Rules, Regulations and Resources for Player Movements in the AFL

[Giant Strides]

The number of active picks that can actually be used to trade/match is restricted to the open list spots, so if you trade in more 2022 picks than you trade out, then the later picks that you had originally should be deactivated, I think…

I don’t have time just now to figure it all out but you can test it if you look at last years’ draft night trades there’s a couple of examples, and there’s a day 2 order that the AFL published (same thread couple of posts earlier) that should have evidence of extra picks if they are still there after day 1 live trades.

Cheers, thanks for the reply Lore. No need to do any work on my behalf, I wasn't aiming to task you to do any figuring out, just given your close attention over the last few years of drafts trying to tap into your understanding. (It would help us if AFL House provided some clear guidance, but I get the feeling that they like keeping it a bit cloak & dagger!).

In this year's case for Lions, the extra positions might exist for as little as 5 minutes. If they trade at 7pm and Ashcroft gets bid at #1 at 7.05pm, they'd be gone immediately in the matching process. I'll be glued to the screen to see what transpires!

 

[JasRulz63]

The number of active picks that can actually be used to trade/match is restricted to the open list spots, so if you trade in more 2022 picks than you trade out, then the later picks that you had originally should be deactivated, I think…

I don’t have time just now to figure it all out but you can test it if you look at last years’ draft night trades there’s a couple of examples, and there’s a day 2 order that the AFL published (same thread couple of posts earlier) that should have evidence of extra picks if they are still there after day 1 live trades.

Do those picks that get de-activated, get re-activated if you clear the list spots? For example, in Brisbane's situation, if they clear their first five picks to match a bid for Ashcroft, does the de-activated picks get re-activated as Brisbane now have the list spots to take them?

I assume the answer is yes based on what we saw with the Dogs last year.
Bulldogs went with picks 23, 43, 44, 45 and 52

At the draft, before pick 1 - Bulldogs traded 23 to Geelong for 32 and 34, and then 32 and 52 to North for 42 and 47 (and swap of FR3s). 47 gets 'de-activated' because it would be their 6th pick for 5 list spots.

As per the coverage, the Bulldogs then matched with 34, 42, 43, 44 and 45; they got back 69, 90, 21 and 92

Bulldogs then went into day 2 with 41, 66, 89, 91, 92. Looks like 41 was pick 47 being re-activated as they now had the spots.

 

[Lore]

Do those picks that get de-activated, get re-activated if you clear the list spots? For example, in Brisbane's situation, if they clear their first five picks to match a bid for Ashcroft, does the de-activated picks get re-activated as Brisbane now have the list spots to take them?

I assume the answer is yes based on what we saw with the Dogs last year.
Bulldogs went with picks 23, 43, 44, 45 and 52

At the draft, before pick 1 - Bulldogs traded 23 to Geelong for 32 and 34, and then 32 and 52 to North for 42 and 47 (and swap of FR3s). 47 gets 'de-activated' because it would be their 6th pick for 5 list spots.

As per the coverage, the Bulldogs then matched with 34, 42, 43, 44 and 45; they got back 69, 90, 21 and 92

Bulldogs then went into day 2 with 41, 66, 89, 91, 92. Looks like 41 was pick 47 being re-activated as they now had the spots.

I think you’re right, but I find that the best authority on this stuff is usually when dlanod, briztoon and a couple others are involved in the discussion and we can argue precedent and pull together any insider info to figure it out, so at this point I’ll bring them in and see if we have any dissenting views

 

[briztoon]

I think you’re right, but I find that the best authority on this stuff is usually when dlanod, briztoon and a couple others are involved in the discussion and we can argue precedent and pull together any insider info to figure it out, so at this point I’ll bring them in and see if we have any dissenting views

Sounds about right to me.

The only thing I question, is how the Bulldog’s went in to day 2, still with 5 active picks, because 1 list spot gets taken up by the drafting of Darcy.

So Bulldog’s should have only had 4 picks at the start of day 2.


I am very curious about how the Lions manage to match a bid on Ashcroft, if the bid comes at pick 1.

I don’t see a similar type of trade available, that gets us 5 picks that can outright match 2400 points.

The only way I see that as being possible, is if North are happy to trade pick 43 for one of the 3 future 3rd round picks we currently hold

A bid at pick 2 we can match easily enough, and make some trades to have enough points in this draft for Fletcher.

 

[JasRulz63]

The only thing I question, is how the Bulldog’s went in to day 2, still with 5 active picks, because 1 list spot gets taken up by the drafting of Darcy.

So Bulldog’s should have only had 4 picks at the start of day 2.

Yeah I assume that's a mistake on the AFL website. With Collingwood, they had them listed with six picks before day 1, they took Daicos, and in day 2 they only had the five picks.

FINAL DRAFT ORDER: Check out your club's picks

Check out all your club's picks ahead of the 2021 NAB AFL Draft

www.afl.com.au

UPDATED DRAFT ORDER: Every club's picks ahead of night two

Check out which picks your club will take into the second night of the 2021 NAB AFL Draft

www.afl.com.au

 

[dlanod]

Do those picks that get de-activated, get re-activated if you clear the list spots? For example, in Brisbane's situation, if they clear their first five picks to match a bid for Ashcroft, does the de-activated picks get re-activated as Brisbane now have the list spots to take them?

I assume the answer is yes based on what we saw with the Dogs last year.
Bulldogs went with picks 23, 43, 44, 45 and 52

At the draft, before pick 1 - Bulldogs traded 23 to Geelong for 32 and 34, and then 32 and 52 to North for 42 and 47 (and swap of FR3s). 47 gets 'de-activated' because it would be their 6th pick for 5 list spots.

As per the coverage, the Bulldogs then matched with 34, 42, 43, 44 and 45; they got back 69, 90, 91 and 92

Bulldogs then went into day 2 with 41, 66, 89, 91, 92. Looks like 41 was pick 47 being re-activated as they now had the spots.

I think you’re right, but I find that the best authority on this stuff is usually when dlanod, briztoon and a couple others are involved in the discussion and we can argue precedent and pull together any insider info to figure it out, so at this point I’ll bring them in and see if we have any dissenting views

TL;DR: I don't think you'll get picks back that were removed from the draft order prior to the draft. However you can have more draft picks than slots when including picks that you traded for on the day(s) and use those for matching (per the Liam Henry trade) or selections (per the Sean Darcy trade).

---

A potential counter-example is that when a team used all their picks to match a player in previous drafts, their picks still went to the very end - they weren't interspersed where the club's untraded fifth and sixth round picks would have been (and there's always some clubs with those picks active for GWS or Brisbane or whoever else's picks to be interleaved between). When Liam Henry was bid on and matched, in theory Fremantle should have gotten their fifth back which would have been before the Saints' final pick, as they would've had picks 77 (Fremantle) and 78 (St Kilda) in the fifth coming into the draft before being invalidated. Instead it moved to the end (although they then traded back in earlier using their future fifth to take Frederick, so it became academic).

One interesting note that I found while looking up stuff for this is that you can have more draft picks than spots while in the process of matching. Fremantle had four draft picks when matching Henry, traded one out (and a future pick) for two leaving them with five picks but only four list spots - before using them to match (and still going into deficit the following year).

Digging into it more maybe that last Liam Henry trade caveat is specific to draft day trades, rather than during bidding trades. That would align both scenarios where you can have more picks than slots. If the restriction was just to the bidding process the Dogs could have done the same trades during the bidding process but I'm guessing the AFL are fine with this stuff being lodged beforehand. I'd imagine the pick doesn't get deactivated given the extra pick was used to match in the Liam Henry example, instead it just goes into the order like normal so it's just that the restriction on picks vs list spots is suspended once the draft starts.

 

[JasRulz63]

Caveat: 2020 operated under different (COVID) rules where you could maintain more draft picks than list spots, i.e. JUH was matched with 29, 33, 41, 42, 52, and 54 despite the Dogs only using two picks (JUH and Bedendo) - and I thought they maintained that for 2021 while reverting this year, which would allow those draft picks past the last list spot to still exist.

Swans, Pies among clubs buoyed by late draft rule tweak

Clubs matching bids on Academy and father-son players will be able to use the points from picks they didn't plan to use

www.afl.com.au

The AFL will revert to its usual rule next year, having allowed the clubs a one-off change given some had prepared for matching bids by already trading out future selections during last year's exchange period.

When it was announced, it was mentioned the rules would be reverted for 2021, though whether that was the case I'm not sure given COVID was an issue longer than expected.

A potential counter-example is that when a team used all their picks to match a player in previous drafts, their picks still went to the very end - they weren't interspersed where the club's untraded fifth and sixth round picks would have been (and there's always some clubs with those picks active for GWS or Brisbane or whoever else's picks to be interleaved between). When Liam Henry was bid on and matched, in theory Fremantle should have gotten their fifth back which would have been before the Saints' final pick, as they would've had picks 77 (Fremantle) and 78 (St Kilda) in the fifth coming into the draft before being invalidated. Instead it moved to the end (although they then traded back in earlier using their future fifth to take Frederick, so it became academic).

Yeah I think the picks do go to the very end if their complete value is used to match picks. Looking at the day 2 draft order they will add additional rounds at the end of the draft to accommodate these picks.

As an aside, it's interesting that Geelong are given a pick in the 8th round as if they had matched a bid for a player (which they hadn't). Their involvement on day 1 was trading pick 32 and 34 for pick 23. My thinking is that trade generated another list spot, and because all picks without list spots are removed before the draft, when you create a list spot during the draft, the pick assigned to it is placed at the end.

I wonder if the reason if clubs matching bids wait until the draft starts before making these pick trades is because you can 'hide' picks you bring in during the draft that you don't have the list spots for and 'unhide' them if once you have the list spots, as the Bulldogs did with pick 47.

 

[dlanod]

Swans, Pies among clubs buoyed by late draft rule tweak

Clubs matching bids on Academy and father-son players will be able to use the points from picks they didn't plan to use

www.afl.com.au

When it was announced, it was mentioned the rules would be reverted for 2021, though whether that was the case I'm not sure given COVID was an issue longer than expected.

I saw that comment and I can't find any reference to why I think it didn't get reverted initially, but ultimately it didn't matter to my current hypothesis so I removed it.

Yeah I think the picks do go to the very end if their complete value is used to match picks. Looking at the day 2 draft order they will add additional rounds at the end of the draft to accommodate these picks.

As an aside, it's interesting that Geelong are given a pick in the 8th round as if they had matched a bid for a player (which they hadn't). Their involvement on day 1 was trading pick 32 and 34 for pick 23. My thinking is that trade generated another list spot, and because all picks without list spots are removed before the draft, when you create a list spot during the draft, the pick assigned to it is placed at the end.

I wonder if the reason if clubs matching bids wait until the draft starts before making these pick trades is because you can 'hide' picks you bring in during the draft that you don't have the list spots for and 'unhide' them if once you have the list spots, as the Bulldogs did with pick 47.

The Geelong example actually helps reinforce what I think happens.

1. The draft selection order is set in concrete based off available list spots heading into draft day (this is usually published on AFL.com.au and elsewhere).
2. Any picks changing hands on the day aren't subject to the list spot restriction. They will continue exist and don't deactivate/reactivate.
   1. Yes, this opens a loophole where another team with list spots banks picks for you to trade in on the day but I suspect that will generate another AFL rule change when it happens.
3. If you end up with fewer picks than list spots, whether that's because of matching or trading, the AFL generates picks at the end of the list for you.

If you retained picks that you brought in previously, Geelong should have received their first untraded pick in a prior round.

 

[The Nostradamus]

Anyone know when the deadline is to delist players before the draft

 

[Lore]

Anyone know when the deadline is to delist players before the draft

There technically isn't one, but you'd be daft not to do it before 15 November.

The relevant key dates are:

• 4-9 November - Delisted Free Agency Period (1)
• 10 November - Last date for players to delist themselves (retire) or nominate for the draft
  • Players who delist themselves are not eligible as delisted free agents, they only get free agency if the club initiates the delisting.
• 11-15 November - Delisted Free Agency Period (2)
• 15 November - List Lodgement (2)
  • Last list lodgement before the draft – if you don't open up a spot now, you won't have it available to use on draft night.
  • Club-initiated delistings only officially happen - as in paperwork lodged with the AFL - when the primary list is lodged with the AFL.
  • For a list lodgement, clubs have to submit their primary playing list (which has to be under the maximum with room for three picks in the draft), and their salary cap forecasts for the following year (which has to be under the salary cap ceiling by enough to afford three draftees).

So basically, you'd be daft not to remove a player from the primary list on the second list lodgement date if you don't intend to re-sign them, and you'd be cruel not to do it before the end of the second delisted free agency period if they're going to another club, though there is a third DFA period after the draft.


Of course, they can announce it before or after the paperwork is officially lodged.

 

[dlanod]

Lions, Roos in pick swap talks as clubs assess draft hands

The Lions and Kangaroos could trade picks when the NAB AFL Draft gets underway

www.afl.com.au

Basically confirms the theory we worked out - trades on draft day don't get counted against the list spot limits. It even refers to the Dogs' trade from last year.

 

[Lore]

Suma Magic if they were to bring FA down to 4 years without changing the formula for compensation at all, what would that look like?

At the moment we know age is a factor and that younger players are slightly more likely to get better compensation for the same average base wage, but how much of a factor is it?

Would every 22 year old automatically get their club band 1, or most of them, or does age not make a lot of real difference?

 

[Suma Magic]

Suma Magic if they were to bring FA down to 4 years without changing the formula for compensation at all, what would that look like?

At the moment we know age is a factor and that younger players are slightly more likely to get better compensation for the same average base wage, but how much of a factor is it?

Would every 22 year old automatically get their club band 1, or most of them, or does age not make a lot of real difference?

Interesting question.

AFL might change the formula.

But if it remained the same for older players, then I suppose the formula requirement just keeps dropping for younger players.



So a simple update would see new lines on here to represent the new ages. And a 22 year olds line would cross band 1 at about 19% or something, just based on a guess looking at the graph, I haven’t recalculated.

The second thing would be if they changed %S to be based on all 22+ salaries instead of 25+. If players aged 22-24 earned more than those 25+ then compo for older players would decrease if they kept the percentages. And vice versa. But they could adjust the policy so that old players get the same as they would have under the old system.

 

[Callipygian]

Apologies if this has already been covered - I did check through the index and read the most relevant bits but didn't find the answer.

Can the northern Academies match more than 2 bids in the top 20? For example, if Jed Walter, Ethan Read and Jake Rogers all attract first round picks (as currently seems likely) can the Suns use later picks to match bids for all three of them? Or is there a different rule for the Suns compared to the other northern Academies (Swans, Giants, Lions)?

 

[Lore]

Apologies if this has already been covered - I did check through the index and read the most relevant bits but didn't find the answer.

Can the northern Academies match more than 2 bids in the top 20? For example, if Jed Walter, Ethan Read and Jake Rogers all attract first round picks (as currently seems likely) can the Suns use later picks to match bids for all three of them? Or is there a different rule for the Suns compared to the other northern Academies (Swans, Giants, Lions)?

Yes in theory. Rules are the same for all four clubs – actually all academy bidding works exactly the same so this also applies to NGAs. (Insofar as NGAs used to be exclusive to their NGA club in the first round. The rule for the NGAs have changed in the last couple of years so they're only exclusively available to their NGA club after pick 40.)

In reality you'd struggle to get enough points to match multiple bids unless you're matching at least some of those bids with picks that are already at the top of the draft, and obviously that becomes more difficult the higher the bids are.

e.g. 2015 draft, GWS got:

• Jacob Hopper at pick 7, matching Gold Coast's bid with pick 11
• Matthew Kennedy at pick 13, matching Richmond's bid with picks 34 and 40
• Harrison Himmelberg at pick 16, matching Adelaide's bid with picks 48, 50, 55 and 59

You can also go into deficit on points (which is paid back the following year before any trades/FA compensation), but as I understand it the deficit is capped.

I'm not 100% sure what the cap is set at, probably the total points that the premiership team would ordinarily get with their basic draft hand before any trades are done, so ~1750 points.

Mind you, if you use a first round pick to match a bid then the excess points are retained as a surplus, which would be useful in matching any more bids in that year or the following year, or canceling out a deficit if you're planning ahead.

 

[dlanod]

I'm not 100% sure what the cap is set at, probably the total points that the premiership team would ordinarily get with their basic draft hand before any trades are done, so ~1750 points.

Correct. Your cap is the total of your future picks as if they were the last pick in each round.

Mind you, if you use a first round pick to match a bid then the excess points are retained as a surplus, which would be useful in matching any more bids in that year or the following year, or canceling out a deficit if you're planning ahead.

Not just the following year but many years in the future. The surplus for the Hopper pick sat there for several years until the Tom Green pick (IIRC).

 

[Lore]

Correct. Your cap is the total of your future picks as if they were the last pick in each round.


Not just the following year but many years in the future. The surplus for the Hopper pick sat there for several years until the Tom Green pick (IIRC).

Yep. And they're always really hard to calculate so you have to hope you can beg the details out of someone at the AFL...

 

[Bletch]

Isn't there something about playing finals? i.e. if the Suns grab a spot in the 8, they can only match two first round bids? I know I read something about it recently, can't recall where.

 

[Bletch]

Ah, here: Suns face awkward dilemma as finals could spoil Academy plan; father-son bolters: Draft Watch

"...AFL rules state a club can’t match more than two bids on academy prospects in the top 20 of a draft if, in that same year, it makes the finals and is eliminated prior to preliminary final weekend.

A club, too, is restricted to matching one first-round academy bid if it’s among the last four teams remaining in the finals."

 

[Lore]

Ah, here: Suns face awkward dilemma as finals could spoil Academy plan; father-son bolters: Draft Watch

"...AFL rules state a club can’t match more than two bids on academy prospects in the top 20 of a draft if, in that same year, it makes the finals and is eliminated prior to preliminary final weekend.

A club, too, is restricted to matching one first-round academy bid if it’s among the last four teams remaining in the finals."

Hm, first I've seen it.

So in full it says:

It’s all turned glass half-full for the Gold Coast Suns in recent weeks. Not only are their top three academy players starring, but the AFL team has also found form, winning five of their past seven games to sit 11th on the ladder and push themselves into the finals mix.

It’s prompted recruiters to revisit an AFL draft rule that could leave the Suns with a tough conundrum come the end of the year.

As first flagged by The Age on Wednesday, AFL rules state a club can’t match more than two bids on academy prospects in the top 20 of a draft if, in that same year, it makes the finals and is eliminated prior to preliminary final weekend.

A club, too, is restricted to matching one first-round academy bid if it’s among the last four teams remaining in the finals.

The rule was introduced during the mid to late 2010s when the Giants were constant finals features and gained access to an array of top prospects from their own academy, such as Jacob Hopper, Matthew Kennedy, Harry Himmelberg, Will Setterfield, Harry Perryman and Isaac Cumming.

So should the Suns make this year’s finals series, they could be faced with a tough call to ignore one of their academy stars.

Suns face awkward dilemma as finals could spoil Academy plan; father-son bolters: Draft Watch

Stars threatening to spearhead an unthinkable boilover; two father-son gun bolters: Draft Watch

www.foxsports.com.au

I also followed the other link back that they've included as well, which is an article in The Age written by Marc McGowan (not the WA premier, but the journo who used to work for AFL.com.au before covid and stuff and probably still has contacts or knowledge from that time):

Gold Coast’s back-to-back victories have sparked discussion among opposition clubs on a potential Suns dilemma.

AFL rules state that clubs cannot match more than two first-round draft bids on academy prospects if they play finals in the same year.

Gold Coast have three prospects eligible for the draft this year from their academy program: likely top-five pick Jed Walter – a hulking key forward who started this year’s under-18 championships with a bang on Sunday – midfielder Jake Rogers and ruckman Ethan Read.

All three may attract first-round bids, but the Suns could match only two if they make finals, unless the league bends the rules for them, which some recruiters are fearful of.

However, in the scenario they can take only two of them, some talent scouts think they may opt for Read, a 202-centimetre big man who could develop into something special, instead of Rogers, even though the latter may go earlier in the draft.

The million-dollar question AFL clubs might soon have to answer

Is a top-10 draft pick worth $1 million of salary cap space? ‘Pick purchasing’ promises to be the next trade mechanism – and could be introduced as soon as this year.

www.theage.com.au

That seems to be as much as anyone knows at the moment. Thoughts dlanod?

 

[dlanod]

That seems to be as much as anyone knows at the moment. Thoughts @dlanod?

I only heard about it this year. Apparently it was brought in the year after GWS got three academy talents (Setterfield, Perryman, Cumming) in the first round, in typical AFL knee jerk fashion, and no one's fallen afoul of it since until now.

 

[Lore]

I only heard about it this year. Apparently it was brought in the year after GWS got three academy talents (Setterfield, Perryman, Cumming) in the first round, in typical AFL knee jerk fashion, and no one's fallen afoul of it since until now.

Sounds exactly like something the AFL would do, doesn't it.

I wish they'd publish all of the rules, addendums, appendices, schedules, forms, modelling, etc. and not just bits and pieces. But I guess if they did that we wouldn't have a need for this thread

 

[Lore]

Callipygian I'm not sure if you saw the more recent replies but hopefully it gives you a bit more clarity ^

I've also updated the index and the original bid-matching post to include quotes from those two articles, with credit to Bletch.

If anyone else has more or better information about this supposed new rule (or anything else that's missing from this thread) please be sure to post it!

 

[Callipygian]

Callipygian I'm not sure if you saw the more recent replies but hopefully it gives you a bit more clarity ^

I've also updated the index and the original bid-matching post to include quotes from those two articles, with credit to Bletch.

If anyone else has more or better information about this supposed new rule (or anything else that's missing from this thread) please be sure to post it!

Thanks Lore. I've just seen it all now. This was exactly what had me wondering. And now I have my answer - since the Suns aren't going to play finals, there's no issue and they can draft them all. (Although I'm still fuzzy - they have to start draft night with no more picks than they have list spots - is that right? Then, during the night, they can trade back to get more points?)

 

[dlanod]

they have to start draft night with no more picks than they have list spots - is that right? Then, during the night, they can trade back to get more points?

Yes - but the cutoff is actually the day of the draft. Once it's the day of the draft you can accumulate as many picks as you want, regardless of list spots.