Father/Son Hypothetical Question

[Panthers64]

I have a few questions about the Father/Son rule.

1. If the current rule was in place 10 years ago would the Cornes boys be available under father/son for the crows? If yes, a loop hole may exist.

2. If the cornes boys decided not to re-sign with the Power and enter the national draft as many delisted players do, could we now claim them as father/sons by using third round picks?

I know, it's highly unlikely - but worth thinking about.

Finally, does the data that the AFL is using the defend their biased rule include players such as Graham Cornes which we had no access to as the rule never existed when his kids were drafted....If it does it proves further that this rule is completely designed to shaft us.

Thoughts?

 

[- PC -]

Thoughts?

Get over it

 

[Panthers64]

Get over it

I'm not saying I'd want the Cornes boys now, I'm just questioning the AFL rules and whether a loop hole exists.

Some people on here may find it interesting even if you don't.

 

[Crow-mo]

Get over it

very informative

 

[- PC -]

2. If the cornes boys decided not to re-sign with the Power and enter the national draft as many delisted players do, could we now claim them as father/sons by using third round picks?

No. You can only be drafted as a F/S in your 1st draft

ie Murphy cannot be claimed by Brisbane in 2-3 years

 

[Panthers64]

No. You can only be drafted as a F/S in your 1st draft

ie Murphy cannot be claimed by Brisbane in 2-3 years

That's the assumption that most people would make, but have you seen this in print?

I've read the AFL's father-son and draft rules and this isn't qualified or made clear. It only states that they must meet the games qualification and the club gives up a third round pick - nothing about it being their first draft (this is assumed).

 

[Crow-mo]

No. You can only be drafted as a F/S in your 1st draft

ie Murphy cannot be claimed by Brisbane in 2-3 years

how sure are you?

 

[Crowked]

1. If the current rule was in place 10 years ago would the Cornes boys be available under father/son for the crows? If yes, a loop hole may exist.

Yes, I think they would.

2. If the cornes boys decided not to re-sign with the Power and enter the national draft as many delisted players do, could we now claim them as father/sons by using third round picks?

If this was possible, I'm sure the AFL would change the ruling on the eve of the draft to ensure we get nothing, as ussual.

 

[Vader]

1. If the current rule was in place 10 years ago would the Cornes boys be available under father/son for the crows?

2. If the cornes boys decided not to re-sign with the Power and enter the national draft as many delisted players do, could we now claim them as father/sons by using third round picks?

1. Yes.

PerthCrow seems certain that you can only be a F/S selection in your "first draft". This would appear to be incorrect. Ebert was taken under the F/S rule in his second draft, having failed to be drafted first time around.

2. Theoretically possible, but highly unlikely.

The reason it is unlikely is that players can't nominate for the national draft unless they are delisted by their club before the cut-off date for nominations.

The situation you described is very similar to what happened with Camporeale 's departure from Carlton last year. Because he was a contracted player who they refused to delist, he had to wait until the pre-season draft before he could move to his new club.

Given that they are amongst Port's better players, it is unlikely that they'd be delisted in time for the ND.

 

[arrowman]

Given the incompetence of the AFL on this, it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was a lack of precision on these questions.

Here's some others:

Does adoption count in the definition of "father"? What about biological parenting -through IVF / sperm donation? What is the definition of "father" for the purposes of the AFL father/son rule? I know these are very unlikely scenarios, but they are very possible and reasonable, and it would be very simple to be specific about them in the rule, and lawyers are supposed to be good at drafting rules / contracts that take account of all reasonable possibilities. Adrian Anderson's a lawyer, isn't he? Just, apparently, not a very good one.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Given the incompetence of the AFL on this, it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was a lack of precision on these questions.

Here's some others:

Does adoption count in the definition of "father"?

This has already had a case in the form of Richard Cole who is adopted but he was not allowed to be selected as f/s due to that reason. This was mentioned on the Main Board I believe

 

[relapse]

I actually think this a very interesting point and I wonder if a loop hole somehow exists. Going by the information on the AFL website it's not detailed enough to make a determination. Maybe worth emailing to triggy

 

[Crow-mo]

This has already had a case in the form of Richard Cole who is adopted but he was not allowed to be selected as f/s due to that reason. This was mentioned on the Main Board I believe

I don't know the details of the case, but IF richie cole was the adopted son of an eligible father, I can't see how legally he can be denied this right?

 

[Stiffy_18]

I don't know the details of the case, but IF richie cole was the adopted son of an eligible father, I can't see how legally he can be denied this right?

But he was and still is an adopted son of an administrator that was at that club for a required number of years. At the time there was a "father-son" rule that applied to administrators of the club.

 

[Crow-mo]

But he was and still is an adopted son of an administrator that was at that club for a required number of years. At the time there was a "father-son" rule that applied to administrators of the club.

if by all legal definitions he is a son, then how does this hold up?

it's discriminatory to suggest a legally adopted child is not really part of his adopted family.

 

[Truck Rutten]

I have a few questions about the Father/Son rule.

1. If the current rule was in place 10 years ago would the Cornes boys be available under father/son for the crows? If yes, a loop hole may exist.

I'm pretty sure the Cornes boys would have been eligible for the AFC since the changes to the f/s rule in 2001.

 

[Crow-mo]

I'm pretty sure the Cornes boys would have been eligible for the AFC since the changes to the f/s rule in 2001.

they would have been, which is why the retroactive changes are so ludicrous.

 

[Truck Rutten]

they would have been, which is why the retroactive changes are so ludicrous.

Yep, and I bet those twits at AFL house still count Cornesy as one of our eligible fathers

 

[Crow-mo]

Yep, and I bet those twits at AFL house still count Cornesy as one of our eligible fathers

Anderson explicitly said that yes he does.

 

[arrowman]

Anderson explicitly said that yes he does.

Cool. That gives us Amy, then


PS Speaking of Anderson: I heard him on the radio (ABC I think) on the weekend - he was asked about the Morton brothers and West Coast. He said that the first Morton (Mitch?) was never eligible anyway, so the rule change has actually made no difference there. (I don't know what the truth of the matter is, it's hard to get straight facts in the media)

Get that - not only did the AFL allow Port to draft Brett Ebert as a f/s when he was ineligible, they are now claiming, as a defence on the current rule, that they allowed West Coast to draft an ineligible player also. How effing incompetent is that?

 

[arrowman]

if by all legal definitions he is a son, then how does this hold up?

it's discriminatory to suggest a legally adopted child is not really part of his adopted family.

If it is true that adopted sons are specifically excluded, then that is wrong. An adopted son should be treated as part of the family history and tradition as much as a biological son. However there should be a limit - no matter how unlikely it would be to happen, you would want the rule to exclude sons who were adopted after the age of, say, 8 or 10 - just to specifically preclude the possibility of Andrew McLeod adopting Bryce Gibbs, say

 

[RooDog]

That's the assumption that most people would make, but have you seen this in print?

I've read the AFL's father-son and draft rules and this isn't qualified or made clear. It only states that they must meet the games qualification and the club gives up a third round pick - nothing about it being their first draft (this is assumed).

Im pretty sure it is... see Hawthorn and Shane Tuck, they couldnt get him under the f/s when he entered the draft after he played with West because it was not his first draft and he had spent time on their rookie list.

 

[Hawk71]

Regarding father/son's, I've heard Darren Jarman's son goes pretty well. Anyone know how old he is or have any other details?
Even though he would most likely to go the crows, there would be plenty of interest from the Hawks I'm sure.

 

[CrowMagnum]

If it is true that adopted sons are specifically excluded, then that is wrong. An adopted son should be treated as part of the family history and tradition as much as a biological son. However there should be a limit - no matter how unlikely it would be to happen, you would want the rule to exclude sons who were adopted after the age of, say, 8 or 10 - just to specifically preclude the possibility of Andrew McLeod adopting Bryce Gibbs, say

On a similar note, DNA evidence shows that 5-6% of so-called biological fathers are not the actual fathers at all (probably even more in Port Power fathers), so where does it end? DNA analysis for all father/son nominees - a real can of worms.

 

[Crow-mo]

On a similar note, DNA evidence shows that 5-6% of so-called biological fathers are not the actual fathers at all (probably even more in Port Power fathers), so where does it end? DNA analysis for all father/son nominees - a real can of worms.

great idea, they could do it at draft camp

just shows how crazy the league is becoming in some respects.