Father Son rule being changed again?

[Ants]

Also posted this in the main forum, but think it also belongs here.
In the Age:

Caroline Wilson | May 21, 2008

THE AFL is looking at softening the father-son rule just one year after introducing the controversial bidding system as one of a series of conciliatory gestures to the 16 clubs that will be forced to sacrifice draft picks and uncontracted players to the competition's two new teams.

The league has taken on board a proposal from North Melbourne to reduce the father-son games requirement from 100 back to 50 although football operations boss Adrian Anderson conceded the AFL might even look at a lower number of games required for eligibility.

Confirming the North proposal, Anderson said: "The Kangaroos have been very vocal about the father-son rule. They rightly point out that if you have a bidding system in place then perhaps it is fair enough to lower the games to 50 or even 20.

"We've consulted all 16 clubs now and we are looking at a number of ways to compensate the 16 existing clubs. The father-son rule is just one that would benefit existing clubs but not the 17th and 18th teams."

The AFL's working party overseeing the creation of two new playing lists will meet for the first time next week and includes representatives from the Brisbane Lions, Collingwood, Fremantle, Hawthorn, Geelong and Sydney.

Along with revising the most romantic rule in football, the proposals aimed at compensating the existing clubs the AFL is considering include:

■Eliminating the rule requiring clubs to delist a minimum of three players at the end of each season;

■Supplementing rookie lists by up to three extra rookies per club;

■Compensating the bottom clubs by giving them access to earlier draft picks than first mooted in the first model which allowed each new club access to the top five draft choices.

North Melbourne chief executive Eugene Arocca said his club would put its father-son proposal to the AFL on Friday. "Our footy department will get together to formalise our proposal," he said.

"There are various models we are looking at but personally I think anything lower than 50 games could dilute the meaning of father-son.

Arocca said the Kangaroos would also request lists be extended to include up to six extra players be they rookies, scholarship players or international players.

"The (father-son) bidding system, in our view, could perhaps be relaxed to the point that nothing lower than a second-round draft pick was sacrificed," Arocca said.

However Kangaroos coach Dean Laidley was more bullish. "It was one of a number of small ways we believe the existing clubs could get something back from what they are sacrificing. I reckon if you have a former player with a son you want to draft, then let the club draft him," he said.

"We're not talking about forever. If you are looking at losing high draft picks for three years then relax the father-son rule for five years."

While several clubs have proposed the new Gold Coast and Sydney teams be eliminated from the father-son bidding system, only North put forward the games requirement reduction proposal.

Should the AFL approve the change it would be the 13th change to the rule since it was introduced in 1967. North Melbourne is anticipating several forthcoming father-son opportunities, notably the offspring of 217-game centre half-back Ian Fairley who has two sons.

Football operations general manager Donald McDonald has a talented 13-year old son and also played the required number of games for the Kangaroos. Laidley, the father of a 17-year-old TAC Cup footballer, misses out on the current cut-off by one game. Laidley played 99 games for North Melbourne.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/fatherson-rule-to-ease/2008/05/20/1211182803000.html

Personally I see 50 games as too few. However, I do think some other things (such as time spent on the list, club and league awards) should count towards the games limit.

And it looks like the AFL's initial draft concessions for the new clubs was an ambit claim to give it bargaining power - as many predicted.

 

[ChipDouglas]

Fantastic idea, bring it in for this year.

 

[scooter600x]

Now that we've lost Ben Reid and Alex Rance they decide to do it.

We might have 3 in a year in two years time, though. Wallis, Liberatore & Smedts.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I think it's an excellent idea, certainly fits with the aim of assisting the existing 16 clubs, and I've always been a fan of the Father-Son rule. 50 games is not too few IMHO, however 20 games is.

 

[swannies]

I'm with Royal sampler, 50 games is OK but 20 would seem too few.

They're also talking about making a nominated pick by the father son club need be no higher than a second round pick, is that right?

 

[Ants]

I'd go for a points system.

100 games - automatically qualifies.

Otherwise, get 75 points where

- Each H&A game = 1 point
- Each Final = 2 points
- Each season on the list (including rookie listed) = 5 points
- Club B&F = 10 points
- Club leading goal kicker = 10 points
- Norwich Rising Star/Brownlow/Norm Smith/Coleman = 10 points.

This would be aimed at guys who played 50 games over a number of seasons (rather than if say a Jason Murphy, Akermanis, etc. did it in say 3 seasons), and guys who were a long time on the list and didn't make the 100 (say a guy like Laidley, Ramanaskus perhaps, Coleman, etc.).

 

[Moo]

Poor old Adelaide.

Well and truly rogered by the AFL.

 

[opng]

I'd go for a points system.

100 games - automatically qualifies.

Otherwise, get 75 points where

- Each H&A game = 1 point
- Each Final = 2 points
- Each season on the list (including rookie listed) = 5 points
- Club B&F = 10 points
- Club leading goal kicker = 10 points
- Norwich Rising Star/Brownlow/Norm Smith/Coleman = 10 points.

This would be aimed at guys who played 50 games over a number of seasons (rather than if say a Jason Murphy, Akermanis, etc. did it in say 3 seasons), and guys who were a long time on the list and didn't make the 100 (say a guy like Laidley, Ramanaskus perhaps, Coleman, etc.).

great idea it takes into account the contribution that some champions give to a club E.g lockett, roos etc, The only changes that id put in would be extra points for playing in a GF and a few extra for playing in a premiership other than that an excellent idea.

Premiership 20 points
Grand Final 10 points

 

[dapto]

great idea it takes into account the contribution that some champions give to a club E.g lockett, roos etc, The only changes that id put in would be extra points for playing in a GF and a few extra for playing in a premiership other than that an excellent idea.

Premiership 20 points
Grand Final 10 points

Dont mind the points system at all or even some scaled back ratio against games played but very shy of promoting a player's son, simply becuase his father had played in a successful team. The father/son rule should be there to promote a club's legacy and tradition's not necessarily it's success.

Players in teams like Footscray, or the saints etc would be very unfairly treated weighting points like that.

The father son rule has never been anything but a method of sustaining some lineage and linking important traditions back to the host clubs

just my thoughts though

 

[rotto]

Even with the bidding system , the father son is still an advantage to a club. If Hawkins, was under the new rule Cats would have still got him for pick 7. Considering, he would have gone top three a least and at best one pick, the Cats would still have had a bargain.

100 games seems fair to me. You only want sons of guns playing for the same clubs as their fathers, not some dud who only played 20 games.

 

[Ants]

Dont mind the points system at all or even some scaled back ratio against games played but very shy of promoting a player's son, simply becuase his father had played in a successful team. The father/son rule should be there to promote a club's legacy and tradition's not necessarily it's success.

Players in teams like Footscray, or the saints etc would be very unfairly treated weighting points like that.

The father son rule has never been anything but a method of sustaining some lineage and linking important traditions back to the host clubs

just my thoughts though

Totally agree. Which is why in my proposed ratings external medals like Brownlows ranked no higher than the club awards. I gave finals 2 points vs. H&A matches 1 point because you do tend to remember guys who played in finals more, and some players (like Keating) turn up a bit more for finals while they may miss H&A matches.

Even with the bidding system , the father son is still an advantage to a club. If Hawkins, was under the new rule Cats would have still got him for pick 7. Considering, he would have gone top three a least and at best one pick, the Cats would still have had a bargain.

100 games seems fair to me. You only want sons of guns playing for the same clubs as their fathers, not some dud who only played 20 games.

I don't think though it should only be guns. Anyone who made 90 odd games was probably at the club for 7 to 8 seasons. That makes more than enough of a link in my mind.