Father Son rule

[Gough]

Given the enormous changes in the last twenty years of the AFL, I think that it is time to abolish the father/son rule.
The once romantic notion that a son can play for the side that his father played for has become outdated and the constant tinkering with the rule has meant that a player who once would be eligble to play for the old man's club one year, is no longer eligible the next year. I would cite the Morton's at West Coast, Ebert at Port, and the furore in Adelaide over Gibbs at Carlton as examples of the problems with the rule. In essence (and this sticks in my throat somewhat) the 'new' teams are left with a distinct disadvantage.
Personally I kinda like the rule, but the AFL is a multi million dollar business and the outdated notion of club loyalty is becoming less and less important, which I will conceed is to the detriment of the game.
It's a sad state of affairs in my opinion, but by doing away completely with the rule I think there will be be lot less controversy and a much more level playing field come draft time.

 

[Dylz48]

No way I want Darcy Moore

 

[RUNVS]

Given the enormous changes in the last twenty years of the AFL, I think that it is time to abolish the father/son rule.
The once romantic notion that a son can play for the side that his father played for has become outdated and the constant tinkering with the rule has meant that a player who once would be eligble to play for the old man's club one year, is no longer eligible the next year. I would cite the Morton's at West Coast, Ebert at Port, and the furore in Adelaide over Gibbs at Carlton as examples of the problems with the rule. In essence (and this sticks in my throat somewhat) the 'new' teams are left with a distinct disadvantage.
Personally I kinda like the rule, but the AFL is a multi million dollar business and the outdated notion of club loyalty is becoming less and less important, which I will conceed is to the detriment of the game.
It's a sad state of affairs in my opinion, but by doing away completely with the rule I think there will be be lot less controversy and a much more level playing field come draft time.

Stuff that. I have already convinced myself that Tom Mitchell will be a Brownlow medalist

 

[LukeParkerno1]

No. It is a good rule and for every Gary Ablett there is a Cloke. Leave some romantics involved in the drafting. With the new rules you get clubs paying full value- i.e. no Hawkins like basement F/S picks.

 

[MarkT2]

Every son should have the option to play for his father's club if his father played a game for a club and it should be outside of the draft. The only issue is to implement rules that allocate enough potential players to newer clubs. WA and SA clubs are slightly problematic but far from irresolvable. Port should get Port Adelaide Magpies to draw from and Adelaide should the rest of the SANFL with a games criteria to even it up. Similar rules should apply to Freo with the Fremantle clubs and WCE with the rest of the WAFL. Sydney have SM and Brisbane have Fitzroy. GC and WS could have a zone and/or periodic draft pick until they start to produce a generation of fathers.

Anyone who worries about one club getting an advantage one year is being short sighted IMO. If we are going to go to the lengths that we are concerned about fahther son advantages then we should scrap a reverse ladder draft because that is more inequitable than the vagaries of genetics. If we scap F/S we have to rotate the draft order as well. I'd do the latter anyway and still keep F/S.

Really, what is the harm of a father/son rule?

 

[blueboy25]

Like others have mentioned it leaves some romance in the game.

I know I am hoping that Silvagni's boys are good enough to get drafted.

Rule is fine as it is with clubs having to use a 1st rd pick if other clubs are willing to use theirs to draft the potential player.

 

[Jade]

Stuff that, James Hird has three sons!

No friggin way I want that rule changed.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Really, what is the harm of a father/son rule?

That is the bottom line. Nobody can really come up with a definitive reason as to why its a bad thing. Interstate clubs whinge and whine about qualification because their "fathers" did not play at the highest level but thats just a matter of time before the 20 year mark kicks in.

With the bidding system now in place there is minimal if any inequity. Not sure how the new clubs will get their share of the "pie" but I assume they may get extra picks of local NSW and QLD locals.

At the end of the day there are as many father-son successes as their are failures.

 

[Tulip]

No thanks. Besides, Jack Viney will be eligible in GWS' draft and I'll give up my first (more like second) rounder for a top pick. Absolute gun junior and he plays centre which is what we just lost in McLean (although, granted we gained it in Gysberts).

 

[S.Patrol.G]

Every son should have the option to play for his father's club if his father played a game for a club and it should be outside of the draft. The only issue is to implement rules that allocate enough potential players to newer clubs. WA and SA clubs are slightly problematic but far from irresolvable. Port should get Port Adelaide Magpies to draw from and Adelaide should the rest of the SANFL with a games criteria to even it up. Similar rules should apply to Freo with the Fremantle clubs and WCE with the rest of the WAFL. Sydney have SM and Brisbane have Fitzroy. GC and WS could have a zone and/or periodic draft pick until they start to produce a generation of fathers.

Anyone who worries about one club getting an advantage one year is being short sighted IMO. If we are going to go to the lengths that we are concerned about fahther son advantages then we should scrap a reverse ladder draft because that is more inequitable than the vagaries of genetics. If we scap F/S we have to rotate the draft order as well. I'd do the latter anyway and still keep F/S.

Really, what is the harm of a father/son rule?

I like the concept of the FS rule but find that it has become increasingly unclear. As a Port person, I'd be more than happy for Port to have access to any son of a player that has played 100 games for the Port Adelaide Football Club. I believe this is the way the rule works for Victorian clubs??

I would have absolutely no interest in having sons/players from the PAMFC or any other SANFL club as the rule currently stipulates.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I like the concept of the FS rule but find that it has become increasingly unclear. As a Port person, I'd be more than happy for Port to have access to any son of a player that has played 100 games for the Port Adelaide Football Club. I believe this is the way the rule works for Victorian clubs??

I would have absolutely no interest in having sons/players from the PAMFC or any other SANFL club as the rule currently stipulates.

You need to have played 100 games at one club at the highest level before your son is eligible for this. The SANFL is not the same competition.

 

[Monkey King]

Morton never played for WCE, nor Gibbs old man for Adelaide. Once the newer clubs catch up and the AFL stop dicking with the rule it will be fine and a blessing for the game. Couldn't imagine a Silvagni donning anything other than Navy Blue.

 

[legend166]

We're just starting to get into the time when non-Victorian clubs will be getting some benefit from this, don't close it now!

Well, at least wait until we get Tom Mitchell.

 

[S.Patrol.G]

You need to have played 100 games at one club at the highest level before your son is eligible for this. The SANFL is not the same competition.

I agree. It should be 100 games at the same club. The point I was making was in reference to the post I quoted. I don't want a FS rule that allocates sons of players that played at other clubs to Port. I have no interest in that.

All I want is a rule that recognises players that have played 100 games for Port Adelaide. As for highest level- well, we could argue that forever and a day. I don't know that the rule stipulates games must have been played at the "highest level". Is it the highest level of the day? If you're saying the highest level, do you mean then that games played in the VFL days don't count because that is not a level that is as high as the AFL is now? Of course you're not!

I could be wrong, but doesn't the rule apply to the amount of games played for the club and not the level these games were played?

Now, if what you're really saying is that the rule should apply for Port only when the father played 100 AFL games- I can live with that!

As I said, I want a rule wich recognises the sons of players that played 100 games for PAFC- not games for WWTFC, WAFC, CDFC, PAMFC or any other club.

Just as I'd imagine you'd only be interested in sons of Collingwood players. Seriously, the rule for Port is stupid. It's like your Club being told they can FS a kid cos he played 200 games for Essendon!

 

[tugga]

RIchmond have already started IVF with Richo and his missus in the hope of producing octuplets. We can't abandon the FS rule for at least another 19 years.

 

[JeffDunne]

Why should kids of past players be given a choice other kids aren't?

Their surname affords them enough privileges in junior football.

Nepotism has no place in a professional football league.

 

[JeffDunne]

Really, what is the harm of a father/son rule?

Had Marc Murphy taken up Brisbane's offer and the arbitrary rules on qualification been slightly different, Carlton could have missed out on 2 of 3 number 1 draft picks.

I'd say it has the potential to do plenty of harm

 

[omit]

Had Marc Murphy taken up Brisbane's offer and the arbitrary rules on qualification been slightly different, Carlton could have missed out on 2 of 3 number 1 draft picks.

I'd say it has the potential to do plenty of harm

he didn't and the rules are what they are. so what harm was done again?

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Not yet

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Morton never played for WCE, nor Gibbs old man for Adelaide. Once the newer clubs catch up and the AFL stop dicking with the rule it will be fine and a blessing for the game. Couldn't imagine a Silvagni donning anything other than Navy Blue.

Yeah the rule has changed and if it stayed in it's original form we could have taken C.Morton with a later pick in 2007. But in saying that im all for the current setup. Getting rid of a rule that could see the names like Sumich, Matera, Kemp and Mainwaring back in Eagles from 2014/15? onwards would be great.

Jordan Matera. With a name like that he's got to be awsome.

 

[Falchoon]

he didn't and the rules are what they are. so what harm was done again?

I reckon if we had Blake, Ablett, Hawkins and Scarlett we might have got up.

 

[Wish Wellingtons]

The father son rule deserves it's place in the competition.
I am a Geelong supporter, so you may say i'm biased, but i have seen plenty of spuds drafted under the rule (insert hawkins joke) to go along with the few deadset gems in Ablett and Scarlett.

The rule is available to everyone (well not sure how it works with GC17 and WS18) and it is a fantastic tradition that should be upheld.

 

[Parallel Andy]

You need to have played 100 games at one club at the highest level before your son is eligible for this. The SANFL is not the same competition.

True, but in Port's case I think they should have access. They have been derived from one club, so really they should get access to those player's sons. Pretty simple I think. I don't however believe that they should get father/sons from any other SA regions.

 

[EagleMan87]

Yeah the rule has changed and if it stayed in it's original form we could have taken C.Morton with a later pick in 2007. But in saying that im all for the current setup. Getting rid of a rule that could see the names like Sumich, Matera, Kemp and Mainwaring back in Eagles from 2014/15? onwards would be great.

Jordan Matera. With a name like that he's got to be awsome.

Yup, as well as Jakovich, Wirrapanda, Braun and heaps of others.

Can't wait.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Tell it to this bloke.