Lift the Age

[southjoy]

I've been thinking about this one for a while and I still don't know if I have got it in the right perspective , but here goes.

Looking at this year from a WA point of view we can see that from 12 draft picks about 4 of these players could play Colts again and I have a sneaking feeling that Bradley could as well. For those outside the state of WA these boys could play for WA again at the 18's. Next year with these players gone we are looking towards another down year at 18's and maybe at the draft. We don't have the numbers to cover the loss of such talent easily. Their own clubs will also miss their quality and ability to improve the next rank around them, the ones who didn't get picked of quality and are17 will not have the Hall's and Spandemaans to play against and improve with the tussle.

Then we have the argument of kids fresh out of school being taken to other parts of the country and more than likely play in the next level down ( so as to prove themselves). These kids are just coming to terms of playing under age footy let alone the best at AFL level. And leaving the umbrella of school.

Why don't we rise the age to at least 18 or even better 19. We won't miss talent, they will get time to get in touch with their lives before possible being taken on, they will still play and who knows another yearof underage footy maybe with less injuries. I also believe that if it is raised then more 18 year olds will get a chance to have a crack at AFL, more older players will be looked at ( Le Cras from West Perth), maybe more recycled players will get another go.

I know I am rambling and not really ordering this into a better arguement. But i feel our local comp will benefit, the young players will benefit and eventually the AFL and THE WAFL will get their player and money.

 

[ThePope]

Originally posted by southjoy
Why don't we rise the age to at least 18 or even better 19. We won't miss talent, they will get time to get in touch with their lives before possible being taken on, they will still play and who knows another yearof underage footy maybe with less injuries. I also believe that if it is raised then more 18 year olds will get a chance to have a crack at AFL, more older players will be looked at ( Le Cras from West Perth), maybe more recycled players will get another go.

You can't have more 18 years, older players and recycled players all getting a go... there is a more or less fixed number of spots each year.

The arguement against the raising of the age is why should the modern day Watsons, Wirrapunda, Schammers be prevented from earning a living for an extra year? If a 16 year is smart enough and gets pushed by his parents/teachers, he could do his TEE/HSC/etc early and go to uni early, or leave school and get a job early, so why should there be a blanket rule for AFL?
Some 17 year olds are physically more mature than some 20 year olds... do we do a test to check?
I reckon that the current situation is about right, maybe upping it to a flat 18 rather than 17.5 is about as far as I can see them going. Maybe allowing each club 1 17 year old player each year might be a solution to allow the star 17 years to play, but keep most player in junior comps for the extra year.

I think that Richmond punted on next year's top picks by taking Raines and Archibald late in this draft. Both DOB are Feb/Mar 86, so aren't eligible for the rookie list.
In all 24 players picked were born in 86, some like Alex Gilmour sound like they need to fill out (180cm, 68 kg) others like Spaanderman appear ready to play (198, 99kg).
26 players were born in 85, with 1 in 84, 3 in 83, 3 in 82, 4 in 81 and 1 in 79 (excluding recycled players).

 

[sam1]

If a colts player say born in 1985 turns 18 in the Dec, can he play state 18's in year 2004?

 

[southjoy]

Re: Re: Lift the Age

Originally posted by ThePope
You can't have more 18 years, older players and recycled players all getting a go... there is a more or less fixed number of spots each year.

The arguement against the raising of the age is why should the modern day Watsons, Wirrapunda, Schammers be prevented from earning a living for an extra year? If a 16 year is smart enough and gets pushed by his parents/teachers, he could do his TEE/HSC/etc early and go to uni early, or leave school and get a job early, so why should there be a blanket rule for AFL?
Some 17 year olds are physically more mature than some 20 year olds... do we do a test to check?
I reckon that the current situation is about right, maybe upping it to a flat 18 rather than 17.5 is about as far as I can see them going. Maybe allowing each club 1 17 year old player each year might be a solution to allow the star 17 years to play, but keep most player in junior comps for the extra year.

I think that Richmond punted on next year's top picks by taking Raines and Archibald late in this draft. Both DOB are Feb/Mar 86, so aren't eligible for the rookie list.
In all 24 players picked were born in 86, some like Alex Gilmour sound like they need to fill out (180cm, 68 kg) others like Spaanderman appear ready to play (198, 99kg).
26 players were born in 85, with 1 in 84, 3 in 83, 3 in 82, 4 in 81 and 1 in 79 (excluding recycled players).

I fully understand and appreciate the point of holding back a person from making a decent living. A valid point that I don't have a great argument for but if these 86 born waited an extra year ( of which some might be school and some that great break after school and the rest another year of TAC or Colts football) then I don't think that it would matter. I mean wher would you stop on the argument of making a living as you said Wirrupunda at 15, Watson at 15 so should we also be looking at 1988's.

The 24 players with 86 birthdays would allow more 18 yr olds to be picked up as well as older players ,etc . This is where I was going with the "more players being chosen" comment.

You raise excellent points of argument. I look forward to hearing more peoples point of view.

 

[southjoy]

Originally posted by sam1
If a colts player say born in 1985 turns 18 in the Dec, can he play state 18's in year 2004?

No Bradley can't play state again but he could of played Colts. Not that , that would have happened anyway.

 

[sam1]

southjoy - I wasnt meaning Bradley but two other players. Why cant they play 18's if they dont turn 19 till dec 2004? What is the ruling?

 

[southjoy]

Originally posted by sam1
southjoy - I wasnt meaning Bradley but two other players. Why cant they play 18's if they dont turn 19 till dec 2004? What is the ruling?

Unlike the WAFL Colts where they allow an older player, say 85 to play again this doesn't happen on a state level so they draw the line at year level.

 

[sam1]

southjoy

Thanks!

 

[Portia]

The higher you raise the draft age, the more likely it is that these kids will turn to other sports that they're capable at - specifically talls going to basketball and so on. The SANFL/WAFL/VFL don't pay enough that good young players that -are- ready will want to make them an exclusive option.

 

[pazza]

I've been on this thing for ages.

I seem to think that those players who are recruited straight from under 18's/colts footy, aren't actually physically ready for top level football, for long periods of time.

When these players have played senior footy, and hit the minimum age of 20, they seem more ready (and not genuinely look like skinny runts).

Who cares about the pay levels at WAFL etc..their physical development and experience from playing at that level more than makes up for the potential earnings. Perhaps that is why Bradley was a must for Essendon. Getting senior experience and backing that up with physical development, which is well underway.

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Maybe a solution is to raise the age to 18 but allow 1 17 year old pick per team or something like that, providing it's in the first 2-3 rounds.

Would stop teams punting late on a 17 year old in the hope they have paid under the odds.

 

[Squeak]

Raising the draft age is robbing the AFL of this talent, not the minor leagues. WAFL, SANFL, etc = feeder leagues.

 

[Weaver]

The most common argument for raising the age is to allow the kids to complete schooling, but not all kids choose to stay at school. Should a player like Kyle Archibald who left school after year 10 be oblidged to play junior footy when in the minds of Richmond he is capable of earning a good living in senior company?

I also don't have much respect for the arguement which is concerned with kids being oblidged to leave home. Many of the kids have already done it, for example Willoughby (Bordertown-Adelaide). Lots of country kids will be oblidged to leave home at 18 to go to school or look for work in any case. It is all well and good for the city-folk to whinge but not everyone has the priveledge of staying at home.

Raising the age to 19 will create a situation where there are a lot of kids who are no longer in school but are not prepared to commit to work or study in case they are drafted. It puts them into a year of suspended animation where they can't really plan for their future. They could well be living on their credit cards when they could have been buying their first home.

Legally it would be difficult to argue that an 18 year old can join the army but is not ready for the AFL. Danny Southern famously challenged the minimum age unsuccessfully but I think that was when the age was 17. Putting it up to 19 would surely lead to challenges.