Pressure to change Father/Son

[Turbocat]

Reading todays press , Fremantle are espousing that change is need for the Father Son. How typical that an interstate side would winge over one of the very few links to our long past, its not as if they cant assess the rule the have a whole heap of sides that their club can link to get F/S picks and they don’t even have to have played in the VFL/AFL. Look at West Coast last year the picked up Mitch Morton under this very rule. Lets face it no club will pick a player if they don’t think he is worth it, the number of places on list these days makes F/S on work with talented kids whether you use 3rd round or 5th round you usually only pick them if you think you are ahead of what you could pick in the draft. Rarely clubs might pick with the pressure of what would happen if they don’t pick them , eg. imagine the Geelong fallout if they knocked NA23 back then he went to Essendon.
Dont stuff with the rules that have given us so many great kids that have links to the past
*********
Father-son rule flawed: Dockers
By Emma Quayle
April 22, 2005
Fremantle is pushing for change to the father-son rule, believing potential prospects should be assessed by an independent panel or arbitrator.
Under the Dockers' plan, put to the AFL as part of the club's special assistance submission, the clubs would be told whether they could use a third-round selection to draft the son of a former player, or would have to sacrifice an earlier or later pick.
Three of last year's father-son selections - Kangaroo Jesse Smith, West Coast's Mitch Morton and Collingwood's Travis Cloke - were widely considered first-round material.
Fremantle football manager Steven Icke said the Dockers appreciated the father-son tradition, but thought clubs should have to sacrifice selections that matched the players' ability.
"Shouldn't the pick required to pick up a father-son player fit in with where that player's ranked in the draft pool?" asked Icke. "If you've got a kid who's a gun, and you know you're going to get him with your third-round pick, it changes your whole drafting strategy. You can then go off and trade your first-round pick, so you're getting a dual benefit out of it . . .
"It goes both ways. There might be a player you're not willing to give up a third-round pick for, but for a fifth-round pick, it might be worth trying to keep the tradition alive."
Fremantle can recruit father-son players from East and South Fremantle, Perth and Swan Districts, while the Eagles have access to East and West Perth, Subiaco and Claremont.

 

[Jack-Packenham]

Not until we get Tom Hawkins

 

[answerman]

Not until we get Tom Hawkins

Amen to that!

Oh, and Scratcher Neal's son.

And while we're at it, the sons of Gary Ablett Junior, Nathan Ablett, Steve Johnson, Matthew Scarlett, Buddha Hocking, Billy Brownless, Mark Bairstow...

(provided they can all play, of course..... )

 

[Unwritten_Law]

Only have to look at fantasy drafts to see how well an independent panel would be able to assess potential draftees.

Top shelf juniors like Mitch Morton or Jesse Smith might be easy to classify but how do you classify Ablett X 2, who spent very little or no time in the TAC.

 

[WestCat]

How come Freo and West Coast get to pick from 4 clubs each? Shouldn't they only get sons from one club in the WAFL? When you think about it, the interstate teams are the teams which benefit from this rule the most, they have far more footballers to choose from. In the end it is just luck, but it's a great tradition and I for one think it should stay.

 

[monnersfan]

It's true that WC and Freo each get four teams from which they can draw Father/Son associations, but in their defence, it must be said that the quality of WAFL players over the last 30 years (the age around which the 'Fathers' would have been playing footy) was fairly inferior to that of the VFL/AFL. Most of the best WA footballers were playing in Victoria during that time, which means that if they produce better footballing children (a big assumption) then the Victorian AFL clubs have something of an advantage in the Father/Son stakes as a VFL legacy of sorts.

 

[patdman]

The F/S rule is one of the best things about the AFL, and I believe is it this kind of culture that also encourages more of a 'club loyalty' mindset. Take away the F/S rule, and it will only be a few more seasons until free agency kicks in, the Roos, Saints, Demons & Dogs are broke, and I then go postal and kill lots of people.

Yeah, a bit exhaggerated, but you get what I'm saying.

Freo should just be b*tch slapped by the AFL (and every single supporter, Freo supporters included) for sugesting this, although I hope if the rule does get abolished, then it's the year after Geelong gets 2 guns, and the year before Freo could have had 2 guns...who end up having wonderful careers at Geelong

 

[nananana catman]

Not the worst idea, at least we wouldnt miss out on any kids, and it also gives the recruiting staff a second opinion on the kid. But it could come down to personal opinion on what a kid is worth.

 

[jim boy]

I'm actually comfortable, in theory, with Freo's suggestion. I'm not sure its workable in practice, but Freo is right, the round pick sacrificed should better reflect the worth of a player. In fact this change would strengthen the father-son rule. For example, say Scratcher Neal's son is only pretty good, and would probably go fourth round in the National Draft. Under the current rules we would let him go as we would be missing out on a better player, under the suggested rules, we would probably select him with our fourth round pick.

 

[scottydeewah]

It's true that WC and Freo each get four teams from which they can draw Father/Son associations, but in their defence, it must be said that the quality of WAFL players over the last 30 years (the age around which the 'Fathers' would have been playing footy) was fairly inferior to that of the VFL/AFL. Most of the best WA footballers were playing in Victoria during that time, which means that if they produce better footballing children (a big assumption) then the Victorian AFL clubs have something of an advantage in the Father/Son stakes as a VFL legacy of sorts.

That doesnt make any sense unless the sons are clones. If Wayne Carey has a son it doesnt mean he is going to be Wayne Carey Mark II. Sheer weight of numbers is not a bad thing to have.

 

[patdman]

I'm actually comfortable, in theory, with Freo's suggestion. I'm not sure its workable in practice, but Freo is right, the round pick sacrificed should better reflect the worth of a player. In fact this change would strengthen the father-son rule. For example, say Scratcher Neal's son is only pretty good, and would probably go fourth round in the National Draft. Under the current rules we would let him go as we would be missing out on a better player, under the suggested rules, we would probably select him with our fourth round pick.

Yeah, nice way to apply common sense ...I get what you're saying, consider my earlier comments heavily exhaggerated

 

[scottydeewah]

I'm actually comfortable, in theory, with Freo's suggestion. I'm not sure its workable in practice, but Freo is right, the round pick sacrificed should better reflect the worth of a player. In fact this change would strengthen the father-son rule. For example, say Scratcher Neal's son is only pretty good, and would probably go fourth round in the National Draft. Under the current rules we would let him go as we would be missing out on a better player, under the suggested rules, we would probably select him with our fourth round pick.

And who makes these decisions? Where would you rate Nathan Ablett? What about Goddard (i know not father and son but hey he is a round two number 1 pick)

 

[jim boy]

And who makes these decisions? Where would you rate Nathan Ablett? What about Goddard (i know not father and son but hey he is a round two number 1 pick)

That's why I said "I'm not sure its workable in practice". Maybe there is a solution, maybe the club has to put in a submission as to what they think a player is worth, with a 'devils advocate' arguing an opposing view, but I'm not convinced that this can be resolved adequately. However if it can be implemented successfully, then IMO it would be good for Geelong and good for footy.

 

[Turbocat]

I'm actually comfortable, in theory, with Freo's suggestion. I'm not sure its workable in practice, but Freo is right, the round pick sacrificed should better reflect the worth of a player. In fact this change would strengthen the father-son rule. For example, say Scratcher Neal's son is only pretty good, and would probably go fourth round in the National Draft. Under the current rules we would let him go as we would be missing out on a better player, under the suggested rules, we would probably select him with our fourth round pick.

Jim , as I said in earlier post Clubs will mainly only pick FS if they have an edge on what they will pick in the draft.Risky long shot F/S's quite often get passed over, eg Krouker at NMelb, Hunter at Carlton, Turner at Geelong.. there are heeps of them. What use is it being able to use a 4th round pick when a club might only use 3 picks like us last year.There are limited numbers on a list so they are very picky, if every club had to use 5 picks then maybe it might function. There is only one thing that happens from this rule, if a player who is an obvious top 10 say a Judd or a Cooney type the club would have to use their R1 pick for them thus leaving 1 more player for other teams to pick. Who wins from this ? teams who have no F/S's. Who lose's from this? team who have F/S's. Which group are we again?
What would you say if the judging group said NA23 was worth a R1 pick?. No Ottens because we would have used it on Nathan. They have already changed it from 50 games to 100. Enough, a pox on those who dont have the patience to wait for their own champions sons.

 

[jim boy]

Taking your Nablett scenario, of course it would have made the Ottens trade harder, but do you really think Geelong should get a leg up on the opposition just because Nathan's old man was a Geelong man?

The rule is there simply to allow for family continuation at clubs, not domination by other clubs.

Anyway there's two problems with your Nablett theory.

1. Most judges had Nablett as a round 2 pick

2. They're not going to apply it retrospectively

 

[Turbocat]

Taking your Nablett scenario, of course it would have made the Ottens trade harder...

Jim , this is of course all theroetical but if as I said just for the sake of it , the judges said Nathan was worth a 1st round , the Ottens trade would not have been harder , it would have been near impossible. As it was we had to give up our first round pick plus a player that another club deemed worthy of a first round pick. To make the deal happen might of required giving up a 2nd player say Tenace as well as Moloney. NO way would we have done this.

.... do you really think Geelong should get a leg up on the opposition just because Nathan's old man was a Geelong man?

Not sure of your point here. If there is any rule that makes us stronger than other clubs Im all for it , should you really need to ask? We used to have a local zone , no longer , this is the only area that one might get a little advantage, small though it is. This advantage though is flukey, its not something you can plan for, Will Billy Brownless's son Oscar be a player? Who knows but im glad if he is we have got the inside running on him.

Anyway there's two problems with your Nablett theory.

1. Most judges had Nablett as a round 2 pick

Remember , its theroetical I used it as example not as fact. In fact I'd defy an judge to seriously be able to place Nathan in the draft when players who played for their state didnt get picked. 3rd round was plenty for him. But who knows. Lets say theirs a panel of 16 , 1 from each club what do you think their going to rate him as, after all its only Geelong who benifits, its in the interest of all other clubs to rate him high.

2. They're not going to apply it retrospectively

As said , im not saying it would effect any past trades but ,lets say, in a couple of years the 06 draft they can rate Tom Hawkins and Paul Couchs son (Tom is it)both 1st Round picks , what do you do then trade for another first Round so you can pick them both.

Every team can access players thru F/S, to bad for the others if our F/S are better than theirs. Interstate teams play 12 home games, Showdowns and Derbys, Ess and Coll have bloody Anzac day. Every teams has little advantages in small area, if this is ours, so be it.

 

[Turbocat]

Just an update. heard the StKilda recruiting manager talking up the same idea as Fremantle on KRock prematch. He basicaly refered to - if a player who would go top 5 (had to be a reference to Smith from Kangas) should cost thae club a first round Draft Pick. He also said how unlucky the Saints had been with guys like Tony Lockett having all girls while the Cats had done well and have another coming thru with Jumping Jacks son.Mean while he thinks that the Priority system is fine the way it is.He thought changing it to a second round pick would almost make it useles as its rare to get a super kid at 17,18
Same old story , protecting your own turf. I bet you if Danny Frawley had a son playing in the TAC expecting him to go top 5 he wouldnt be saying that. The Saints have done well with Priority RORT picks which because of the nature are only good for some why at the same time all teams can access Father Son. They should leave Father Son alone and if they change anything it should be this perpetual scar on our comp the RORT pick

 

[Turbocat]

Another one starts put F/S under the pump

Wallace floats father-son changes
2:06:31 PM Fri 10 June, 2005
Jason Phelan
Sportal for afl.com.au
Richmond coach Terry Wallace has floated the idea of an overhaul of the father-son rule because he believes it can offer too great an advantage to some clubs in its current form.

"I think the father-son rule is a good idea," Wallace said after training at Punt Road on Friday.

"I'm just not convinced about the manner in which it's placed at the moment - I think that it's a massive advantage.

"We've seen sides that have had two, three and four great father/son players all in the same sort of time - it's a huge advantage."

Wallace used his own club's situation at the last draft to illustrate his point and also floated an idea he believed would make the rule fairer.

"We could have had pick one, pick four and Travis Cloke as a third round selection - I'm not sure whether that's biting too much off," Wallace said.
"I'm a little bit of the belief that there ought to be somebody who sits - or a panel that sits - to determine … what that player's worth is.

"There's people that know - people involved with the AIS and the AFL - that know these guys intimately, would know whether they're a first round selection or whether they're a second round selection and that's adjudicated accordingly."
**********
I hear it , I can smell it .they will not be happy until they have changed the only small advantage they we have had over the recent past. Barstards

 

[scottydeewah]

Fremantle should be told it how it is. They are a DISGRACE to the footballing world and the AFL. Their recruiting is bad, their coaches suck, they cant string a two wins together, they are the peranial loser interstate side. They are the Richmond of the West. They shouldnt even be in the AFL let alone have a say in the running of things. FREO WAY TO GO....JESUS....THOSE COLOURS.....ARRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHH

Has this club ever done anything good, useful, amazing? They could not play next year and nobody would even care. Until they have won something, anything even a final they should SH*T THE F*** UP and worry about themselves.

 

[Cap]

I don't think its all interstate teams that agree with Freo - AFC is actually going to be eligbile for a father son next year so we wont to leave it the same !!!

I think leave it as a third round is o.k - lets face it a third round pick is very 50/50 anyhow and teams like to have a history and also build ties with its fans, imagine if you had to start forking out 1st round draft picks for father son players. the fans would be pushing it due ot the link and the club may feel pressured to pick them up, even if there is a better option simply because of the link

I reckon they should leave it as is - realistically how many father sons are there anyhow

 

[lowbo]

good call Capitalist, but still hope your team has a lousy weekend

 

[scottydeewah]

YOU ARE ALL MISSING THE POINT. This came from Fremantle Football Club. The dockers. LOL, cmon people the AFL will never listen to them, the fans dont care about them. They were let into the league so there would be an even number of teams so there wouldnt be a bye. They are truly just here to make up the numbers.

 

[Turbocat]

YOU ARE ALL MISSING THE POINT. This came from Fremantle Football Club. The dockers. LOL, cmon people the AFL will never listen to them, the fans dont care about them. They were let into the league so there would be an even number of teams so there wouldnt be a bye. They are truly just here to make up the numbers.

scotty , hate to say this but if you have alook at my posts . Freo started it, then Stkilda was talking it up, now Wallace from Richmond . Its gaining in momentum. Brisbane will probably be next , those hypocrites. Take Brown on F/S and complain about the rule.
I really dont understand these clubs . Maybe I understand Freo a bit. They look at guys like Glen Jackovich that came from South Fremantle, maybe they figure he should be theirs,they are short sighted but clubs like the Saints and the Tigers ???? Yes sure Richmond missed on Cloke but hey what about Raines, what about Roach and hey the Saints havent had much luck but would they really not like first dibs on a Frawley,Lowee,Locket Jr without having to miss on a Riewoldt.
This has probably come about because of players Jesssie Smith, Mitch Morton who were considered a top ten players lat year and this year there is Marc Murphy who, laughingly, is tied to Brisbane. But who is really going to say they are worth what? A top level committee? A judgement panel? something like the group of experts that judge suspensions now, ohh that will be really good!
Will a club really give up a R1 pick if they finish at the bottom. What would North have done if this great unbiased commitee say "yep, R1" , having finished bottom , would they have given up Pick #1, would they pass on Deludio or Tambling or Franklin to keep a family attachment? Its just wrong

These sumbags will not be happy till we give up our first round pick to get TommyH,

Rack off , all of you , ALL OF YOU

 

[Turbocat]

So here we are again , stirrring up trouble 12 months down the track from when I started this thread. This time its Mathews, who has the gaul to want to change the system when he got a Premiership CHF from it it.
And what crap they want to change it too. Like this quote

"I am talking about what is close. In other words, if he was eligible to go to Adelaide anyway and he was a top draft pick, well Adelaide would have to devote their first choice, whatever that was. If he was really good and their first choice was 15, well they might have to devote their first and second choice or their first and third choice."

This is utter bull as UL mentioned earlier in this post , players picked every year in the draft go earlier or later than predicted. Some state player miss getting picked at all. Can you imagine if TH blows the away at the U18 champs this year and we finsh deep( as I hope to) what will they want our first and second pick in a year that is consider a super year like 2001.
So now we have had Freo, StKilda, Richmond, Brisbane all trying to change what is a very fair system.
Adelaide may or may not have a case for change for Gibbs this year in reguard to qualifing for it but I dont think they have pay or anyone should have to pay more than one pick for any kid. Stupis idea Lethal.

*****

Lethal calls for father-son rules revamp
By Michael Gleeson
March 22, 2006
THE Brisbane Lions have been a beneficiary of the father-son rule corruption of the draft with Jonathan Brown, and narrowly missed out on yet another windfall last year with Marc Murphy, but Lions coach Leigh Matthews has called for an overhaul of the rule to insist clubs pay a fair draft price for priority access to talent.
With the AFL Commission considering a change to eligibility rules to allow the hottest prospect for next year's draft, Bryce Gibbs, to go to Adelaide, Matthews renewed the push for an independent draft panel to be established.
This panel, which has been mooted previously, would assess the likely draft placement of a player and establish an appropriate draft pick a club wishing to take him under the father-son rule would have to use to take him.
"I have always thought that the father-son rule is OK but you should have to devote the draft choice relative to the player's talent," Matthews said. "… The father and son rule works against everything that the draft is all about. The problem is you get these gigantic free kicks, to use a footy analogy, for no particular reason except you are lucky that your father played there."
Matthews acknowledged the club had benefited from the rule in claiming Jonathan Brown (father-son) with pick 30 when he was at the time — like Gibbs this year and Marc Murphy last year — considered to be among the best players in the draft.

"It was obviously stupid last year that we could have got Marc Murphy for pick 41. Why pick 41? No one has ever been able to tell me why it is round three?" he said.
"All the things that have happened in the draft are about trying to remove these anomalies but for some reason, this anomaly about father-son remains.
"I just think in this situation, the Crows might get first choice but they should have to devote the draft choice that is deemed to be about what Bryce Gibbs is worth.
"I am talking about what is close. In other words, if he was eligible to go to Adelaide anyway and he was a top draft pick, well Adelaide would have to devote their first choice, whatever that was. If he was really good and their first choice was 15, well they might have to devote their first and second choice or their first and third choice.
"But I just think that, regardless of the rules and regulations surrounding father and son eligibility that should exist anyway."
He suggested AFL national talent manager Kevin Sheehan could form a panel to make the judgement on what draft pick should be appropriate for a player based on experience and the general estimation of recruiters.
"This is not the first time this has been suggested but the AFL has for some reason put it in the too-hard basket, to date," Matthews said.
The Lions notably missed out on recruiting eventual No. 1 draft pick Nick Riewoldt as a priority local selection as he lived just outside the 50 kilometres metropolitan Brisbane zone.

 

[finrod]

The father-son rule is one of the best things about the AFL and now some sooking bastards are trying to change it. Does anybody think about the fact that players probably want to play for the same club as their father. Just because we have done well with a few father-son picks recently (Scarlett + G Ablett) doesn't mean we will always do well... In fact, the 2 other father-son picks on our list (Blake + N Ablett) have yet to show that they could be worth any better than the 3rd round picks used on them.