Rookie List Rule Changes

[4n20]

The Afl is considering making changes to the rookie list rules.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/85502/default.aspx

AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said on Wednesday the AFL had written to clubs outlining three potential changes to the rules, beginning with the 2009 NAB AFL Rookie Draft to be held in December.

The AFL will consider extending until the end of the 2012 season the current rule allowing clubs to select an additional two rookies.

The second proposal is that clubs be allowed to select up to two mature-age rookies until the end of the 2012 season.

Finally, it is also proposed that clubs be able to retain a rookie list player for a third season without having to enter the draft, subject to the player being given the option to nominate for the draft.



The commission will make a final decision on the recommendations at its meeting on October 19.

 

[bigkev bleeds purple]

Wow... If that goes through, I hope the club goes back to Luke Pratt with a contract and an apology.

 

[pistol17]

Wow... If that goes through, I hope the club goes back to Luke Pratt with a contract and an apology.

An apology? Dont think so... The guy was ok but nothing spectacular, i'd rather give the spot to someone who isnt a defensive mid. If crowley wasnt injured this year he would never have played. WAFL player.

But good news clubs can take 2 mature rookies. Well they looking at it anyway. If thats the case who in the WAFL would or should we look at?

 

[IbbosBFF]

Awesome news if it goes through

 

[Clay Davis]

So ... the reason why Pratt was cut was because you're only allowed to hold on to rookies for two years at a time before you have to delist them and redraft them (if necessary)?

 

[4n20]

So ... the reason why Pratt was cut was because you're only allowed to hold on to rookies for two years at a time before you have to delist them and redraft them (if necessary)?

Im not sure if there was any official reason given why he was delisted....and they definitely gave no indication that they intended on re-rookieing him. Why would they anyway?.

 

[dominguez]

Im not sure if there was any official reason given why he was delisted....and they definitely gave no indication that they intended on re-rookieing him. Why would they anyway?.

I rate Pratt. He's a no nonsense backman who gets the job done and lays plenty of tackles, where as Suban, Broughton, Pearce, etc play more of an attacking role frrom half back.

 

[4n20]

I rate Pratt. He's a no nonsense backman who gets the job done and lays plenty of tackles, where as Suban, Broughton, Pearce, etc play more of an attacking role frrom half back.

Dont get me wrong there.

When i said "Why would they?", i meant why would they give any reason for delisting him and publicising the fact that they intend to re-rookie him.

Ive only seen Pratt play once,against the Blues, and thought he played reasonable enough to deserve another crack.

 

[Clay Davis]

What I was getting at was that there was some criticism of the club for delisting him, but it seems to me that the rules are that if you've been on a rookie list for two year, you have to be delisted or upgraded to the senior list. The club then has the option to redraft the rookie or not.

If that's the case, then the criticism of the club was unwarranted.