Player Watch Sam Darcy

[_Mike_]

I have no idea how the MRO arrived at high impact when Maynard was fine to take his kick. Surely they challenge and at least get it down to one?

Doesn’t really matter in that aspect , a suspension renders a player ineligible no matter how many weeks. It was a late bump under the rules and it will get what it deserves

As long as there is consistency in its application it is what it is

 

[3207]

There aren't too many blokes who could have taken that hit and stayed awake, it was solid

On SM-A225F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Wasn’t that hard. Would back 97% of AFL players to have not had an issue with it.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Wasn’t that hard. Would back 97% of AFL players to have not had an issue with it.

Uh huh [emoji38]



On SM-A225F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Uh huh [emoji38]



On SM-A225F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Still don’t know what the 50m was for.

 

[3207]

Uh huh [emoji38]



On SM-A225F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Stand by it. That wasn’t that hard. Not many AFL players would’ve stayed down.

Very, very few.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Doesn’t really matter in that aspect , a suspension renders a player ineligible no matter how many weeks. It was a late bump under the rules and it will get what it deserves

As long as there is consistency in its application it is what it is

Not arguing about a suspension, just don't have any idea how they could say it was high impact and presumably arguing it down to medium/low would drop it down from the two weeks it currently stands at.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

It's a great rule. Just like the academies and NGA, though I feel NGA needs to be tightened.

The problem is clubs bundling up shit second rounders to get top talent. Fix the draft pick points curve and force clubs to actually pay up for these players.

I hate it. With academies, and to a lesser extent free agency, they are the biggest distortions to the equity of the league. I did used to like it, in the 90s I guess, but once the draft was implemented it needed to go.
But it's an historical artefact people feel nostalgic about, and the AFL seems beholden to it. So at least they could simplify and make it fairer. Firstly, it's first round only and one kid only, sorry if you've got twins or two great academy kids. Secondly, you give up a first round pick, this year's if you have it, otherwise next year's. If you have neither you can't match the bid. Finally, that pick is given to the team that bid, their compensation for losing access to the player.
It's a bonus for the team that gets their gun still for a cheap price, and a bonus for the team that lost the opportunity. For later rounds, trade up if you want them.

 

[_Mike_]

Not arguing about a suspension, just don't have any idea how they could say it was high impact and presumably arguing it down to medium/low would drop it down from the two weeks it currently stands at.

They’re looking at the intent and harm likely to be caused by the bump. Not the actual result IMO

 

[ashep]

Just checking, are all the fans of VIC teams who think F/S is great the same lot crying about academies?

 

[ashep]

They’re looking at the intent and harm likely to be caused by the bump. Not the actual result IMO

But then you've got the Parker decision which is nearly entirely due to the result.

 

[_Mike_]

But then you've got the Parker decision which is nearly entirely due to the result.

It’s chook lotto. Who the **** knows these days

 

[OniAu]

Just checking, are all the fans of VIC teams who think F/S is great the same lot crying about academies?

Do the teams with academies not have access to F/S?

 

[Doggy Dan]

Do the teams with academies not have access to F/S?

They have access to their own father sons and everyone else’s apparently. Never saw Blakey in a Swans guernsey.

 

[OniAu]

They have access to their own father sons and everyone else’s apparently. Never saw Blakey in a Swans guernsey.

Oh interstate teams cant breed because of all the flying , with ya now

Id hate the thought of Darcy playing for the Roos instead of the dogs.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

I hate it. With academies, and to a lesser extent free agency, they are the biggest distortions to the equity of the league. I did used to like it, in the 90s I guess, but once the draft was implemented it needed to go.
But it's an historical artefact people feel nostalgic about, and the AFL seems beholden to it. So at least they could simplify and make it fairer. Firstly, it's first round only and one kid only, sorry if you've got twins or two great academy kids. Secondly, you give up a first round pick, this year's if you have it, otherwise next year's. If you have neither you can't match the bid. Finally, that pick is given to the team that bid, their compensation for losing access to the player.
It's a bonus for the team that gets their gun still for a cheap price, and a bonus for the team that lost the opportunity. For later rounds, trade up if you want them.

The system works fine right now, clubs just aren’t paying enough for this top end talent. Fix the points system and even remove the discount and give clubs something to think about when they match.

No way GC should’ve been able to land all of their academy members so easily last year. Pick 4, Chol and Hollands should be barely enough for a player like Walter let alone the other three.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

The system works fine right now, clubs just aren’t paying enough for this top end talent. Fix the points system and even remove the discount and give clubs something to think about when they match.

No way GC should’ve been able to land all of their academy members so easily last year. Pick 4, Chol and Hollands should be barely enough for a player like Walter let alone the other three.

Lol, did you read what you wrote? Does it work fine if you "just" have to fix the points system and remove the discount?
It doesn't need to be so complicated, with picks disappearing into the ether (while free agency creates them out of thin air). One first round pick for one first round kid.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Lol, did you read what you wrote? Does it work fine if you "just" have to fix the points system and remove the discount?
It doesn't need to be so complicated, with picks disappearing into the ether (while free agency creates them out of thin air). One first round pick for one first round kid.

I meant the bidding system is fine. Your ideas just wouldn’t work in practice. Why should a kid be tied to a club at pick 18 but not pick 19? Why should the bidding club receive another first round pick from the academy club for simply bidding on a player?

Just fix the points curve and force clubs to actually pay up for these players. The benefit is having first dibs, not getting them cheaply.

 

[The 747]

Just checking, are all the fans of VIC teams who think F/S is great the same lot crying about academies?

Not sure you really thought this through.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

I meant the bidding system is fine. Your ideas just wouldn’t work in practice. Why should a kid be tied to a club at pick 18 but not pick 19? Why should the bidding club receive another first round pick from the academy club for simply bidding on a player?

Just fix the points curve and force clubs to actually pay up for these players. The benefit is having first dibs, not getting them cheaply.

Because we don't want so many kids "tied" to clubs. One per draft is fine. The draft works best when there is minimal interference to the concept that the best kids go to the worst clubs. It also works better if you don't just extract multiple picks from it for single players.
The easiest way to force clubs to pay fairish value for players is to make them use the pick they have in the first round for that player.
You shouldn't need the father-son/academy rule for kids in later rounds. If you really want them, trade up for them.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Because we don't want so many kids "tied" to clubs. One per draft is fine. The draft works best when there is minimal interference to the concept that the best kids go to the worst clubs. It also works better if you don't just extract multiple picks from it for single players.
The easiest way to force clubs to pay fairish value for players is to make them use the pick they have in the first round for that player.
You shouldn't need the father-son/academy rule for kids in later rounds. If you really want them, trade up for them.

That's how you end up with blokes like Heeney going for pick 18.

Points system will work when they weight it correctly and when they do that there will be less instances of multiple top rated kids going to one club because they simply won't have enough currency to do so.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

That's how you end up with blokes like Heeney going for pick 18.

Points system will work when they weight it correctly and when they do that there will be less instances of multiple top rated kids going to one club because they simply won't have enough currency to do so.

How do you make them pay fair value? They don't have the currency to pay for a pick 2 player. Chuck in pick 37 & 38, it's still not enough. Presumably they have to downgrade next year's pick?
It's all so unnecessarily complicated. If you want to add in this random element of luck in to the draft, limit it and keep it simple. Do we really need to encourage trading for junk picks that just disappear, to achieve effectively the same thing - Sydney get Heeney for pick 18, and they use picks in the 40s or 50s instead of the 30s?

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

How do you make them pay fair value? They don't have the currency to pay for a pick 2 player. Chuck in pick 37 & 38, it's still not enough. Presumably they have to downgrade next year's pick?
It's all so unnecessarily complicated. If you want to add in this random element of luck in to the draft, limit it and keep it simple. Do we really need to encourage trading for junk picks that just disappear, to achieve effectively the same thing - Sydney get Heeney for pick 18, and they use picks in the 40s or 50s instead of the 30s?

In a fairer system where the draft pick point value is weighted correctly, GC for example would probably have to hold onto pick 4 and even add something to it to select a player like Walter. Then when Read is bid on at 9 they have to really stretch themselves, probably losing their future first and another pick to make up fair points. By the time it gets to Rogers and Graham they have nothing left and other clubs can snap them up.

I used this example on the Carlton board, Ben Camporeale will likely be bid on between 12-25, but if a club decides to take a punt at pick 8 we will still match because it is a no brainer at that value. We will trade down our first and bundle up a bunch of crap second round picks regardless, however if we had to stump up a pick 8 or equivalent (two late firsts?) we would need to have a genuine think about it. The discount makes it even easier.

Academies are important because we need top end talent playing and staying in Northern States but right now it is too far in their favour. FS less important but still a cool rule imo. NGA’s are a bit of a rort, there’s no way JUH should’ve got to the Dogs so easily but there’d be less push back if the Dogs needed to hand over two top 10 picks for him.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

In a fairer system where the draft pick point value is weighted correctly, GC for example would probably have to hold onto pick 4 and even add something to it to select a player like Walter. Then when Read is bid on at 9 they have to really stretch themselves, probably losing their future first and another pick to make up fair points. By the time it gets to Rogers and Graham they have nothing left and other clubs can snap them up.

I used this example on the Carlton board, Ben Camporeale will likely be bid on between 12-25, but if a club decides to take a punt at pick 8 we will still match because it is a no brainer at that value. We will trade down our first and bundle up a bunch of crap second round picks regardless, however if we had to stump up a pick 8 or equivalent (two late firsts?) we would need to have a genuine think about it. The discount makes it even easier.

Academies are important because we need top end talent playing and staying in Northern States but right now it is too far in their favour. FS less important but still a cool rule imo. NGA’s are a bit of a rort, there’s no way JUH should’ve got to the Dogs so easily but there’d be less push back if the Dogs needed to hand over two top 10 picks for him.

Or, they can only match Walter and if they trade out pick 4, they use next year's 1st rd pick. The other players are available to all clubs.
If Carlton win the flag, they get Camporeale for pick 18.
The only real difference is GC don't get Read.

 

[Sentinel]

But then you've got the Parker decision which is nearly entirely due to the result.

They factor in "potential to cause injury" for a high bump (which this one was deemed to be) in assessing impact level. In Parker's case, the potential was actually realised.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Or, they can only match Walter and if they trade out pick 4, they use next year's 1st rd pick. The other players are available to all clubs.
If Carlton win the flag, they get Camporeale for pick 18.
The only real difference is GC don't get Read.

That just benefits the clubs at the top of the ladder even more.