Remove this Banner Ad

Smith could be an eligble rookie

  • Thread starter Thread starter ThePope
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

ThePope

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Posts
3,707
Reaction score
436
Location
32º 03'S 115º 45'E
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
South Fremantle
I had heard the phrase "eligble rookie" before, but hadn't really understood what it was. Basically, if you have a full list, and less than 2 veterans outside the list, you can nominate a rookie to be an "eligble rookie" and he can play AFL without needing a player to be injury listed or retire/delist.
I guess that it's a way for clubs without vets to have the same available player group (40 players) as those with veterans. It's how Aaron Davey and Paul Bevan got to play all year without the Demons/Swans having to delist anyone.

Bottom line is that with this rule, Smith can remain on the rookie list, not taking up a spot in our 35(now)/38(after PSD) man primary list but still be able to be played in Rd 1 2005.

For those who came in late.
38 man squad + Dodd + Carr + Black - Simmonds - TLo - Waterhouse - Crowley - Dosnotsowell = 36.

So we need to delist one more before the draft. Of course they can delist as many as they want. But I'd be fairly edgy if my initials were RC. I think Haines may survive, having won the Peel B&F might help, and Edgecumbe might too, as why delist Crowley and Doswell together a few weeks ago, but not Edgecumbe if they were going to delist him?
But, with this snazzy little rule, we don't need to dump 2 players or hope for a long term injury during preseason in order to be able to play Smith in Rd 1.
 
Well Im catholic and I have read Popes messages over the odd year or 2, You wouldnt be far of the mark on your past performance. Will wait with baited breath.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom