PDA

View Full Version : Father-son rules change opens up options



Greystache
25-07-2012, 12:21 AM
http://static.lifeislocal.com.au/multimedia/images/large/1945414.jpg

CLUBS will have the option of recruiting father-son prospects as rookies during this year's draft process, in a rule change that will help borderline prospects reach their father's club.

The AFL decided at its commission meeting last month to alter the father-son rules so that an eligible player overlooked in the national draft can be prelisted by their father's club ahead of the subsequent rookie draft.

Clubs will not need to nominate these players as father-son prospects at the start of the trade period, as they do with those they intend to draft, but they will be required to indicate their interest in taking them on as a rookie.

For instance, Essendon will this year nominate Joe Daniher as a father-son draftee, and be forced to use a first-round pick on the 201-centimetre ruckman/forward as part of the bidding process.

Hypothetically, the Bombers could also indicate their interest in Jordan Williams, the 18-year-old son of 109-game rover Darren, who plays for the Eastern Ranges in the TAC Cup.

If Essendon nominated Williams, a midfielder, it would have to use its final choice in the draft on him, as Geelong and Carlton did with Jed Bews and Dylan Buckley last year.

Simply indicating the club's interest in him would mean taking the risk that he would pass through the national draft unselected, then prelisting him using the club's last rookie list spot.

The rule change fits with the overall point of of the father-son bidding system - which determines a prospect's ''market worth'' - and with the rule enabling the northern clubs to prelist players from their local zones ahead of the rookie draft.

Last year, Gold Coast and Sydney used this rule to prelist Josh Hall and Harry Cunningham as rookies. Had this rule been in place last year, the Bombers would have been able to secure Sam Dunell, the son of former premiership player Frank, with its last rookie pick, denying St Kilda the chance to choose him.

Dunell, who has played in the Saints' last two games after being elevated from the rookie list, was overlooked by all clubs in the national draft before being picked up as the No. 12 rookie.

Tom Fields (Essendon), Jydon Neagle (Essendon) and Jackson Starcevich (Collingwood) are other rookie possibilities this year, with Daniher, Jack Viney (Melbourne), Lachlan Hunter (Western Bulldogs), James Stewart (Collingwood) and Jordon Bourke (Geelong) the leading father-son prospects.

Essendon and Melbourne have already committed to nominating Daniher and Viney, while the Bulldogs, Magpies and Cats must determine what they believe Hunter and Stewart to be worth before deciding whether to nominate them.

Bourke, who can also be signed or traded by the Suns as a zone player, will play the first of two games for the Geelong VFL side against Bendigo on Saturday, a curtain-raiser for the senior side's game against Adelaide.

Link (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/fatherson-rules-change-opens-up-options-20120724-22nk6.html)

bornadog
25-07-2012, 08:50 AM
I would take Hunter as a rookie pick, if he is worth that? Haven't seen much of him but from reports he hasn't set the world on fire.

Sockeye Salmon
25-07-2012, 09:08 AM
I would take Hunter as a rookie pick, if he is worth that? Haven't seen much of him but from reports he hasn't set the world on fire.

He looked pretty ordinary to me but I've only seen him twice. He has a December birth date so he is nearly bottom age, though.

LostDoggy
25-07-2012, 09:13 AM
The change means little.
Not sure there will be no bids for L Hunter.

The change I want is you get some sort of compensation if your father has played even 1 game.
2 Rieds, Hanaberry and Smedts would be nice right now. Miss anyone?

bornadog
25-07-2012, 09:41 AM
The change means little.
Not sure there will be no bids for L Hunter.

The change I want is you get some sort of compensation if your father has played even 1 game.
2 Rieds, Hanaberry and Smedts would be nice right now. Miss anyone?

I don't know why the hell they changed it from 50 to 100 games. The AFL makes things up as it goes along and doesn't think - full stop.

You can add Alex Rance

bulldogsman
25-07-2012, 11:35 AM
I would take Hunter as a rookie pick, if he is worth that? Haven't seen much of him but from reports he hasn't set the world on fire.

He's not as bad as what he showed in the last two games of the champs. He still managed to play every game (pretty sure?) in a very strong vic metro team, he's at least worth a rookie draft pick. I think we will get him with our last pick in the main draft.

G-Mo77
25-07-2012, 11:40 AM
He's not as bad as what he showed in the last two games of the champs. He still managed to play every game (pretty sure?) in a very strong vic metro team, he's at least worth a rookie draft pick. I think we will get him with our last pick in the main draft.

This.

mjp
25-07-2012, 12:22 PM
I don't know why the hell they changed it from 50 to 100 games. The AFL makes things up as it goes along and doesn't think - full stop.

You can add Alex Rance

To be fair, Rance jr should be at WC not WB - Swan Districts boy.

I still say 100 games is fair.

Scraggers
25-07-2012, 12:36 PM
To be fair, Rance jr should be at WC not WB - Swan Districts boy.

I still say 100 games is fair.

Murray Rance played 40 games for us and 57 for WCE

I agree mjp, 100 is fair.

LostDoggy
25-07-2012, 12:54 PM
To be fair, Rance jr should be at WC not WB - Swan Districts boy.

I still say 100 games is fair.
I'm saying something like 100 games gives you a 100% chance if you want him you can get him.
50 games gives you a less chance but better than any normal draft.
Even 1 game should be better chance a normal draft pick.
Eg if the father played 1-10 games and you want him. You must use a top 10 pick.

bornadog
25-07-2012, 01:02 PM
I still say 100 games is fair.


Murray Rance played 40 games for us and 57 for WCE

I agree mjp, 100 is fair.

Why 100?

Scraggers
25-07-2012, 01:17 PM
Edit ... It took me a while to find it ... Murray Rance also played 140 games for Swan Districts.

Scraggers
25-07-2012, 01:19 PM
Why 100?

The line has to be drawn somewhere ... 100 games means they have been at the club for at least 5 seasons (more than likely more than that). This is a substantial chunk of a players career.

bornadog
25-07-2012, 01:19 PM
The line has to be drawn somewhere ... 100 games means they have been at the club for at least 5 seasons (more than likely more than that).

and ? I couldn't see anything wrong with 50 games.

Scraggers
25-07-2012, 01:22 PM
and ? I couldn't see anything wrong with 50 games.

Your too quick ... Let me edit :D

Barry Hall played 88 games for St. Kilda, 162 for Sydney, and 39 for us ... He may consider himself a Bulldog, but the stats say otherwise.

LostDoggy
25-07-2012, 01:25 PM
Edit ... It took me a while to find it ... Murray Rance also played 140 games for Swan Districts.

If we include state leagues then we should have had dibs on Dane Swan as his father was at our feeder Williamstown(as well port).

bornadog
25-07-2012, 01:35 PM
If we include state leagues then we should have had dibs on Dane Swan as his father was at our feeder Williamstown(as well port).

Drawing a long bow with that one:D

Scraggers
25-07-2012, 01:58 PM
If we include state leagues then we should have had dibs on Dane Swan as his father was at our feeder Williamstown(as well port).

This was a rule brought in by the AFL when the West Coast E-Girls and Brisbane Bears first came into the AFL ... The clubs (particularly WCE) thought they would never have the opportunity to pick up father/son prospects without some sort of compensation on the rules.

My understanding is it is only valid for interstate teams.

Sockeye Salmon
25-07-2012, 02:21 PM
Now that there is a bidding system in place I don't understand what would be wrong with having the limit 1 game?

Mofra
25-07-2012, 03:36 PM
Now that there is a bidding system in place I don't understand what would be wrong with having the limit 1 game?
Very valid point - the 100 games rule change was well before any bidding system

soupman
02-08-2012, 09:16 AM
Now that there is a bidding system in place I don't understand what would be wrong with having the limit 1 game?

I think the issue is that it has too much potential to compromise the integrity of the draft pool. The draft is about giving clubs a fair chance at any player available at their pick. Giving clubs priority access to any son of an ex player, from 1 game to 400, means that many more players become eligible and we are no longer jut talking about players that supporters care about.

The father son rule was brought in to help keep the romance of a club legends son playing for the same team, if you bring the limit down to one game it begins to compromise the draft. 50 games may still be alright, but anything below that is pushing it. Why should we get priority access to Cameron Wights sons? Or Mulligans? And we certainly shouldn't have equal rights to Nicky Winmars kids.

Besides, how much of this thread is driven by the fact we missed out on a couple of Reid's and a Rance?