This Father/son nonsense

[CyberKev]

Well, the Adelaide muck rags were awash with hometown sooking over the AFL's alteration to the father/son rule.

They haven't got a leg to stand on if you ask me.

The whole point of the f/s rule, is to allow continuity for families whereby sons (when good enough) are permitted easy access to the side their fathers' played for.

To this end, having a father play for Glenelg does not provide continuity by allowing the son to play for the Adelaide Crows!

I'm sorry, but its bulltosh!

When the WA & SA AFL clubs start getting viable sons arising out of father's who played for Port Power, the Crows, The Eagles & the Dockers, then - and only then - should those clubs be permitted access to f/s selections.

If this is seen to disadvantage such clubs then stiff bikkies! Its not as if they don't already have other considerable advantages over the Melbourne-based clubs.

 

[roosters06]

Well, the Adelaide muck rags were awash with hometown sooking over the AFL's alteration to the father/son rule.

They haven't got a leg to stand on if you ask me.

The whole point of the f/s rule, is to allow continuity for families whereby sons (when good enough) are permitted easy access to the side their fathers' played for.

To this end, having a father play for Glenelg does not provide continuity by allowing the son to play for the Adelaide Crows!

I'm sorry, but its bulltosh!

When the WA & SA AFL clubs start getting viable sons arising out of father's who played for Port Power, the Crows, The Eagles & the Dockers, then - and only then - should those clubs be permitted access to f/s selections.

If this is seen to disadvantage such clubs then stiff bikkies! Its not as if they don't already have other considerable advantages over the Melbourne-based clubs.

It is a disadvantage. Imagine if Hawthorn had only been in the AFL for the last twenty years. How would you like it if the AFL said - "I'm sorry - you can't pick Joe Bloggs because he only played for Box Hill in the VFL - it doesnt count"

What the AFL need to do is to work out a scheme, whereby the amount of qualifying games for Melbourne clubs is left the same, but for Freo, Adelaide etc, it is worked out on a pro rata basis.

This "stiff bikkies" routine doesn't wash with me. It is unfair, and the AFL are, apparantly, all about evening things out (look at the Clash Jumpuer argument).

 

[Twizzle]

the new clubs got enough concenssions when they came in the league, the hand out has to stop somewhere

its is a touchy situation, but where do you draw the line at having different rules for diffeerent clubs

 

[roosters06]

the new clubs got enough concenssions when they came in the league, the hand out has to stop somewhere

its is a touchy situation, but where do you draw the line at having different rules for diffeerent clubs

so they did. I was rightly pissed off when the Lions got to keep their cap concessions despite winning three flags straight - but this is a different matter. It is quite simply not fair to say to a club - "this guy played 150 SAFL games and 22 AFL games for you - sorry, thats not enough."

Their has to be a pro-rata system in there somewhere.

 

[CyberKev]

It is a disadvantage. Imagine if Hawthorn had only been in the AFL for the last twenty years. How would you like it if the AFL said - "I'm sorry - you can't pick Joe Bloggs because he only played for Box Hill in the VFL - it doesnt count"

I'd accept it for what it is.

Box Hill is NOT Hawthorn AND Glenelg is decidedly removed from the Adelaide Crows.

To use the Gibbs example...

Bryce's father never played for the Crows and the link between Glenelg and the Crows is an arbitrary one intended primarily to give the Crows SANFL teams (of which Glenelg is one) to send players to when they're not getting a game with the top side.

Again.

The father/son rule was invented to allow continuity for sons to play AT THE SAME CLUB that their fathers played for.

Talk of disadvantage is totally irrelevant to the nature of, and reasoning behind, the rule.

Hawthorn, as with the other VFL clubs who came into existence, had to struggle hard to get anywhere in the revised comp. the new additions to the AFL have got a very, very cushy ride by comparison.

Making nonsense concessions like this that work against the meaning and spirit of a rule, just to try for some arbitrary sense of parity is a farce.

 

[roosters06]

I'd accept it for what it is.

Box Hill is NOT Hawthorn AND Glenelg is decidedly removed from the Adelaide Crows.

To use the Gibbs example...

Bryce's father never played for the Crows and the link between Glenelg and the Crows is an arbitrary one intended primarily to give the Crows SANFL teams (of which Glenelg is one) to send players to when they're not getting a game with the top side.

Again.

The father/son rule was invented to allow continuity for sons to play AT THE SAME CLUB that their fathers played for.

Talk of disadvantage is totally irrelevant to the nature of, and reasoning behind, the rule.

Hawthorn, as with the other VFL clubs who came into existence, had to struggle hard to get anywhere in the revised comp. the new additions to the AFL have got a very, very cushy ride by comparison.

Making nonsense concessions like this that work against the meaning and spirit of a rule, just to try for some arbitrary sense of parity is a farce.

Its not against the meaning of a rule.

The exact same situation exists with Box Hill and Hawthorn. Box Hill are a feeder club of the Hawks, a place to send players to get some game time - as you put it.

The fact is - times have changed. To stick to a rule so resolutely as it was written decades ago is a complete farce. Laws change with the times, why can't simple things like a little sporting rule do the same?

 

[CyberKev]

Its not against the meaning of a rule.

It absolutely is!

The exact same situation exists with Box Hill and Hawthorn. Box Hill are a feeder club of the Hawks, a place to send players to get some game time - as you put it.

But Hawthorn doesn't get to claim sons of fathers who have played for Box Hill under f/s and nor should they.

The fact is - times have changed. To stick to a rule so resolutely as it was written decades ago is a complete farce. Laws change with the times, why can't simple things like a little sporting rule do the same?

The rule was put in place for a reason.

This reason had NOTHING to do with matters of equity or cross competition fairness. It was invented purely in recognition of the potential impact a club can have on families, and was meant to allow sons (if they get to be good enough) to play AT THE SAME CLUB that their fathers once played at.

Bryce Gibbs' father played for GLENELG, he did not play for the ADELAIDE CROWS (which didn't exist at that point). Whereas there is correlation between Travis Tuck playing at Hawthorn as his father once did, there is ZERO correlation between Bryce Gibbs playing for Adelaide and his father once playing for Glenelg.

You speak of disadvantage, so why should Port be disadavantaged out of this? Glenelg was initially linked with Port, until several ex-Glenelg players led an action to have the arbitrary linkage shifted to the Crows. These players had no affiliation with the Crows NOR did they have any great love for them, they simply disliked the Port Magpies more.

Its also worth considering how many Adelaide Crows fans (of those old enough) had a dislike for, or indifference toward, the Glenelg SANFL side before the Crows came into existence. These persons would have had precious little regard for Gibbs senior, but take it as a right that Gibbs junior should be at their club simply because his father once played in the city of Adelaide.

Again, the father/son rule never had any illusions about equity and fairness. It was always perfectly possible that one side could get 10 father/son selections in a generation, while another side could get none. Alternatively, one side could get 8 (all of which could be duds) while another club could get 1 who turns out to be an absolute champion.

The rule should be the same for all clubs. Once a father has played 100 games for a club, his son(s) are eligible to be taken by THAT CLUB under the f/s rule.

If Adelaide, West Coast, Port & Freo have to wait a bit longer to get their first genuinely eligible players under the rule, then so be it.

 

[roosters06]

The rule should be the same for all clubs. Once a father has played 100 games for a club, his son(s) are eligible to be taken by THAT CLUB under the f/s rule.

But that places some clubs at a disadvantage, in an era where the AFL is all about equality. You may not like it - but things like the salary cap and the draft are all about making the competition as close as possible.

By alienating Adelaide, West Coast, Port Adelaide and Fremantle, you are undoing all the work the AFL has done to take the game to the area, and make it the number one sport.

If Adelaide, West Coast, Port & Freo have to wait a bit longer to get their first genuinely eligible players under the rule, then so be it.

Explain to me exactly why the present interstate sides should be disadvantaged because of the views of previous administrators who felt that the competition should soley remain Victorian?

 

[CyberKev]

But that places some clubs at a disadvantage, in an era where the AFL is all about equality. You may not like it - but things like the salary cap and the draft are all about making the competition as close as possible.

Again. Its too bad if it places clubs at a disadvantage, as the rule was never intended to be equitable and NOR should it be.

I'm one of the biggest supporters of the AFLs efforts to ensure a strong, close and vibrant competition, but this rule has always been seperate from other AFL measures.

That said, you will never get a totally even competition and it should be noted that the non-VIC clubs already have considerable advantages over the Melbourne-based sides. These clubs also got things massively easier than clubs like Hawthorn, the Hounds and the Kangaroos did when they joined the competition.

By alienating Adelaide, West Coast, Port Adelaide and Fremantle, you are undoing all the work the AFL has done to take the game to the area, and make it the number one sport.

Alienating, poppycock!

AGAIN.

The father/son rule is all about lineage and emotional attachments, its about: fans admiring a player's achievements at THEIR CLUB; its about sons worshipping their father's achievements at THAT CLUB; its about sons getting the chance to follow in the footsteps at THAT CLUB; and about the fans revelling in the romance of the son of a past idol playing at THEIR CLUB.

The father either played AT THE CLUB in question or he didn't.

Otherwise you make a total mockery of the rule and the spirit behind it.

Explain to me exactly why the present interstate sides should be disadvantaged because of the views of previous administrators who felt that the competition should soley remain Victorian?

And again the disadvantage angle is where you're falling down.

For the 158th time, the rule was never intended to be equitable. This is why some sides have had a lot more father/son selections than others. It doesn't even bring sides who do get them guarantees that the chosen players will succeed.

The only thing that the father/son rule should do is ensure that young players have the opportunity for direct access to a club, provided their father completed the eligibility requirements at THAT CLUB. That was all it was intended to do and it is all it should do.

I'd rather there wasn't a rule at all, rather than to see it degraded and cheapened by allowing newer clubs cheap access to players whose father's had zero affiliation with the club, just for loose and contrived equity purposes.

Richmond, Hawthorn Footscray & North Melbourne all came to the party late, did their time and put in the hard yards.

The newer AFL clubs can do the same and earn themselves genuine father/son picks that are true to the nature and spirit of the father/son notion.

 

[CyberKev]

Explain to me exactly why the present interstate sides should be disadvantaged because of the views of previous administrators who felt that the competition should soley remain Victorian?

Already have...

Maybe you could explain to me why clubs who have put the hard yards in developing and nurturing the fathers as players over many years prior to eventually snaring a viable son, wouldn't feel disadvantaged by a club like Adelaide snaring a son like Gibbs despite having ZERO association with his father and investing absolutely ZERO time and resources into his father's elite footballing career?

 

[roosters06]

Already have...

Maybe you could explain to me why clubs who have put the hard yards in developing and nurturing the fathers as players over many years prior to eventually snaring a viable son, wouldn't feel disadvantaged by a club like Adelaide snaring a son like Gibbs despite having ZERO association with his father and investing absolutely ZERO time and resources into his father's elite footballing career?

They couldn't possibly invest time and resources that is the point. IMHO the father-son rule is bollocks anyway.

The draft ensures the equal distribution of talent according to previous performance. All the Father son rule does is to distort that.

 

[meltiger]

I can give you one example Roosters to back up what Kev is saying from my own club.


Look at Matthew Richardson, now like him or not, one thing people cannot deny, is that the bloke BLEEDS yellow and black. Why shouldn't the Richmond Football Club have had a chance to pick him up before all the other clubs (As we did)

 

[CyberKev]

I can give you one example Roosters to back up what Kev is saying from my own club.


Look at Matthew Richardson, now like him or not, one thing people cannot deny, is that the bloke BLEEDS yellow and black. Why shouldn't the Richmond Football Club have had a chance to pick him up before all the other clubs (As we did)

Good example.

Bull Richardson snr was a player who typified the tough, no-nonsense nature of the RFC during his time there and ensured that he was well regarded in the Tiger fanbase consciousness thereafter as a consequence.

That emotional attachment would have flowed down through his family and been taken in by Matthew. Of course he would've wanted to play for Richmond and the Tiger fans wouldn't have wanted it any other way. The prospect of Richo being at any other club is ludicrous.

Its this sense of flow that the father/son rule is trying to perpetuate, and I think its great for the clubs and the game.

Later this season, Hawthorn will become the first club to the f/s rule into a third generation when they pick-up young Joshua Kennedy. His Grandfather is a multiple premiership coach regarded by many as the most iconic figure the club has had and his father is a multiple premiership player who was seen as an unsung hero of the great 1980s Hawk sides in which he played over 200 games. He's not the sort of player who should be lobbing-up at Collingwood or Essendon, clearly!

You can bet dollars to donuts that the Adelaide fans of tomorrow would be fit to riot if Riccuito jnr was sent to play for Carlton. Unlike with Gibbs, they would have a genuine emotional association and if that's bad for the code I'll go home to gravox!

 

[meltiger]

You can bet dollars to donuts that the Adelaide fans of tomorrow would be fit to riot if Riccuito jnr was sent to play for Carlton. Unlike with Gibbs, they would have a genuine emotional association

Spot on.

 

[meltiger]

We can also always mention that the father-son rule doesn't always work and clubs do waste valuable picks on them.

Shane Tuck is a prime example.

Michael played more than 400 games for Hawthorn, of course they should have first shot at this kids. Now with the younger son, from all reports, he is going to be a gun for the Hawks, but you cannot possibly argue they didn't get burnt with Shane.

They wasted a valuable pick drafting him, only to watch him tread water and do basically nothing and get delisted. It's only since he's come to Richmond that he has been able to realise his potential.


& I'd certainly argue long and hard that playing in his fathers huge footsteps at the Hawks was what stopped him from coming on originally.


For every success story, there is a failure too.