by Punk Rooster » Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:47 am
Ralph Wiggum wrote:That's where I saw the leprechaun. He told me to burn things
by blink » Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:48 am
by JK » Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:59 am
by blink » Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:52 am
by JK » Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:00 am
by blink » Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:03 am
Constance_Perm wrote:Crows can select Father/Son from 5 SANFL clubs, and Port the other 4 ...
by Leaping Lindner » Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:09 am
blink wrote:I guess in some ways you look at it, it could could be seen as fair. I assume that the Crows can select those eligble under father-son from every club in the SANFL, except Port Adelaide? Therefore, they have a lot wider talent pool to select from than Victorian clubs, who only have their club to select from.
I guess that is why Crows can only select those who have played 200 SANFL games, rather than the 100 VFL/AFL games that Victorian clubs have.
I guess what gets up my goat is the fact that Collingwood is against making the rules fairer after all their huffing & puffing about making Victorian & interstate clubs more equal!!
by Rik E Boy » Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:14 am
by Leaping Lindner » Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:17 am
Rik E Boy wrote:This is Ross Gibbs' son we are talking about right? So what is the AFL's stance on the Mother/Son rule then.
regards,
REB
by MightyEagles » Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:17 pm
by Rik E Boy » Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:24 pm
MightyEagles wrote:Eagles are under Port Powder.
by Booney » Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:32 pm
MightyEagles wrote:Eagles are under Port Powder.
by sydney-dog » Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:25 pm
by stan » Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:53 am
sydney-dog wrote:I will be suprised if the AFL do not make changes to the Father Son rule
Salary Cap and the draft was introduced to create a level playing field to the competition, the priority pick process is in the process of changing, so I will be suprised if they failed to do the same with the father son rule......
As I live in Syd I have not seen the son of Ross Gibbs play
How good is this kid?
by dinglinga » Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:50 pm
by Wedgie » Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:29 pm
by JK » Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:33 pm
Wedgie wrote:As CP says, its just a temporary thing but I'd be extremely suprised if its as unfair as the Advertiser makes out, I'd be interested on seeing exact figures of how many player's would have a son eligible under the rules. I think I saw a post on bigfooty once detailing the exact mathematics and it was suprisingly fair showing how many fathers were eligible for each club.
The Crows trying to change the rules so games count after they were formed for another club is absolutely ridiculous, hopefully sanity prevails and that doesn't change.
Having said that, with the way the AFL is so contrived and is more a business than a sport I don't see a huge need for the rule. Ideally it would become more of sport again and clubs could have selected zones similar to youngsters in the SANFL. Itd be a nightmare to setup with the amound of Melbourne based clubs and would be nice if Geelong could somehow get Jonathan Brown back into the area!
by Wedgie » Sun Mar 26, 2006 4:02 pm
Constance_Perm wrote:Accordingto Cornesy's article yesterday, the West Coast Eagles managed to pickup Ben Cousins under the rule even though his old man played his VFL career (60-odd game from memory) with Geelong .. Not sure how that worked (neither was Cornsey)??
by sydney-dog » Sun Mar 26, 2006 5:11 pm
by Wedgie » Sun Mar 26, 2006 5:36 pm
sydney-dog wrote:Wedgie
based on your thought process, let's hope sanity prevails
lets make the number of games played on the qualification for the qualification criteria standard across all clubs, your view is a typical Victorian view, how can you have 100 games for Victorian Clubs, 150 for WA Clubs and 200 for SA Clubs
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |