SA Footy

Despite the fact that I
a) support Collingwood
b) don't buy into the "us vs them" siege mentality
nothing infuriates me more than the unfairness of the father/son rule- it is a joke. I understand it, that a Melbourne based club can claim any player under the f/s rule, as long as he played 100 games for the club- ok, fair enough. But why then, must a Crows/Power ( I use these examples, as I know their current rulings) player have to have played 200 games, within a certain period? It's just ludicrous, or a sick joke. Surely this would not stack up in court? I believe the WA clubs have a 150 game qualifying period (I may be wrong).
As I said, I don't follow the Crows or Power, but this ruling eats away at the "fair play" part of me. The AFL needs to bring in a uniform law- you play 150 games for a club (or more), your father's club gives up it's second/third round pick for you.

I am pretty sure the ruling for the Crows is 200 SANFL games between 1970 & 1990.

Ross Gibbs played 191 games for Glenelg during this period, which therefore rules Bryce Gibbs ineligble to be picked up under the father-son rule.

For his career he played 253 games between 1975 & 1993(?)

Seems a bit harsh that the Crows cannot pick him up under this rule. Also seems ironic that Collingwood kick & scream about salary cap concessions for Brisbane/Sydney not being fair for all in the league, when they blatantly oppose making the father-son rule fairer for all in the AFL.

As I understand it, the Father/Son rule as it currently stands in relation to the Crows is just a temporary format until such time that the club has been around long enough to have reched the stage where it can claim sons of actual Crows players as opposed to SANFL players ... Whether the current rule is intended to be around in say 50 years time I'm not sure?

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!!

Oddly enough, the only clubs objecting to the requested SA (according to Triggy) change in the rule, are Collingwood, Bulldogs, Richmond & Carlton ... All clubs that have in recent times received either the earliest draft picks or concessions and possible frontrunners for same again this season??

Crows can select Father/Son from 5 SANFL clubs, and Port the other 4 ...

Constance_Perm wrote:Crows can select Father/Son from 5 SANFL clubs, and Port the other 4 ...

Do you know which clubs each can select from CP?

Obviously Crows have Glenelg & Power have the Magpies, but I wouldn't have a clue about the rest...

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!!

Not quite. The Crows get the pick of sons from Glenelg, South, Sturt , Norwood (IIRC) and Port get Port, Central, North , and West. I can't remember who gets the Eagles (Woodville / West Torrens).

Father/Son qualification is pretty easy to follow actually.
If your father played 455 games for an SANFL club between 1981 and round 11 1984 , and of those games 395 were played on the left half-forward flank, and he played off the bench in 12 of the last 15 (not 14,not16 but 15!) games he played for that club then the son qualifies for either the Port or the Crows.
On the other hand if your father has at any point in his life come into contact with the colours of a victorian based AFL club. You quailify to play for that club.
EG:
As a child your father may have watched black and white TV - You can play for Collingwood.
As a child your father may have seen an Australian flag - You can play for the Bulldogs
As a child your father may have seen a St John Ambulance - you can play for ST Kilda or Essendon or Collingwood.
etc.

Come on people the V (sorry) A FL can't be any fairer than that.

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

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

LOL at REB!

Actually I heard that Collingwood is suing the AFL over the father/son rule as it cost them a premiership in 2003.

Eagles are under Port Powder.

MightyEagles wrote:Eagles are under Port Powder.

SIUYBG

regards,

REB

MightyEagles wrote:Eagles are under Port Powder.

We should pass on the info on how to win that last game of the year My-t-egirls? Might get you blokes somewhere.

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?

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?

No i cant see the AFL doing anything about this anytime soon. Why create a fairer comp whic could possibly see the preimership cup stay out of victoria longer???

No i dont think so.

i may be wrong but isnt true that if Crows had kept Cornesey coach for one more year they would have been able to get Chad and Kane on f/s rule

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!

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!

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)??

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)??

Yeah he was eligible for the father/son rule at both clubs, I assume his old man also played a few games in the WAFL.
Not hard to work out, Cornsey must be going senile.

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

there is major inconsistencies just in that criteria alone, the rule is so one sided to Vic based clubs that some players qualify for selections for two clubs

And clubs that have put up a defence saying that the timing is wrong to change the rule, these clubs need to be aware that this submission has been with the AFL since Spt last year.......

Vic' base clubs really piss me off, they take priority picks then when they become strong they demand for priority picks be abolish, then they take father son picks with a third pick in the draft, then the next year they request that the pick should reflect the talent of the individual........

Personaly, ifr the Crows win it this year, at least we have done it without priority picks, without top ten picks for previous poor seasons and without the aid of father son picks.......

St Kilda and Geelong, soon to be Richmond and Hawthorn have all developed there list as a result of preferential treatment for poor seasons

I'm glad we have developed our list, so soon as priority picks are abolished and a fair fother son rule implemented, the better

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

Never lived in Victoria mate, its not a Victoria view its just a common sensical and mathematical view.

The Crows have 4 clubs and Port have 5.5 clubs to choose from, hence why different conditions are made.
The difference between the SA AFL side sand the WA AFL sides is because WA played less games a year and they have less people to choose from (8 clubs as opposed to 10)

The fact that the newer clubs have a father son rule based on other clubs ie you could have someone who never played for the Crows's son qualify for the Crows is merely because it wasn't fair as obviously they wont have kids qualifying for a while. Personally I don't want any North kids qualifying for Port under this rule.

As I said before, its purely mathematical, when they worked out a concession to the rule for the newer clubs they looked at how many players sons had traditionally been available when comparing multiple clubs to one club.
For eg you might have as many players playing 200+ games for 5 SANFL clubs as you'd have playing 100 VFL games for 1 club.
Quite simple really, its amazing the paranaoia that Dumb and Dumber stir up on 5AA.

If the mathematics of the rule have to be changed then so be it but don't blame the fact Gary Ablett has 2 boys who are AFL standard and the fact Peter Carey's son is blind and obviously wont play AFL cloud your ideals.
Easiest way would be just to get rid of it anyway.

As I said, if anyone's got a complaint, do the maths and if things dont add up then complain.
I did a quick count and approximately 50 - 60 players each would qualfy to have kids play for the Crows or Power.
I don't know the figures of how many 100 game players for each VFL club there would have been in a similar period (ie likely to pop out a kid now) but if someone finds out that will tell us exactly how equitable it is.