SA Footy

Stay tuned for an announcement about this today ....


And if what I've heard is correct .... not many interstate teams will be happy ...

Talk about a tease Diss lol.

Hooray!

Diss has read the script, the Power will get the spoon and pick Bryce @ #1!

Maybe thats Brisbanes game plan for this year.

The AFL has changed the rule, but Bryce still isnt eligible for the Crows...nor is Seb Paynter either.

Theyve removed the 20 year qualification period and made it from the year before all the clubs came into the competition. So theyve opened it up backwards. It means that retrospectively, Brett Ebert now actually does qualify under F/S. It means that players such as Peter Marker and Fred Phillis are now counted as eligible fathers...playres that are now in their 50s and probably stopped procreating some time ago.

Port get Travis Natt and Brodie Cahill (both playing in Magpies reserves) eligible.

So really it doesnt exactly mean a lot to any of the interstate clubs....none of them will overly be happy.

I wouldn't say Brett Ebert "does" qualify - as this wasn't the rule when he came in. He "would have" qualified if this rule was as it is now, back then.

Jonathan Brown "doesn't" qualify under these rules.

It reiterates the AFL's endorsement of Victorian-based clubs vs the rest rather than take an egalitarian policy.

Ditch the Father-Son rule. That way it's fair for all clubs. Most champion footballers' offspring who are any good play netball anyway.

Grand Central wrote:Ditch the Father-Son rule.

I agree.

Yep its rubbish, Collingwood have three father/son rules players yet the Crows can't have any.

Does Jessie Aish (son of Michael) or Brad Thomas (son of Keith) qualify if the Crows wanted them?

ca wrote:Yep its rubbish, Collingwood have three father/son rules players yet the Crows can't have any.

Does Jessie Aish (son of Michael) or Brad Thomas (son of Keith) qualify if the Crows wanted them?

Yes those 2 lads do qualify for the Crows.

As I said previously, if you want to have a go at the rule don't go on blind emotion like KG and Cornsey do, sit down and work out the figures.
The fact that Collingwood pick up some players under the Father/Son rule while the Crows don't pick up players they could shouldn't have anything to do with the discussion.

Having said that, the slight ammendment to the rule today is a crap effort at trying to appease a few people as its not as though Fred Bills, Robert Oatey, Don Lindner, Neil Kerley or John Halbert are going to start having kids!

The only recent Father-Son selection worth remembering is young Ablett at Geelong. I can't recall any others. Anyone know of any?

Grand Central wrote:The only recent Father-Son selection worth remembering is young Ablett at Geelong. I can't recall any others. Anyone know of any?

Best three would be ... Brown, Cousins and Ablett I'd say.

Jonathon Brown. The Clokes if you can call that decent.

Take legal action, hopefully West Coast will follow suit.

I dont think Gibbs is the definite number 1, if clubs after a key position player they'll probably go for Sellar. Either way, number 1 pick will probably come from Glenelg.

Grand Central wrote:The only recent Father-Son selection worth remembering is young Ablett at Geelong. I can't recall any others. Anyone know of any?

Current or recently past Father-Son selections include:

Jonathon Brown (Brisbane)
Shane Morrison (exBris/Rich now Port Magpie)
Luke Blackwell (Carlton)
Lance Whitnall (Carlton)
Jarrad Waite (Carlton)
The Clokes (Collingwood)
The Shaws (Collingwood)
Jobe Watson (Essendon)
Brett Peake (Fremantle)
The Abletts (Geelong)
Mark Blake (Geelong)
Stephen Greene (ex Hawthorn)
Jesse Smith (Kangaroos)
Chris Johnson (Melbourne)
Brett Ebert (Port)
Thomas Roach (Richmond)
Ben Cousins (West Coast)
Mitch Morton (West Coast)

Carltons recent no.1 draft pick Marc Murphy was a Father Son possibility for Brisbane but he turned it down.

You can't question the Shaws- Ray & Tony played over 500 games between 'em.
As for the Clokes.. Richmond f**ked this one up- they had just as much chance as getting the Clokes as C'wood, but they didn't want Jason, so by the Pies taking Jason, they automatically had he other 2 brothers as well, ander the F/S rule.

Thanks for that Macca.
Hopefully now that some facts are on the table and it can be seen that West Coast have more players under the Father/Son rule on their list than Richmond, Esseond, Hawthorn, Melbourne, the Kangaroos, the Bulldogs and St Kilda that this stupid childish anti-Victorian feel about the rule that Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber advocate on 5AA.
Im so sick of the chip on shoulder anti Victorian crap that a lot of clowns in this state push, you only have to look at where the most premierships have gone since Port entered the AFL that there sure as hell isn't any bias.
Thank christ SA sides don't get the same amount of home games as Geelong with no finals at home too, geezus, the whining would never stop then (not that it seems to now anyway)!!!

Wedgie wrote:Having said that, the slight ammendment to the rule today is a crap effort at trying to appease a few people as its not as though Fred Bills, Robert Oatey, Don Lindner, Neil Kerley or John Halbert are going to start having kids!

Lol, good point but stranger things have happened!

A few additional names to add to the current father/son list:
Joel Bowden
Luke Darcy
Matthew Scarlett
Nick Davis (subsequently traded)
Dustin Fletcher
Matthew Richardson

Oh the irony when it comes out today that the reason the rules were changed to what they are were because the Crows submission was a stuff up in 2001.
Even more ironic when it comes out that this was brought about by some Glenelgh "champions" who didn't want their sons playing for Port in the AFL.
Less ironic and even more ridiculous when you take into account who the largest mouth is on this issue at the moment and where his son's currently play.