Kit Walker said:

As for the comments in the preceding paragraph of yours, the AFL would be rightly condemned if they were to refuse Richmond's application on the basis of some allegation of moral culpability of Polak in suffering his injury, which you have clearly inferred.

Why would the AFL have to give a reason beyond the application out of the rules?

As for being hit by a tram, I did not notice the tram driver being either charged with any offence or even questioned over the incident by the police. Begs the question though about responsibility and behaviour. <_<

I don't know what all the fuss is about.

Richmond already has a PSD pick so it has the capacity to draft Cousins if it wishes.

It also has the capacity to put Polak on the long term injury list in accordance with the AFL rules and to promote a rookie if it wishes.

The issue is therefore not about Cousins and not about Polak but rather about Richmond wanting to get a windfall advantage in priority in the upcoming PSD/rookie drafts.

  Rhino Richards said:

As for being hit by a tram, I did not notice the tram driver being either charged with any offence or even questioned over the incident by the police. Begs the question though about responsibility and behaviour. <_<

How do you know whether the tram driver was questioned over the incident by the police?

  Whispering_Jack said:

I don't know what all the fuss is about.

Richmond already has a PSD pick so it has the capacity to draft Cousins if it wishes.

It also has the capacity to put Polak on the long term injury list in accordance with the AFL rules and to promote a rookie if it wishes.

The issue is therefore not about Cousins and not about Polak but rather about Richmond wanting to get a windfall advantage in priority in the upcoming PSD/rookie drafts.

I thought this was an open and shut case too. Put Polak on the LTI list and promote a rookie.

All clubs roughly know which players will be drafted to which clubs these days and Richmond must be eyeing a youngster for a rookie spot but fear that player might not slip thru. So in essence they are trying to double dip with 2 PSD picks.

Using Polak unfortunate accident as a tool to achieve that goal is poor form.

  mo64 said:

How do you know whether the tram driver was questioned over the incident by the police?

I said "I did not notice...". I dont know whether he was or was not. However, under law any accident where a person has been injured requires police attendance at the scene. Given the serious and unfortunate injuries to Polak, it would seem likely. Do you actually know something on this or are you out on another trivial point score?

Back to the important issue, I dont agree with Richmond getting a free leg up.

  Whispering_Jack said:

I don't know what all the fuss is about.

Richmond already has a PSD pick so it has the capacity to draft Cousins if it wishes.

It also has the capacity to put Polak on the long term injury list in accordance with the AFL rules and to promote a rookie if it wishes.

The issue is therefore not about Cousins and not about Polak but rather about Richmond wanting to get a windfall advantage in priority in the upcoming PSD/rookie drafts.

Very astute summation. On that basis I'd have to say they should not.

Shaft, Would you consider it differently if Melbourne was in Richmonds position..?

  High Tower said:

Shaft, Would you consider it differently if Melbourne was in Richmonds position..?

of course! :D

I actually don't mind. I really don't.

I admire Richmond for what they have done taking on Polak even though (i believe) he'll never play another AFL game.

Its only fair that they get some sort of compensation.

Whether this kind of compensation is appropriate..? well... I don't quite think so.

But I'm not too concerned if they do end up getting another PSD pick. I definitely won't lose sleep over it.

An appropriate solution would maybe be an extra rookie draft pick at the end of the the RD ? I'm not sure. I don't think thats a very good deal for Richmond.

But they are looking to replace a player on the SENIOR list, so I understand why they wish to have a PSD pick.

Upgrading an already rookie listed player, who isn't yet ready, is not quite the same.

  Whispering_Jack said:

I don't know what all the fuss is about.

Richmond already has a PSD pick so it has the capacity to draft Cousins if it wishes.

It also has the capacity to put Polak on the long term injury list in accordance with the AFL rules and to promote a rookie if it wishes.

The issue is therefore not about Cousins and not about Polak but rather about Richmond wanting to get a windfall advantage in priority in the upcoming PSD/rookie drafts.

FMD, only a crook or a moron could think what Richmond is proposing is reasonable.

It''ll probably be approved by the AFL ...

  old55 said:

It''ll probably be approved by the AFL ...

On what basis can it be approved other than further cheating by the AFL ( the fixture etc. ).

They have an injured player who is on their list, contracted and being paid. How does it compare to Rama who was delisted as a result of having cancer and Troy Broadbridge.

This is a single issue only. Richmond want two picks in the PSD when they have only one. If they wanted to go down this road they had a year to do it by delisting another player or passing on the young player they have obviously targeted.

Could everyone stop saying we must help Polak as it has absolutely nothing to do with him and everything to do with his club.

Why don't Richmond ask the AFL to ban every other club from rookieing the player they want in the rookie draft and then they can have him and Cousins. That is what they are really trying to achieve. That said I don't really care if it happens and they get Cousins but what if they didn't take Cousins and took the guy we were going to take 1st pick in the rookie draft.

This is a crock of [censored].

This really should be a no-brainer.

Richmond is trying to blindside the AFL through subterfuge and playing at the edges of the rules.

If they were genuine they would accept this as a compromise:

They take their normal pick 6 in the PSD and their pick in lieu of Polak would be taken in the place of what would have been in their first pick in the rookie draft i.e. no change in draft order from before.

That's the logical way to do it but of course, it's no different to the situation that applies anyway except that they don't have to put Polak on the LTI.

  Redleg said:

On what basis can it be approved other than further cheating by the AFL ( the fixture etc. ).

They have an injured player who is on their list, contracted and being paid. How does it compare to Rama who was delisted as a result of having cancer and Troy Broadbridge.

This is a single issue only. Richmond want two picks in the PSD when they have only one. If they wanted to go down this road they had a year to do it by delisting another player or passing on the young player they have obviously targeted.

Could everyone stop saying we must help Polak as it has absolutely nothing to do with him and everything to do with his club.

Why don't Richmond ask the AFL to ban every other club from rookieing the player they want in the rookie draft and then they can have him and Cousins. That is what they are really trying to achieve. That said I don't really care if it happens and they get Cousins but what if they didn't take Cousins and took the guy we were going to take 1st pick in the rookie draft.

This is a crock of [censored].

In fact, they want a PSD pick, meaning the player would be on the senior list, not the rookie list.

I actually hope the tigers get given the extra pick & they take Cousins, but purely because as a football purist there are few players i like to watch play more than Ben Cousins.

I'm afraid if they don't get given the pick they are likely to not take him. That would be a shame.

And if they get the pick and don't take Cousins I'll be fuming!!

Cos they shouldn't get an extra pick in the first place!

  Rhino Richards said:

Rama contracted cancer and was given all opportunity to overcome a life threatening condition. Polak walked into a tram when he was .......... !

Broadbridge was killed post PSD so the AFL exemption was to replace a player on the list an does not set a precedent pre PSD.

Richmond's ploy is far different and it should be stopped by the AFL. However I suspect the AFL may allow so it can claim we made a special effort to allow Cousins to redeem himself.

I don't give a [censored] about your crappy argument, my emphasis is that I want to see the cuz back in the game, even if he fails.

  dee-luded said:

I don't give a [censored] about your crappy argument, my emphasis is that I want to see the cuz back in the game, even if he fails.

Your post stands without the need for the first half d-l.

Alot of things come into the equation with this decision

Polak is NOT the same situation as Ramanaskis or Broadbridge therefore should not be given an OK by the other 15 clubs

The Cousins factor is pure speculation

Wallace arguably is in his last season as the richmond coach if the team doesnt perform

Cousins would be an asset to Richmond and Wallace knows it but the problem is he showed signs of being easily injured the last season he played

One wonders if this ploy isnt smacked with Sheedy

I am not knocking the Tigers for asking but i still say NO to Richmond on the Polak request

  Swampfox said:

One wonders if this ploy isnt smacked with Sheedy

Of course it is. It has his fingerprints all over it. Good on him for trying, he may yet succeed given the lack of moral fibre of the AFL.

I hear Polak is having trouble remembering things told to him minutes ago.

The bloke got hit by a tram.

Yes the timing sucks but have some compassion for a bloke that has a bruised brain and doesn't want to negatively impact his team.

I think some times we take ourselves too seriously, give the Tigers another pick. Polak will not play in 2009.

Some at Tigerland don't think he will ever play again...

  rpfc said:

I hear Polak is having trouble remembering things told to him minutes ago.

The bloke got hit by a tram.

Yes the timing sucks but have some compassion for a bloke that has a bruised brain and doesn't want to negatively impact his team.

I think some times we take ourselves too seriously, give the Tigers another pick. Polak will not play in 2009.

Some at Tigerland don't think he will ever play again...

The bloke had very serious brain damage & was expected by some to not make it. He's obviously lost a lot of brain function which will hopefully return with time & good health, & very little stress, to aid his recovery.

Brad Smith was drafted by WCE and had two knee recos so the Eagles applied to have him listed as a mature age rookie. The AFL refused the application.

Smith was definitely not going to play the following year. He wasn't photographed training doing ruckwork a week before the application was lodged and the AFL didn't have the mouthwatering carrot of a round 1 bonanza game involving Judd and Cousins as an incentive in making a decision.

Now. Can someone please define the word "corruption" for me B) ?

I haven't seen any mention of this anywhere but is this move by Richmond designed to overcome salary cap issues in drafting Cousins?

Polak on the LTI would still have his contract included in the TPP but not if he's a rookie.

I dont believe they should be allowed to do what they propose but am not adverse to them receiving the second pick if they are given it at the end of the rookie draft.

They shouldnt be able to pick up a second pick when other options are available and it does worry me the AFL will agree because they want Cousins back and playing.

It is not like the situation with Broady as we lost a player permanently off our senior list with absolutely no hope of return and although it looks unlikely Polak will play, he may do and they may have him back on the senior list by mid year. No fair.

I think all clubs should protest -give them another rookie pick so they can take their chances on that kid - tell them if they are granted the choice they have to use it on Cousins first..

  Demonland said:

I haven't seen any mention of this anywhere but is this move by Richmond designed to overcome salary cap issues in drafting Cousins?

I doubt that drafting Cousins would likely have any salary cap implications simply because of the lack of suitors. He can either play AFL on not-much money (for an AFL player) or probably take more to play in the WAFL.

If the issue is prejudicing the rookie draft, allow Richmond to have a pick after that is completed. No other club loses a position in terms of any draft and the tigers get a player who has been overlooked around 130-odd times.

I see it as an equivalent scenario to that which Essendon and Melbourne faced, primarily because they have a player who is won't (or at least is extremely unlikely) to play the following season because of a non-football related incident.

  rumpole said:

Brad Smith was drafted by WCE and had two knee recos so the Eagles applied to have him listed as a mature age rookie. The AFL refused the application.

Smith was definitely not going to play the following year. He wasn't photographed training doing ruckwork a week before the application was lodged and the AFL didn't have the mouthwatering carrot of a round 1 bonanza game involving Judd and Cousins as an incentive in making a decision.

Now. Can someone please define the word "corruption" for me B) ?

Don't equate a footy injury to a devastating event that occurred outside of footy. We know a little about this stuff...

Richmond shouldn't be penalised for standing behind a bloke that may not play footy again.

Cousins or no Cousins...

This is to elaborate on my solution -

The current PRE SEASON DRAFT order

1. Melbourne

2. Port Adelaide

3. Essendon

4. Carlton

5. Brisbane

6. Richmond

The current ROOKIE DRAFT order

1. Melbourne

2. West Coast

3. Fremantle

4. Port Adelaide

5. Essendon

6. Carlton

7. Brisbane

8. Richmond

9. North Melbourne

10. Adelaide

11. Collingwood

12. Sydney

13. St. Kilda

14. Western Bulldogs

15. Geelong

16. Hawthorn

and so on ...

If Richmond get what they want, they will succeed in having an extras PSD pick as follows:

The new PRE SEASON DRAFT order

1. Melbourne

2. Port Adelaide

3. Essendon

4. Carlton

5. Brisbane

6. Richmond

7. Richmond

If the AFL allows Polak to be listed as a mature aged rookie (and I don't agree with doing this), then the order should be:

The PRE SEASON DRAFT order

1. Melbourne

2. Port Adelaide

3. Essendon

4. Carlton

5. Brisbane

6. Richmond (mature age player as a replacement for Polak)

PSD pick 7 moved to replace ROOKIE pick 8 as follows:

The new ROOKIE DRAFT order

1. Melbourne

2. West Coast

3. Fremantle

4. Port Adelaide

5. Essendon

6. Carlton

7. Brisbane

8. deleted and replaced by PSD 7

9. North Melbourne

10. Adelaide

11. Collingwood

12. Sydney

13. St. Kilda

14. Western Bulldogs

15. Geelong

16. Hawthorn

This way there is no change in the order of selection and nobody is disadvantaged.