Father Son Rule Question

[deanox 10,070]

While it isn't something that has happened as far as I am aware, can anyone confirm if adopted sons qualify under father son rules?

I am sure having a son of a 1-99 game player legally adopted by another club champion around age 16 would be seriously against the spirit of the rules, but in the age of 1% advantages against the other clubs...

[Gorgoroth 13,211]

No idea but I reckon if they adopt the child at 16 then I reckon they would say no. If the child was adopted say under 3 or so that would be allowed.

[CBDees 3,167]

Frankly I think that the father-son rule should be relaxed from 100 games to 77 games. In that we we can FS, Peter Moore's son in front of Collingwood!

[rpfc 29,015]

  On 15/12/2013 at 12:22, deanox said:

While it isn't something that has happened as far as I am aware, can anyone confirm if adopted sons qualify under father son rules?

I am sure having a son of a 1-99 game player legally adopted by another club champion around age 16 would be seriously against the spirit of the rules, but in the age of 1% advantages against the other clubs...

I am certain adopted sons qualify.

[snomed 54]

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-adopts-new-father-son-rule/story-e6frf9jf-1226351825435

Seems the AFL would use their discretion for adopted f/s

[daisycutter 29,997]

  On 16/12/2013 at 01:15, snomed said:

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-adopts-new-father-son-rule/story-e6frf9jf-1226351825435

Seems the AFL would use their discretion for adopted f/s

meaning if it is Collingwood, Carlton or Essendon asking it will be looked on favourably

[deanox 10,070]

I reckon it will be close to what Gorgoroth said. Genuine adoptees? No worries. But if it is just to exploit the rule it won't be allowed.

[rpfc 29,015]

If a past champion of a club had an adopted son - it would be a PR nightmare for the AFL (who are driven by such things) to refuse it.

'Biological relationship?'

Please.

Do they do DNA testing? What an invasion into people's lives that would be. lol

What if a son failed the biolocal relationship DNA testing that was not supposed to fail...

Er...awkward...

[snomed 54]

  On 16/12/2013 at 01:24, daisycutter said:

meaning if it is Collingwood, Carlton or Essendon asking it will be looked on favourably

Yes - the same for all things AFL

  On 16/12/2013 at 01:32, rpfc said:

If a past champion of a club had an adopted son - it would be a PR nightmare for the AFL (who are driven by such things) to refuse it.

'Biological relationship?'

Please.

Do they do DNA testing? What an invasion into people's lives that would be. lol

What if a son failed the biolocal relationship DNA testing that was not supposed to fail...

Er...awkward...

The chances are surely much higher that an AFL footballer would have a son they didn't know about, not a son they did know about but wasn't theirs.... but yes would be very awkward!

[Gipsy Danger 1,067]

Good luck to anyone at the AFL who tries to tell the adoptive father that the boy is not his son.

[DeeSpencer 26,660]

This came up not too long ago on bigfooty. The consensus was that if the kid was adopted legitimately at an age before any doubts could be put forward then he would be illegible for FS.

There was somewhat of a test case. Apparently the FS rule could be applied to club staff as well as players in its infancy and that a female Essendon (who would've thought) director with links to the Indigenous community had a strong connection with Richard Cole. And at the time the club did make some overtures about the father son rule.

[beelzebub 23,392]

The law of the land trumps the AFL.

A legally recognised child is just that

[Moonshadow 17,678]

Of course the AFL will use its 'discretion' and of course it will not be based upon logic or merit but upon vested interests, heavy lobbying, financial gain and potential fallout. Even then they'll completely stuff it up and cop a truck load of criticism from all and sundry. That's what the AFL does best these days.

[daisycutter 29,997]

  On 16/12/2013 at 10:45, Moonshadow said:

Of course the AFL will use its 'discretion' and of course it will not be based upon logic or merit but upon vested interests, heavy lobbying, financial gain and potential fallout. Even then they'll completely stuff it up and cop a truck load of criticism from all and sundry. That's what the AFL does best these days.

yep, that about sums it up

[Rogue 585]

  On 16/12/2013 at 03:20, beelzebub said:

The law of the land trumps the AFL.

A legally recognised child is just that

Adopting an extremely promising youngster would be 'legally recognised', but most would think the F/S rules should not apply under certain hypotheticals.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Adopting a child isn't easy.

The idea that a former player could somehow exploit the father/son rule in this way is ridiculous.

Just won't happen.

[DemonFrog 1,359]

  On 16/12/2013 at 10:45, Moonshadow said:

Of course the AFL will use its 'discretion' and of course it will not be based upon logic or merit but upon vested interests, heavy lobbying, financial gain and potential fallout. Even then they'll completely stuff it up and cop a truck load of criticism from all and sundry. That's what the AFL does best these days.

My thoughts exactly

Gold Star!

[DeeVoted 607]

  On 16/12/2013 at 10:45, Moonshadow said:

Of course the AFL will use its 'discretion' and of course it will not be based upon logic or merit but upon vested interests, heavy lobbying, financial gain and potential fallout. Even then they'll completely stuff it up and cop a truck load of criticism from all and sundry. That's what the AFL does best these days.

I think you nailed it. I'm not sure if there is a rule to cover someone that has been adopted.

If there isnt something already in place the AFL will make something up on the run. If it evolved the bigger clubs or the Suns, GWS it would be approved to benefit those clubs.If we tried a year or two later, using the same guildlines, we would be fined $200,000, be omitted for the next 2 drafts.

That's the way the AFL works.

[monoccular 17,748]

  On 16/12/2013 at 01:15, snomed said:

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-adopts-new-father-son-rule/story-e6frf9jf-1226351825435

Seems the AFL would use their discretion for adopted f/s

  On 16/12/2013 at 01:24, daisycutter said:

meaning if it is Collingwood, Carlton or Essendon asking it will be looked on favourably

daisy - you took the words from my mouth....Vlad would run it by the "Integrity Commissioner" just to get the rubber stamp though.

  On 16/12/2013 at 10:45, Moonshadow said:

Of course the AFL will use its 'discretion' and of course it will not be based upon logic or merit but upon vested interests, heavy lobbying, financial gain and potential fallout. Even then they'll completely stuff it up and cop a truck load of criticism from all and sundry. That's what the AFL does best these days.

Sums up the whole corrupt brand, sadly.