AFL trade stuff up

[Chris 2,892]

The AFL have had to come out and defend the Hawks true to get O'MEARA. They have found an 'interpretation' of their rule that clears them of course. 

Here is what happened. The AFL rules states that once you trade a future first round pick you can not trade any other picks from that draft period. Pretty clear. 

The Hawks traded next year's first round pick to the Saints. The rule would say you can't trade anymore picks from next year. 

The Hawks then recieved next year's second round pick from GWS via Carlton. They then traded this to GC for O'MEARA. 

The AFL say it is fine as their interpretation of the rule is that it wasn't originally the Hawks pick so doesn't count as a future pick in that draft. The rule clearly doesn't provide this provision, or even hint at it! Just the AFL covering their ass again.

You would seriously struggle to make this stuff up. Can we please have someone competent in charge of the league!

[Diamond_Jim 12,590]

Ah..... grasshopper.... the rules exist for the betterment of the game.... top team = better game .... so the masters say

[The Backyard Charizard 1,202]

The AFL brand has taken a massive hit with the Essendrug saga and if it wasn't for the Bulldogs heroics this year then the league would be in need of a shake of the upper branches to remove the loose hanging fruit.... So it doesn't surprise me that they have found a way to uphold the validity of this trade

But seriously.... do we care? It is bloody Ty Vickery for goodness sake

Jaeger O'Smeara does not a Premiership team make!

[Chris 2,892]

1 minute ago, Krazy Jaeger O'Smeara said:

The AFL brand has taken a massive hit with the Essendrug saga and if it wasn't for the Bulldogs heroics this year then the league would be in need of a shake of the upper branches to remove the loose hanging fruit.... So it doesn't surprise me that they have found a way to uphold the validity of this trade

But seriously.... do we care? It is bloody Ty Vickery for goodness sake

Jaeger O'Smeara does not a Premiership team make!

I don't care they got O'MEARA I legally as such as I don't think he will get on the park much. More a swipe at the incompetent fools running show. They will destroy the game the way they are going. 

[daisycutter 29,616]

6 minutes ago, Chris said:

The AFL have had to come out and defend the Hawks true to get O'MEARA. They have found an 'interpretation' of their rule that clears them of course. 

Here is what happened. The AFL rules states that once you trade a future first round pick you can not trade any other picks from that draft period. Pretty clear. 

The Hawks traded next year's first round pick to the Saints. The rule would say you can't trade anymore picks from next year. 

The Hawks then recieved next year's second round pick from GWS via Carlton. They then traded this to GC for O'MEARA. 

The AFL say it is fine as their interpretation of the rule is that it wasn't originally the Hawks pick so doesn't count as a future pick in that draft. The rule clearly doesn't provide this provision, or even hint at it! Just the AFL covering their ass again.

You would seriously struggle to make this stuff up. Can we please have someone competent in charge of the league!

as long as hawthorn still have their 2nd round pick for next year then (begrudgingly) this time i agree with the afl

can't believe i'm defending hq - lol

[The Backyard Charizard 1,202]

Just now, Chris said:

I don't care they got O'MEARA I legally as such as I don't think he will get on the park much. More a swipe at the incompetent fools running show. They will destroy the game the way they are going. 

And we will destroy all opposition on our quest for greatness!

I'm having a real "glass half full" evening here.. Spring has sprung

[Deecisive 1,709]

didnt geelong also get some dispensation to allow them to again trade their future picks so they could land one of their new boys.  Why have a rules when the AFL just changes them as they like to suit themselves.

[TeamPlayedFine39 8,508]

I kinda agree with the AFL. If Hawthorn traded in an additional second round pick, they should be able to on-trade this as long as they retain their own.

[Chris 2,892]

Here is the actual rule from afl.com.au

-       If a club trades a future first-round selection, it may not trade any other future selection from that same draft. But if a club keeps its future first-round selection, it can trade any of its future selections from other rounds

No scope there for other teams future picks. Actually expressly says 'any other future selections'

Pretty clear. 

[Coq au vin 755]

41 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

as long as hawthorn still have their 2nd round pick for next year then (begrudgingly) this time i agree with the afl

can't believe i'm defending hq - lol

Really? You must be joking.

[Coq au vin 755]

34 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

I kinda agree with the AFL. If Hawthorn traded in an additional second round pick, they should be able to on-trade this as long as they retain their own.

No. Hawthorn can drop dead and go to hell. Turd flushed.

[rpfc 28,441]

15 minutes ago, Chris said:

Here is the actual rule from afl.com.au

-       If a club trades a future first-round selection, it may not trade any other future selection from that same draft. But if a club keeps its future first-round selection, it can trade any of its future selections from other rounds

No scope there for other teams future picks. Actually expressly says 'any other future selections'

Pretty clear. 

Yeah, great. And I always on the AFL's back for legislatin-on-the-fly-and-sly but the spirit of the rule is 'if you mortgage your future 1st rounder, you are staying in the rest of the rounds.'

Clearer rules would be great but would make it harder to wrap your head around:

If a club trades a future first-round selection, that club must make at least 3 selections in subsequent rounds, either in Rd 2 of the draft, and then, if applicable, Rd 3, and then, if applicable, Rd 4. But if a club keeps its, or obtains another clubs', future first-round selection, it can trade any of its future selections from other rounds.

Hard to make rules to cover every scenario...

[daisycutter 29,616]

23 minutes ago, Chris said:

Here is the actual rule from afl.com.au

-       If a club trades a future first-round selection, it may not trade any other future selection from that same draft. But if a club keeps its future first-round selection, it can trade any of its future selections from other rounds

No scope there for other teams future picks. Actually expressly says 'any other future selections'

Pretty clear. 

i think you have to go to the intent of the rule, chris

yes it could have been worded better. all they have to do is add two words e.g. "it may not trade any of their other future selection from that same draft."

[Cards13 9,117]

Titus all over it: 

http://titusoreily.com/afl-statement-on-jaeger-omeara-trade/

[Chris 2,892]

11 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i think you have to go to the intent of the rule, chris

yes it could have been worded better. all they have to do is add two words e.g. "it may not trade any of their other future selection from that same draft."

I agree that may have been the intent but the problem remains that that isnt actually what the rule says and what it does say is actually very clear. 

[Seraph 1,824]

11 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i think you have to go to the intent of the rule, chris

yes it could have been worded better. all they have to do is add two words e.g. "it may not trade any of their other future selection from that same draft."

Does it not become theirs after they acquire it through a trade? 

[daisycutter 29,616]

7 minutes ago, Chris said:

I agree that may have been the intent but the problem remains that that isnt actually what the rule says and what it does say is actually very clear. 

well if you agree with the intent. then it's not such a big problem then....eh?

 

7 minutes ago, Seraph said:

Does it not become theirs after they acquire it through a trade? 

ok.....lets add "original" then 

[Chris 2,892]

25 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

well if you agree with the intent. then it's not such a big problem then....eh?

 

ok.....lets add "original" then 

I agree it may have been their intent, not really with the intent itself. That is all academic though as my gripe is actually that they made a rule, it was clear, it was broken, they once again bent the situation to suit them. 17 teams played by the rules as they were written, 1 team didn't and have gotten away with it. 

[Redleg 40,926]

1 hour ago, Chris said:

Here is the actual rule from afl.com.au

-       If a club trades a future first-round selection, it may not trade any other future selection from that same draft. But if a club keeps its future first-round selection, it can trade any of its future selections from other rounds

No scope there for other teams future picks. Actually expressly says 'any other future selections'

Pretty clear. 

Sorry to rain on the parade, but to me the clear inference is in relation to picks originally owned by the club, not picks traded in from other clubs in trade week, as they were future picks of other clubs.

[Chris 2,892]

2 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Sorry to rain on the parade, but to me the clear inference is in relation to picks originally owned by the club, not picks traded in from other clubs in trade week, as they were future picks of other clubs.

The second sentence could be seen that way. The first sentence however is very clear talking about any other pick. 

[Nascent 9,215]

7 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Sorry to rain on the parade, but to me the clear inference is in relation to picks originally owned by the club, not picks traded in from other clubs in trade week, as they were future picks of other clubs.

I just read that Hawks traded their own future 1st and 2nd rounder and kept Carltons...

[Chook 15,013]

Alice gives $5 of next week’s earnings to Carl in exchange for a donut. Bob gives Alice $10 of his next week’s earnings in exchange for a batch of old cookies. Alice says to Bob: “Forget that. Give the money to Carl because he is giving me a chocolate cake." How much of her own money has Alice given up?

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

1 hour ago, Chook said:

Alice gives $5 of next week’s earnings to Carl in exchange for a donut. Bob gives Alice $10 of his next week’s earnings in exchange for a batch of old cookies. Alice says to Bob: “Forget that. Give the money to Carl because he is giving me a chocolate cake." How much of her own money has Alice given up?

??? B*gger the money, I'm trying to figure out whether Alice will get done for loan sharking, drug dealing, or tax avoidance.

 

Although it looks very much like poor chump Charlie, already out a donut and a chocolate cake, will be sent to play in Alice Springs. So maybe she'll get done for soliciting too.

 

It's late. I think I may have eaten one of those cookies.

[Ethan Tremblay 30,861]

1 hour ago, Chook said:

Alice gives $5 of next week’s earnings to Carl in exchange for a donut. Bob gives Alice $10 of his next week’s earnings in exchange for a batch of old cookies. Alice says to Bob: “Forget that. Give the money to Carl because he is giving me a chocolate cake." How much of her own money has Alice given up?

None. What sort of chocolate cake is it? I'm rather partial to a flourless chocolate cake. 

[radar 1,865]

They let Kieran Jack go to *Swans, sloppy fax work notwithstanding. 

 

*Sydney team