Father-son rule

[ickey_11 145]

Who here likes the father-son rule? Guess this is very topical at the moment with Geelong's success in getting some pretty handy pickups recently, but with Melbourne having a severe lack of decent players in the 70s and 80s I am really getting put off this rule. I can see Essendon having a field day in the years to come with the Daniher family alone, never mind the recent additions.

The sooner they replace this rule the better for the competition.

[joeboy 2,891]

Who here likes the father-son rule? Guess this is very topical at the moment with Geelong's success in getting some pretty handy pickups recently, but with Melbourne having a severe lack of decent players in the 70s and 80s I am really getting put off this rule. I can see Essendon having a field day in the years to come with the Danaher family alone, never mind the recent additions.

The sooner they replace this rule the better for the competition.

Yes, but let's make sure the rule isn't tampered with until after Gary Lyons' 3 boys wear the red and blue.

[Gorgoroth 12,369]

i like it as is, i like the idea of players sons staying at the club their fathers played for even if its geelong reaping the rewards at the moment

[maximum bob 462]

The father/son rule (allowing for its revisions) is one of the continuities that makes our game what it is. It's part of our heritage, culture and expectations. It's luck of the draw, so be it.

PS. I hope your boys are big strapping KPP's Gary.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

I'd have to see a finalised model, but I reckon the "bidding" system shows some promise.

In short, when a F/S eligible player comes up, the father's club can claim him with (I think) the usual 3rd round pick. If another club likes the look of him they can "out-bid" the first club by bidding with a higher-round pick. If all other 15 clubs bid the same as the original club, then the original club wins and can recruit the player. So for example, if MFC wantss to recruit Chris Johnson they claim him with thei 3rd round pick. Then, say, Carlton makes a bid with their second-round pick, and MFC matches that. Even if MFC's second round selection comes AFTER the Blues' second round selection, it still counts as "out-bidding." In other words, even if the Blues had selection 22, and the demons had selection 28, the dees would still get him.

To use the Tomahawk example, let's say the Lions wanted him last year (and they would have, you'd presume). They would bid for him with their first-round pick which came in at pick 4. The Cats could then out-bid them with their pick 7 despite it being 3 spots lower.

So if you can make sense of that poorly explained mess and you see errors, feel free to correct.

[Jaded No More 59,538]

I get it Dan, and it sounds like a good system.

Some F/S picks, like say CJ, are not worth more than a 3rd round pick, but to think that Geelong got 2 Abletts, Scarlett and Hawkins for third round picks, is really just... well it's unfair.

[Johnny Karate 559]

I don't really have a problem with it as it stands it is a quirky rule and as far as I know unique to our game - it's luck of the draw and isn't biased to or against any clubs.

It isn't Geelong's fault that they have attained star players from the rule and we haven't.

The AFL really needs to stop tinkering with the rules because at some point they are going to go too far and alienate everyone.

[Adzman 2,085]

Maybe lift the father son to 150 games? I am not really against the current rules, I am just concerned about hawthorns team of the 80s sons coming though over the next 3-4 years. The tucks are great, who is next?

I HATE HAWTHORN

[old55 21,772]

Who here likes the father-son rule? Guess this is very topical at the moment with Geelong's success in getting some pretty handy pickups recently, but with Melbourne having a severe lack of decent players in the 70s and 80s I am really getting put off this rule. I can see Essendon having a field day in the years to come with the Daniher family alone, never mind the recent additions.

Is there a direct connection between being a star and having a star son? What about all those stars whose fathers never played at the highest level? What about all those stars whose sons never played? It does seem as though the most successful F/S players fathers were fine footnballers: Silvagni, Fletcher, Scarlett, Ablett. The criterion is 100 games but they don't need to be 100 starring games. Our ordinary 100 gamers could still produce prodigous progeny. I guess it also depends how many sons they have.

FWIW I like the F/S but would like to see a change like the one DD explains.

[mikeod 21]

I actually like the current rule.

It keeps some spirit and a bit of romance in the game - family traditions can be held at a club...

The bidding system will just make it too tough.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I think the FS principle can stay subject to some changes:

1. The 3rd round draft pick rule is aribitrary and can potentially deliver an unfair gold mine to clubs eg Tommahawk. I would like to say CJ but I think its premature.

2. I think that the AFL needs to be providing an "independent" ranking of the players eligible for the draft including father/son candidates and use that as a basis to determine whether a Club has to use a 1st, 2nd or 3rd draft pick.

3. I think the Club eligible for FS should have first dibs on the kid at a more realistic market value than the 3rd pick. I dont like the bidding system as it allows other Clubs first dibs. It will also allow backroom deals between Clubs which makes the process messy.

Finally, I dont know if there are any qualified geneologists out there but I dont know if it applies that a former great player's kids will be as good as their father. Robbie Flower's son wasnt. Ken Hunter's son certainly wasnt. Gary Ablett's sons are not a touch on their legendary father.

FWIW, Hawkins dad was just a player at Geelong.

There is no evidence beside a concocted myth that any of the Hawks great's sons will be any good and if they were they have been crushed by the expectation and culture at their father's club.

[John Dee 439]

There seems to be a theme in the AFL that things must be changed; rules and regulations get changed every year, sometimes with consultation and experiment but mostly at the whim of Anderson and Bartlet et al. This flies in the face of the average supporter who is screaming out for them to leave the bloody game alone. The father son rule is a good one, leave it be. There will always be winners and losers; accept that and move on.

[Rogue 585]

2. I think that the AFL needs to be providing an "independent" ranking of the players eligible for the draft including father/son candidates and use that as a basis to determine whether a Club has to use a 1st, 2nd or 3rd draft pick.

No thanks. A value decided on by the market is much better.

3. I think the Club eligible for FS should have first dibs on the kid at a more realistic market value than the 3rd pick. I dont like the bidding system as it allows other Clubs first dibs. It will also allow backroom deals between Clubs which makes the process messy.

I don't see how Clubs can subvert the system. If a rogue Club 'bids' a high draft pick in an attempt to force the father/son Club into paying too high a price, the rogue Club will simply be left carrying the can.

Eg. Cats attempt to force Melbourne to use a round 1 draft pick on CJ. Melbourne decline, and the Cats are obliged to take CJ with their round 1 draft pick.

I can't see any Club jeapordising their future to try and screw another another.

The system reminds me of a land tax system used in medieval(?) times whereby land owners would pay X amount of tax based on their own valuation of their land. To prevent owners from under-valuing their land [in order to pay less tax] the Crown had the option of buying the land at the value set by the owner.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

No thanks. A value decided on by the market is much better.

I don't see how Clubs can subvert the system. If a rogue Club 'bids' a high draft pick in an attempt to force the father/son Club into paying too high a price, the rogue Club will simply be left carrying the can.

Eg. Cats attempt to force Melbourne to use a round 1 draft pick on CJ. Melbourne decline, and the Cats are obliged to take CJ with their round 1 draft pick.

I can't see any Club jeapordising their future to try and screw another another.

The system reminds me of a land tax system used in medieval(?) times whereby land owners would pay X amount of tax based on their own valuation of their land. To prevent owners from under-valuing their land [in order to pay less tax] the Crown had the option of buying the land at the value set by the owner.

I dont see how the bidding system gets you to a market position there. The bidding system offers the other Clubs to chance to rail road a FS pick without having to show their hand

How would a Club jeopardise its future getting a player like Tommahawk?

I also think the FS club get screwed as they have to nominate a player for FS and then the other Clubs have the opportunity to trump them.

[Guest dee'viator]

Is there a direct connection between being a star and having a star son? What about all those stars whose fathers never played at the highest level? What about all those stars whose sons never played? It does seem as though the most successful F/S players fathers were fine footnballers: Silvagni, Fletcher, Scarlett, Ablett. The criterion is 100 games but they don't need to be 100 starring games. Our ordinary 100 gamers could still produce prodigous progeny. I guess it also depends how many sons they have.

FWIW I like the F/S but would like to see a change like the one DD explains.

Agreed old.

[Nasher 33,187]

I also think the FS club get screwed as they have to nominate a player for FS and then the other Clubs have the opportunity to trump them.

Presumably the idea is that if they get trumped they get another opportunity to up their bid.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

- I dont like the bidding system as it allows other Clubs first dibs.

- It will also allow backroom deals between Clubs which makes the process messy.

- Finally, I dont know if there are any qualified geneologists out there but I dont know if it applies that a former great player's kids will be as good as their father.

- Do you mean that on draft day a rival club can come out of nowhere and claim another clubs F/S with little or no warning? If so that can be eliminated by making clubs claim the F/Ss weeks before the draft. This gives everyone time to sort it out so that everyone is decided, but....

- This is a very good point. If these rules are implemented I reckon this will crop up sooner or later.

- Actually, I reckon that's the fun part. In the case of Tomahawk, there is EVERY chance that he could have been taken at number 1. Every recruiter in the land would have been on him. The interesting part is when it comes to players like CJ or the Johnsons (Tomi and Marc) who will probably never go round 1. The Blues could claim them, then the dees, having seen them at Sandy may bid a second rounder. The demons may have paid too high a price and the Blues end up having lost nothing really. There's some skill to it, and it adds a dynamic to the trade/draft system. But at a price. Unfortunately some kids can potentially get screwed out of playing for their dad's club, which would be sad, but fair. The F/S rule has the potential to undermine the whole idea of having a draft in the first place.

[old55 21,772]

Clean solution from Sydney Eagle at BigFooty. It works much better than the other way around where EVERY club would nominate Tom Hawkins ...

Simple solution. At the start of each round of the draft clubs are asked if they have any father/son picks that they want to take in that round. If a club says "yes" then they get the player in exchange for their pick in that round, whether it is first round, fifth or whatever. If a player who is eligible is not nominated by the club he is fair game for anyone in that round. E G If Geelong want to pick Hawkins they can nominate him as their father/son selection in round one, thereby ensuring that they get him ahead of other clubs but giving up their round one pick. If they do not do this then he is available for any club that has a selection before Geelong in round one. This enables each club to put a value on all potential father/son picks. In the case of a player who could be eligible under father/son for more than one club (e g Ben Cousins who could have been taken by either Geelong or West Coast) if BOTH eligible clubs want him the player gets the choice of which one he goes to.

although I'm not sure about the detail of his Ben Cousins example - was he eligible for both?

[Nasher 33,187]

A bidding system completely defeats the purpose of the F/S rule. The whole purpose of it is to allow kids to play at the same footy clubs their dads did. If a club gets outbid for a player then the end goal of the F/S rule isn't met, and, potentially, some lucky club pays less than market value for superstar kid. In my mind that's even less fair than the present F/S rule.

Edit: I do like that solution proposed by the guy from BF though.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Yeah. Not bad.

[Rogue 585]

I dont see how the bidding system gets you to a market position there. The bidding system offers the other Clubs to chance to rail road a FS pick without having to show their hand

How are they not 'showing their hand'? Any Club who elects to take another club's FS would nominate the round that they would give for him. If the FS Club was willing to match that, they'd win the prize. If not, another Club would take the player.

How would a Club jeopardise its future getting a player like Tommahawk?

If a FS player is that great then there's nothing wrong with Geelong being forced to pay a first round pick.

That comment was in direct response to your assertion that Clubs would somehow do shady deals to try and force a FS Club to pay more than market value - that simply won't happen because the Club that bidded too high would then be stuck with that player.

I also think the FS club get screwed as they have to nominate a player for FS and then the other Clubs have the opportunity to trump them.

The FS Club would be able to match the highest bidder or lose him to one of the other Clubs who bidded higher. Pretty simple.

Clean solution from Sydney Eagle at BigFooty. It works much better than the other way around where EVERY club would nominate Tom Hawkins ...

Every club wouldn't need to nominate a F/S player - only those who wanted to draft him, and perhaps only those that wanted to draft him at a higher round pick than the F/S Club.

Anyhow, the principles of both solutions are the same - let the market dictate value.

- This is a very good point. If these rules are implemented I reckon this will crop up sooner or later.

I don't see what kind of 'shady backroom' deals are going to happen tbh. It's extremely unlike any Club is going to be willing to jeapordise their future by paying [in draft picks] more than what they think a player is worth simply to screw another Club.

If a Club bids higher than what a player is worth (eg. rd1 for CJ) then they end up with CJ in return for their round 1 pick. They may have presented another Club from getting him, but at substantial cost to themselves. I can't see how that could be justified to the Board, members, or even agreed upon by the footy department.

- Actually, I reckon that's the fun part. In the case of Tomahawk, there is EVERY chance that he could have been taken at number 1. Every recruiter in the land would have been on him. The interesting part is when it comes to players like CJ or the Johnsons (Tomi and Marc) who will probably never go round 1. The Blues could claim them, then the dees, having seen them at Sandy may bid a second rounder. The demons may have paid too high a price and the Blues end up having lost nothing really. There's some skill to it, and it adds a dynamic to the trade/draft system. But at a price. Unfortunately some kids can potentially get screwed out of playing for their dad's club, which would be sad, but fair. The F/S rule has the potential to undermine the whole idea of having a draft in the first place.

Agreed.

A bidding system completely defeats the purpose of the F/S rule. The whole purpose of it is to allow kids to play at the same footy clubs their dads did. If a club gets outbid for a player then the end goal of the F/S rule isn't met, and, potentially, some lucky club pays less than market value for superstar kid.

How would another Club pay less than market value for a superstar? 'Market value' is set by the market - if other Clubs didn't want to offer a high-round pick for the player then his market value is not that high. If the kid was rated highly it'd need a high draft pick to secure him.

I'm all for the F/S tradition to continue, but Clubs giving up third round picks for kids that would go in the first round is not good for the game.

[deanox 8,876]

i like tradition. and i like this rule. there are plenty of things that need fixing before this needs fixing. they cant get the hands in the back right. they cant judge when someone holds on. players who bet get fined 10,000 but players taking illegal substences get off scott free. swearing is tolerated, and if you feel that someone has said something to upset you, you can punch him once, punch him another time, then threaten him via a journalist that you are going to kill him, and get off scott free.

the draw is bias. sydney get a higher salery cap. melbourne teams dont get to play on the grounds they want. training and support staff for some club far outweigh those at other clubs.

get the other rules first. this one has worked fine for years. and is the only anomoly in what is otherwise a pretty fair drafting situation. if a team gets a good player through father son its luck. there are no guarentees. the other things mentioned arent luck. the favour particular teams. maybe those teams should miss out on the f/s?

[mordja 187]

FWIW I dont see how a bidding system, where an equal bid by the F/S club outranks the opposing offer, defeats the purpose.

IMO - it seems reasonable that where kids like T Hawkins, who would potentially have gone first round, are picked up under the F/S rule the club receiving the kid shouldn't essentially get two first round picks.