NGA Rule changes mooted

[Whispering_Jack 30,118]

There are changes coming to the rules relating to NGA access in drafts.

AFL proposes change to NGA access for this year’s draft

[Little Goffy 14,545]

Extraordinary. Changing the draft rules just a few months before the draft.

How unprofessional can this outfit get?

Don't answer - I know there's always room for more.

[Ethan Tremblay 30,861]

The AFL was on the decline. Laura Kane and her incompetence is expediting the process. To give clubs only a couple of months notice of the change is pathetic. 

Edited July 16 by Ethan Tremblay

[dazzledavey36 54,938]

Maybe I'm the only one that is happy with this move?

Why? There's a genuine NGA prospect for the Dees next years draft by the name of Tarion Ah-Mu from the Dandenong Stringrays who is eligible for next year's draft.

He's a 198cm imposing lad who plays as a genuine power forward and can pinch hit in the ruck. He plays with physicality and reminds me a little of Tom Hawkins from the bits of vision I've seen of him.

He's played 6 Coates League game and has kicked 12 goals already. He's also dominating school footy all whilst still being an under-age prospect.

If he keep his development up, he could easily become a top 20 draft prospect which would mean we would be able to match the bid.

 

[Ethan Tremblay 30,861]

8 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Maybe I'm the only one that is happy with this move?

Why? There's a genuine NGA prospect for the Dees next years draft by the name of Tarion Ah-Mu from the Dandenong Stringrays who is eligible for next year's draft.

He's a 198cm imposing lad who plays as a genuine power forward and can pinch hit in the ruck. He plays with physicality and reminds me a little of Tom Hawkins from the bits of vision I've seen of him.

He's played 6 Coates League game and has kicked 12 goals already. He's also dominating school footy all whilst still being an under-age prospect.

If he keep his development up, he could easily become a top 20 draft prospect which would mean we would be able to match the bid.

 

You’re happy with the changes because of one potential player, Daz? The timing of the “walk back” screams unprofessionalism. 

Edited July 16 by Ethan Tremblay

[Sideshow Bob 2,386]

So basically the rule is changed we get shafted...

Essendon has a prospect amd the rules are changed again to allow early access....

Surely we need compensation for losing mac andrew

[Bates Mate 4,487]

So have I got this right, the dogs got jamarah so they changed the rules which meant we missed Mac Andrew and now are going to change it back? 

[OutOfTheCentre21 180]

If this happens, we deserve compensation for not being able to select Mac Andrew. Unbelievable. 

[Dee Zephyr 19,267]

I’m going to head over to the ‘screwed by afl again’ thread to yell about this. The title here is too nice. 

[dazzledavey36 54,938]

22 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

You’re happy with the changes because of one potential player, Daz? The timing of the “walk back” screams unprofessionalism. 

No.. 

It's giving clubs the right to actually be rewarded for the hard work and resources that they're putting into these development programs such as the NGA development system. I've seen it first hand with what Richmond have done up here in the regional areas near Victoria.

We literally lost Mac Andrew because of this. Now we've got the chance to actually be rewarded if things fall into place. The changes after the Jamarra situation was a reactive decision which ruined clubs development system that they had in place.

Look at the bigger picture.

Edited July 16 by dazzledavey36

[dazzledavey36 54,938]

To further explain why its good that clubs will hopefully be rewarded including Melbourne, is that they're getting kids in at around 10-12 years of age into their NGA program and that's where the education and development starts.

They're putting in a mountain of work and resources in making sure they're setting these young kids up to be the best possible footballers they can be whether they make it into the system or not. It's amazing now what they're exposed too in the elite environment and I think this is a credit to footy clubs in putting in the time and development into these junior kids.

From then on, I'm a big believer that these same clubs should absolutely have the right to have first access to these kids if deemed talented enough to be in the mix.

The Mac Andrew situation left a completely sour taste in my mouth because I know they started with him around 12 or 13 years of age and exposed him to all our resources and junior development porgram only to then change the rules last minute which [censored] us over.

It was a completely reactive decision from the AFL and I know Jason Taylor was absolutely filthy at this.

 

[DistrACTION Jackson 8,734]

2 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

To further explain why its good that clubs will hopefully be rewarded including Melbourne, is that they're getting kids in at around 10-12 years of age into their NGA program and that's where the education and development starts.

They're putting in a mountain of work and resources in making sure they're setting these young kids up to be the best possible footballers they can be whether they make it into the system or not. It's amazing now what they're exposed too in the elite environment and I think this is a credit to footy clubs in putting in the time and development into these junior kids.

From then on, I'm a big believer that these same clubs should absolutely have the right to have first access to these kids if deemed talented enough to be in the mix.

The Mac Andrew situation left a completely sour taste in my mouth because I know they started with him around 12 or 13 years of age and exposed him to all our resources and junior development porgram only to then change the rules last minute which [censored] us over.

It was a completely reactive decision from the AFL and I know Jason Taylor was absolutely filthy at this.

 

100% agree. It was such a short sighted move at the time. The whole reason for those academies was to increase the likelihood of indigenous and kids that come from non-footballing backgrounds into the AFL

[dazzledavey36 54,938]

5 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

100% agree. It was such a short sighted move at the time. The whole reason for those academies was to increase the likelihood of indigenous and kids that come from non-footballing backgrounds into the AFL

And how can you not be happy about this!

That's why some have just completely missed the point on why they're reverting back to the original idea of it all.

There's a bigger picture in this which the AFL have clearly admitted they got this wrong from the start hence why they changing it back to how it was.

Hopefully now this means we see an increase in indigenous talent coming through, it's what the game needs.

Edited July 16 by dazzledavey36

[whatwhat say what 22,755]

the fisted, listed:
- us: mac andrew
- aints: cam mckenzie
- norf: riley sanders
- meth coke: lance collard
- flagmantle: jesse motlop and mitch edwards
- dingley: tew jiath

[Maldonboy38 6,403]

Great to hear it might be reverting to its original structure and purpose. Clubs who put in the time, money and effort for specific junior development get priority access.

But I remain livid hat they changed it in the first place without any real thought or accountability, and now, with equal incoherent caprice, are going to change it back. Once again it feels like a reaction to something else, rather than something they have planned on its own merits. 

I like Laura Kane's public persona as an AFL representative, but boy, I reckon she needs to 'read the room' and have a broader understanding of the impact of these decisions.  

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

If this happens this year, it’ll get walked back 2 months before next years draft so we can get royally screwed for the 2nd time. 

[monoccular 17,428]

38 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

No.. 

It's giving clubs the right to actually be rewarded for the hard work and resources that they're putting into these development programs such as the NGA development system. I've seen it first hand with what Richmond have done up here in the regional areas near Victoria.

We literally lost Mac Andrew because of this. Now we've got the chance to actually be rewarded if things fall into place. The changes after the Jamarra situation was a reactive decision which ruined clubs development system that they had in place.

Look at the bigger picture.

Sure.  Until it isn't.  Dogs get their man, Suns get Dee's man, Bombers get their man.

The AFL are a disgraceful organisation.

[dazzledavey36 54,938]

6 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Sure.  Until it isn't.  Dogs get their man, Suns get Dee's man, Bombers get their man.

The AFL are a disgraceful organisation.

Ok.

It is what it is. Try and look at the positives in this moving forward. 

Edited July 16 by dazzledavey36

[DistrACTION Jackson 8,734]

I understand why people are angry, but I think as DD36 says we do need to look at the big picture and I think continuing to grow the game is the important thing.

I do hope the AFL put safeguards in place so someone can’t just move to an area late in their junior time and join a club. For instance, they should have to be in the academy for a minimum of 3 years or something.

Edited July 16 by DistrACTION Jackson

[ChaserJ 5,096]

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Maybe I'm the only one that is happy with this move?

Why? There's a genuine NGA prospect for the Dees next years draft by the name of Tarion Ah-Mu from the Dandenong Stringrays who is eligible for next year's draft.

He's a 198cm imposing lad who plays as a genuine power forward and can pinch hit in the ruck. He plays with physicality and reminds me a little of Tom Hawkins from the bits of vision I've seen of him.

He's played 6 Coates League game and has kicked 12 goals already. He's also dominating school footy all whilst still being an under-age prospect.

If he keep his development up, he could easily become a top 20 draft prospect which would mean we would be able to match the bid.

 

You're not the only one that's happy @dazzledavey36, I think this is a change AFL had to make lest clubs withdraw any investment and support for NGAs. I'm very excited about Ah-Mu next year, the type of player we need on the list and now we have the incentive to keep supporting his development.

I've seen AFLW NGA programs and outcomes first hand and know that some clubs invest more in the programs and do it better than others (and most clubs at large provide more resources toward the boys programs than AFLW), from what I've seen the Dees do a pretty good job investing across both boys and girls programs.  Clubs deserve to be rewarded by getting access to the talent that comes through. 

FWIW AFL flagged review of all things draft and academy last year (was mentioned before the draft IIRC, gathered further steam after Suns cleaned up due to their own academy access) and despite what certain clubs say, there was a good chance that changes were going to come in this year.  Andrew Dillon mentioned the potential for change in one of his first interviews with Cal Twomey & Riley Beverage. Any public commentary that clubs engage in will always be informed by self interest. I do wonder if this means that some (if not all) changes to the points system (DVI) will also be implemented this trade and draft period.

Edited July 16 by ChaserJ

[Dee Boys 629]

Any more info on Ah-Mu from those in the know would be appreciated. Sounds exciting and the exact type of player we’re in need of…

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

Also there needs to be strict rules around what constitutes an NGA player. Will stop the power houses just running through every prodigious talent into their NGA program. 

[dazzledavey36 54,938]

25 minutes ago, ChaserJ said:

You're not the only one that's happy @dazzledavey36, I think this is a change AFL had to make lest clubs withdraw any investment and support for NGAs. I'm very excited about Ah-Mu next year, the type of player we need on the list and now we have the incentive to keep supporting his development.

I've seen AFLW NGA programs and outcomes first hand and know that some clubs invest more in the programs and do it better than others (and most clubs at large provide more resources toward the boys programs than AFLW), from what I've seen the Dees do a pretty good job investing across both boys and girls programs.  Clubs deserve to be rewarded by getting access to the talent that comes through. 

FWIW AFL flagged review of all things draft and academy last year (was mentioned before the draft IIRC, gathered further steam after Suns cleaned up due to their own academy access) and despite what certain clubs say, there was a good chance that changes were going to come in this year.  Andrew Dillon mentioned the potential for change in one of his first interviews with Cal Twomey & Riley Beverage. Any public commentary that clubs engage will always be determined by self interest. I do wonder if this means that some (if not all) changes to the points system (DVI) will also be implemented this trade and draft period.

Thought of you straight away when I was writing up in this thread. I knew you'd be stoked.

Also, great insight into the AFLW NGA, I'm glad it's the same with the women's program as it is with the men's.

I remember watching that Andrew Dillion with Cal and Riley and that was the first time it pricked my ears up. I'm glad to hear now that they've taken into consideration and will revert back to the old NGA system so clubs have full access now to these kids that come through their system.

[The Lobster Effect 891]

The drivers re getting more indigenous and multicultural people playing AFL is all good, but there are some problems:

1) The zones are not equal (e.g the Northern State academies have access to better players. Melbourne used to have Darwin in our zone but that got given to Gold Coast with no compensation for us. Plus amongst the VIC clubs there is disparity. I know things might even out a bit after a while but it's not like all zones can be exactly equivalent).

2) NGA players don't get bid on at what they're worth because some clubs don't bother because they know they won't get the player or don't want to harm relationships with other clubs. Same applies for father son picks (e.g Daicos going at pick 4).

3) Clubs using a combo of junk picks to pay for a player (this might be fixed or improved by the AFL apparently)

[Travy14 1,917]

3 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

And how can you not be happy about this!

That's why some have just completely missed the point on why they're reverting back to the original idea of it all.

There's a bigger picture in this which the AFL have clearly admitted they got this wrong from the start hence why they changing it back to how it was.

Hopefully now this means we see an increase in indigenous talent coming through, it's what the game needs.

Everyone has an academy, clubs don't put time and effort into it.  Just money that they have to.

Get rid of the Zones, still have the academy's, all clubs put the same $$ and staff into them and all players are free game.

Should purely be about getting these kids into the AFL and nothing else.