Draft Rule Changes

[footyman]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,23622241-19742,00.html

The lifting of the draft age by four months is probably the most interesting, mind you not surprising. It'll be referred to as the "Patrick Dangerfield rule", as I suspect the dramas surrounding his case only emphasised to the AFL the importance of players finishing school.

What it seems to mean is that the 2009 draft pool will be very thin. The AFL clubs this year will pick over the best of the 'bottom age' lot for the last time, meaning just eight months worth of new players will be in the pool (ie. players born between May and December 1991). And then there is the Gold Coast team who will come in and get their selections too. Effectively the pool will be a two-thirds of what it normally is, with one extra team having a lot of early selections.

 

[soupy66]

FM is that a good thing or a bad thing for those bottom age kids this year?

 

[macca69]

FM is that a good thing or a bad thing for those bottom age kids this year?

Not sure it'll have a huge effect on them either way tbh.

Only difference would be that the bottom-age blokes that are overlooked this year will have more chance of getting picked up in 09 due to it being a much weaker draft than we've seen in previous years.

Looks like we'll see a few more speculative picks in 09, looking forward to seeing how that works already.

 

[roostersgal4eva]

I think thats a good thing TBH - I have said that the minimum age was to young and that draftees should also be requred to attempt some sort of TAFE/Uni Course/Apprentiship etc.(that last bit a tad off topic)

 

[soupy66]

(ie. players born between May and December 1991).

these guys aren't eligible for 2008 so are you saying off the table offers? Locking the kids in before 2009? Can that be done - what has to be on offer if it can? Sorry if these are low IQ questions.

 

[footyman]

I think the Gold Coast factor might advantage bottom agers more this year than the rule change on age, as clubs fearful of missing early picks next year might try even harder to snare a late bargain this year. Clubs might even go to the extreme of freeing up more spots on their list at the end of this year, with the intention of selecting a higher number of players this draft because they know next year's draft won't be as strong. This year will be an alright year to rebuild, next year won't be.

As macca said, for those who miss out they'll be in a thin draft pool so their chances of being picked are a fair bit higher. Clubs may look a bit harder at state leagues etc to find talent too.

I've got no idea what your last question is, sorry mate. Anyone born after April 30th 1991 can't be drafted this year.

 

[soupy66]

rrrr .....you mean bottom agers this year being the already 17 year olds at 30/4 like Ziebell and Sidebottom .... think I have it now...... I thought you were meaning the now 16 year olds (referred to also as
bottom agers) turning 17 after 30/4 and I was wondering how clubs got around their ineligibility.....c thats why I apologised for the low IQ questions

 

[-VC-]

Yep, this definitely benefits kids born in 1991 on two levels. If they are born before April then as FM says I suspect the clubs will be looking for more bottom aged bargains. To use last year as an example I think you would've found guys like Gaertner, Zaharakis and Smouha on AFL lists this year if the same scenario was to apply to 2007.

The second level is that the 09 drafting pool will be weaker due to Gold Coast having their way with it. There'll be more picks used which means more players taken. This advantages all kids born in 1991. If they were eligible in 08 and didn't get taken then they will still get that same good exposure playing junior football in 2009 to have a shot at being taken second time around, and if they weren't eligible, well quite simply they're in a weaker draft.

 

[-VC-]

rrrr .....you mean bottom agers this year being the already 17 year olds at 30/4 like Ziebell and Sidebottom .... think I have it now...... I thought you were meaning the now 16 year olds (referred to also as
bottom agers) turning 17 after 30/4 and I was wondering how clubs got around their ineligibility.....c thats why I apologised for the low IQ questions

Born 1990 = Top aged
Born 1991 = Bottom aged
Born 1992 = 16 year old

Of course for this years draft (for the last time) bottom aged players born between January 1 and April 30 are eligible. I've never seen 16 year olds referred to as bottom agers.

EDIT: Oh wait, I see where you're coming from. Today just happens to be April 30! So those that are draftable have turned 17 this year and those born in 1991 that aren't draftable will have their birthday some time later this year.

 

[Jimmyjess]

I wonder whether the new changes will have an impact on the playing of 19 year olds in the TAC Cup? Given that all players will now get the opportunity to have two full seasons at U/18 level it may make this scheme irrelevant?

 

[blues2010]

I think its not a bad idea. 17 year olds don't play that much in their 1st year. Only really Morton and Ebert come to mind and they play for the 2 bottom teams. That said I think we still will see Cotchin, Ward and maybe one or two others some time during the year, but most guys don't really get permanent games until 18 and the guys who have come in as 18 yo's like Rioli, Kreuzer and Palmer seem more ready for it

 

[-VC-]

I wonder whether the new changes will have an impact on the playing of 19 year olds in the TAC Cup? Given that all players will now get the opportunity to have two full seasons at U/18 level it may make this scheme irrelevant?

Maybe it makes it more relevant. Now you basically have a 12 month window to draft juniors from instead on 16.

 

[Selgae]

I think its not a bad idea. 17 year olds don't play that much in their 1st year. Only really Morton and Ebert come to mind and they play for the 2 bottom teams. That said I think we still will see Cotchin, Ward and maybe one or two others some time during the year, but most guys don't really get permanent games until 18 and the guys who have come in as 18 yo's like Rioli, Kreuzer and Palmer seem more ready for it

Yep Palmer got overlooked the first time and is now 19, I bet a lot of clubs wished they'd taken him for nothing a year or so before..

Will be some interesting draft times ahead.. The 2009 premiers will get some very late picks of which they must use.. I wonder if they will be forced to delist better players than they could ever hope of drafting with their last picks... Would there third pick be in the 70's???

 

[Silvagnis]

The change to the player drafting age, to come into force after the 2009 season, was designed to ensure more players had completed their secondary studies prior to being listed AFL players, allowed teenagers to mature further before joining an AFL club and also allowed clubs a more accurate assessment of a player's ability and potential.

The AFL didn't have a problem with Walker, Ball and Ellis completing school in their first year in the AFL.

The AFL are changing the rules to hand more quality young players to the Gold Coast and build another successfull franchise like the Lions, WCE, Sydney, Port and Adelaide. They or West Sydney will then get first shot at the class bottom agers in 2010 because they weren't eligible for the 2009 draft.

Melbourne are on a hiding to nothing if they win eight games in 2008 and 2009.

 

[footyman]

I wonder whether the new changes will have an impact on the playing of 19 year olds in the TAC Cup? Given that all players will now get the opportunity to have two full seasons at U/18 level it may make this scheme irrelevant?

Fair point.

It certainly makes the U16 championships less significant. Now every single player in that carnival is over two years off being drafted. They'll all get two full seasons of TAC Cup. Previously, at least a third of the U16s were eligible for the following year's draft, hence seeing them early was more important.

 

[its game on]

Very good news, most of these kids are still a bit young, most still at school and now have this unnecessary distraction out of the way for their school life.

I've been advocating 31/12 instead of 30/4 for a while now.

Amazing that they had lived with, and approved a festering blunder, such as Dangerfield's before they woke up. Suppose at least something positive came out of it.

Anyway great decision, no brainer really.

 

[Monkey King]

Yep Palmer got overlooked the first time and is now 19, I bet a lot of clubs wished they'd taken him for nothing a year or so before..

Ummm... he didn't nominate did he?

 

[swannies]

Moving the age back by 4 months is a good idea and really a non issue to me.

More interesting is the new ruling that a player must be signed up by October 31 and if they aren't they can "delist themselves", in the words of Anderson. They are also now able to register for the main draft not just PSD.

Initially I thought the ability to de-register ones self would lead to less trades during trade week. But I guess it depends on whether you want to go to a specific club or state, or just want to go to another club.

 

[Mt Franklin]

Sorry abit confused, what does this mean for the U19's playing in TAC this year? does this mean there top agers and get another chance next year if they dont get picked up at the end of 2008?

 

[-VC-]

Sorry abit confused, what does this mean for the U19's playing in TAC this year? does this mean there top agers and get another chance next year if they dont get picked up at the end of 2008?

This only effects how young a player can be to get drafted. This years U/19's can get drafted this year, 2009 or even 2015 if someone wants to take a punt on a 26 year old rookie.

 

[foj1]

All in all a sensible rule. kids get a better crack at finishing school or getting into a trade and then playing AFL if good enough. Yes there will be arguments that so and so is ready to play footy now yet has to play TAC for another year but it may mean that drafted players are slightly more ready to meaningfully contribute to a team from the onset.
If the Falcons werent so insistent on playing Dangerfield one out in the goalsquare against kids who arent AFL listed and didnt do an AFL preseason would this have happened so quickly................?
Possibly