-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Father - Son's in this years tac or underage leagues
- Thread starter opng
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Moved to Adelaide to play SANFL. It was in the local paper.
sydney eagle
Norm Smith Medallist
The "bidding system" for father/son picks that I like goes a bit like this. At the start of each round of the draft all teams are asked to nominate any father /son selections that they want to take in that round. If a player is not nominated in a particular round by his club he can be drafted by any other club in that round. At the start of the next round the same thing happens again. If, for example, Hawkins is available under father/son for Geelong and, for whatever reason, Geelong do not nominate him for the first round then another team can draft him in the first round, but if no other team picks him then Geelong has the opportunity to nominate him in the second round and so on. This allows clubs to put a value on possible father/son selections for themselves.
- Thread starter
- #84
Its a good bidding system youve come up with but clubs will want FS selections sorted aout before the draft just like it is know. But i do like this system.
Bugger bidding systems and other bloody tampering and leave the rule alone. So what if Hawkins may have been a top 5 pick if he was available to be drafted? He wasn't available, end of argument.
Good luck to the cats and I hope Tomahawk goes on to justify all the hype.
The whole idea of the rule is to give clubs first access to the sons of past players in order to build and maintain club tradition. So what if SA and WA clubs get first shot at the sons of players who never played for them just cos they played in that state. In 10 years or less, that field will be barren soil and they'll be looking for the sons of their actual past players.
For Fukc's sake AFL, STOP MOVING THE GOAL POSTS AND FRIGGING WITH THE RULES ALL THE TIME. All those people who don't like the rule are just sooks who want everything handed to them. Build a bridge.
Good luck to the cats and I hope Tomahawk goes on to justify all the hype.
The whole idea of the rule is to give clubs first access to the sons of past players in order to build and maintain club tradition. So what if SA and WA clubs get first shot at the sons of players who never played for them just cos they played in that state. In 10 years or less, that field will be barren soil and they'll be looking for the sons of their actual past players.
For Fukc's sake AFL, STOP MOVING THE GOAL POSTS AND FRIGGING WITH THE RULES ALL THE TIME. All those people who don't like the rule are just sooks who want everything handed to them. Build a bridge.
agree bud...everyone bulid a bridge, no one complained when north got jesse smith, or when brown went to the lions. cry me a river. the rule is there and should remain unchanged.Bugger bidding systems and other bloody tampering and leave the rule alone. So what if Hawkins may have been a top 5 pick if he was available to be drafted? He wasn't available, end of argument.
Good luck to the cats and I hope Tomahawk goes on to justify all the hype.
The whole idea of the rule is to give clubs first access to the sons of past players in order to build and maintain club tradition. So what if SA and WA clubs get first shot at the sons of players who never played for them just cos they played in that state. In 10 years or less, that field will be barren soil and they'll be looking for the sons of their actual past players.
For Fukc's sake AFL, STOP MOVING THE GOAL POSTS AND FRIGGING WITH THE RULES ALL THE TIME. All those people who don't like the rule are just sooks who want everything handed to them. Build a bridge.
- Thread starter
- #87
yep i love the rule the way it is the only minor change ive always called for is that eligibilty is when the son was born,if son born this year and his dad has played the required games(100) that makes hime eligble for ever so that you cant just change the rule for the FS just before being taken.
The Royal Sampler
Floreat Pica, Bitch!
Originally posted by rotto
Hang on, you're suggesting a system whereby recruits have a chance to go to the team their father played for... providing they aren't very good?!? Seems a rather bizarre way to encourage young talent, to me.
Great idea. Seems to give a clear indication of value for a particular player. But these are the issues I can see;
• there is a big difference in value between the pick that a club finishing high on the ladder has to one finishing low. Brisbane bidding a first round pick for Murphy at 2 is a lot different to WC bidding a first round pick for Cousins at 16 for example.
• often a club does not have a pick in a particular round because it has been traded, and the final draft picks are effected by trades. If this meant that a club could then simply use its next highest draft pick, then it actually provides incentive to trade away picks. For example; Geelong want to recruit Hawkins under the F/S bidding, and believe he will go 1st round. They trade their first round pick and select him with their second round. Or the trade their number 7 pick for a player and number 16 pick from Dockers, using number 16 for Hawkins.
The old system of a 2nd rd pick and lower games qualifications was spot on, but the twits in charge (edited for adult content ) felt they had to stamp their authority and totally confused people in the process.
And the current review is almost certain to result in a bidding contest.
Why? Because the mob in charge of the AFL have yet to set up a review that didn't change their own rules.
) felt they had to stamp their authority and totally confused people in the process.And the current review is almost certain to result in a bidding contest.
Why? Because the mob in charge of the AFL have yet to set up a review that didn't change their own rules.
Schwatta
Debutant
Maybe the roos can draft carey's daughter
Similar threads
