Luke Ball nominates essendon and collingwood as his prefered destination

[moose_77]

Your whole argument rests on the unspoken assertion that the only standard by which the reasonableness of actions can be judged is whether they conform to the rules. Of course he's conforming with the rules. Of course the AFL can't compel him to take a medical examination. Of course there are reasons why it is undesireable that the AFL be able to compel him, even if they wanted to. None of this changes the fact that the way he's acting is designed to affect the outcome of the draft.
Some people would consider that unreasonable (NOT against the rules). I'm not necessarily one of those people. I just find it ridiculous the way you're trying rebut any criticisms by the self-evident fact that he's not breaking any rules.

he isn't breaking any rules. His manager has told him what to do. This would be the same if you got a lawyer to represent you in a murder case or divorce for example. He is being guided. He would have said "What do I have to do to get to Collingwood". His manager said "Do nothing and speak to no one, go into hiding". Ball is not at fault. He want what he wants like we want a new TV. We will still settle for the old one. Rules are rules. People will always try and push them.

 

[Vader]

The real issue here is the employers right to have sufficient information about a prospective employee, in order to make an informed decision whether or not to recruit them.

All clubs should have the right to the same level of information - medical examinations and interviews. It is wrong for one club to be treated preferentially to any (or all) of the others. I don't care whether that club is Adelaide, Collingwood, Essendon or Fremantle.

To this end, I think the AFL should make it compulsory for all players nominating for the draft to make themselves available for a medical examination by an AFL appointed doctor. The AFL would act as an independent mediator, distributing the results to all interested parties.

As for refusing interviews... Players should be compelled to accept interviews by all clubs or none at all - their choice. Unlike the medical examination though, I don't see how the AFL could act as an independent umpire - unless all the interested clubs were to provide them with a set of questions to be asked to the player, with the player required to answer all questions. The answers could then be distributed to all the clubs.

Unfortunately, neither of these are in the draft rules at present. I suspect the AFL will change the rules accordingly, particularly with regards to the medical examination. Effectively they will be shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.

 

[Bananabender]

Not sure how we will manage that with picks 4 & 20. We must be good if we are going to get 6 as well.
Get some new material, we've blitzed the last couple of drafts since we got rid of the idiots that used to give away our picks every year. Oh that's right you've got them in charge now.

... and please nominate which draft picks these people have allegedly given away ...

 

[Quicky]

Your whole argument rests on the unspoken assertion that the only standard by which the reasonableness of actions can be judged is whether they conform to the rules. Of course he's conforming with the rules. Of course the AFL can't compel him to take a medical examination. Of course there are reasons why it is undesireable that the AFL be able to compel him, even if they wanted to. None of this changes the fact that the way he's acting is designed to affect the outcome of the draft.
Some people would consider that unreasonable (NOT against the rules). I'm not necessarily one of those people. I just find it ridiculous the way you're trying rebut any criticisms by the self-evident fact that he's not breaking any rules.

Not really, i'm just saying his actions are within the rules so it can't be considered draft tampering by the AFL or anyone else as the rules stand. Thats distinct from it being outside the spirit of the rules. No doubt he is doing what he can to get to his club of choice - whether anyone thinks that is wrong or not (I don't) is irrelevent as it's within the rules. I was merely retorting to the incorrect assumption that Luke Ball or Collingwood had draft tampered as we havn't.

On the "reasonableness of his actions" you'd have to say that none of this would have occured had StKilda traded him in the first place. I think there are some pretty strong arguments about the "reasonableness" of StKildas actions in all this, and whether they were in the "spirit" of the game. Old Spice touched on it and there is plenty more debate on it on this forum so I won't go over old ground. If I was Luke Ball i'd feel pretty sore about getting screwed in trade week, the rules didn't protect him then nor did any sense of decent conduct, so when it comes to a minor manipulation of the rules to try and get where he wants to I don't see any problem in it. Especially considering the nature of the manipulation - I strongly believe his within his rights not to undertake a medical if he chooses not to and ditto giving an interview. At the end of the day anyone can still pick him up they just have to weigh up the risks of selecting him.

 

[Quicky]

The real issue here is the employers right to have sufficient information about a prospective employee, in order to make an informed decision whether or not to recruit them.

All clubs should have the right to the same level of information - medical examinations and interviews. It is wrong for one club to be treated preferentially to any (or all) of the others. I don't care whether that club is Adelaide, Collingwood, Essendon or Fremantle.

To this end, I think the AFL should make it compulsory for all players nominating for the draft to make themselves available for a medical examination by an AFL appointed doctor. The AFL would act as an independent mediator, distributing the results to all interested parties.

As for refusing interviews... Players should be compelled to accept interviews by all clubs or none at all - their choice. Unlike the medical examination though, I don't see how the AFL could act as an independent umpire - unless all the interested clubs were to provide them with a set of questions to be asked to the player, with the player required to answer all questions. The answers could then be distributed to all the clubs.

Unfortunately, neither of these are in the draft rules at present. I suspect the AFL will change the rules accordingly, particularly with regards to the medical examination. Effectively they will be shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.

Thats starting to go a bit too far. The rules are already massively restrictive and tight as it stands. Forcing players to undertake medicals against their wishes is wrong. I've already said it but it's an issue of civil rights. I don't think anyone should be forced to do that. I'd be very disappointed in the AFL if they ever introduced rules like that.

 

[yaco55]

No it's not. It isn't against the rules not to speak to a club, or give them medicals. It may be percieved that way but isn't against the rules or draft tampering to do this. Being made to give medicals or medical information against someones will is civil rights issue and Ball is well within his rights to refuse to give that information away if he chooses not to.



In what way has Ball or Collingwood draft tampered???

Ball is well within his rights not to talk to other clubs or give them medicals. Thats not outside of the rules. He also hasn't refused to be drafted by any clubs, or even nominated Collingwood as his preferred destination outside of trade week. Being made to give medicals against a persons will goes beyond footy or the draft - it's about civil rights. I can tell you if someone told me I had to do a medical against my will i'd tell them to get fuct. If someone gave away my medical information against my will i'd be furious and go after the pr!cks. This isn't about some minor manipulation, it's about a persons rights.

Equally Collingwood hasn't said anything regarding Ball besides we will consider him at pick 30 if he is available. In fact theres been no news about us even being in contact with him since trade week.

I don't see how anyone can spin that as draft tampering. Neither party has said anything at all. Its not against the rules not to speak to clubs if you choose not to, or to give medicals if you don't want to. Ball hasn't said he wont be drafted by any team, he hasn't nominated Collingwood, and Collingwood and Ball don't seem to have spoken since trade week. Silence is not draft tampering.

Rationalisation at its best.

So Collingwood didn't interview Ball or give him a medical.

 

[yaco55]

But thats the point, it's within the rules of the draft not to speak to clubs or give them medicals. Even prospective draftees can refuse to speak to clubs or give them medicals if they choose not to. All Ball is doing is using any means he can to get to Collingwood within the rules of the draft. As it's within the rules of the draft it can't be construed as draft tampering. Just because it has an influence on where he is going does not make it draft tampering. He is under no obligation to talk to clubs or give them a medical for all the reasons i've already stated - nor should he have to, that notion is ridiculous. He hasn't said he wont go to clubs that select him, he hasn't said he'd only play for Collingwood, Collingwood hasn't even publicly commited themselves to drafting him if available at our pick. Any club still has the right to select him. All Ball has done is make it as risky a decision as possible, within the rules of the draft, for any other team to select him.

You dont understand the rules !

All players invited to state Screenings and Draft Camps must attend or the AFL may disqualify them from the draft. That means the players must have medical assessments, interviews and performance tests ( if fit ).

There was a famous case last year when Hayden Ballantyne missed the SS because he was on holidays. He then had to explain to the AFL why he missed the SS and received dispensation to undertake an additional SS.

The reason why there is SS and DC's is so that players dont have to sit through 16 medical screenings or performance tests.

 

[yaco55]

heard from an extremely reliable source that a team who has 2 picks in the 20's who (besides melb) are in the box seat to get him....are making a hardcore late play for him......and its not essendon

Kangaroos

 

[Quicky]

Rationalisation at its best.

So Collingwood didn't interview Ball or give him a medical.

Obviously we did. The distinction being we did so during trade week when we were interested in trading for him. We, nor Ball, were to know at the time that the trade would be scuppered like it was. It's not like it was an intentional ploy at the time to get him for free - we obviously wanted him then and wouldn't have wanted to risk losing him in the draft like we might now so the idea is ludicrous.

You dont understand the rules !

All players invited to state Screenings and Draft Camps must attend or the AFL may disqualify them from the draft. That means the players must have medical assessments, interviews and performance tests ( if fit ).

There was a famous case last year when Hayden Ballantyne missed the SS because he was on holidays. He then had to explain to the AFL why he missed the SS and received dispensation to undertake an additional SS.

The reason why there is SS and DC's is so that players dont have to sit through 16 medical screenings or performance tests.

The difference here is Luke Ball is a senior player and doesn't attend state screenings and draft camps. Also on Ballantyne I don't know the full story here but reading between the lines i'd imagine the AFL "strongly recommended" he take SS again as opposed to actually forcing him to do so. There is a difference.

Back to the argument though, people are suggesting that what Luke Ball and Collingwood have done is somehow draft tampering. While it may be percieved that way as his actions are an attempt to influence his destination (or atleast we think they are, you could argue how do we really know as he hasn't said anything!!), by the rules he and Collingwood hasn't done anything wrong so it can't be considered draft tampering according to the rules.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Thats starting to go a bit too far. The rules are already massively restrictive and tight as it stands. Forcing players to undertake medicals against their wishes is wrong. I've already said it but it's an issue of civil rights. I don't think anyone should be forced to do that. I'd be very disappointed in the AFL if they ever introduced rules like that.

The reasons rules become overly complex is in response to people seeking to avoid them or find loopholes. There can be no repercussions against Luke Ball for his actions. But his actions can trigger a tightening of the rules.

If no-one abuses a system there is no need to tighten it up.

Luke Ball , supposedly a player rights advocate, is taking actions that threaten to make it more difficult for other players in the future.

 

[Quicky]

The reasons rules become overly complex is in response to people seeking to avoid them or find loopholes. There can be no repercussions against Luke Ball for his actions. But his actions can trigger a tightening of the rules.

If no-one abuses a system there is no need to tighten it up.

Luke Ball , supposedly a player rights advocate, is taking actions that threaten to make it more difficult for other players in the future.

So Luke Ball should change his tactics because the AFL 'might' tighten the rules because of his actions?? Tighten them to force players to undertake interviews and medicals?? The very thing people in here are suggesting he does - against his wishes - to avoid it becoming mandatory?? Do you see the failure in the logic there?? What is the difference?? In one circumstance players will be bullyed into taking medicals against their wishes, in the other it becomes mandatory to take them - but in the end the outcome is still the same. Look it's my personal opinion - plenty seem to disagree - but I strongly feel forcing players to take medicals against their wishes is wrong for all the reasons i've already gone over. We aren't fascists FFS!!!!

 

[SaintsSeptember]

So Luke Ball should change his tactics because the AFL 'might' tighten the rules because of his actions?? Tighten them to force players to undertake interviews and medicals?? The very thing people in here are suggesting he does - against his wishes - to avoid it becoming mandatory?? Do you see the failure in the logic there?? What is the difference?? In one circumstance players will be bullyed into taking medicals against their wishes, in the other it becomes mandatory to take them - but in the end the outcome is still the same. Look it's my personal opinion - plenty seem to disagree - but I strongly feel forcing players to take medicals against their wishes is wrong for all the reasons i've already gone over. We aren't fascists FFS!!!!

From wikipedia.
"Fascism fashioned itself as the "Complete opposite of Marxian socialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist#cite_note-14 by rejecting the economic and material conception of history, the fundamental belief of fascism being that human beings are motivated by glory and heroism rather than economic motives, in contrast to the worldview of capitalism and socialism"

So what is motivativating our players. Some of them are critisized for being capitalists. Fascism isn't necessarily bad , though there have been some poor examples in history.

 

[Vader]

Thats starting to go a bit too far. The rules are already massively restrictive and tight as it stands. Forcing players to undertake medicals against their wishes is wrong. I've already said it but it's an issue of civil rights. I don't think anyone should be forced to do that. I'd be very disappointed in the AFL if they ever introduced rules like that.

Not at all. Many employers demand that their prospective employees undertake a medical examination prior to the commencement of their employment. It means that they are able to use it as a baseline, should they be sued for injury/illness sustained in the workplace. If the condition can be shown to be pre-existing, then the law suit would collapse immediately. It can also be viewed as an OH&S requirement, so that the employers can plan & prepare a suitable workplace for their employees.

I'm not suggesting that players should be subjected to medical examinations by every club interested in drafting them. All I'm suggesting is that they should be subject to 1 examination, by an AFL appointed doctor. It's not that onerous. It's simply a condition of employment, not a breach of human rights.

New draftees are given medical examinations at SS and Draft Camp. Why should recycled players be any different?

 

[Quicky]

From wikipedia.
"Fascism fashioned itself as the "Complete opposite of Marxian socialism by rejecting the economic and material conception of history, the fundamental belief of fascism being that human beings are motivated by glory and heroism rather than economic motives, in contrast to the worldview of capitalism and socialism"

So what is motivativating our players. Some of them are critisized for being capitalists. Fascism isn't necessarily bad , though there have been some poor examples in history.

From Giovanni Gentile "For the Fascist, everything is within the State and ... neither individuals or groups are outside the State. ...For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative" I was merely making a reference to a persons rights which some people seem to be willing to give away far too easily. Lets not get into this philosophical discussion. Plenty of things work in 'principle' in 'practice' it's usually a totally different matter.

 

[Old Spice]

The real issue here is the employers right to have sufficient information about a prospective employee, in order to make an informed decision whether or not to recruit them.

What! If an employee wants to work for a particular employer, and that employer requests a medical and the potential employee accepts that condition, then of course a medical may take place. You will note here the voluntary nature of the medical examination. What you are proposing is that if an employer wants to headhunt a potential employee, that potential employee had better bend over. They may do it that way in Adelaide, but this is Melbourne friend.

Luke Ball , supposedly a player rights advocate, is taking actions that threaten to make it more difficult for other players in the future.

You belong in Adelaide with our metal clad friend. What do you mean supposedly player rights advocate numbat? The AFLPA supports free agency as does Luke Ball. Luke Ball is well, well well within his rights, and it is the AFL that is borderline transgressing the law. If they attempt to tighten the rules in response to Ball, expect the levy to break and free agency to come in.

 

[Quicky]

Thanks Old Spice, think you did a better job of articulating that than me.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

What! If an employee wants to work for a particular employer, and that employer requests a medical and the potential employee accepts that condition, then of course a medical may take place. You will note here the voluntary nature of the medical examination. What you are proposing is that if an employer wants to headhunt a potential employee, that potential employee had better bend over. They may do it that way in Adelaide, but this is Melbourne friend.

It would not be hard or arduous to have a condition upon entering the draft along the lines of.
" I hereby submit that to the best of my knowlege I have no medical condition which will restrict my ability to play afl football except as noted"

 

[favourites]

What about those coming off an knee reco who wont know. There is nothing wrong with the system as it is.

Ill leave it to Adelaides recruiting manager to have the last word.
http://www.afc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/4417/newsid/87458/default.aspx

"There are a couple of reasons why we wouldn't take Luke Ball. One is he doesn't want to come here and that's fair enough. It's his prerogative to choose where he'd like to go," Rendell said.

"The other factor is that he's going to be way too expensive for us as well. He could possibly be the highest paid player at the club if he came here.

http://www.afc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/4417/newsid/87458/default.aspx

 

[SaintsSeptember]

What about those coming off an knee reco who wont know. There is nothing wrong with the system as it is.

Ill leave it to Adelaides recruiting manager to have the last word.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/87458/default.aspx

Not the last word though, and not the only word that matters. I guess Port can't be too fussy about only having players who want to go there, because honestly , who would?

Personally I would prefer a system that either allows players a method of going to the team of their choice, or one that doesn't.
A system where the player scoots overseas to avoid prospective recruiters is dodgy to say the least.

 

[Old Spice]

It would not be hard or arduous to have a condition upon entering the draft along the lines of.
" I hereby submit that to the best of my knowlege I have no medical condition which will restrict my ability to play afl football except as noted"

Understand this. Information about a players medical status is their own property unless they decide to impart it to someone. Ball has opted not to and in light of that, that's all she wrote - unless you want a star chamber to conduct probes on unwilling specimens.

 

[Optimax]

Demitriou just said on sen that he has no problem with ball's actions.

Ball can state his preference and then refuse to speak to whoever he likes, basically just because he is in the draft it doesnt mean he has to talk to suitors.

 

[Tambu]

Demitriou just said on sen that he has no problem with ball's actions.

Ball can state his preference and then refuse to speak to whoever he likes, basically just because he is in the draft it doesnt mean he has to talk to suitors.

Yeah but Demitriou is an ugly, fat, sweaty, 12 sandwich eating bastard.

 

[JA27]

i think players need should disclose their medical history, otherwise we wouldnt know about gary rohan and his rooster!

 

[Optimax]

Yeah but Demitriou is an ugly, fat, sweaty, 12 sandwich eating bastard.

and he is also the boss that your football club was hoping would force ball to talk

He didnt, because its not tampering so harden up

 

[Old Spice]

So Collingwood are going to be paying over if they get him or is that just the other clubs? Same price has been nominated for all clubs.

No they wont because once the two years expires Ball will negotiate a new contract with Collingwood which should even the price out to @400k. Interloping clubs will enjoy no such benefit - the reason being because Ball wants to play for Collingwood, not become a bonded slave.