The Father-Son rule is an unfair, elitist, anachronistic rule.

[shintemaster]

Draft
Priority Picks
Inequal Funding
Fixturing
Stadium Deals
SANFL / AFL / MCC Membership competition for clubs
Inequal fixtures
Inequal access to prime time TV
Inequal access to FTA TV
Inequal access to timeslots
Inequal access to differing opposition
Inequal access to "blockbuster" dates
Sharing revenue from merchandise sales
Salary cap inequity
Draft concessions
etc

Yeah, but he, let's get rid of the one rule that is vaguely fair (newer teams are an exception however in time all will be equal - West Coast & Adelaide must be approaching this point, just need to stop introducing new teams!) and allows for a little bit of loyalty & luck in an otherwise completely financially driven competition.

 

[DTRAIN87]

Should we start talking about the dodgy tactics Sheedy udsed to get premierships in his era? How bout starting with 1983's oval farce????

 

[Jemaine]

Draft
Priority Picks
Inequal Funding
Fixturing
Stadium Deals
SANFL / AFL / MCC Membership competition for clubs
Inequal fixtures
Inequal access to prime time TV
Inequal access to FTA TV
Inequal access to timeslots
Inequal access to differing opposition
Inequal access to "blockbuster" dates
Sharing revenue from merchandise sales
Salary cap inequity
Draft concessions
etc

Yeah, but he, let's get rid of the one rule that is vaguely fair (newer teams are an exception however in time all will be equal - West Coast & Adelaide must be approaching this point, just need to stop introducing new teams!) and allows for a little bit of loyalty & luck in an otherwise completely financially driven competition.

Great post. Father son needs to be left as is.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Draft
Priority Picks
Inequal Funding
Fixturing
Stadium Deals
SANFL / AFL / MCC Membership competition for clubs
Inequal fixtures
Inequal access to prime time TV
Inequal access to FTA TV
Inequal access to timeslots
Inequal access to differing opposition
Inequal access to "blockbuster" dates
Sharing revenue from merchandise sales
Salary cap inequity
Draft concessions
etc

Yeah, but he, let's get rid of the one rule that is vaguely fair (newer teams are an exception however in time all will be equal - West Coast & Adelaide must be approaching this point, just need to stop introducing new teams!) and allows for a little bit of loyalty & luck in an otherwise completely financially driven competition.

You've made ten points there (in bold). Shame you've made the same point ten times though...

 

[Asgardian]

Surely after all this time on Bigfooty (12 years) I don't need to justify my passion for Essendon to anyone, least of all you. Hell, since I became a member of Bigfooty in 2000, I've only missed two Essendon games in Melbourne

You tell him mate, they still question my Port Adelaide allegiance.

Get over yourself, Dan. Surely in your 12 years on this board you would have realised that no one cares for your ideas, and with good reason.

That aint true.

Dan & I have had many a stoush, disagreed with him vehemently, but I respect his knowledge of the game and ability to formulate & express a logical opinion.

The fact I happen to disagree with his logic on this one is a matter of opinion, not fact as you would like to believe.

 

[Dan26]

Thanks Asgardian. I despise the Ad Hominum attacks, as to me, it is a sign of weakness when people attack the poster. It doesn't necessarily mean their argument is wrong, as the argument is a matter of opinion, but it does show that they have no ability to formulate and express their opinion.

Anyway, what I dislike most about the "pro-father-son" argument is what I consider to be the use of the emotive argument. To me, it is a complete cop out.

"Oh it respects the history of the game"
It does nothing of the sort. Giving a relative of a former player special treatment is not respecting anything. Does this mean that no other sport in the world therefore respects the history of their game? Of course not.

"It's all about emotion"
How? What utter melodramatic bullshit. I'd be just as emotional following Essendon if Gary Ablett jnr was playing for us instead of Jobe Watson. I'm sure the Bomber fans would have totally embraced GAJ from the moment he debuted given the fame of his famous father.

"It adds to the game"
So, this logically means that if a son DOESN'T play for the same club as his old man, that this detracts from the game? So, I take it, the fact that Tuck has played 100 games for Richmond is a "bad thing" for the game? Right? Right, people?

Is the "emotion" of the game (whatever that means) somehow less because Tuck doesn't play for Hawthorn?

What bad things related to this cop-out argument of "emotion" have happened as a result of the terrible outcome of the son of Michael Tuck not playing for Hawthorn? Oh, how the emotions of every Hawthorn and Richmond fan must be torn. Give me a God damn break, seriously *throws up*

"Can you imagine James Hird's son not playing for Essendon? That justifies the rule right there"
Can you imagine the son of the AFL games record holder Michael Tuck playing for anyone other than Hawthorn? Oh wait....

No one cares who the son plays for. Once they line up for their first club THAT is their club. Marc Murphys Dad (who played over 200 games for the Lions) had no connection whatsoever with Carlton. But does anyone regard Marc Murphy as anything other than navy Blue to the core?

Seriously, if I hear this cop-out "emotion" argument again made by people that clearly can't formulate a proper argument because deep down they know the rule is shit and adds absolutely nothing to the game, I will absolutely throw up.

 

[themidlandmaster]

Seriously, if I hear this cop-out "emotion" argument again made by people that clearly can't formulate a proper argument because deep down they know the rule is shit and adds absolutely nothing to the game, I will absolutely throw up.

Emotionally, I enjoyed seeing Heath Shaw, Ray Shaw's son succed in a grand final where his father couldn't more than if he wasn't his son

 

[weevil]

If the entire would just realise that Dan is always right about everything this whole thread would be so much smoother.

 

[Furn]

Emotionally, I enjoyed seeing Heath Shaw, Ray Shaw's son succed in a grand final where his father couldn't more than if he wasn't his son

How could you possible know that ?

Did you not enjoy seeing Swan, Pendles and Cloke succeed in a grand final ?

 

[fishardansin]

Clearly passionate OP but just as clearly wrong. This rule provides minimal disruption to the draft with only a 2 or 3 each year out of the 120 possibles. I mean talk about a storm in a tea cup.

The only part of the rule that could be considered elitist, or the agreed definition of the word elitist, is that AFL clubs, well at least Essendon, are now investing time into sons of ex Essendon players in the hope that with a fast tracked development they can get a few kids for nothing. Of course some kids out there without this sort of development might think that would be unfair. However, there are now development squads for the top 200 twelve year olds so if you have the talent you can only blame yourself, or the lack of talent you were born with, if you don't make it to AFL.

Also right now it is only unfair on the sides out of Victoria and in 40 years time from now, yes Dan rules are made with the future in mind, it will be all fair.

EDIT:
I'd also add that the fact that there are players who were eligible are not playing for the team their fathers did, Murphy chosing to play somewhere else and clubs not picking up (or delisting) players, shows that the rule works, not the opposite. There is flexibility in the system and clubs have to really want the players and they have to really want to play for them.

Also it was mentioned earlier that there should be a brother rule. I would agree with this. Also not a massive disturbance to the draft and would make life much better for some guys in the league. It could lead to a few spuds spending extra time on a list to get a gun to the club like the Clokes but that is the price the club would have to pay.

I feel that the OP would like to watch a bunch of nameless men run around, or robots, devoid of any emotion or passion for the club. While the draft is evening up the competition it is a harsh restraint on trade that the players have agreed with but if they went to court and challenged they could refuse to play under it. YOU DO NEED TO CONSIDER THEIR FEELINGS. Perhaps you should be forced to work somewhere you don't want to!!!

Also on a final note there is an emotional "buy in" by fans on the players. My mum loves watching "Timmy's boy" captain the side and hated watching her favourite childhood player's son, Fraser, run around for Collingwood. Also this is stupid thing to bring up here because clearly this is a place for those of us a little TOO OBSESSED with players and their developing career and invest enough time to watch many players through from juniors. It is fantastic to see a kid at 16 tear it up and know who he is going to play for.

 

[themidlandmaster]

How could you possible know that ?

Did you not enjoy seeing Swan, Pendles and Cloke succeed in a grand final ?

Not as much as seeingh as the son of a former Captain, a great who lost in heartbreaking circumstances (1979), finally managed a flag.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Thanks Asgardian. I despise the Ad Hominum attacks, as to me, it is a sign of weakness when people attack the poster. It doesn't necessarily mean their argument is wrong, as the argument is a matter of opinion, but it does show that they have no ability to formulate and express their opinion.

Anyway, what I dislike most about the "pro-father-son" argument is what I consider to be the use of the emotive argument. To me, it is a complete cop out.

"Oh it respects the history of the game"
It does nothing of the sort. Giving a relative of a former player special treatment is not respecting anything. Does this mean that no other sport in the world therefore respects the history of their game? Of course not.

"It's all about emotion"
How? What utter melodramatic bullshit. I'd be just as emotional following Essendon if Gary Ablett jnr was playing for us instead of Jobe Watson. I'm sure the Bomber fans would have totally embraced GAJ from the moment he debuted given the fame of his famous father.

"It adds to the game"
So, this logically means that if a son DOESN'T play for the same club as his old man, that this detracts from the game? So, I take it, the fact that Tuck has played 100 games for Richmond is a "bad thing" for the game? Right? Right, people?

Is the "emotion" of the game (whatever that means) somehow less because Tuck doesn't play for Hawthorn?

What bad things related to this cop-out argument of "emotion" have happened as a result of the terrible outcome of the son of Michael Tuck not playing for Hawthorn? Oh, how the emotions of every Hawthorn and Richmond fan must be torn. Give me a God damn break, seriously *throws up*

"Can you imagine James Hird's son not playing for Essendon? That justifies the rule right there"
Can you imagine the son of the AFL games record holder Michael Tuck playing for anyone other than Hawthorn? Oh wait....

No one cares who the son plays for. Once they line up for their first club THAT is their club. Marc Murphys Dad (who played over 200 games for the Lions) had no connection whatsoever with Carlton. But does anyone regard Marc Murphy as anything other than navy Blue to the core?

Seriously, if I hear this cop-out "emotion" argument again made by people that clearly can't formulate a proper argument because deep down they know the rule is shit and adds absolutely nothing to the game, I will absolutely throw up.

So give us some arguments against it. Stop whinging because people enjoy seeing emotion and tradition remain in the game. Not all of us see sport as plastic commercial goods like you.

Though don't get me wrong, I'm thoroughly enjoying you arguing with yourself. Inventing reasons for it then arguing against them. It's hilarious.

 

[Father Jack]

If the reasons for the rule are weak, the arguments against are weaker.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Thanks Asgardian. I despise the Ad Hominum attacks, as to me, it is a sign of weakness when people attack the poster. It doesn't necessarily mean their argument is wrong, as the argument is a matter of opinion, but it does show that they have no ability to formulate and express their opinion.

Anyway, what I dislike most about the "pro-father-son" argument is what I consider to be the use of the emotive argument. To me, it is a complete cop out.

"Oh it respects the history of the game"
It does nothing of the sort. Giving a relative of a former player special treatment is not respecting anything. Does this mean that no other sport in the world therefore respects the history of their game? Of course not.

"It's all about emotion"
How? What utter melodramatic bullshit. I'd be just as emotional following Essendon if Gary Ablett jnr was playing for us instead of Jobe Watson. I'm sure the Bomber fans would have totally embraced GAJ from the moment he debuted given the fame of his famous father.

"It adds to the game"
So, this logically means that if a son DOESN'T play for the same club as his old man, that this detracts from the game? So, I take it, the fact that Tuck has played 100 games for Richmond is a "bad thing" for the game? Right? Right, people?

Is the "emotion" of the game (whatever that means) somehow less because Tuck doesn't play for Hawthorn?

What bad things related to this cop-out argument of "emotion" have happened as a result of the terrible outcome of the son of Michael Tuck not playing for Hawthorn? Oh, how the emotions of every Hawthorn and Richmond fan must be torn. Give me a God damn break, seriously *throws up*

"Can you imagine James Hird's son not playing for Essendon? That justifies the rule right there"
Can you imagine the son of the AFL games record holder Michael Tuck playing for anyone other than Hawthorn? Oh wait....

No one cares who the son plays for. Once they line up for their first club THAT is their club. Marc Murphys Dad (who played over 200 games for the Lions) had no connection whatsoever with Carlton. But does anyone regard Marc Murphy as anything other than navy Blue to the core?

Seriously, if I hear this cop-out "emotion" argument again made by people that clearly can't formulate a proper argument because deep down they know the rule is shit and adds absolutely nothing to the game, I will absolutely throw up.

And yet your reason for scrapping it is that it is somehow unfair on some kids. Bit touchy-feely isn't it?

Your arguments are invented, and full of logical fallacies.

Now you're just repeating your ridiculous talking points, it's quite embarrassing. Quite possibly the worst attempt at high school level debating I have ever seen.

 

[Dan26]

So give us some arguments against it.

What do you think I've been doing? That's the whole point of the opening post of the thread. YOU provide some arguments for it. Real arguments. Not "Oh, it's emotion." That's not an argument. That's just bullshit for people that can't construct an argument.

Stop whinging because people enjoy seeing emotion....

Jesus Christ.

... and tradition remain in the game.

So, I guess if you were alive in 1952 when the rule began, you were agaisnt it, because we had 50 years of no father-son rule. Why change tradition in 1952 (according to you)? Traditions are only worthwhile if they are good. If they are pointless and irrelevant traditions, (like the father-son rule) they must go.

Not all of us see sport as plastic commercial goods like you.

Why does me not wanting a rule that adds nothing to the game, that no other sport sees fit to use, mean that I see sport as "plastic commericial goods." You don't even know what you are talking about. I don't need to see a son of a former player running around to feel MORE emotional about my team. Why do you?

Not as much as seeing as the son of a former Captain, a great who lost in heartbreaking circumstances (1979), finally managed a flag.

What do you mean "finally" managed a flag. Jesus Christ I worry about the collective intellect on here. Ray Shaw did not "finally manage a flag. You do realise that don't you? Or has it not yet dawned on you that Ray and Heath are two different people.

His son did. But how in the living hell does that help Ray Shaw? Other than being happy for his son, how in the living hell does it change the heartbreak that Ray himself felt in 1979? It doesn't change any of that.

It's great for Heath himself, but the fact his father played for Collingwood is irrelevant.

Who is Collingwood's most loved modern day player? Peter Daicos.

I've got tragic news for all Magpie fans. He had no prior family connection to Collingwood. I hope this "emotionless" situation didn't detract from Daics finally getting a flag in 1990. The fact he was not a father-son player must have been emotionless for all the Collingwood fans who were obviously only emotional in 1990 about the great Jamie Turner. Don't worry about the guts of Tony Shaw, or Darren Millane's busted thumb, or Daicos' 98 goals. No emotion there. It was all about bloody Jamie Turner, son of some guy no one knew in 1958.

Emotion. Give me a god damn break, people and get a proper argument.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Who is Collingwood's most loved modern day player? Peter Daicos.

I've got tragic news for all Magpie fans. He had no prior family connection to Collingwood. I hope this "emotionless" situation didn't detract from Daics finally getting a flag in 1990. The fact he was not a father-son player must have been emotionless for all the Collingwood fans who were obviously only emotional in 1990 about the great Jamie Turner. Don't worry about the guts of Tony Shaw, or Darren Millane's busted thumb, or Daicos' 98 goals. No emotion there. It was all about bloody Jamie Turner, son of some guy no one knew in 1958.

Emotion. Give me a god damn break, people and get a proper argument.

Legitimately the dumbest thing I've read on BF.

 

[The Speaker]

Legitimately the dumbest thing I've read on BF.

Worse than KS?

 

[LT Smash]

Thanks Asgardian. I despise the Ad Hominum attacks, as to me, it is a sign of weakness when people attack the poster.

Jesus Christ I worry about the collective intellect on here.

You were saying?

From what I can make out, the OP has not managed to convince anyone who supports the rule to change their opinion. In the real world, when you want change, you have to convince the powers that be that change is necessary. You can't simply demand that the status quo be justified. Dude, the onus is on you, and so far, you haven't done enough.

 

[Dan26]

Legitimately the dumbest thing I've read on BF.

What is it about you and ridiculously over-the-top statements?

"Quite possibly the worst attempt at high school level debating I have ever seen." ..."Legitimately the dumbest thing I've read on BF" etc etc.... melodramatic, over-the-top nonsensical exaggerations. You can do better than resorting to that crap.

Worst EVER. Dumbest EVER. Ohhhhhhhh...... how will I ever cope with this wonderful arguing technique? Give it up, LD, and "sell" this Father-Son rule to me, without this made-up "emotion" argument, which is simply a cop-out for people that can't construct an argument.

*waits patiently for the inevitable, "That's the worst post EVER in the history of BigFooty Dan26*

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Worse than KS?

At least KS had some semblance of reasoning behind her posts.

Dan seems to be saying 'if we have great players who are not sons of past players - then why do we need the father-son rule?'

It's got to be bold-faced trolling. Not a lick of logic.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

What is it about you and ridiculously over-the-top statements?

"Quite possibly the worst attempt at high school level debating I have ever seen." ..."Legitimately the dumbest thing I've read on BF" etc etc.... melodramatic, over-the-top nonsensical exaggerations. You can do better than resorting to that crap.

Worst EVER. Dumbest EVER. Ohhhhhhhh...... how will I ever cope with this wonderful arguing technique? Give it up, LD, and "sell" this Father-Son rule to me, without this made-up "emotion" argument, which is simply a cop-out for people that can't construct an argument.

*waits patiently for the inevitable, "That's the worst post EVER in the history of BigFooty Dan26*

That's how bad you are at this.

 

[LouisCK]

Legitimately the dumbest thing I've read on BF.

Daytripper is turning in his grave.

Wait, he's alive? Shit.

 

[Dan26]

That's how bad you are at this.

I'm actually very good at this. So good that you havn't bothered with any meaningful argument. Just over-the-top exaggerations, which simply don't work in a debate.

Sell the logic and fairness of this idiotic meaningless rule without "cop-out" irrelevant arguments like "emotion" which means nothing in the context of the rule and of how passionately people support their clubs.

And once that logic is explained, people like you, I believe, know deep down that I'm right. So, you resort to the silly exaggerations and personal attacks. That's when I know I have them.

But, if you want to TRY to actually sell the F/S to me, with some sort of logical reasoning, I will happily enagage in discussion about it. But I can tell from your limited ability to debate that you don't have an argument, hence the style of your recent short thoughtless posts on this topic.

 

[Falchoon]

If the entire would just realise that Dan is always right about everything this whole thread would be so much smoother.

If Dan looked up the term 'straw man', he could formulate and answer his own questions.

 

[themidlandmaster]

His son did. But how in the living hell does that help Ray Shaw? Other than being happy for his son, how in the living hell does it change the heartbreak that Ray himself felt in 1979? It doesn't change any of that.

It's great for Heath himself, but the fact his father played for Collingwood is irrelevant.

No, it doesn't. My connection with Heath Shaw is enhanced because I had an emotional connection to his father also. Are you unable to comprehend this, or does my opinion just clash with your mythical, straw man footy supporter?