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

[Father Jack]

So what are the reasons against? That because most kiddies have to go through the draft that it isn't fair that some other kiddies who have a father who played a requisite number of games for a given club can perhaps, if said clubs thinks it's worth it, pick him up whilst still giving up a roughly market value draft pick on him?

Well, I guess we'll have to wait for the hordes of aggrieved kiddies who fall into the first camp to make their outraged voices heard. Otherwise it's a dead issue.

 

[TheRealComptroller]

Legitimately the dumbest thing I've read on BF.

FWIW Could you please give me your thoughts on my POV?

Here it is:

I love it how in 2007 and 2009 both of our Norm Smith winners were players that had been available to every team. I love it how Boris has won 2 flag B&Fs and every team could have selected him; he went at #47 in 1999 making him passed over 3 times by some clubs.

I love it how the club has never finished bottom-four in the expansion era so never receiving a top 4 pick from the league.

Call me peverse but I just want the team's prowess to be as close to 100% pure as possible. By giving clubs a "first look" option on players no matter how minor the advantage (getting a player at #12 who would have gone at #8) is compromising the draft. That is an absolute.

I love it that zoning was abolished (Stevie would be playing for North now and Sel would be at Carlton, Chappy would be a Pie, Dunc and Smithy would be at WCE blah blah blah see earlier post) and the FS is essentially zoning-by-proxy.

Thanks in advance.

 

[DTRAIN87]

Dan26 is like the HodgePodge of the MAIN BOARD.

 

[Jentleman Geff]

And once that logic is explained, people like you, I believe, know deep down that I'm right.

You aren't right. There is nothing 'fair' about the draft. It is plainly unfair. It denies players the right to choose their place of employment. The father-son rule is one of the more fair rules in the AFL, as it gives some players a choice. Not all, unfortunately. There should be more rules like the father-son rule. A player from WA should be able to choose to play for a WA club. Same with Vic juniors and Vic clubs. 'Unfair' is sending a player to the other side of the country when he doesn't want to go.

Father-son was invented so players could be recruited outside of their zone, outside of the draft - so they could play for their father's club (which most have wanted to do over history). The rules that the father-son rule breaks are the ones that are 'unfair'.

 

[Dan26]

No, it doesn't. My connection with Heath Shaw is enhanced because I had an emotional connection to his father also?

Surely this is a pisstake. You're a grown adult for crying out loud.

Your "emotional connection" to Heath Shaw has nothing to do with his Dad, and everything to do with the fact that he is a very good player.

I'm sure you don't feel an "emotional connection" to Cameron Cloke. Did anyone even care that he was traded to Carlton? Emotion?? Give me a break. What a pathetic excuse for an argument.

Jamie bloody Turner in 1990. Any "emotion" there ranks towards the bottom on how Magpie fans felt about that 1990 premiership. No one could give two shits if Turners Dad played for Collingwood. All they want is a good player.


This whole idiotic mantra of "Oh, I feel more ofan emotional connection" is laughable. How do you say that crap with a straight face? I'm sure Hawthorn fans have an emotional connection to Buddy Frankiln despite him being a WA born outsider with no links to Hawthorn whatsoever. Why do they connect with him? Because he is a damn good player.

Essendon fans had no "emotional connection" to Joel Reynolds, even though he was the Grandson of the clubs greatest ever player. Why? Because he wasn't any good.

"Emotional connection" to father/sons. Give me a break. How in the bloody hell do people use that pathetic argument with a straight face. It MUST be a piss-take. It just has to be.

 

[Dan26]

You aren't right. There is nothing 'fair' about the draft. It is plainly unfair. It denies players the right to choose their place of employment. The father-son rule is one of the more fair rules in the AFL, as it gives some players a choice. Not all, unfortunately. There should be more rules like the father-son rule. A player from WA should be able to choose to play for a WA club. Same with Vic juniors and Vic clubs. 'Unfair' is sending a player to the other side of the country when he doesn't want to go.

Father-son was invented so players could be recruited outside of their zone, outside of the draft - so they could play for their father's club (which most have wanted to do over history). The rules that the father-son rule breaks are the ones that are 'unfair'.

Jesus Christ, you really do have no idea. I'm debating whether to tear this horrible excuse for a post to shreds, or just let it wither away and die as it deserves to.

 

[themidlandmaster]

Surely this is a pisstake. You're a grown adult for crying out loud.

Your "emotional connection" to Heath Shaw has nothing to do with his Dad, and everything to do with the fact that he is a very good player.

I'm sure you don't feel an "emotional connection" to Cameron Cloke. Did anyone even care that he was traded to Carlton? Emotion?? Give me a break. What a pathetic excuse for an argument.

"Emotional connection" to father/sons. Give me a break. How in the bloody hell do people use that pathetic argument with a straight face. It MUST be a piss-take. It just has to be.

Because its the truth...

What do you actually enjoy about football??

 

[Father Jack]

And once that logic is explained, people like you, I believe, know deep down that I'm right.

You are a very special poster Dan, I hope you never change.

 

[Liam Boy]

Basically: The father son rule is currently in place, and in order for it to not be in place, change would need to be made. There aren't significant enough grounds for that change to be made, so it won't be.

 

[Keys]

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.

The problem is you want someone to justify the father-son rule with logical reasoning and without any emotive argument when in reality the rule is an emotive one. It's the romantic notion of seeing the son of a past player running out for your team and the greater the player was the stronger the emotion will be. There is no logical basis to it and I'm sure the clubs do see it as a means to pick up a player at a bit of a discount (the new rules mean that discount isn't as great as it was though) and if they don't think the son is up to it they aren't going to draft simply because he's the son of a past player, no matter how great his father may have been.

So logically there's no justification for it, but try and prove any logical reasoning for following a football team. As supporters we place our faith in a group of players, most of whom didn't choose to be there, who we had no say in selecting and have no control over and allow our emotions to rise and fall as the fortunes of our team fluctuate all in pursuit of a trophy that your team might win 10 or 12 times in your lifetime if your lucky. Far fewer if you're unlucky.

Following a team is an emotional pursuit and the father-son rule is one small bastion of romance in a game that is becoming increasingly rational and is losing its heart

 

[Summer Nights]

As much as Dan is wrong on many of his arguments, he does know how to generate discussion.

I like the father-son rule. It's not fair, but that's not the point. It gives the football community an ongoing connection to a custom of the past. It's emotional, not rational, and it should stay, whether it benefits my club or not.

 

[Dustin Credible]

Not "Oh, it's emotion." That's not an argument. That's just bullshit for people that can't construct an argument.

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

So your position is, emotion has no role in football?

When you've attended all these Bombers games and cheered or booed, you have done so because it was the logically appropriate thing to do? Emotion played no role?

When they win or lose, you feel nothing. It's after all not logical for a grown man to have his passions stirred by a mere game?

You feel nothing towards other teams, it is after all not logical to harbour hatreds and rivalries. Emotion plays no role?

Emotions are part of what connects us to our game. To dismiss it because it is too complex to be reduced to a single logical statement is intellectually facile.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

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.

In case you hadn't noticed, you created the thread. It's not up to me to sell an existing rule to you. You think you're using logic and reasoning, but anyone can see your arguments are completely illogical.

Go back and read over my responses to you, entire posts which you have let through to the keeper, explaining why you have failed, even pointing out the exact fallacies you have used. Wiki them if you have to.

PS ROFL let me just boil all opposing arguments down into one word, then declare that word an invalid response. Let me decide what your emotions are, and the reasons behind them.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

FWIW Could you please give me your thoughts on my POV?

Entirely fair enough, and there's probably many who agree with you. I don't share your opinion, and would argue that the draft is inherently compromised. There's something nice about the B&Fs and Norms being won by players taken late, but there is also something great about a much maligned son of a Cats player standing up and stamping himself on a GF. Someone who supported and felt enough connection to a club that he chose to join them, when he could have gone top 5 through the normal process. Of course Dan will deride this as being stupid, though won't really explain why.

How would you feel if Geelong finished bottom 4?

How would you feel if Geelong traded for a top 4 pick?

 

[ManWithNoName]

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.




Jesus Christ.



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.



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?



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.

So in response to my simple question of "Can you provide some arguments against it?" you've posted this essay and managed to not provide a single argument against it. That's very special.

The rule exists. We don't have to convince you to keep it. You have to convince us to get rid of it. You give us some reasons to get rid of it. Go on.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The rule exists. We don't have to convince you to keep it. You have to convince us to get rid of it. You give us some reasons to get rid of it. Go on.

Apparently the fact that Jamie Turner was not as good as Peter Daicos IS the reason to get rid of it.

Perhaps the rule should be modified that only famous players are permitted to have their sons play for their clubs. Low profile families should be excluded from the father-son rule.

 

[Jentleman Geff]

Jesus Christ, you really do have no idea. I'm debating whether to tear this horrible excuse for a post to shreds, or just let it wither away and die as it deserves to.

So it's alright for you to cry ad hominum (sic), but you like to dish it out.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Dan. I think you can't take it apart. You're not smart enough. Quit your spergin'.

What is fair about the draft? Let's define fair before you go around calling things unfair.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I like the father-son rule. It's not fair, but that's not the point.

Its not unfair, thats the point.

 

[Matt_TY]

So it's alright for you to cry ad hominum (sic), but you like to dish it out.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Dan. I think you can't take it apart. You're not smart enough. Quit your spergin'.

Dan has yet to learn that his own opinion does not constitute fact merely because he thinks it so hard.
He also appears to want every sport to basically be the NBA.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I enjoy and fully endorse the emotion displayed by Dan26 in this thread.

The problem is you want someone to justify the father-son rule with logical reasoning and without any emotive argument when in reality the rule is an emotive one. It's the romantic notion of seeing the son of a past player running out for your team and the greater the player was the stronger the emotion will be. There is no logical basis to it and I'm sure the clubs do see it as a means to pick up a player at a bit of a discount (the new rules mean that discount isn't as great as it was though) and if they don't think the son is up to it they aren't going to draft simply because he's the son of a past player, no matter how great his father may have been.

So logically there's no justification for it, but try and prove any logical reasoning for following a football team. As supporters we place our faith in a group of players, most of whom didn't choose to be there, who we had no say in selecting and have no control over and allow our emotions to rise and fall as the fortunes of our team fluctuate all in pursuit of a trophy that your team might win 10 or 12 times in your lifetime if your lucky. Far fewer if you're unlucky.

Following a team is an emotional pursuit and the father-son rule is one small bastion of romance in a game that is becoming increasingly rational and is losing its heart

Very well put.

 

[OB1]

The problem is you want someone to justify the father-son rule with logical reasoning and without any emotive argument when in reality the rule is an emotive one. It's the romantic notion of seeing the son of a past player running out for your team and the greater the player was the stronger the emotion will be. There is no logical basis to it and I'm sure the clubs do see it as a means to pick up a player at a bit of a discount (the new rules mean that discount isn't as great as it was though) and if they don't think the son is up to it they aren't going to draft simply because he's the son of a past player, no matter how great his father may have been.

So logically there's no justification for it, but try and prove any logical reasoning for following a football team. As supporters we place our faith in a group of players, most of whom didn't choose to be there, who we had no say in selecting and have no control over and allow our emotions to rise and fall as the fortunes of our team fluctuate all in pursuit of a trophy that your team might win 10 or 12 times in your lifetime if your lucky. Far fewer if you're unlucky.

Following a team is an emotional pursuit and the father-son rule is one small bastion of romance in a game that is becoming increasingly rational and is losing its heart

Thats some of the best work I've read on here. Well done!

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Taking emotion out of it, why dont we all barrack for Geelong this year? After all they are the reigning premier...

And next year we can barrack for somebody else.

Its illogical to barrack for anybody but the best team.

 

[Slattery_20]

"Taking emotion out of it" I would be quite amused to see anyone's attempt to explain why they, in mid-January, are on a website enthusiastically reading & writing about the prospects of 20-odd grown men chasing a bit of leather & rubber around a park in 2 or 3 months' time.

I can't find one, but here I am.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

And theres the contradiction

Its illogical to take the emotion out of it.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Taking emotion out of it, why dont we all barrack for Geelong this year? After all they are the reigning premier...

And next year we can barrack for somebody else.

Its illogical to barrack for anybody but the best team.

This is exactly what I was going to say next heh