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

[Dan26]

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

Don't be stupid. Emotion is what makes football work. But emotion has no place with the father-son rule. Don't confuse the two and make up arguments that don't even exist.

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?

What the hell are you talking about? What has any of that got o do with the father-son rule? I don't need Jobe Watson playing for Essendon to feel "emotion" for Essendon.

Emotions are part of what connects us to our game.

And what in the hell has any of that got to do with the son of a former player playing for the same club?

One of Hawthorn favourite sons is Michael Tuck. Not just any favourite son, but the games record holder for the VFL-AFL itself. His son plays for Richmond.

So, does the fact his son did not continue the "tradiiton" with the same club mean a lack of "emotion" for Hawthorn? OF COURSE NOT. It makes no difference to anyone and I'm 100% sure that Hawthorn fans don't feel disconnected with their club and shattered with their emotions simply because Travis Tuck plays for a non-Hawthorn team. I'm sure they don't even care.

This stupid irrelevant "linking" of the Father-son rule to "emotion" is contrived bullshit.

Yes, there is emotion in football, but to link that emotion with the F'S rule is a cop-out excuse, and a contrived argument made by people who know the rule deep down is a load of shit. The Tuck example is a perfect example of how "emotions" are not affected one litte bit by the father-son rule not being in "use."

It is possible, believe it or not, to have a totally fair uncompromised competition, with no F/S rule and still feel emotion towards your club. Hard to believe, I know, but yes it can be done.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

But emotion has no place with the father-son rule.

Its illogical to draw blanket conclusions about something so subjective as emotions.

Emotion is the only reason for the father-son rule.

Just because you dont feel a special connection with Jobe Watson is no reason for you to dictate to everybody else what their emotional position is about their club and about the rule. Its pretty much a majority rules thing, if most people like it because they feel a connection, then thats validation of the rule in itself. You havent proven that the majority are opposed to it. Youve barely established that anybody even remotely agrees with you.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Don't be stupid. Emotion is what makes football work. But emotion has no place with the father-son rule. Don't confuse the two and make up arguments that don't even exist.



What the hell are you talking about? What has any of that got o do with the father-son rule? I don't need Jobe Watson playing for Essendon to feel "emotion" for Essendon.



And what in the hell has any of that got to do with the son of a former player playing for the same club?

One of Hawthorn favourite sons is Michael Tuck. Not just any favourite son, but the games record holder for the VFL-AFL itself. His son plays for Richmond.

So, does the fact his son did not continue the "tradiiton" with the same club mean a lack of "emotion" for Hawthorn? OF COURSE NOT. It makes no difference to anyone and I'm 100% sure that Hawthorn fans don't feel disconnected with their club and shattered with their emotions simply because Travis Tuck plays for a non-Hawthorn team. I'm sure they don't even care.

This stupid irrelevant "linking" of the Father-son rule to "emotion" is contrived bullshit.

Yes, there is emotion in football, but to link that emotion with the F'S rule is a cop-out excuse, and a contrived argument made by people who know the rule deep down is a load of shit. The Tuck example is a perfect example of how "emotions" are not affected one litte bit by the father-son rule not being in "use."

It is possible, believe it or not, to have a totally fair uncompromised competition, with no F/S rule and still feel emotion towards your club. Hard to believe, I know, but yes it can be done.

 

[skipper kelly]

denny crane

 

[Summer Nights]

Did LOL

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Don't be stupid. Emotion is what makes football work. But emotion has no place with the father-son rule. Don't confuse the two and make up arguments that don't even exist.

I guess you've dug yourself too deep to stop now. But speaking of arguments that don't exist...

Yes, there is emotion in football, but to link that emotion with the F'S rule is a cop-out excuse, and a contrived argument made by people who know the rule deep down is a load of shit. The Tuck example is a perfect example of how "emotions" are not affected one litte bit by the father-son rule not being in "use."

It's not an example of anything. It's pointless.

It is possible, believe it or not, to have a totally fair uncompromised competition, with no F/S rule and still feel emotion towards your club. Hard to believe, I know, but yes it can be done.

There's a lot of elements preventing that before we get to the father-son rule.

 

[themidlandmaster]

"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."

"Jesus Christ. "

"What do you mean "finally" managed a flag. Jesus Christ I worry about the collective intellect on here."

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

"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."

You were saying?

 

[Lensen]

Don't be stupid. Emotion is what makes football work. But emotion has no place with the father-son rule. Don't confuse the two and make up arguments that don't even exist.



What the hell are you talking about? What has any of that got o do with the father-son rule? I don't need Jobe Watson playing for Essendon to feel "emotion" for Essendon.



And what in the hell has any of that got to do with the son of a former player playing for the same club?

One of Hawthorn favourite sons is Michael Tuck. Not just any favourite son, but the games record holder for the VFL-AFL itself. His son plays for Richmond.

So, does the fact his son did not continue the "tradiiton" with the same club mean a lack of "emotion" for Hawthorn? OF COURSE NOT. It makes no difference to anyone and I'm 100% sure that Hawthorn fans don't feel disconnected with their club and shattered with their emotions simply because Travis Tuck plays for a non-Hawthorn team. I'm sure they don't even care.

This stupid irrelevant "linking" of the Father-son rule to "emotion" is contrived bullshit.

Yes, there is emotion in football, but to link that emotion with the F'S rule is a cop-out excuse, and a contrived argument made by people who know the rule deep down is a load of shit. The Tuck example is a perfect example of how "emotions" are not affected one litte bit by the father-son rule not being in "use."

It is possible, believe it or not, to have a totally fair uncompromised competition, with no F/S rule and still feel emotion towards your club. Hard to believe, I know, but yes it can be done.

It's possible to feel emotion toward watching your team win if they are playing in pink and purple uniforms, so why do we continue to use jumper designs and colours that are 100+ years old?

It's possible to feel emotion watching your team on Fox Sports playing GWS in an empty stadium in Western Sydney, so why look forward to watching, say, Essendon vs Carlton in person with 90,000 others at the MCG?

It's possible to feel emotion watching a team you don't support win a game against the odds, so why support only one team week in and week out?

Your argument appears to be that because its possible to feel emotion watching a non-father/son player, or that its possible to feel emotion watching a father/son play for a different club, that the rule should be disbanded. You don't appear to have any notion of degrees of emotion, nor that some supporters feel more emotion to the families of club legends than they do to the colours, or ground, or song or anything else to do with the club. It's not the entire reason why the emotion is felt, but is a part of it. You don't get emotional about it, and that's fine, but "I don't feel emotional about sons of legends" isn't a good enough reason to get rid of this rule alone.

It's as silly an argument as your "well they didn't have it in 1952 so obviously there was no emotion then." Back then the Essendon footy club was based in Essendon, the Collingwood footy club was based in Collingwood etc and people formed their emotional bonds that way by having a local footy club. In a world with plasticised corporations that are nominally named after a suburb and where nine of them play out of two stadiums in the CBD (or close enough), these bonds don't apply and people get their romanticism and emotional bond in footy elsewhere - through the father son rule, for instance.

 

[Slattery_20]

Pretty sure Tuck got drafted first by Hawthorn, Dan. Despite not showing a heck of a lot.
Spent a year or two there then went to SA or WA.

Your stupid linking of him being delisted to the F/S rule being rubbish shows you know deep down your rant is dumb.

 

[Dan26]

Its illogical to draw blanket conclusions about something so subjective as emotions.

Emotion is the only reason for the father-son rule.

Oh, for God's sake. Emotion is THE worst cop-out argument one can use in relation to this paritcular topic. It's like arguing with a bunch of wusses.

Just because you dont feel a special connection with Jobe Watson is no reason for you to dictate to everybody else what their emotional position is about their club and about the rule.

I like Jobe because he is a very good player.

I'm sure Joel Reynolds was a nice guy, but he couldn't play so I felt nothing for him, even though his Granddad was the clubs biggest ever name. That meant nothing. If a player can play (like Daicos for your mob) it won't make a rats ass of difference if he no prior Magpie connection.

I'm sure you felt no "emotion" towards Cameron Cloke when he went to Carlton. I'm sure you didn't even care. Why would you? Why would anyone? This emotion argument for this topic, is a cop-out.

I mean seriously, was the fabric of "tradition" and "emotion" forever scarred because a Cloke continued his career at Collingwood's worst enemy? This emotion argument, for THIS TOPIC is pure crap. I know there are other topics where emotion is a valid discussion point but this isn't one of them.

Travis Tuck is a pefect example. No one can come up with a comeback. One of Hawthorn's biggest names and games record holder is continuing his career at a club other than Hawthorn. What "emotions" and "traditions" and now worse off because of this heinous occurance?

NO ONE IS LESS EMOTIONAL BECAAUSE TUCK PLAYS FOR RICHMOND

Emotion.... bloody hell. Everyone should just go and have a cry about how bloody "emotional" they are, it's pathetic.... and a total cop-out.

 

[Falchoon]

I was watching a new season fashion show at work today and as I was drifting off (ie the chicks one is on Wed) I put my Dan26 hat on.

I have come to the conclusion that there is no logic in fashion & we don't need it.

I'm going to send my Jerry Maguire manifesto in, complete with a straw man question/answer to the CEO.

I'll let you know how I go.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

how I picture Dan26:

 

[Big Blow Hard]

There is maybe 1-3 Father Son selections in any given year, big deal. Fact is they still come in with exactly the same chance of making it as any other kid. Most sons are overlooked, it's not like it's a free pass. The kid still has to be judged good enough by the club involved.
Also, No son is off limits to other clubs. Thay can nominate a pick they would draft him with, which forces the father club to match the bid. So the days of getting guys like J Brown/G Ablett deep in the draft are gone. A father Son prospect will now generaly land about where he should have been drafted anyway.

And of course, like Marc Murphy, the kid has the right to refuse F/S nomination and go to the club that tanked to get him, or take their chances in the draft.

I love the romance of the rule. And I would think most supporters love it.

 

[GordonBlue]

I ask you OP... what is competition?

I ask you OP... what is a team sport?

I ask you OP... what is left when "team sport" and "competition" is so regulated that "the best" cannot be "the best" because it's unfair on the "rest"

Let's look at individual sport and see something like Tennis, RF, RN, ND and AM are all initials of the best 4 tennis players in the world. They have been there for years. They are allowed to compete to the best of their ability because that is what sport and competition is all about.

Insert "I R CORPORATE AMERICAN MINDED WHO HAS LOST WHAT COMPETITION AND SPORT IS ALL ABOUT"

Boring only 4 players... lets have top 50 all the same level... hence nearly every game is massive and we make big bucks

Sadly that is the way America has made sport and how Australian Sports have followed suit...

Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon are popular and successful clubs not because they struck it lucky

Man U, Liverpool, Barcelona, Real, AC, Inter are popular and successful clubs not because they struck it lucky

No, they are big and successful because they played during a time where competition and sport was allowed to take place.

In an era where the whole point of the sport is competition and the best got all the benefits and accolades.

However money comes in and sport and competition is all about making the competition even... yeah Roger, stop being so good and give someone else a chance... sounds stupid huh but this is exactly what has taken place to Australian Team sport to make more money...

The competition is almost scripted

The Father/Son rule the really the only last grip our great game has to reward being the best/being good/being naturally lucky at a sport

The only rule that is not 100% scripted by the competition (albeit it is still very regulated)

The only rule that allows passion to be represented from deep within

It's the sad way the OP presented this post that has been shacking my head because it made me realise that team sports in this country has lost to what it supposed to achieve when it originally began that people are actually requesting even further control and regulation...

Sad but I guess this is the reality now!

 

[Jentleman Geff]

Funny how Dan is skipping over the notion that the draft is patently unfair on junior players.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Has Dan come up with a reasonable argument against the Father/Son rule yet? Or is he still inventing arguments and responding with "Oh excellent point Dan and I'm glad you brought it up".

 

[The Speaker]

Dan is getting quite emotional about how unimportant emotion is.

 

[defier]

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.

Well said

 

[RICHOLEGEND12]

Oh, for God's sake. Emotion is THE worst cop-out argument one can use in relation to this paritcular topic. It's like arguing with a bunch of wusses.



I like Jobe because he is a very good player.

I'm sure Joel Reynolds was a nice guy, but he couldn't play so I felt nothing for him, even though his Granddad was the clubs biggest ever name. That meant nothing. If a player can play (like Daicos for your mob) it won't make a rats ass of difference if he no prior Magpie connection.

I'm sure you felt no "emotion" towards Cameron Cloke when he went to Carlton. I'm sure you didn't even care. Why would you? Why would anyone? This emotion argument for this topic, is a cop-out.

I mean seriously, was the fabric of "tradition" and "emotion" forever scarred because a Cloke continued his career at Collingwood's worst enemy? This emotion argument, for THIS TOPIC is pure crap. I know there are other topics where emotion is a valid discussion point but this isn't one of them.

Travis Tuck is a pefect example. No one can come up with a comeback. One of Hawthorn's biggest names and games record holder is continuing his career at a club other than Hawthorn. What "emotions" and "traditions" and now worse off because of this heinous occurance?

NO ONE IS LESS EMOTIONAL BECAAUSE TUCK PLAYS FOR RICHMOND

Emotion.... bloody hell. Everyone should just go and have a cry about how bloody "emotional" they are, it's pathetic.... and a total cop-out.

What the hell are you on about??
The Hawthorn Football club believed Travis tuck wasn't good enough to make it as a consistent afl footballer and was therefore cut from there list. you cant just keep a player because of his last name. but if the player is good enough its great to see them playing for their fathers club like richo, bowden, watson, etc

and shane tuck was on hawthorns rookie list for an 2 years was then cut.. played in the SANFL made an impression and was picked up by the tigers. at the end of the 2004 season i read that the tigers were tossing up between keeping tuck and another player on the list. they kept tuck because of his father was also a relatively late bloomer, tuck had a break out 2005 season. so it paid off. Both tucks had a chance on the hawthorn list. and both were cut. because hawthorn belieived there not good enough. nothing can be done about that. so whats the point of your argument?

 

[DTRAIN87]

This reminds me of the other Dan26 thread he started when Essendon beat Geelong by a mere 4 points. The topic was Geelong's rather average record away from Skilled. It too overlooked the glaringly obvious fact that they lost 0 games at the MCG including against all the top 4 sides. Conclusion is that Dan likes to start threads on topics where his view is a stark contrast to that of the normal football world. Both subjectively and objectively.

 

[Asgardian]

Oh, for God's sake. Emotion is THE worst cop-out argument one can use in relation to this paritcular topic. It's like arguing with a bunch of wusses.

Okay, we do not need to have a F/S rule

There is no solid logical reason for the rule to be in place, unlike list size or salary cap or holding the ball or whatever ..........

However I do like the idea of the F/S rule being available.

I like the fact Brett Ebert was able to play for Port because of his dad, Russell.

I like the idea that the sons of Wanganeen, Primus, Wilson, James, Carr, etc, etc, etc will be able to play for Port because of their dads.

There is no solid reason for it other than I like the concept and I enjoy the added extra which it brings to the off-season.

 

[morri]

I am not that familiar with the rule yet but I think a son shouldnt get better treatment than another player but I think it is a nice idea to let his club have a priority call in picking him. (similar to all home teams should have a priority in picking players that have been developed in their area)

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

NO ONE IS LESS EMOTIONAL BECAAUSE TUCK PLAYS FOR RICHMOND

Caps and bold type....you're getting emotional now....

I have a soft spot for Liam Picken and wish he had ended up at Collingwood. Illogical, isnt it? I doubt he'd improve our list much, if at all, but I would like to see in black and white anyway, wearing number 25. I also was disappointed Jackson Barham wasnt good enough.

Theres emotion for you....Picken and Barham were my two favorite players in the 70's and I'm glad the rule is there to allow their sons to play for Collingwood. It didnt work out in either case (Collingwood overlooked Picken whilst Barham was delisted) but that doesnt make the rule any less valid. If anything it proves that the rule does not gurantee teams an unfair advantage.

 

[Jentleman Geff]

This reminds me of the other Dan26 thread he started when Essendon beat Geelong by a mere 4 points. The topic was Geelong's rather average record away from Skilled. It too overlooked the glaringly obvious fact that they lost 0 games at the MCG including against all the top 4 sides. Conclusion is that Dan likes to start threads on topics where his view is a stark contrast to that of the normal football world. Both subjectively and objectively.

You could make a megathread of dumb shit Dan26 says

Here's a start:

Most people really like Geelong as a club. I just don't think they're as good as Carlton in 2011, that's all.

 

[Honeyboy Wilson]

The Father Son rule is completely a reward and a motivation for the fathers. If you've played a significant amount of AFL Football, you get the reward of your son playing for your team, if you decide to nurture him in the football direction and give him the best opportunity to play AFL football, we'll reward you for that.

It's basically saying "look, you have some good footballing genes. We want to keep your genes in the talent pool, so if you raise your kid to be a footballer, then they'll have the opportunity to play for your club."

The players who don't get to go to the club of their choice now, and play the minimum required games for their club, will get to use the Father-Son rule down the track for themselves. So it's not like they miss out, they just get to start their own family history if they so decide.