Originally posted by SimonH
On another topic: can anyone clarify exactly what Sydney's 'local boy' rookie allowance is, and in particular how it ties in with the AFL's usual 'maximum list size' rules?
The rules seem to be pretty clear that a team can't have more than 6 rookies, and complete team lists top out at 44 players: that's regular list, veterans, rookies, the lot. We had roughly 47 (of which 8 were rookies inc. Vogels) on our list in 2005. So what gives?
On another topic: can anyone clarify exactly what Sydney's 'local boy' rookie allowance is, and in particular how it ties in with the AFL's usual 'maximum list size' rules?
The rules seem to be pretty clear that a team can't have more than 6 rookies, and complete team lists top out at 44 players: that's regular list, veterans, rookies, the lot. We had roughly 47 (of which 8 were rookies inc. Vogels) on our list in 2005. So what gives?
I guess the thought process behind it is that this concession aims to give opportunities to local boys in developing regions who would otherwise not get any chance on a list.
I can see why other clubs might get annoyed with this aspect of the rule. After all, the chances are that the Swans would have taken Shaw and Clark in any case this year, even if that meant them forgoing Garruba and possibly Grundy or Campbell (or releasing Potter as an alternative).

Comment