father-son rule for Roos 2 sons?

[blood_angel]

does anyone know the situation on Paul Roos 2 sons?
can't bear the thought of them going to lions

[Sanecow]

Well, he didn't play 100 games for the Swans, but do games as a coach count?

[Thunder Shaker]

I found this on the AFL site:

Father/son rule:
Sons of former AFL players can play with the same club their father played or officiated with under the father/son rule. The main eligibility requirements is that the sons father must have played 100 games for that club. The rule is designed to continue the traditions of association that a family has with a particular club.

[Jeffers1984]

I'm pretty sure that coaching games are included as well.

[Sanecow]

Yeah, but should "played 100 games" read "played or officiated 100 games" (or words to that effect)?

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Yeah, but should "played 100 games" read "played or officiated 100 games" (or words to that effect)?

Yes it probably should. But then it also doesn't mention all the weird formulas they use for WAFL and SANFL clubs either. All of that "more than 200 games before 1990 but inside of ten years...." crap

[Tuesday]

Heard it was both playing and coaching.

Also heard Brissie would have dibs on the boys first. Not sure if that is correct. Anyone?

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by Tuesday
Heard it was both playing and coaching.

Also heard Brissie would have dibs on the boys first. Not sure if that is correct. Anyone?

Sounds right to me. But I wonder if there is a "last club" or "most games for" clause. Surely the heritage would be strongest at the last club, unless there was significantly more games at the first club.

In Roos case, unless he coaches for the next ten years, I think Brissie should have first crack at it.

[Sanecow]

Seems a bit rough that they have father-son preference for two clubs. A bit of a hidden bonus for teams that merge!

[Jeffers1984]

Originally posted by Tuesday
Heard it was both playing and coaching.

Also heard Brissie would have dibs on the boys first. Not sure if that is correct. Anyone?

Roos's kids are Sydney Swans through and through now so they would reject Brisbane's offer and play with the Swans. Still a long long way to go though.

Do we have any decent Swans Father/Son prospects coming up?

[giant]

Originally posted by Jeffers1984
I'm pretty sure that coaching games are included as well.

Yeh, I think thats how North were able to beat off all the other teams for Ryan Pagan...

But seriously I think coaching does count.

[cruiser]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Well, he didn't play 100 games for the Swans, but do games as a coach count?

No, didnt count for the Cornes family. If they did, they'd be no way that Chad and brother would be playing for Port rather than the Crows.

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by cruiser
No, didnt count for the Cornes family. If they did, they'd be no way that Chad and brother would be playing for Port rather than the Crows.

The eligibility rules for West Coast, Fremantle, Adelaide and Port Adelaide are different. These clubs revert to the standard father-son rule after 20 years in the competition.

[j s]

Originally posted by Tuesday
Also heard Brissie would have dibs on the boys first. Not sure if that is correct. Anyone?

There is no 'first dibs'!! Father-Son only applies by mutual agreement of BOTH parties (club/player).

I already knew this but it got publicity with the first of the Cloke boys. Jason could have gone to Richmond.

[sharp9]

Coaching doesn't count unless they have changed the rules...this came up because Terry Wallace noted how silly it wa that his sons would not be eligible for the Bulldogs but would be for the Hawks.