Planning for father / sons

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • wolftone57
    Veterans List
    • Aug 2008
    • 5850

    #16
    Originally posted by Damien
    I was chatting to someone about Bryce Gibbs the other day, he initially qualified under the old SANFL and WAFL F & S rules, but the year before his draft the rules change to 200 games for players in those comps I think. How @@@@ty would you be, growing up KNOWING you were going to be playing for the club you go for and get to stay home, only for the rules to change!!
    i don't know what you guys are on about, Ross Gibbs played 253 games for Glenelg in the SANFL & I saw most of them, a f'ing great player who drifted down from the backpocket to kick goals. The only player in the SANFL to kick 5 goals playing as a back pocket. Kicked 8 if i remember rightly as a RR. So Bryce could have played for the Crows but did not pick him as first draft choice (a balls up) and Carlton (who had first pick) got him. the Crows went for his Glenelg team mate James Sellar who as far as I know failed to play a game. There was confusion as to the AFL rules on father/son for interstate clubs at the time and under the rules at the time because his father only played for Glenelg & not Crows he may not have been elegable. Still not sure on that one but I think either a Crows stuff up or the father/son rules only in reality applied to the VFL or ex-VFL clubs, not a level playing field.

    Comment

    • caj23
      Senior Player
      • Aug 2003
      • 2462

      #17
      Originally posted by wolftone57
      i don't know what you guys are on about, Ross Gibbs played 253 games for Glenelg in the SANFL & I saw most of them, a f'ing great player who drifted down from the backpocket to kick goals. The only player in the SANFL to kick 5 goals playing as a back pocket. Kicked 8 if i remember rightly as a RR. So Bryce could have played for the Crows but did not pick him as first draft choice (a balls up) and Carlton (who had first pick) got him. the Crows went for his Glenelg team mate James Sellar who as far as I know failed to play a game. There was confusion as to the AFL rules on father/son for interstate clubs at the time and under the rules at the time because his father only played for Glenelg & not Crows he may not have been elegable. Still not sure on that one but I think either a Crows stuff up or the father/son rules only in reality applied to the VFL or ex-VFL clubs, not a level playing field.
      AFL changed the rules, the qualifying games had to be during a certain time period and Bryce did not qualify as a F/S for the cows, nothing to do with Sellar

      Comment

      • Triple B
        Formerly 'BBB'
        • Feb 2003
        • 6999

        #18
        Originally posted by wolftone57
        So Bryce could have played for the Crows but did not pick him as first draft choice (a balls up) and Carlton (who had first pick) got him. the Crows went for his Glenelg team mate James Sellar who as far as I know failed to play a game. There was confusion ....
        and confusion still lingers with some.....
        Driver of the Dan Hannebery bandwagon....all aboard. 4th April 09

        Comment

        • sharp9
          Senior Player
          • Jan 2003
          • 2508

          #19
          Originally posted by wolftone57
          i don't know what you guys are on about, Ross Gibbs played 253 games for Glenelg in the SANFL & I saw most of them, a f'ing great player who drifted down from the backpocket to kick goals. The only player in the SANFL to kick 5 goals playing as a back pocket. Kicked 8 if i remember rightly as a RR. So Bryce could have played for the Crows but did not pick him as first draft choice (a balls up) and Carlton (who had first pick) got him. the Crows went for his Glenelg team mate James Sellar who as far as I know failed to play a game. There was confusion as to the AFL rules on father/son for interstate clubs at the time and under the rules at the time because his father only played for Glenelg & not Crows he may not have been elegable. Still not sure on that one but I think either a Crows stuff up or the father/son rules only in reality applied to the VFL or ex-VFL clubs, not a level playing field.
          No, that's not right, Wolftone. Gibbs went #1 pick to Carlton...Sellar was about #15 when Adelaide had their first pick. I believe it has to do with the TIMING of the games....had to play 200 games within a certain date window....something to do with when Adelaide entered the comp....so possibly games after 1988 don't count...or something. Anyway - was robbed :-)
          "I'll acknowledge there are more talented teams in the competition but I won't acknowledge that there is a better team in the competition" Paul Roos March 2005

          Comment

          • Bleed Red Blood
            Senior Player
            • Sep 2003
            • 2057

            #20
            Yeah, the Crows have had what, a grand total of 0 father sons. Carlton we're lucky - Murphy could've been a Lion yeah, and Gibbs in S,A.

            As for us, Nick Davis played 98? I think Schneider 98 also.

            Comment

            • Dosser
              Just wild about Harry
              • Mar 2011
              • 1833

              #21
              What gets me most is that Roosey's kids qualify for Brisbane.

              Comment

              • dimelb
                pr. dim-melb; m not f
                • Jun 2003
                • 6889

                #22
                Originally posted by Dosser
                What gets me most is that Roosey's kids qualify for Brisbane.
                Really? Why? I understand the Fitzroy connection, but aren't we allowed to combine the games played and games coached?
                Last edited by dimelb; 27 September 2011, 04:09 PM.
                He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)

                Comment

                • swansrob
                  Senior Player
                  • May 2009
                  • 1265

                  #23
                  Originally posted by dimelb
                  Really? Why? I understand the Fitzroy connection, but aren't we allowed to combine the games played and games coached?
                  I'm pretty sure we can't do that, but as the Roos boys are in the Acadamy, they can decline an offer from Brisbane and we get a free shot at them thanks to the Acadamy.

                  Comment

                  • Hartijon
                    On the Rookie List
                    • May 2008
                    • 1536

                    #24
                    Originally posted by Triple B
                    I remember when the Swans developed an allegience with the Swifts a few years back it was suggested we should 'introduce' a few of our potential 100+ gamers to a selection of the more athletic girls in the Swifts.

                    The guys would have to pledge that if the resultant offspring was a boy they would do all in their power to develop them as future Swans.

                    For the girls part, we would give them seasons tickets, a cap and a scarf so everybody would know who they root for...
                    I am not sure this always works. How is Stephie Graf and Andre Agassi's kid going at tennis? Should be world number 1 going on genetics. Didn't Hitler try something similar and that didn't work either?

                    Comment

                    • swansrob
                      Senior Player
                      • May 2009
                      • 1265

                      #25
                      Originally posted by Hartijon
                      I am not sure this always works. How is Stephie Graf and Andre Agassi's kid going at tennis? Should be world number 1 going on genetics. Didn't Hitler try something similar and that didn't work either?
                      Graf and Agassi's eldest is 10 - give them a chance!

                      Comment

                      • aardvark
                        Veterans List
                        • Mar 2010
                        • 5685

                        #26
                        Originally posted by Dosser
                        What gets me most is that Roosey's kids qualify for Brisbane.
                        While Brisbane continually refuse to acknowledge their Fitzroy heritage I find it hard to understand how they could claim father son players from the Fitzroy days.

                        Comment

                        • supersall
                          On the Rookie List
                          • May 2008
                          • 122

                          #27
                          You people, and yes, you know who you are, can you please stop channeling my Dad, he's not even dead.
                          I'm not arrogant, I'm right

                          Comment

                          • Reggi
                            On the Rookie List
                            • Jan 2003
                            • 2718

                            #28
                            Father Son is an interesting one. I have a feeling that this current rule massively favours previously stable well performing clubs against teams like us. Before the 2000s we just did not have a lot of 100+ gamers, whereas C/wood Carlton, Essendon had plenty, so my feeling is the current 100 game rule might seriously benefit some clubs over others. Some of our 'great' players did not get there.

                            Jackson Colemann sone of Glenn is in this years but does not qualify for us. Anyway would be interesting to see some analysis some day. Geelong certainly have been massive beneficiaries, with Scarlet, Ablett, Hawkins, Callan, Blake etc.

                            I have a feeling the current rule is unfair. In the 80s probably we had a handful of 100+ gamers, Wright, Round, Browning, Bayes, Murphy, Mitchell, Roberts, Carter, can't think of many others whereas I would think other clubs would have 4-5 times as much

                            Apologies at home sick this week, was more interesting than work, just feel this rule is prejudiced
                            You don't ban those who supported your opponent, you make them wallow in their loserdom by covering your victory! You sit them in the front row. You give them a hat! Toby Ziegler

                            Comment

                            Working...