Father son rule under siege

Sophie Taeuber

August 18, 2009

Bryce Gibbs with teamate Brendan Fevola training on AAMMI Stadium.

With the AFL’s rapid evolution into a multimillion-dollar business, are the romantic traditions of the father-son rule no longer suitable for our national competition?

 

In the AFL’s 41 year history, the father-son rule has undergone 13 changes after continual criticism the system disadvantages interstate clubs.

 
With the inclusion of two new teams into the competition by 2010, as well as an influx of international recruits, the rule looks set to come under even more fire.

 
With continual barriers standing in the way of an equitable system, many in the football world have been left to ponder whether the AFL would just be better off without it.

 

Adelaide Crows Recruitment Manager, John Reid, said he is in two minds about the father-son rule, as to keep an uncompromised draft the rule should be abolished but to keep nostalgia it is needed.

 

Inaugural coach of the Adelaide Crows and radio personality, Graham Cornes, thinks the rule should stay put.
“I think it’s great to preserve the family connection,” he said.

 

However, Cornes thinks amendments still need to be made to ensure the system is more equitable for non-Victorian clubs and views the new bidding system as a step in the right direction.

 

 “It is a much more equitable way of allocating a player to a club.”   

 

The new bidding system requires clubs to match the best bid made from a rival club, in order to secure a father-son player.

 

The previous system, criticised for its soft touch, required a club to give up only a third round draft selection.

 

The Adelaide Crows inaugural captain, Chris McDermott, said he likes the new system.

 

“Given where this competition is now, it is the fairest way to handle a difficult situation,” he said. 

 

“It means the player can play for his father’s club, but not for free and that in the current climate of the AFL is fair”.  

 

Skeptics of the new bidding system have highlighted a possible loop hole, in which clubs could make false bids for father-son players, to force rival clubs to use up their high round picks. 

 

McDermott, however, thinks it is too big a gamble.

 

“Sure the possibility exists, but so does the possibility of tanking games to get better draft picks,

 

“Either way the risks are too great if you get it wrong”.

 

A further rule change that could prove to be popular for all 16 clubs is currently in the wings.

 

This year football operations boss, Adrian Anderson, announced the AFL might look into lowering the number of required games for father-son eligibility from 100 to 50, or even just 20 games.

 

The proposal came following the news that the 16 AFL clubs will be forced to sacrifice draft picks and uncontracted players to the two new teams entering the competition.

 

The proposed rule change comes as no comfort to the Adelaide Crows, who were just nine games short of securing number one draft pick, Bryce Gibbs, under the father-son rule in 2006.

 

Unlike the rest of the competition, South Australia and Western Australia have a modified father-son rule system in place until they have been in the AFL for 20 years.

 

In 2006, in order for a father-son player to be eligible for a South Australian club, the father must have played 200 SANFL games between 1970 and 1990.

 

Gibb’s father, Ross, played a total of 253 SANFL games, but only 191 between 1970 and 1990.
In an attempt to secure Gibbs, the Adelaide Crows and Port Power made a joint submission to the AFL to extend the eligibility period forward to include when they first had a 200 game player.

 

In the wake of their submission the AFL instead announced it would extend the eligibility period backwards, allowing players who had played 200 games up to the cut off date, to be claimed.

 

Reid is certain the league would have acted differently if it was a Victorian club.

 

“We always felt the AFL were not really interested and that their merits were different to ours,” he said.

 

Cornes also thinks the AFL would have done more if it were a Victorian team disadvantaged by the rule.

 

“The Victorian lobby seems much more powerful,” he said.

 

“It confirms the Victorian bias of the father-son rule.

 

“It was a disgraceful decision not to allow Gibbs to join the Crows under the father-son rule”.

 

McDermott however, thinks the AFL decision was fair.

 

“Bryce’s father, Ross, who I played with for years at Glenelg, has not one tie to the Adelaide Football Club and therefore neither should Bryce.    

 

“Bryce had no passion for them and therefore no reason to bust his gut to play for them.

 

“The end result saw Bryce in the best place for him, Carlton.

 

“Few could argue that now given his great form”.

 

Although the father-son rule has so far only brought heartache to the Adelaide Crows, Reid said the club was still interested in the rule’s traditions.

 

With the Adelaide Crow’s 20 year anniversary just two years away and subsequent lift of the modified father-son rule, the sons of modern day players appear to be high on the agenda.

 

Modern day player, McDermott, said he wouldn’t mind where his son played football.

 

“If he chooses to play, sure I’d love to see him play with Adelaide, but if he pulled on a Carlton or a Brisbane one it wouldn’t faze me either way.”

 

The father-son rule appears to be moving in a more equitable direction, with the introduction of the new bidding system and the possibility of a reduction in the required number of games.

 

However, with the introduction of the two new clubs in 2010, more amendments to the rule must be made.

 

With many interstate clubs steadily reaching their rule modification lift, excitement about the future of the rule appears to be growing but is this a case of too little, too late?