Under current AFL rules, a player is eligible to be drafted by the club of his ‘biological father’ where the father played more than 100 games.
The heat was on the AFL this week to reconsider the ‘biological’ relationship, when talk back radio was flooded with callers after Tony De Bolfo was told of the ineligibility of adopted sons on Twitter by AFL Media Manager Patrick Keane.
The rule first established in 1949, was designed so that clubs could continue the legacy of their famous footballing names. Over 60 players have been drafted under the rule since 1988 including Gary Ablett Jnr., Dustin Fletcher, Mathew Richardson, Jobe Watson, Jonathon Brown and Travis Cloke.
The notion is that talent can be linked to bloodlines and so paternal sons may be more appealing to clubs.
However does this discriminate against non-paternal boys who grow up in a famous footballing family? If a son grows up with an AFL father in his football club environment and has the ambition and talent to be drafted then bloodline should not matter.
This scenario does have a loop-hole though.
Footballers with eligibility status could conceivably adopt talented teenagers in order to secure their services at a club. Bobby Davis once joked that he wanted to adopt a 17-year old Luke Hodge so that Geelong could pick him up as a father-son.
A solution to this problem is that the son should be under legal guardianship for at least five years to be made eligible under the rule. This circumstance would include boys from the age of 12-13.
This week the AFL softened its stance on the issue and said the Commission will consider such applications on merit. However the issue needs more certainty and the five-year clause is a reasonable consideration and closes the loop-hole.
Macca
Guest
I'd like to see it extended to grandsons or nephews/great nephews as well. For me, Allan Hopkins of Footscray (Western Bulldogs) is my great uncle (grandmother's brother) and if I was a "good" footballer, would like to try to get in under that rule. But unfortunately I am not a footballer, but think others that have famous uncles or grandfathers shouldn't miss out if male children skip a generation, or weren't just interested in footy.
brendan
Guest
One of the Scott brothers Brad i think it was made the point that one onomaly with the rule is that Father Son players have a choice of clubs ( assuming there guns ) ala Mark Murphy rebutting Brisbane and going no 1 to Carlton.Being a Geelong supporter we have benefited from the rule but it has cost us too -Nathan Ablett , Mark Blake and Adam Donohue didn't justify there selections.Extending the rule to non-biological sons would create a miefield of problems.Indigneous family groups can be more fluid than white society so establishing adoption rulings may be culturally insensitive.No one else agrees with me but my contention that the first round of the draft be open would ameliorate this and other problems ie if the biological or non-biological son of an ex player is good enough for you to use your first round pick on them so be it.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
You can nurture all you want darl, but that ain't going to give you someone 6ft 6.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
That's a bit much. The rule has been in place since the 1940's, the AFL simply hasn't updated it. Is it ignorant? Yeh, perhaps, but hopefully, the AFL will update its rule. Are there ethical issues involved? Yes, which is why the AFL has to do it carefully. They need to have a rule about how long the legal guardianship was for. As for legalities, I doubt there are any. "Imagine the heartbreak and disappointment of both the father and son…." There is no guarantee that a son would play for his father's club anyway. Regardless, I think their heartbreak and disappointment would disappear once the son is drafted, whichever club picks him up.
karen
Guest
oh my god afl are you in the dark ages or what? Are you still putting NATURE ahead of NURTURE? Get hold of some research and educate yourselves! Players become "talented players" in a diversity of scenarios. My god how do we account for all those talented players whose dad's didn't play footy?(talent, school culture) The whole point of the Multi cultural football association is to capture those naturally talented youngsters who may not have been exposed to AFL through the family culture.(oh so you can play even if not biologically related to a former afl player? shock horror) I am shaking my head at the ignorance..... and I haven't even started on the ethics and legalities of the issue! Imagine the heartbreak and disappointment of both the father and son.... mmmm I know , just to make it fair "Paternity" tests for all who claim father son rule....after all you never know?
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Hmmmm... Hawthorn only recently learned that Johnny Platten had a talented footballing son, but had escaped their notice because he had lived with his mother with her surname for many year. That did get me thinking: how far away are we from checking exact lineages? If we're not interested in doing that, and legal documents suffice, then yes, the door becomes open for adopted kids. The father-son rule is not as lucrative as it once was, when it allowed Geelong to secure Ablett and Scarlett with picks in the 30s and 40s. This year, Melbourne will be forced to secure Viney with it's very top pick, probably pick no. 3 or 4 overall - so it's only a benefit if GWS or the Suns were going to take him 1st or 2nd (which might have been likely seeing how much toe he's showing as a 17 yo). The Bulldogs have secured Cordy, Libba and Wallis in recent years and have discovered that there are more sired youngsters coming a long, and now have an extensive list of Bulldog sons, aged 1yo to 17yo with about 20 names. Why not, no harm in keeping tabs on favourite sons.