Rookie List Changes

[The Coon Dog]

Reward for club rookies (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,24554863-19742,00.html)

AFL rookies will have greater opportunity to shine next year, with clubs able to automatically elevate a rookie halfway through the season.

As part of the compensation for clubs giving away valuable draft picks to the Gold Coast, all 16 clubs will be allowed two extra rookies in the 2009-10 seasons.

In the past, clubs have had to put a senior-listed player on the long-term injury list for eight weeks to elevate a rookie.

That has seen the unfortunate situation where a well-performed rookie has had to return to the rookie list, and VFL footy, despite showing strong form in the AFL.

Starting next season, if a player has impressed enough a club can decide to elevate him irrespective of the club's injury list.

Clubs without two listed veterans can already nominate a rookie to play during the year, with Carlton rookie Michael Jamieson competing in 16 games last season.

The new ruling will give some clubs as many as two extra players on their list in the second half of the year.

It is another win for rookie-listed players, with some of the stars of the competition coming from the rookie list over the past decade.

Players such as Dean Cox, Brett Kirk, Brad Sewell, Dean Brogan, Tarkyn Lockyer, Ben Rutten and Nathan Foley have all been promoted rookies.

AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said yesterday the rule would help clubs maximise the extra rookies on their lists.

"There will be an opportunity to upgrade a rookie at the halfway mark of the season without having to put someone on the injured list," Anderson said.

"I was just talking to Mick Malthouse at the (International Rules) jumper presentation and of the players here in Perth, 10 have made their way off rookie lists.

"There are a lot of great players among them and it goes to show it is a vital pathway for players that missed out on being drafted."

The Gold Coast club will get access to 16 uncontracted players plus selections 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 in the 2011 national draft.

Existing clubs will be compensated with a future draft pick for losing an uncontracted star, with a complicated formula to determine the number of the draft selection.

[westdog54]

I like it. Good rule change.

[Go_Dogs]

I like it. Good rule change.

Agreed, for once seems like the AFL has taken a logical approach.

Now if only we could convince them the best way to deal with the rushed behind tactic is to prevent the ball being kicked in until after the umpires have waved the flags (like it used to be), instead of any of the bs proposals they have so far.

[LostDoggy]

Agreed, for once seems like the AFL has taken a logical approach.

Now if only we could convince them the best way to deal with the rushed behind tactic is to prevent the ball being kicked in until after the umpires have waved the flags (like it used to be), instead of any of the bs proposals they have so far.


Now now Griffen#16. We can't expect the AFL to make 2 decent decisions so close to each other... ;)

[LostDoggy]

Agreed, for once seems like the AFL has taken a logical approach.

Now if only we could convince them the best way to deal with the rushed behind tactic is to prevent the ball being kicked in until after the umpires have waved the flags (like it used to be), instead of any of the bs proposals they have so far.

How would that help?

[bulldogtragic]

How would that help?
Tell me you're joking...

Have a think about it.

[hujsh]

Tell me you're joking...

Have a think about it.

I doubt it would do anything other than slow the game down.
Teams will still rush the point.

[Sockeye Salmon]

There are two reasons players rush a point.

1. Nothing else they can do.

Defenders can no longer defend. They can't knock the ball out of bounds, they can't dive on it. When they're going for a mark they can't touch the arms when they spoil or place their hands anywhere near their opponents back (whether they push or not).


2. The reward is worth it.

By giving away a point you not only get the ball but you get it immediately, before your teammates are manned up. The reward is not only possesion, but quite possibly possesion up the other end.


Giving them the ball back after their teammates have been manned up will go some way towards reducing the advantage gained by rushing the point in the first place.

Removing the stupid hands-in-the-back and chopping-the-arms rules will stop forward from continually being gifted goals they didn't deserve. If defenders can actually defend instead of being witches hats for forwards, coaches won't have to resort so much towards flooding to stop goals.

[LostDoggy]

Tell me you're joking...

Have a think about it.

tell me....

[strebla]

It may be just me but what if we rookie list Lynch and wells we could still use them next year.This would give us a further 2 pick in the draft rather than waiting untill pick 14 in the rookie draft therefore a higher pick and quite possiblly a much better player. Any thoughts.

[The Underdog]

It may be just me but what if we rookie list Lynch and wells we could still use them next year.This would give us a further 2 pick in the draft rather than waiting untill pick 14 in the rookie draft therefore a higher pick and quite possiblly a much better player. Any thoughts.

I assume you mean O'Shea.
I'm not against doing it with him, although Lynch would be riskier as other teams might have more interest and can technically pick a delisted player up before you redraft them as a rookie. Also don't think it's worth doing it with 2 of them as I can't imagine there's anyone they'll be desperate for at pick 80 that they won't potentially be able get in the rookie draft, especially as it'll be someone Clayton saw in Albany u 18's.

[strebla]

Why I put Wells is anyones idea yes i did mean O'Shea but i still think with Lynch's problems this year it may well be worth it as we will get a much earlier pick.(hopefully not from Albany u18's though)

[Sockeye Salmon]

Why I put Wells is anyones idea yes i did mean O'Shea but i still think with Lynch's problems this year it may well be worth it as we will get a much earlier pick.(hopefully not from Albany u18's though)

The cut-off date for drafting rookies is different to the cut-off date for the regular draft. O'Shea benefitted from this last year as ideally we wanted to draft Mulligan and rookie O'Shea but we couldn't because O'Shea was too young.

If there was a kid we wanted to rookie but couldn't, we might consider delisting O'Shea, drafting the kid we want and then try to re-rookie O'Shea. Remember re-rookie-ing a player isn't guaranteed.