New Import rule

[SimonH]

Help!

I'm surrounded by the doomsayers.

It's the end of the league!

It's the end of the league!

It's not the end of the league, but I'll leave it at 2 points:

1. The point has been made time and time again-- recruiting of big-name AFL delistees and established VFL (and to a lesser extent WAFL) players is only part of the picture. Why should a SANFL club that's done such a great (or if you like, 'lucky') job of developing its juniors that 10 of them get taken in the national and rookie drafts, be prevented from re-stocking? Is it seriously the intention of the SANFL (and, let's be frank, AFL, which is behind the change) that they should be punished competitively for feeding so many young players into the AFL system? Why should marginal young NT/QLD/NSW/ACT players who want to play at the highest level they can, be prevented from coming to SA to try out in the reserves and see if they can crack the league team? So the 13th best U/18 player from the previous year, who's an infinitesimal chance of ever carving out a league career, is guaranteed a few reserves games? Why can't the rule have a bit of subtlety and fairness to it rather than this 'square peg for any kind of hole' edict?

2. No club should be forced to let go (in AFL parlance, 'delist') a young player they want to keep (and who wants to stay), merely because of some competition rule as to the structure of team lists. That has never happened before in the history of the SANFL to my knowledge. Sure, in years gone by there were very tight restrictions on who you could bring over, but we've never had a rule that would have the effect of forcing clubs to get rid of players already here. Young i/s project players weren't turfed out by the salary cap, because they weren't/aren't on significant coin.

The SANFL is the clubs (at least so far as non-Crows/Pahhhhr issues are concerned), so I can't see why the rule can't be revisited and amended to address these issues, if enough clubs feel strongly about it.

[sigur]

How about a variation on the rule to compensate clubs who lose players to the AFL? EG if you have two players drafted interstate then that allows for another two imports.

[JK]

How about a variation on the rule to compensate clubs who lose players to the AFL? EG if you have two players drafted interstate then that allows for another two imports.

Could the mini-draft picks be re-designed to provide some form of compensation (in applicable years, ie, when there's enough influx of interstate lads to local AFL list) for that scenario?

[sjt]

How about a variation on the rule to compensate clubs who lose players to the AFL? EG if you have two players drafted interstate then that allows for another two imports.

Might make too much sense and not benefit the AFL/VFL, thus couldn't be considered.

(please insert cynicism meter here)

[sigur]

How about a variation on the rule to compensate clubs who lose players to the AFL? EG if you have two players drafted interstate then that allows for another two imports.

Could the mini-draft picks be re-designed to provide some form of compensation (in applicable years, ie, when there's enough influx of interstate lads to local AFL list) for that scenario?

I've always thought the mini-draft should be done in AFL draft order instead of reverse SANFL ladder - eg last year Sturt lost Trengove at pick 2 so should get first pick at the mini-draft. Mini-draft however is a bit of a poisoned chalice - you'd rather draft a gem like Callinan who's going to stick around to collection premiership medals than pick up a young Taylor Walker who'll play only when the AFL team don't want them.

[Dogwatcher]

How about a variation on the rule to compensate clubs who lose players to the AFL? EG if you have two players drafted interstate then that allows for another two imports.

I think the argument against that would be:
Your typical SANFL draftee is an 18 year old who may have played some league football but mostly plays reserves or under 18s.
Picking up a mature age player who is expected to play league is not really replacing that drafted player.

[csbowes]

I feel like making a cynical comment here... are the clubs currently complaining about this decision the same clubs that voted to scrap the U19s and U17s? My memory tells me it was the clubs with crap juniors that voted to get rid of those two leagues?

... so are they the same one's now whinging about this rule?

If they are, bloody bad luck, as getting rid of the U19s and U17s was ridiculous. If not, then I'm certainly happy to put my cynicism back into its often opened box!

I think you mean that in your opinion it was ridiculous.

I think all the indicators are that it was a great move. There's not much evidence to the contrary.

I dunno... ain't broke, don't fix it as they say... alternatively you could ask, where are we better off with having just the U18s, I don't see any real benefit...

[sjt]

I only just read this article ( a bit slow). Mentions the import rule, with a bit more detail.


http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 5890475894