Wikipedia

Talk:Father–son rule

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Notable father/son selections?

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

A meaningless, unregulated, and potentially unwieldy list of players which adds nothing to the article. Personal opinion is that the table should be removed entirely. The other option would be to establish a set of criteria which designates a father-son selection as "notable". Aspirex (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Disagree The table provides set of meaningful father-son selections. It is neither meaningless nor unregulated. I think it is vital to the article. ROxBo (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well, take for example, the fact that Ron Barassi is the most important Father/Son Selection of all time, both for the history of the rule and for the impact he had on the game, but isn't in the list. Or that Ayce Cordy is in the list despite having not played a game. Or that all three Clokes are in the list when history will only judge one of them as a success. There's no extra information (how many games the father or son played, what draft picks (if any) the team had to give up). Are the selections notable because the father was a good player, or because the son was a good player, or both? Aspirex (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think that it should remain, but maybe narrow down the criteria to player >100 games or won a major award, or some other unique circumstances about the player - such as the first ever for each club, or the first for each system? Or, in the recent draft-only era, are there so few (in my memory, normally only 4-5 per year max), that you could list them all? Or make up a separate page for all - List of players drafted to the AFL under the Father-Son Rule?

Table of all drafted F/S selections

edit

Since this discussion, I believe the problem has become worse with a full list of players drafted under the father/son rule since the draft began. All of my previous points from the above discussion stand. I would also point out that I think it is pointless to have a quote-unquote "complete" list when that list starts from a semi-arbitrary point in time (viz. the start of the draft); I'm sure it's a lot more difficult to get information about F/S recruitments from the zoning era, but to provide a full list starting from 1986, including uncapped players, and to once again use the example that Ron Barassi is not included, results in a recentist slant on the article. I still push for a complete removal of the list, but I would also be content to see the proposal from the unsigned comment above that it be limited strictly to sons who have played more than 100 games/kicked more than 100 goals, or won a major award – similar to the criteria that we have applied on Rookie list. Aspirex (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

To me the major difference between the rookie list and the father-son picks it's that you get 50 to 80 rookies each year but only 3 to 5 father-son picks. Setting the duds in amongst the stars is useful and interesting to me. If we can find a reliable ref for pre-draft era f-a picks then I'm all for including Barassi in either the same list or a separate list.The-Pope (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
The list doesn't start from an arbitrary point, it starts from the year of the earliest confirmed father-son selection that can be backed up by a reliable source. The Official statistical history of the AFL books list father-son selections from the draft era so that is what we use. If a source can be found that says Ron Barassi was a father-son selection then add him. Jevansen (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
The availability and ease of finding sources is a weak excuse for allowing an article to have undue weight on recent times. Just because information has a reference, doesn't mean it should go into an article where it doesn't fit. In this case, providing such a high level of completeness for one era, but no information for another era, disrupts the balance of the article.
May I then reinvigorate another compromise, based on an above suggestion, and break the list into a separate article. This F/S Rule article stands as complete by itself without an enormous list of players in it, but if you feel that the information is notable enough to be captured, then it can readily be done in a separate article. This is the same justification I used for breaking List of AFL Grand Final pre-match performances out of AFL Grand Final (and for removing the Norm Smith Medal table from that same article) and the AFL Grand Final article is much more streamlined as a result. Aspirex (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't have access to it at the moment, but I have a copy of Hilliers book Like Father Like Son. I'll check it later this week and see if it has a list of pre draft era f-s picks. The bigger problem in the pre draft era is that the lists weren't always as fixed as they are now. Players came on and off the lists much more frequently than they do now, so working out who exactly was "selected" under this rule might be hard without a lot of checking of old papers. Also, if a player was zoned to a club anyway, would he be considered a father son or just a zone player? I don't think the list is enormous at it's current size, but depending on how many pre draft players we find, I wouldn't be against a split. The-Pope (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Needs more history

edit

Specifically, it needs to say when the modified SA/WA rules come in. It must have been after 2000, otherwise Adelaide could have drafted the Cornes brothers on the basis of Graham Cornes' 200+ games with Glenelg.

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Father–son rule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Father–son rule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Father–son_rule&oldid=1199952126"