Am starting this thread now in case you want to review draft and trading rules as we are coming to end of season.
Here are the trading rules as they stand:
5.1 Trading between teams is allowed as long as trades are determined to be reasonably fair between both parties.
5.2 Trades must be listed in the Trading Thread in the following format:
X Team receives: Player A
Y Team receives: Player B
Reason: Justification for why the trade has been made
The trade must be then confirmed by the other party in the trade, and they must list their reasons also
5.3 Trades will either Passed or Rejected by the league administrator. The administrator will take into consideration the short and long term impacts to both teams, to ensure the trade does not damage a team's future chances of being competitive.
5.4 Where any coach feels that the decision of the administrator is incorrect or unfair, they may appeal the decision to the Trades Committee. The Committee will review the decision, and have the power to confirm or over-rule the decision made by the administrator. They will then provide feedback to the coaches involved.
5.5 The committee will consist of 3 members, not currently affiliated with the competition, who are deemed to be impartial. The administrator will be charged with appointing the committee and ensuring they remain active.
The current committee is comprised of Ziplock, Mr Craig and MyChumps
5.6 Trades must be conducted in a 1 for 1 manner. This includes the trade of draft picks.
5.7 There will be two trade periods per season, one before the drafts, and one after. Teams are entitled to 10 Player movements over the 2 trade periods. Teams finishing 17th and 18th are allowed an additional 2 player movements and reams finishing 13 - 16 are entitled to one additional player movement. These additional player movements must be nominated and will not count as player movements for the franchise being traded with.
5.8 A player movement is defined as when a player on your list from the previous season (initial draft for initial season) is traded to another team. Draft picks or players you have received as part of a trade can be on traded without being considered a player movement.
5.6 and 5.7 are the ones that may start discussion:
Do we want to continue 1 - 1 or allow more eg Player x for Player y and Draft pick z
Comments on the concessions on to lower teams in 5.8 and the limit of player movements.
To start discussion I reckon we do away with extra player movements and look at this proposal:
Teams finishing 18th and 17th get an additional draft pick at conclusion of first round.
Teams finishing 15th and 16th get an additional draft pick at conclusion of second Round.
In all cases you must have vacancies on your 40 player senior list to draft players,
Just been thinking of ways to try and equalise competition a little but not a fan of caps for 15's.
I am not a fan of the one for one. Prefer the trades to be more flexible and it is often easier to make a trade fairer to a particular side by adding something small but if there is one for one, it is sometimes impossible. We are aiming to mirror the AFL where possible and they do not have 1 for 1.
Think the bottom 4 only should get an extra movement if any. The draft pick idea is okay as well, not fussed there. Not a fan of the cap idea prefer list movement limits.
Just to be clear: Is trading one of you initial draft picks counted as a movement? IMO it should not be.
That is just my view on things. :)
yeah i say we scratch the 1 for 1 deal in trades so it's easier to add picks as sweeteners and just make it they need to have room on there list to do it
so i think scratch the 1 for 1 deal before drafting but bring it back after drafting to keep lists at 45
before drafting and any 2 for 1 trades you just need to delist players to be able to do it
make sense?
and i want to bring something in like WXV regarding subs
if a player gets the green vest or is subbed off before half time
you either get that players average
or
the emerg player you have covering that pos you get there score instead if it's higher then original players score
the 2nd option i think also encourages teams to have decent depth
I'm not really a fan of the proposal at the end of the OP regarding bottom four teams getting extra picks, there's no need to compromise the draft like that.
I'd like to scratch 1 for 1 deals.
I think the sub rule definitely needs re-visiting.
There are a few other things needing to be discussed but I can't think of them atm.
Quote from: NigeyS on June 24, 2014, 04:53:21 PM
I'm not really a fan of the proposal at the end of the OP regarding bottom four teams getting extra picks, there's no need to compromise the draft like that.
Yeah I reckon just give them an extra movement like last year if anything.
I didn't bring up the sub rule because I thought we were focusing on trading & drafting as they aren't too far away.
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on June 24, 2014, 04:38:15 PM
and i want to bring something in like WXV regarding subs
if a player gets the green vest or is subbed off before half time
you either get that players average
or
the emerg player you have covering that pos you get there score instead if it's higher then original players score
the 2nd option i think also encourages teams to have decent depth
Yep like the way Os has done this in WXV, good rule IMO.
Sub rules will be visited at end of season and glad mentioned here so we do not forget but have time to refine them.
Need to concentrate on draft and trade rules as they are the ones we need settled quickly so keep the suggestions coming.
Great contributions so far.
rolling lockout needs to be addressed/introduced more
Yes, very much so. ^
This lockout on Friday night is ridiculous in some instances (couple of Monday games).
I wouldn't be encouraging the use of a loophole, but working out a proper lockout is in order.
Can it be as simple as, yes rolling lockout but no loopholes allowed?
:o
Quote from: Vinny on June 24, 2014, 05:03:10 PM
Can it be as simple as, yes rolling lockout but no loopholes allowed?
can be, AXV don't allow it but WXV do
I honestly think that's the best way to do it.
Do not like rolling lock outs but if you can come up with sound reasons to get vote through go for it as imo if you have full rolling lock outs no emergencies or subs required would be the trade off not allowing for the extra work for administrator to monitor.
Not saying can not be done but you have to come up with something that is workable and not onerous Admin wise.
is it really that much extra work?
all we want is that
if there is a Thursday night game then only Thursday night players are locked out then and full lock out is Friday night etc
Yeh basically if there is a Partial Lockout in AF/RDT then we have one here
My preference is partial lock outs for Thursday Night games with Full lock out on Fridays keeping existing emergency and sub allowing for late changes and any Monday changes,
Work involved with full Partial lock outs would require monitoring every game and tying yourself at a computer all weekend. No time to go to games. You have to lock each game at bounce.
Yeah I think we just mean partial lockouts for Thirsday night games not the whole weekend
Yep, Ric and KB covered it.
We're essentially after a partial lockout.
Also gonna raise the co-captains idea.
It's working nicely in Worlds. While it seems beneficial for the most part, an example of it not working is last week in Worlds where I had Mummy score 152 as co-captain (x1.5) and Beams score 92 (x1.5). That's like 366 whereas if I had Mummy as sole captain and got 304 and then added the 92, I would have got 396. Sometimes, 30 points is the difference between a win and a loss.
But yeah, pretty does more good than harm. :P
I don't like the emergency rule, when you need to name 4 emergencies with one for each position. Think you should just have to name 4 emergencies regardless of the position.
Quote from: nrich102 on June 24, 2014, 05:51:28 PM
I don't like the emergency rule, when you need to name 4 emergencies with one for each position. Think you should just have to name 4 emergencies regardless of the position.
You can do that anyway just name them OOP
Like I do
T McDonald (ruck OOP)
Ringo takes into account the order in which you list emgs for the record iirc.
The thing with emergencies and the way I see it is that you're more likely to need an emergency for every position than more than one for a certain position.
Here are my thoughts;
1) partial lockout for Thursday night games like AF/RDT and full lockout on Friday. Captains and vice captain are LOCKED OUT on Thursday to avoid any loopholing. (Or just ban loopholing in general)
2) This is an idea I really like regarding subs. 4 emergencies are named (one for each position) and they are all considered "subs". Your lowest scoring player at the moment is generally subbed out for your mid sub emergency however, I would like to change the rule so that the player that scores the lowest, is only subbed for a player of the same position.
For example, Joel Tippett is a defender on the field and jared rivers is your back emg. Tippett is the worst score of the entire team and scores 20 but rivers scores 60 so his score replaces Tippetts.
This will mean that each position should have decent depth as you never know what position will be your lowest scoring one. At the moment, we would use Greenwood who is scoring 150s as a mid sub to replace Mullett scoring 50s or yarran scoring 30 or nicnat scoring 70. One player covers all, which means depth is not important. This is not right. Rivers scoring 70 should replace mullet for example.
Obviously a late means that the emg fills in the position. If a player from the same line is the lowest scoring player, then no sub will be made. This should stop loopholes because you effectively give up your sub opportunity and bench cover for the chance at loopholing which is a huge gamble.
A utility player should count as the first emg "sub" listed like it is now.
3) Draft. I do not think lower teams should get more draft picks. I like how they get an extra player movement or two. That is very valuable. 1 for 1 picks should be scrapped but be aware that this may result in more "unfair" trades and the committee will be called upon more often.
I like that idea Spite.
I think if a utility/interchange player can cover a late out in position, that should happen and then first listed emg comes on to the interchange. But yeah, if all players are subs and they replace their position's lowest scorer, that certainly works out nicely because it rewards depth as has been said and pointed out before as well.
Yeah I really like that idea about each emerg player is a sub for that position
Well done Spite.
Need to do some refining on late outs and utilities but should be able to devise a rule covering all scenarios, Will work on something.
Hey Ringo
This is pretty random
But when you update the ladder each week could you also post the ladder in the update post? just a bit easier and no extra work for you I assume
What do others think of this idea. Easy to do as it is just a screenhot uploaded as a picture so just a matter of putting picture at beginning or end.
Oh I assumed you just pasted the image thing on the front page so thought you could do in latest post easy enough also
Like how Ossie does
I like it at the end too, small thing but handy haha. Saves about 20 seconds of my life. :P
Quote from: nrich102 on June 24, 2014, 05:51:28 PM
I don't like the emergency rule, when you need to name 4 emergencies with one for each position. Think you should just have to name 4 emergencies regardless of the position.
I didn't know you had to one in each position? Never done it once.
U also want the +20 rule to scraped.
Ringo likes people posting scores so he can make sure the ones he has is correct
i don't think people will post them without the bonus so i don't see them going
Yeh also not a fan of games being decided because of that
Yep, it's an incentive and encouragement for people to actually post their own scores rather than simply posting their team every Friday (or Thursday).
The main point of it is to make Ringo's job easier which is fair because counting up everyone's scores every week is a hell of work.
It is hard when some people don't have time but Ringo has to give up his time to do everyone's if we don't do one each.
Quote from: Ricochet on June 26, 2014, 02:53:29 PM
Yeh also not a fan of games being decided because of that
I think Ringo would say not too many have come down to this amount, which BTW is essentially zero if both coaches post their team
Yeah, I'm not sure whether some people how tedious the admin work for comps like these could be.
While Ringo has spreadsheets and whatnot to streamline the process, when people do their bit as a coach it really makes his workload much easier.
Happy with the discussion on the Bonus and happy to put to vote in the off season.
Whilst I have spreadsheets with formulae, pivot tables and lookups, there is still a bit of Manual work involved and I can make mistakes so rely on the posting to verify my scores. Probably average one error a week over the season (3 last week though), Biggest issue for me is as you can not get an excel download from Sportal I have to record each individuals score manually after each match and this is where most errors occur.
Over the 2 seasons only 4 matches have been decided by a team that lodges score updates and one that does not and Badgers have been the victims twice.
Would like some more comment on drafts and trades though as they would be the pressing ones if we are to change.
by draft you mean compensation picks? i'm on the fence about them really not fussed either way
i think you'll find everyone wants to scrap 1 for 1 trading probably have to bring it back after drafts though
Yep but just seeing what options people come up with,
My thoughts are doing away with 1 - 1 for trade period 1 but 1 - 1 to apply for trade period 2.
Also need comments on limiting player movements. Currently 10 and extras for lower placed teams.
Just a few little issues that need resolving bfeore trading starts.
Quote from: Ringo on June 26, 2014, 03:39:24 PM
My thoughts are doing away with 1 - 1 for trade period 1 but 1 - 1 to apply for trade period 2.
Yep agree with this mate
Quote from: Ringo on June 26, 2014, 03:39:24 PM
Also need comments on limiting player movements. Currently 10 and extras for lower placed teams.
10 movements is heaps imo
Don't mind the limit on player movements atm, just don't do that extra picks for lower teams nonsese.
Do you agree with the extra movements though for lower teams?
Bottom 2 or Bottom 4 get an extra one I reckon.
Quote from: Ringo on June 26, 2014, 03:45:14 PM
Do you agree with the extra movements though for lower teams?
Yeah, that's fine.
Quote from: Ricochet on June 26, 2014, 03:41:29 PM
Quote from: Ringo on June 26, 2014, 03:39:24 PM
My thoughts are doing away with 1 - 1 for trade period 1 but 1 - 1 to apply for trade period 2.
Yep agree with this mate
Quote from: Ringo on June 26, 2014, 03:39:24 PM
Also need comments on limiting player movements. Currently 10 and extras for lower placed teams.
10 movements is heaps imo
Agree with Rico on both of these items.
Dont think extra trades are going to help lower teams unless you are talking about end of 1st round end of 2nd round picks??
Yeah 10 is enough a few teams went into rebuild last year and needed more but normally it's enough
Quote from: Ringo on June 26, 2014, 03:45:14 PM
Do you agree with the extra movements though for lower teams?
We are a bottom side at the moment so my views are a little biased but I think it is good to have some kind of bonus/helping had for teams that finish down the bottom.
Extra movements are great but if you have not many players that others want then what good do they do? For example aside from Kieren Jack we don't have many players of interest to other clubs aside from youngsters who we'd need to keep if we want to be competitive down the track.
I don't think extra draft picks for the bottom sides every season are fair but perhaps we could have a similar priority pick system whereby if you finish in the bottom 4 for two consecutive seasons (or win less than 5 games over two seasons) there could be an extra end of first round pick.
Obviously this was a contentious issue in the AFL with tanking but in this league I can't see that happening as everyone can see the players you have to choose from every week so tanking would be obvious to spot and then the coach can be banned if it occurs.
Definitely in favour of the partial lockout for Thursday games, otherwise it's a nightmare to determine who plays and teams will have 0's too often.
Also if there is a Monday I think the partial lockout should be extended until finals teams for that match are announced as well.
Just implement a no loophole rule (penalty a loss of premiership points) like the AXVs to stop people doing that.
I agree with Memph on the extra movements not exactly being beneficial for bottom teams but extra picks should be. Also like the idea that only teams with less that 4/5 wins should get compensation
Quote from: Ricochet on June 26, 2014, 02:53:29 PM
Yeh also not a fan of games being decided because of that
Maybe it could be 20 bonus points to your total season points, rather than 20 points in the game?
A priority pick system would be okay I suppose.
So how about this:
Teams with 4 wins or less get priority picks at end of first round based on finishing order eg Team 18 say won 3 games pick 19 and team 17 with 4 wins Pick 20. 4 Wins being the cut off point. (ATM only the Dragons 3 wins, Breakers and Steins with 2 wins and Giants 1 win would be eligible but still 5 rounds to go).
Tanking would be monitored and if proved would forgo priority picks at end of first round.
If Priority picks are passed then extra movements would cease. Prority picks could be traded.
Thoughts
Yep like that
I'm down with that.
To be clear on how the compensation picks work
Right now Giants would be compensated with pick 19 and get pick 23
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on June 26, 2014, 06:23:49 PM
To be clear on how the compensation picks work
Right now Giants would be compensated with pick 19 and get pick 23
Yeah, that's my understanding.
As National Draft is a loop Draft and assuming Giants remain on bottom
They would be entitled to Pick 1, Pick 19 and Pick 1 in the second Round. (If current bottom teams still have less than 4 wins this pick would be 23).
Quote from: Purple 77 on June 26, 2014, 05:37:16 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on June 26, 2014, 02:53:29 PM
Yeh also not a fan of games being decided because of that
Maybe it could be 20 bonus points to your total season points, rather than 20 points in the game?
I did lose a game against Ric's team due to not adding up earlier. I would be second instead of third which could make a huge difference when it comes to EOS
What about people who don't either post the right scores or add up wrong? Do they still get the bonuses?
*posts so I see this in my feed
Happy with the priority pick idea for 4 wins or less.
Do we need to increase/change rules for not posting, and then subsequent not posting?
Quote from: SydneyRox on June 27, 2014, 12:46:45 PM
Happy with the priority pick idea for 4 wins or less.
Do we need to increase/change rules for not posting, and then subsequent not posting?
you mean regarding posting teams?
yeah i think premiership should points should be lost like WXV
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on June 27, 2014, 03:35:03 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on June 27, 2014, 12:46:45 PM
Happy with the priority pick idea for 4 wins or less.
Do we need to increase/change rules for not posting, and then subsequent not posting?
you mean regarding posting teams?
yeah i think premiership should points should be lost like WXV
yeah premiership points or something like that.
RIGHT!
A bit late to the party, but my opinions below....
Quote5.6 Trades must be conducted in a 1 for 1 manner. This includes the trade of draft picks.
I think, for the first trade period at least, that trades should not be restricted by this. Numbers will even themselves out.
Quote5.8 A player movement is defined as when a player on your list from the previous season (initial draft for initial season) is traded to another team. Draft picks or players you have received as part of a trade can be on traded without being considered a player movement.
I think this complicates things, would rather just say 10 player movements full stop.
QuoteTo start discussion I reckon we do away with extra player movements and look at this proposal:
Teams finishing 18th and 17th get an additional draft pick at conclusion of first round.
Teams finishing 15th and 16th get an additional draft pick at conclusion of second Round.
In all cases you must have vacancies on your 40 player senior list to draft players,
Fine with me
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on June 24, 2014, 04:38:15 PM
and i want to bring something in like WXV regarding subs
if a player gets the green vest or is subbed off before half time
you either get that players average
or
the emerg player you have covering that pos you get there score instead if it's higher then original players score
the 2nd option i think also encourages teams to have decent depth
Agree with WXV style sub rule, surprised how well it works this year
Quote from: nrich102 on June 24, 2014, 05:51:28 PM
I don't like the emergency rule, when you need to name 4 emergencies with one for each position. Think you should just have to name 4 emergencies regardless of the position.
Agree, we should get free reign on emergencies.
Ringo have you got a date set for when trading starts?
just curious
Trading may be delayed for a week whilst we finalise the coaching status of Hurricanes and Falcons. Remember both coaches took on as an interim basis till seasons end.
Another matter for discussion is last year we had a knock out plate competition for teams not making the 8. Are you happy for this to continue against this year. Runs in parallel with the finals competition
Don't see why the coaching jobs can't be sorted out now. ???
Quote from: NigeyS on July 01, 2014, 06:08:37 PM
Don't see why the coaching jobs can't be sorted out now. ???
Because myself and/or Stew may decide we want to stick around and re-apply EOS 8)
Quote from: Purple 77 on July 01, 2014, 06:12:01 PM
Quote from: NigeyS on July 01, 2014, 06:08:37 PM
Don't see why the coaching jobs can't be sorted out now. ???
Because myself and/or Stew may decide we want to stick around and re-apply EOS 8)
Oh yeah. :o
Quote from: Purple 77 on July 01, 2014, 06:12:01 PM
Quote from: NigeyS on July 01, 2014, 06:08:37 PM
Don't see why the coaching jobs can't be sorted out now. ???
Because myself and/or Stew may decide we want to stick around and re-apply EOS 8)
Nah we don`t want either of you to stay things have gone downhill since you join BXV :P ;)
Ringo during trade period would you like me to make a thread to lodge all the trades then you don't have to read all the debates
Will be same as last year a thread will be created listing all trades. Remember I locked a thread that only I could edit listing trades and fate.
Quote from: luvfooty on July 01, 2014, 06:16:14 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on July 01, 2014, 06:12:01 PM
Quote from: NigeyS on July 01, 2014, 06:08:37 PM
Don't see why the coaching jobs can't be sorted out now. ???
Because myself and/or Stew may decide we want to stick around and re-apply EOS 8)
Nah we don`t want either of you to stay things have gone downhill since you join BXV :P ;)
It has nothing to do with my Hurricanes beating your hoods now does it ;)
Quote from: Purple 77 on July 01, 2014, 08:30:26 PM
Quote from: luvfooty on July 01, 2014, 06:16:14 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on July 01, 2014, 06:12:01 PM
Quote from: NigeyS on July 01, 2014, 06:08:37 PM
Don't see why the coaching jobs can't be sorted out now. ???
Because myself and/or Stew may decide we want to stick around and re-apply EOS 8)
Nah we don`t want either of you to stay things have gone downhill since you join BXV :P ;)
It has nothing to do with my Hurricanes beating your hoods now does it ;)
Haha actually no just needed to be said :P
But seriously hope you decide to stick around I`m enjoying the comp in my first season here and hopefully I can stick around for a while.
OK with only a few weeks to end of season need to finalise rule changes for trade period.
So in summary these are changes that look like being made and then going to vote:
Trade Period 1 - Trades can be made in any configurations and can include National Draft and Rookie Draft picks.
Trade Period 2 - Trades will be on a one for one basis.
There will be additional movements for lower placed teams as Priority picks will be introduced if agreed by vote.
Are you happy with current approval process?
5.3 Trades will either Passed or Rejected by the league administrator. The administrator will take into consideration the short and long term impacts to both teams, to ensure the trade does not damage a team's future chances of being competitive.
5.4 Where any coach feels that the decision of the administrator is incorrect or unfair, they may appeal the decision to the Trades Committee. The Committee will review the decision, and have the power to confirm or over-rule the decision made by the administrator. They will then provide feedback to the coaches involved.
5.5 The committee will consist of 3 members, not currently affiliated with the competition, who are deemed to be impartial. The administrator will be charged with appointing the committee and ensuring they remain active.
and secondly we are currently limited to 12 player movements is this sufficient or do we need to increase to 15.
Please feel free to comment and I will collate and then put to vote prior to end of season.
Have some issues with player movements
think it should be simplified to a certain number, no matter if you on trade them
I am happy to lift player movements to 15 or 20 but taking out the on trading component. So a movement is a movement when trade completed if that player is subsequently traded out that will be an additional movement.
Also thinking of making trading picks as a movement as well as effectively you are trading a player.
Quote from: Ringo on July 15, 2014, 10:16:58 AM
I am happy to lift player movements to 15 or 20 but taking out the on trading component. So a movement is a movement when trade completed if that player is subsequently traded out that will be an additional movement.
Also thinking of making trading picks as a movement as well as effectively you are trading a player.
I like
Yeah I don't mind if we are getting more movements
Guessing administrating trades would be easier this way
20 movements and no on-trading also draft picks counting as movements, I am cool with that.
Yeah, don't mind the idea of getting 20 movements, picks counting as movements and on-trading subsequently being scrapped.
So just to clarify that we understand what is proposed
Team A Trades Player X to Team B for Player y National Draft Pick 1 and Rookie Draft pick 1
Result Team a i movement Team B 3 movements.
Yep
yeah, works for me.
I thought we were looking at priority picks for the poorer performing teams but were going to scrap the extra list movements for teams finishing near the bottom?
Seems a bit unfair having two bonuses for the bottom teams but extra list movements aren't very helpful if a team doesn't have anything decent to trade. So replacing these extra movements with a priority pick seems a better idea.
That is the intention of the change Memph.
Remove the extra movements, allow 20 movements with draft picks classed as a movement and on trading will also count as a movement.
Separate rule will to give additional draft picks to teams with 4 wins or less at end of first round also to be voted on. Also thinking of giving teams winning 6 games or less (excluding those with 4 games or less) Priority pick at end of Round 2. Feel free to comment on this as well.
These are the 2 rules that need to be voted on as a priority as trading will commence in near future and some coaches will need to know what draft picks they have.
Feel free to continue the discussion and on Friday 1st August will put out to vote based on opinions.
Rule changes proposed atm subject to change following further discussion.
a) Trading:
1. Trading in period 1 will be unrestricted but trading in Trade Period 2 must be like for like,
2. Franchises will be entitled to 20 movements in total over the 2 trading periods. A player movement is defined as any movement of players between franchises, trading of draft picks. On trading of traded players and/or draft picks will also count as a player movement.
3. Removal of additional movements for lower placed teams to be removed.
b) Draft Picks
Rule to be added:
Teams with four or less wins for the season will receive one priority pick at the end of first round of the National Draft based on finishing order on Table. Teams with 5 or 6 wins will receive a priority pick at the end of second round of National Draft. Tanking will not be tolerated and if observed you will forfeit priority pick and next draft pick.
Feel free to comment over the next 2 weeks.
Agree with the 4 wins club needing help, but not sure we need another tier with the 5 or 6 wins getting a bonus pick, but will go with the majority on that one I think
Reason for 5 or 6 wins is atm Teams 14 & 15 are currently on 6 wins and 5 wins respectively. Bear in mnd we gave these teams an additional movement as well. If there are enough the comments against will put out the 2 options for the vote.
Unlike most I plan not to whinge no matter the circumstances. Ringo, what ever is easier for you is fine with me.
Quote from: Ringo on July 17, 2014, 01:35:32 PM
Reason for 5 or 6 wins is atm Teams 14 & 15 are currently on 6 wins and 5 wins respectively. Bear in mnd we gave these teams an additional movement as well. If there are enough the comments against will put out the 2 options for the vote.
since you seem to want it so bottom 4 gets compo picks why not just make it that bottom 4 gets instead of amount of wins
amount of wins could mean 5 or 6 teams get compensated
Sounds Reasonable KB. One concern though is should all things being normal and eventually comp is equalized you could have one of the bottom 4 with more than 6 wins. Thoughts on this slight amendment
Teams finishing in the bottom 4 have priority picks providing they have 5 wins or less. Priority picks to be apportioned as follows: Teams with 4 wins or less to have priority pick at end of round 1 and teams with 5 wins to have priority pick at end of Round 2.
Just do not think it right if say 2rd and 4th bottom teams have 5 wins they get a pick at end of Round 1. But as always open to discussion.,
yeah that sounds good if in the bottom 4 you get a compensation pick unless you have 6 or more wins
i think the wording on that rule is much better now
Another Rule change I am thinking of is reducing lists to 40. 36 on Senior List and maintaining rookie list at 4.
To achieve this all clubs will have to delist an extra player this year eg if you want to draft 4 players in the National Draft you will have to delist 5 players,
i only have about 3 guys i want to delist on my senior list :'(
and 1 or 2 on my rookie list
Quote from: Ringo on July 21, 2014, 04:50:43 PM
Another Rule change I am thinking of is reducing lists to 40. 36 on Senior List and maintaining rookie list at 4.
To achieve this all clubs will have to delist an extra player this year eg if you want to draft 4 players in the National Draft you will have to delist 5 players,
Sounds good Ringo I think I have about 5 I want to delist or that may retire
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on July 21, 2014, 04:54:24 PM
i only have about 3 guys i want to delist on my senior list :'(
and 1 or 2 on my rookie list
so if i delist 3 i can draft 2 going by this new rule?
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on July 21, 2014, 04:58:33 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on July 21, 2014, 04:54:24 PM
i only have about 3 guys i want to delist on my senior list :'(
and 1 or 2 on my rookie list
so if i delist 3 i can draft 2 going by this new rule?
Depends on your trading KB as well as you will get draft picks to fill your list to 36 Senior players in the national Draft and 4 in the Rookie Draft. You do not have to do delist 4 players etc as you can pass in the drafts.
Quote from: Ringo on July 21, 2014, 04:50:43 PM
Another Rule change I am thinking of is reducing lists to 40. 36 on Senior List and maintaining rookie list at 4.
To achieve this all clubs will have to delist an extra player this year eg if you want to draft 4 players in the National Draft you will have to delist 5 players,
Sounds good indeed.
Hey I should probably raise this now but I think that in the National Draft you should be able to also pick players not drafted last year by a club?
Does this make sense. So in the National draft with Pick 1 you could technically pick either an AFL National Draft pick or a player left over from last season (Shenton perhaps)?
Then the rookie draft is just for rookies.
That is waht is proposed National Draft will be National Draft players, Left over players from last year and players delisted by clubs still on afl lists.
Quote from: Ringo on July 21, 2014, 05:22:21 PM
That is waht is proposed National Draft will be National Draft players, Left over players from last year and players delisted by clubs still on afl lists.
Wicked :D
Quote from: Ringo on July 21, 2014, 05:22:21 PM
That is waht is proposed National Draft will be National Draft players, Left over players from last year and players delisted by clubs still on afl lists.
That works fine.
Some more rule changes for discussion.
(a) The sub rule has raised some concerns and we probably need to review.
These are my thoughts on improving/simplifying rule:
There are 4 emergencies named one for each line. If you do not have an emergency available for each line you may name a player out of position (OOP). Emergencies will take the place of any non playing player on the field and OOP will be at half points.
Once all on field players have been decided by use of emergencies then if the score of the lowest placed on field player on any line is lower than the emergency for that line then the emergency score is taken as score.
(b) Penalties.
Think we all agree that there is an insufficient Penalty for not naming teams.
My thoughts are.
If Teams are not named then the previous weeks team is used but the following penalties will apply.
1st Offence loss of 50 points
2nd Offence loss of 100 points
3rd Offence loss of 200 points and possible loss of team.
Penalties to be applied at discretion of Administration and dependant on circumstances.
Also if no Captain, Vice Captain or Emergency Vice Captains are named then no bonus points will apply.
Please feel free to express thoughts on both or offer alternatives for discussion.
both sound good to me
Punish the coach, not the team.
Three strikes and you're out.
Yep sounds good Ringo
Quote from: Ringo on August 11, 2014, 03:16:09 PM
Some more rule changes for discussion.
(a) The sub rule has raised some concerns and we probably need to review.
These are my thoughts on improving/simplifying rule:
There are 4 emergencies named one for each line. If you do not have an emergency available for each line you may name a player out of position (OOP). Emergencies will take the place of any non playing player on the field and OOP will be at half points.
Once all on field players have been decided by use of emergencies then if the score of the lowest placed on field player on any line is lower than the emergency for that line then the emergency score is taken as score.
Please feel free to express thoughts on both or offer alternatives for discussion.
Just a comment on this one is that I see it making the strong stronger and the weak weaker.
In effect we would have 4 Subs? One for each line. Well the good teams do, the guys who have no outs to worry about and some depth.
The weaker teams who have to use an emerg first are then playing catchup with Subs. They will also most likely be playing OOP, so a guy who might have been a good sub gets put in as an OOP player instead.
Fair point SR Have you got any suggestions as to how to improve so weaker teams not disadvantaged. Same thing happened a number of times this year where some stronger teams had a sub scoring in excess of 100 really making opponents up against it.
Happy to look at anything that can be raised but thought this method may allow some better subs. Bear in mind it can be any line that is now used as sub as well. Also takes away the majority of sub uses this year this year with a mid replacing dfenders, rucks or forwards.
Keep the suggestions coming.
I think we should keep the subs the same or swap to the worlds version
personally i think it's good it will encourage teams to have good depth
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on August 11, 2014, 07:11:33 PM
personally i think it's good it will encourage teams to have good depth
Not every team can have good depth though, especially with 18 teams.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 11, 2014, 07:10:03 PM
I think we should keep the subs the same or swap to the worlds version
I agree with this. Either keep it as is or use the version of the sub rule that Worlds uses.
Quote from: NigeyS on August 11, 2014, 07:13:13 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 11, 2014, 07:10:03 PM
I think we should keep the subs the same or swap to the worlds version
I agree with this. Either keep it as is or use the version of the sub rule that Worlds uses.
Not a real fan of becoming a de-facto Worlds comp we need some uniqueness and these are ways to be different and keep it unique from other comps. Personally dislike the worlds sub rule as well.
Quote from: Ringo on August 11, 2014, 07:03:57 PM
Fair point SR Have you got any suggestions as to how to improve so weaker teams not disadvantaged. Same thing happened a number of times this year where some stronger teams had a sub scoring in excess of 100 really making opponents up against it.
Happy to look at anything that can be raised but thought this method may allow some better subs. Bear in mind it can be any line that is now used as sub as well. Also takes away the majority of sub uses this year this year with a mid replacing dfenders, rucks or forwards.
Keep the suggestions coming.
True a mid generally was the one to replace a lower defender or forward and not often another mid?
The teams with playing depth would still be at the advantage of getting a free shot at 'loop-holing' to a certain extent.
Don't we just name an emergency for each position who will come on if someone is OUT and if you don't have one your emergency is OOP. Similar to the AFL.
Then your designated sub comes on for your lowest score. Similar to the AFL were whoever comes off is generally worst on the field.
How is that different to what we currently have?
Just another idea throwing out there for consideration with sub rule:
If one of your players is subbed with either green or red vest and the emergency for the same line scores more than the vested player then the emergency score is taken.
Quote from: Ringo on August 11, 2014, 07:48:50 PM
Just another idea throwing out there for consideration with sub rule:
If one of your players is subbed with either green or red vest and the emergency for the same line scores more than the vested player then the emergency score is taken.
I think I like this idea the best so far. That way you are eliminating the mid replacing defender scenario as well.
Quote from: Rusty00 on August 11, 2014, 08:30:09 PM
Quote from: Ringo on August 11, 2014, 07:48:50 PM
Just another idea throwing out there for consideration with sub rule:
If one of your players is subbed with either green or red vest and the emergency for the same line scores more than the vested player then the emergency score is taken.
I think I like this idea the best so far. That way you are eliminating the mid replacing defender scenario as well.
Yeah I don`t know why but I like this idea better.
Eliminates mids subbing for defenders not as harsh as the Worlds sub rule and keeps everyone on an even playing field I reckon
Quote from: Vinny on August 11, 2014, 07:46:00 PM
Don't we just name an emergency for each position who will come on if someone is OUT and if you don't have one your emergency is OOP. Similar to the AFL.
Then your designated sub comes on for your lowest score. Similar to the AFL were whoever comes off is generally worst on the field.
How is that different to what we currently have?
i think the sub rule needs to be changed, the sub normally only is on for a certain time, maybe ADD on half the subs score to the best 15?
Quote from: Torp on August 11, 2014, 10:17:04 PM
Quote from: Vinny on August 11, 2014, 07:46:00 PM
Don't we just name an emergency for each position who will come on if someone is OUT and if you don't have one your emergency is OOP. Similar to the AFL.
Then your designated sub comes on for your lowest score. Similar to the AFL were whoever comes off is generally worst on the field.
How is that different to what we currently have?
i think the sub rule needs to be changed, the sub normally only is on for a certain time, maybe ADD on half the subs score to the best 15?
We cannot replicate AFL to that degree. Think we are just trying to nail bringing on a sub rather than worrying about how long he is on for. Cause the sub is there as well as to add that part of the AFL to XVs also to cover for that one dodgy score most teams get. Cutting the sub score in half ruins the point of that.
Quote from: Vinny on August 11, 2014, 10:23:19 PM
Quote from: Torp on August 11, 2014, 10:17:04 PM
Quote from: Vinny on August 11, 2014, 07:46:00 PM
Don't we just name an emergency for each position who will come on if someone is OUT and if you don't have one your emergency is OOP. Similar to the AFL.
Then your designated sub comes on for your lowest score. Similar to the AFL were whoever comes off is generally worst on the field.
How is that different to what we currently have?
i think the sub rule needs to be changed, the sub normally only is on for a certain time, maybe ADD on half the subs score to the best 15?
We cannot replicate AFL to that degree. Think we are just trying to nail bringing on a sub rather than worrying about how long he is on for. Cause the sub is there as well as to add that part of the AFL to XVs also to cover for that one dodgy score most teams get. Cutting the sub score in half ruins the point of that.
I don't want to sound like a broken record, but if we want to replicate the AFL, then we need to scrap the 20 point thing.
Ringo your first option regarding the sub rule was very close to what I proposed earlier in the year but just missed a little thing.
You name all 4 EMGs but you don't get to sub one player from each line, if your lowest scoring player is lets say a defender, then you get the EMG defender as your sub score (granted they score higher)
If it is a forward that is the lowest scoring player, you get the EMG forward as the sub score etc
This stops a midfielder replaces a defender for example.
So just one sub on and off like the AFL.
-----------------------------------------------------
That being said, I am also a fan of the replacing subbed players with an EMG if they score higher.
-----------------------------------------------------
Like the penalties for not naming teams, assuming the loss of points is from overall so as to effect %
Quote from: whatlez on August 11, 2014, 10:36:27 PM
Quote from: Vinny on August 11, 2014, 10:23:19 PM
Quote from: Torp on August 11, 2014, 10:17:04 PM
Quote from: Vinny on August 11, 2014, 07:46:00 PM
Don't we just name an emergency for each position who will come on if someone is OUT and if you don't have one your emergency is OOP. Similar to the AFL.
Then your designated sub comes on for your lowest score. Similar to the AFL were whoever comes off is generally worst on the field.
How is that different to what we currently have?
i think the sub rule needs to be changed, the sub normally only is on for a certain time, maybe ADD on half the subs score to the best 15?
We cannot replicate AFL to that degree. Think we are just trying to nail bringing on a sub rather than worrying about how long he is on for. Cause the sub is there as well as to add that part of the AFL to XVs also to cover for that one dodgy score most teams get. Cutting the sub score in half ruins the point of that.
I don't want to sound like a broken record, but if we want to replicate the AFL, then we need to scrap the 20 point thing.
so does that mean we have to start paying Ringo for his time double and triple checking scores people that work for the AFL get paid
trying to replicate the AFL is bs
I am happy to scrap the 20 points bonus for posting scores if that is the wish of all. You could still post scores as a double check for me to protect yourself. If you do not then you run the risk of falling victim to an error of mine that may mean you lose a game when you actually won. So I think most would accept that the 20 points bonus is insurance against incorrect scores. We had 153 games in the competition this year and only 3 were lost because of the 20 points bonus so not a real big issue.
Think I have said on a couple of occasions my real issue is that can not get a down-loadable scores from Sportal so manually update my master spreadsheet and that is where errors occur with wrong scores being loaded or scores recorded against wrong players. Happy with the rest of my system but if some of you who may be more technogically savy than me know a way to export Sportal scores in excel format let me know as it would make this task 300% easier.
@ Spite the penalties would be applied to the relevant weeks score. There were instances this year where teams not named has easy wins and this imo was no real penalty hence the discussion on the penalties.
Tbh I reckon most would post score updates throughout the wkend with or without the 20pt bonus
Think that's a good idea if people want to double check the scores they can if not then to bad
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on August 12, 2014, 09:38:43 AM
Think that's a good idea if people want to double check the scores they can if not then to bad
Yep, exactly. It's not a difficult task.
I still think the coach should be punished for not naming a team or naming it incorrectly, the rules are pretty clear as to how it should be posted and if they can't do that properly, they should be punished accordingly. I don't see why the team has to suffer.
Quote from: NigeyS on August 12, 2014, 09:51:07 AM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on August 12, 2014, 09:38:43 AM
Think that's a good idea if people want to double check the scores they can if not then to bad
Yep, exactly. It's not a difficult task.
I still think the coach should be punished for not naming a team or naming it incorrectly, the rules are pretty clear as to how it should be posted and if they can't do that properly, they should be punished accordingly. I don't see why the team has to suffer.
This is the difficulty Nige. Even when penalties were imposed in AFL it is on the team as well as the coach eg Essendon last year. As an example say you were playing a team that had not been named and lost by 10 points costing you a final position would you not want that 25 points penalty invoked. My observations over the year that in a couple of cases when teams not named and just using the previous weeks teams wins by that time have cost a team a position in the 8. That imo is not fair but as i say working out fair sanctions/penalties is not easy.
Quote from: Ringo on August 12, 2014, 10:00:48 AM
Quote from: NigeyS on August 12, 2014, 09:51:07 AM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on August 12, 2014, 09:38:43 AM
Think that's a good idea if people want to double check the scores they can if not then to bad
Yep, exactly. It's not a difficult task.
I still think the coach should be punished for not naming a team or naming it incorrectly, the rules are pretty clear as to how it should be posted and if they can't do that properly, they should be punished accordingly. I don't see why the team has to suffer.
This is the difficulty Nige. Even when penalties were imposed in AFL it is on the team as well as the coach eg Essendon last year. As an example say you were playing a team that had not been named and lost by 10 points costing you a final position would you not want that 25 points penalty invoked. My observations over the year that in a couple of cases when teams not named and just using the previous weeks teams wins by that time have cost a team a position in the 8. That imo is not fair but as i say working out fair sanctions/penalties is not easy.
Okay, yep. Fair point there.
So would it be both then?
As in a points penalty for the team and then one strike against the coach as well?
One of the main jobs of a coach in these comps is to name the team and name it properly, if they can't do that... then I don't think the whole coaching idea is for them.
Yep Nige - Strikes against coaches as well. At times there are legitimate reasons for not naming teams which coaches advise me off and I take that into consideration as well.
Sorry to say this ringo, but all the other admins don't get the help like Ringo, so we might as well pay them then kb... ::)
Other competitions can download the scores though Lez, Ringo has to do it manually.
Just to let you know I think initial score source for all admins is manual as I have enquired across the comps to see if a download is available. And I know I am good but not infallible so hence I like a check on me.
Ah my bad
This will show how the proposed sub rule change will work using my team this week as the example:
Breakers:
Backs: Heath Shaw; Joel Patful (84) : Liam Picken; Colin Garland
Mids: Joel Selwood (c) (121*2=242); Leigh Montagna (vc) (127); Koby Stevens ; Adam Cooney
Rucks: Matthew Lobbe (166)
Fwds: Adam Goodes (56); Josh J Kennedy (75); Eddie Betts (65); Ben Lennon (5)
Utilities: Tyson Goldsack (32); Matt Maguire (81)
Emergencies: Darcy Gardiner (d); Jarrod Witts (r/ sub) (51), Claye Beames (m), Johnathan Freeman (55) (f)
Ben Lennon started as a sub so his score would be replaced by Jonathan Freeman. It is like for like on the emergency line. Should there be more than one sub involved eg a defender is subbed out then the lowest scoring subbed player would be the one replaced.
Just another though given the equalisation debate going on in Worlds.
At the moment we have priority picks for the lower teams at the conclusion of Round 1 of the draft. To strengthen the lower teams should these be priority picks prior to Round 1 or leave as they are. I think our competition is very strong and teams are competitive when best team is available as can be seen by results during the season.
I have no real view either way but just putting there for discussion.
i don't know Ringo it's not guaranteed to improve them anytime soon like Nails took Boyd with pick 4 last year over Kelly
i don't mind the idea if the say have to trade the priority pick for a Best XV player
I dont think the priority picks need to change.
I am happy with the way they are as well. End of first round to go with a top 1-3 should be enough
I propose an award for the highest scoring player in the Grand Final like the Norm Smith.
Winning team gets +10 to its player - for example
Team A has Ablett who scores 160
Team B has Pendles who scores 165
Team A won so Ablett + 10 = 170 which is greater than Pendles 165 so Ablett wins the norm smith or whatever we call it.
Good idea Spite, I like that award.
I wouldn't mind going back and seeing who the pass 3 Norm Smith winners would have been and chucking it in the records.
I like it. giving the +10 is an interesting idea. It should go to the winners unless there is a remarkable opposition performance.
Quote from: Vinny on September 10, 2014, 06:16:35 PM
Good idea Spite, I like that award.
I wouldn't mind going back and seeing who the pass 3 Norm Smith winners would have been and chucking it in the records.
Yeah i would like to know too but I assume it'll be ablett :P Besides this year being Lachie Neale
Quote from: Vinny on September 10, 2014, 06:16:35 PM
Good idea Spite, I like that award.
Yeah great idea mate.
Marc down Bontempelli for the 2017 Norm Smith :P
Haha they didn't have Ablett I think? It was actually Priddis with (146+10) just beating one of your guys Scooter. (155)
Quote from: Vinny on September 10, 2014, 06:23:54 PM
Haha they didn't have Ablett I think? It was actually Priddis with (146+10) just beating one of your guys Scooter. (155)
...then I'd like to propose a change and make it +5 :P
Could also give forwards and defenders a +10 bonus aswell so that midfielders dont win it every time
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on September 10, 2014, 06:26:50 PM
Could also give forwards and defenders a +10 bonus aswell so that midfielders dont win it every time
As in +10 to all forwards and defenders (not utilities) and then an additional +10 for winning the match? That's pretty good too but maybe make it +15 for forwards and defenders since even the best forward is like 40 points below the best mid
If this was to be in effect this year would have been
Hedgehogs Lachie Neale 170
Werewolves Matt Priddis 140
As Hedgehogs won the final Lachie Neale 170+10 so Lachie Neale would wing the Norm Smith
Last Year
Werewolves Matt Priddis 146
Hedgehogs Scott Selwood 155
As Werewolves won the Title Norm Smith to Priddis 146+10 = 156 Over Selwood.
Is this worth adding to awards for future years as proposed by Spite. Comments Welcome.
Only issue I see is 10 points enough of an advantage to winning team. So comments on this area welcome. My Thoughts are a 10% Loading for winning the GF but open to all comments.
Definitely worth it IMO, adds another element to the grandfinal and will be cool to take guesses on who'll take out the North Smith.
Priddis is a grandfinal specialist!
I think as the boys said above, 10 points for winning team and 15 points for defenders or forwards sounds pretty good.
Would have to be called the Ringo Starr Medal surely? :P
Quote from: NigeyS on September 10, 2014, 06:37:39 PM
Would have to be called the Ringo Starr Medal surely? :P
Like it haha
Quote from: Spite on September 10, 2014, 06:42:23 PM
Quote from: NigeyS on September 10, 2014, 06:37:39 PM
Would have to be called the Ringo Starr Medal surely? :P
Like it haha
Love it - and 10% added over 10 points added works better I think.
So this is why I think fixed numbers rather than 10% is better.
10% loading on winning teams scores just gives more points to midfielders. Statistically a grand final winning mid will score about 150, so a bonus 15 points while a back or a forward will typically get about a 120-130 and a 12-13 point bonus. 10% just enhances the odds of a midfielder winning it.
However, a 15 point bonus to forward and backmen (not utilities) before the 10% loading will work too, that would be fine (since the 15 bonus points is meant to make it even out with the mids so the 10% after that makes sense)
Happy to increase the bonus points to as follows;
+15 for winning team - as I said, if a mid is going to get roughly 150 points, 15 is 10% of this and I think a fixed number system will be easier to calculate quickly from the eye (no need for spreadsheet data)
+20 for backmen and forwards (not utilities) - this number is increase by 5 as the other bonus is increased by 5. Also 20 points is probably easier to add on quickly than 15 for everyone involved.
Quote from: Spite on September 11, 2014, 02:16:44 PM
So this is why I think fixed numbers rather than 10% is better.
10% loading on winning teams scores just gives more points to midfielders. Statistically a grand final winning mid will score about 150, so a bonus 15 points while a back or a forward will typically get about a 120-130 and a 12-13 point bonus. 10% just enhances the odds of a midfielder winning it.
However, a 15 point bonus to forward and backmen (not utilities) before the 10% loading will work too, that would be fine (since the 15 bonus points is meant to make it even out with the mids so the 10% after that makes sense)
Happy to increase the bonus points to as follows;
+15 for winning team - as I said, if a mid is going to get roughly 150 points, 15 is 10% of this and I think a fixed number system will be easier to calculate quickly from the eye (no need for spreadsheet data)
+20 for backmen and forwards (not utilities) - this number is increase by 5 as the other bonus is increased by 5. Also 20 points is probably easier to add on quickly than 15 for everyone involved.
Why not then do a 10% loading for mids and a 15% for a fwd/def and a 20% for a ruckman then?
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 11, 2014, 02:20:31 PM
Quote from: Spite on September 11, 2014, 02:16:44 PM
So this is why I think fixed numbers rather than 10% is better.
10% loading on winning teams scores just gives more points to midfielders. Statistically a grand final winning mid will score about 150, so a bonus 15 points while a back or a forward will typically get about a 120-130 and a 12-13 point bonus. 10% just enhances the odds of a midfielder winning it.
However, a 15 point bonus to forward and backmen (not utilities) before the 10% loading will work too, that would be fine (since the 15 bonus points is meant to make it even out with the mids so the 10% after that makes sense)
Happy to increase the bonus points to as follows;
+15 for winning team - as I said, if a mid is going to get roughly 150 points, 15 is 10% of this and I think a fixed number system will be easier to calculate quickly from the eye (no need for spreadsheet data)
+20 for backmen and forwards (not utilities) - this number is increase by 5 as the other bonus is increased by 5. Also 20 points is probably easier to add on quickly than 15 for everyone involved.
Why not then do a 10% loading for mids and a 15% for a fwd/def and a 20% for a ruckman then?
....never thought of that but that's an amazing idea, much better than what I proposed!
Utilities must be classified as mids though I think
EDIT* wait that's for the winning team though, what do forward/backs/rucks get as a bonus on the losing team?
Edit edit* I guess it'll become too complicated and too much extra time to work out with all these %%% too, may as well stick to fixed numbers.
Yep, if it's going to happen, do it with fixed numbers and not percentages or it's going to be a fair bit of extra work and might get messy. A simple point bonus is fine.
Quote from: NigeyS on September 11, 2014, 03:07:27 PM
Yep, if it's going to happen, do it with fixed numbers and not percentages or it's going to be a fair bit of extra work and might get messy. A simple point bonus is fine.
this
Could we look at introducing my proposed OOP ruck rule (which I posted in the World's thread) in this competition?
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 11, 2014, 05:02:56 PM
Could we look at introducing my proposed OOP ruck rule (which I posted in the World's thread) in this competition?
No.
Yes!
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 11, 2014, 05:02:56 PM
Could we look at introducing my proposed OOP ruck rule (which I posted in the World's thread) in this competition?
I can't find it, can you please post it here?
PS Since we just traded to avoid having to play an OOP ruck if NicNat goes down, I hope this won't affect us negatively :s
I think it's unnecessary, trade/draft in a ruck like any other team would have too IMO.
This is the post I made in Worlds. Basically it means teams without a ruck who are forced to play someone OOP aren't penalised as much IF they play a taller guy in the ruck as AFL teams would do if they are short (Daniher/Carlisle/Dawson are recent examples I can think of).
Just a thought on the OOP ruck.
I don't mind getting 50% for OOP def/mid/fwd as there are lot of these players and in theory teams should have enough depth to avoid OOP.
However, given how limited the number of rucks who actually play are the 50% score rule for an OOP ruck is a bit harsh/could be improved in my opinion.
In real life if a team has lost their ruckman they use their next tallest guy/most agile and sometimes they are quite useful.
Could we adapt this for Worlds with a new rule?
I'd suggest that the OOP ruck score would be weighted something like this. They get a certain % of their score which is higher the taller the OOP listed player is.
How about the standard 50% weighting plus and extra 3% per cm the player is above 190?
Here's a practical example with a few players, using the Bombers as an example (ignore the actual players I've just picked guys who are different heights).
OOP Ruck
Joe Daniher - (201cm). As Daniher is 11cm above 190cm his OOP ruck weighting would be 50%+(11*3=33). Which = 83%
Cale Hooker - (197cm). As Hooker is 7cm above 190cm his OOP ruck weighting would be 50%+(7*3=21). Which = 71%
Patrick Ambrose - (191cm). Ambrose is 1cm above 190cm so his OOP ruck weighting would be 50% +(1*3). Which = 53%
So then say Daniher, Hooker and Ambrose all score an even 100 points in SC in real life then as an OOP ruck Daniher scores 83 points, Hooker scores 71 points and Ambrose scores 53 points.
I don't think the rule would be difficult to police/score as most likely teams wouldn't use an OOP ruck because there still is a penalty. Daniher is close to the tallest OOP ruck option you could have had this season (in fact I think he is).
Quote from: Vinny on September 11, 2014, 05:11:36 PM
I think it's unnecessary, trade/draft in a ruck like any other team would have too IMO.
Exactly.
Not to mention Memph has 6 rucks.
I don't get the point anyway, isn't it like a forward gets a slight score reduction but can play ruck if he's a certain height? Forwards and rucks score shower enough in Sportal as it is, we don't need this shower.
Quote from: NigeyS on September 11, 2014, 05:14:29 PM
Quote from: Vinny on September 11, 2014, 05:11:36 PM
I think it's unnecessary, trade/draft in a ruck like any other team would have too IMO.
Exactly.
Not to mention Memph has 6 rucks.
I don't get the point anyway, isn't it like a forward gets a slight score reduction but can play ruck if he's a certain height? Forwards and rucks score shower enough in Sportal as it is, we don't need this shower.
It stops people playing short guys in the ruck position when they need someone OOP there which is more reflective of real life.
First thoughts;
Lachie Keefe is 204cm so Daniher isn't the tallest OOP ruck you could play :P
Second thoughts later
EDIT*
I'm not the biggest fan, all this % stuff makes it harder to calculate for yourself at the end of the week. Its a great idea but not for this game in SPORTAL SCORING (bolded for key point, not angry)
Just trade for a second ruck like most people if you have issues and if you haven't done that, you have to cop the 50% penalty.
Rucks dont score well in sportal so 50% from a 100 avg mid nets you 50 which is only about 30 off a ruck score you wouldn't be so unhappy with. Its not really that big of a deal, I think both the hedgehogs with nicnat and warewolves with cox played OOP ruck many many times throughout the season and they both made it to the grand final anyway.
Rucks score much better in SC so it would make more sense to do it in a comp with a SC scoring system I guess
Quote from: NigeyS on September 11, 2014, 05:14:29 PM
Quote from: Vinny on September 11, 2014, 05:11:36 PM
I think it's unnecessary, trade/draft in a ruck like any other team would have too IMO.
Exactly.
Not to mention Memph has 6 rucks.
I don't get the point anyway, isn't it like a forward gets a slight score reduction but can play ruck if he's a certain height? Forwards and rucks score shower enough in Sportal as it is, we don't need this shower.
So we are trying to mimic afl?
Lobbe is ports last ruck standing this year with injuries. If he goes down are they gonna chuck in Impey to ruck or are they gonna get a makeshift ruckman in westhoff in?
You can trade in all thr rucks you like but if they go down there should be some flexibility
Quote from: Spite on September 11, 2014, 05:16:27 PM
First thoughts;
Lachie Keefe is 204cm so Daniher isn't the tallest OOP ruck you could play :P
Second thoughts later
Well you learn something every day haha.
Even still that makes the best you could get is 204cm = 92%
It also adds a slight element of extra value to tall players in this comp where kpp are less valuable.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on September 11, 2014, 05:17:56 PM
You can trade in all thr rucks you like but if they go down there should be some flexibility
Yes, but that same logic could be applied to defenders, forwards and even midfielders if a team is unlucky enough
Quote from: ossie85 on September 11, 2014, 05:19:35 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on September 11, 2014, 05:17:56 PM
You can trade in all thr rucks you like but if they go down there should be some flexibility
Yes, but that same logic could be applied to defenders, forwards and even midfielders if a team is unlucky enough
There's not a single defining characteristic that you can have to need to play as a defender/forward/midfielder though whereas there is definitely one for rucks.
My post on last page has been updated.
Kurt Tippett stands at 203cm and I wouldn't mind playing him at a 89% reduction in the rucks because that will be decent anyway.
Mitch Clark at 200 cm too...
Hey, don't you have both those players memph! (Just realised as I was posting but i think you traded tippett)
Point still stands on last page
No % reductions.
If you want to play some tall guy as your ruck you can but he loses -50 points.
Quote from: Spite on September 11, 2014, 05:27:19 PM
My post on last page has been updated.
Kurt Tippett stands at 203cm and I wouldn't mind playing him at a 89% reduction in the rucks because that will be decent anyway.
Mitch Clark at 200 cm too...
Hey, don't you have both those players memph! (Just realised as I was posting but i think you traded tippett)
Point still stands on last page
Tippett will likely have ruc though and so will clark if he's played as a ruc/fwd as they are actually used in the ruc.
In a standard XV season how many times is an OOP ruck used? Hardly ever so implementing this would not be hard as it wouldn't come up often.
But, for a team to get a penalty in an important game just because that week both their rucks are missing (dropped/injured in the real AFL) is a bit harsh. What if for example in this year's grand final someone lost by 20-30 points playing an OOP ruck because they had Goldstein as their #1 and no playing back up because Goldy was rested in Round 23 in the AFL?
The only thing I'll add Memph is that teams in the AFL draft/trade for 4+ rucks in case someone goes down.
Like Freo for example have Sandi, Clarke, Griff, Hannath, Moller.
So we should look do the same in this comp.
I think a ruck shortage problem in more relevant in the Worlds comp becaues rucks score so well that people can have 2-3 premo rucks and play them as a Utility. Meaning less to go around to other clubs. In BXVs they don't score that well so no point having the 2-3 premos.
Quote from: Ricochet on September 11, 2014, 06:21:44 PM
The only thing I'll add Memph is that teams in the AFL draft/trade for 4+ rucks in case someone goes down.
Like Freo for example have Sandi, Clarke, Griff, Hannath, Moller.
So we should look do the same in this comp.
I think a ruck shortage problem in more relevant in the Worlds comp becaues rucks score so well that people can have 2-3 premo rucks and play them as a Utility. Meaning less to go around to other clubs. In BXVs they don't score that well so no point having the 2-3 premos.
I found it funny in fantasy that Will minson was the only ruckman at the Bulldogs. no other player had the Ruck status. So that really added to the shortage.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 11, 2014, 06:14:01 PM
Tippett will likely have ruc though and so will clark if he's played as a ruc/fwd as they are actually used in the ruc.
Well considering I have attended 6 Swans games this season and watched nearly every single one of them this year on tv, I would trust my judgement that Tippett will not get ruck dpp. He was not used in the ruck pretty much all season so he wouldn't get injured and to preserve his knee. He played in the ruck last week almost for the first time last year.
Clark - staying at Melbourne probably also wouldn't play Ruck at all as they have Gawn and fitzpatrick ahead of him in the ruck department and they need someone to play as a big forward.
If he was to go to Collingwood, he would play as a forward behind Witts and Grundy. Perhaps if Jesse White was not dropped then he would be used as a pinch hitter in the ruck (either witts or grundy would have to be dropped) but that is not the direction I see collingwood going. I assume Grundy and Witts will have a partnership going on for as much as they can handle next season and White may be dropped unless he finds some form.
Both options unlikely to get Ruck status imo.
Quote from: NigeyS on September 11, 2014, 06:22:51 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 11, 2014, 06:21:44 PM
The only thing I'll add Memph is that teams in the AFL draft/trade for 4+ rucks in case someone goes down.
Like Freo for example have Sandi, Clarke, Griff, Hannath, Moller.
So we should look do the same in this comp.
I think a ruck shortage problem in more relevant in the Worlds comp becaues rucks score so well that people can have 2-3 premo rucks and play them as a Utility. Meaning less to go around to other clubs. In BXVs they don't score that well so no point having the 2-3 premos.
Quote from: Ricochet on September 11, 2014, 06:21:44 PM
The only thing I'll add Memph is that teams in the AFL draft/trade for 4+ rucks in case someone goes down.
Like Freo for example have Sandi, Clarke, Griff, Hannath, Moller.
So we should look do the same in this comp.
It's often not that simple in XVs. If you get a couple of ruck injuries you have to get lucky that the next guys on the depth chart are actually playing for their AFL team. I guess that's why it's a good strategy to have rucks from the same AFL team in your XV team.
Like you said though it is probably less of an issue in BXVs due to the lower scoring output of rucks and is probably also less of an issue from next season when we go from 18 to 16 teams.
I don't like it. Far to complicated.
Quote from: nrich102 on September 11, 2014, 08:56:00 PM
I don't like it. Far to complicated.
pretty much the way i feel about it
My thoughts are to leave as is - Playing an OOP gets you half points. Unless a ruck is also agile around the ground eg Martin, Yder and co who pick up extra points. In Sportal a hit out is only worth 1 point so pure rucks as has been said do not score highly. So as has been pointed out if you work your OOP well you will not lose much with a 50% reduction.
So confirming the majority want the Ringo Starr medal that will be based on fixed numbers of +15 for winning team and +20 to forwards and backs? Maybe we should give +30 for rucks? Thoughts?
Quote from: Spite on September 11, 2014, 10:49:16 PM
So confirming the majority want the Ringo Starr medal that will be based on fixed numbers of +15 for winning team and +20 to forwards and backs? Maybe we should give +30 for rucks? Thoughts?
Yeah, something like that.
Now that the GF is over time to get some discussions going here on rules:
First up thoughts on the Bonus Points do we keep it at 20 or reduce to 10 or abolish altogether.
Keep as is if it helps you Ringo
keeep
For your information will await the AFL decision on substitutes for next year before discussing our rule changes. looks like it may be scrubbed so will need some discussion in due course. Just hope decision is finalised before I go to States in January.
With the announcement of the AFL draw time to discuss draw and competition for next year for British xv's
We have 23 rounds
Here is my idea and open for discussion and bear in mind we have 16 teams.
We have 15 rounds head to head to decide positions 1 - 16 at end of round.
We have 3 byes and scoring proposed for these as follows:
Round 11 + Adelaide Crows,Richmond,Western Bulldogs,Brisbane Lions,Carlton,Hawthorn scores from Round 12
Round 13 + North Melbourne,GWS Giants,Port Adelaide,West Coast Eagles,Geelong Cats,Melbourne scores from Round 12
Round 12 will be North v South Challenge as well.
That takes us to Round 16
Split into 4 groups of 4 and play off for final positions over 3 weeks
eg Week one AFL Round 17
1v2
3v4 Loser position 4
Week 2 AFL Round 18
Loser 1 v 2 v Winner 3 v 4 loser position 3
Week 3 AFL Round 19
Winner Week 1 v Winner Week 2 Winner position 1 and Loser Position 2
Similar for other groups of 4 Positions 5 - 8, 9 - 12 and 13 -16
Positions finalised and the Top 8 and Bottom 8 compete over AFL Rounds 20 - 23 for Premiership Cup and Chairmans Plate.
For Compensation picks and Draft Order Positions at end of season play offs will be used,
Think this would maintain interest in competition for longer and would create interest in bottom Tiers,
Thoughts on this for our competition this year or any other suggestions.
Yeah that round robin at the end sounds cool.
Just think you have a couple of typos to make sure I understand?
Week 2 the loser should go to position 3
The final game is the winner of week 1 vs winner of week 2
Yeah, like it with addition of what Matt said.
This is a bit confusing but in principle it could be good.
The one thing that has always bugged me a bit about these competitions is that in the last round of the AFL season you get teams resting players for the AFL finals. So i'd kind of rather the GF was in Round 22 not 23
I think this is what Ringo meant and SydneyRox is talking about. Bit of an easier format to understand.
Week one: AFL Round 17
Qualifying final: 1v2
Elimination final: 3v4 - Loser eliminated and finishes 4th.
Week 2: AFL Round 18
Semi final: Qualifying final loser versus elimination final winner. Loser of this game finishes 3rd.
Week 3: AFL Round 19
Grand final: Qualifying final winner versus Semi final winner. Winner of this game is the Premier and loser finishes 2nd
It was so close for 4th spot this season, I don't think a team finishing 5th shouldn't get a chance to win the flag.
Need I remind you that hedgehogs finished 8th in year 1 of the competition and made it to the grand final, which was very very interesting. I don't think we should change the rules of the finals format.
The extra weeks should just be extra games where we the top teams plays each other again for fairness and we have a normal finals fixture
If i understand it right, this isnt for the premiership, but a round robin to get the final positions before the actual finals begin?
Yes that's what ringo proposed and I like that. I should have quoted memph sorry
yep i like it
I dont think it should decide positions just should be a regular 4 points but top teams should still play eachother
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on November 04, 2014, 03:34:39 PM
I dont think it should decide positions just should be a regular 4 points but top teams should still play eachother
I like this idea better too.
Quote from: SydneyRox on November 04, 2014, 04:19:27 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on November 04, 2014, 03:34:39 PM
I dont think it should decide positions just should be a regular 4 points but top teams should still play eachother
I like this idea better too.
Quote from: Nige on November 04, 2014, 04:20:15 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on November 04, 2014, 04:19:27 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on November 04, 2014, 03:34:39 PM
I dont think it should decide positions just should be a regular 4 points but top teams should still play eachother
I like this idea better too.
Just to clarify for these comments.
After Round 16 when all teams have played each other once the 4 points per game will finish.
Teams will then be split into 4 groups:
Teams finishing 1 - 4
Teams finishing 5 - 8
Teams finishing 9 - 12
Teams finishing 13 - 16.
For the next 3 weeks groups play each other to decide finishing position in Group and overall eg Winner of Group 3 say will finish 9th with runner up 10th 2nd eliminated 11 th and first eliminated 12th as the example.
Then once positions are decided Teams 1 - 8 play of for the premiership Cup and Teams 9 - 16 play off for the Patrons Plate.
Regarding Memphs idea with restings for GF and I will have to explore further we could move the North v South Challenge to Round 23 and have our GF corresponding to AFL Round 22.
The only thing I am not really certain of is how do we sort the finishing order for draft orders etc as to me there are three possible options:
1) Order as per the end of home and away
2) Order after the group playoffs
3) Order after the Finals. That is how you fare in finals as it maybe for the 8th placed team to finish 1st. so 8th becomes first and so on.
Keep the discussion going as it is something to look at for next year reasonable amount of time left,
I think the hard part is what you have outlined in regards to the draft picks Ringo.
Which is why I like the idea of the playing the 3 teams in each group to finish the season for points rather than a "knockout"
think the draft picks need to go on bottom 8 as per season then top 8 as per the finals.
Memphs idea for a rnd 22 final has merit as well, was carnage this year!
Quote from: SydneyRox on November 04, 2014, 04:45:18 PM
think the draft picks need to go on bottom 8 as per season then top 8 as per the finals.
I totally agree with this statement.
Not sure about the rest as yet, but I think I'd prefer to keep playing for 4 points all the way through to the finals.
Yep 4 points throughout and GF in round 22 is a good idea too
OK Listening to the discussion and it seems that people want the three round round robin to be for 4 points per game. So rather than knock out I can do the draw for the three weeks to play each other once for points.
How about this for a further suggestion for the bye rounds and to allow for Final in Round 22 for the 3 Bye Rounds we have a 12 competitions 3 def 3mids 1 ruck 3 fwds 2 utilities with emergencies as well instead of 15's. All other rules still the same.
Thoughts on this
Personally don't like switching format mid season to best 12. I think you've handled the byes really well in the past two seasons
Quote from: Ringo on November 04, 2014, 08:37:52 PM
OK Listening to the discussion and it seems that people want the three round round robin to be for 4 points per game. So rather than knock out I can do the draw for the three weeks to play each other once for points.
How about this for a further suggestion for the bye rounds and to allow for Final in Round 22 for the 3 Bye Rounds we have a 12 competitions 3 def 3mids 1 ruck 3 fwds 2 utilities with emergencies as well instead of 15's. All other rules still the same.
Thoughts on this
If you want to do that then i reckon do the double up games then and do it by this years ladder positions?
Just to answer the last 2 queries
@ Spite it is a suggestion for next years byes so we can have GF at AFL Round 22 instead of Round 23 with restings effecting finals. Happy to continue discussion on this as I have no firm views either way.
@ JBs_Hawks What will happen at the end of Round 15 next year comp will split into the 4 groups based on ladder positions then and then play the round Robin for points if that is what coaches decide.
Great to see some discussions starting to take place.
I like the original idea, but don't like the idea of best 12 during the byes.
OK Guys some further discussion required. I have just done an initial draw and this is how it will work. Will list the major problem at end for discussion.
AFL Rounds 1 - 15 will be a home and away round robin
Comp will then split into 4 divisions based on table position at end of 15 round.
They will play a round robin over the next 3 weeks which is AFL Rounds 16 - 18. (Will be for points as well)
Then Top 8 play off for championship and bottom 8 for plate. AFL Rounds 19 - 22 with final in Round 22 week before final AFL Round.
So problem is the 3 bye rounds with 6 AFL Teams having a bye from rounds 11 - 13.
How do we handle this. As I see it we have a couple of options:
1) Do away with the 3 Round Robin and have no comp for the 3 bye rounds.
2) Have only the best 12 scores applied for the bye rounds with no HGA.
3) Factor in the teams with byes eg Teams with Round 11 byes scores from Round 12 also count for Round 11. Teams with Round 12 Byes will have their Round 13 score added to their Round 12 score. And Teams with Round 13 bye will have Round 14 score added. Teams to be named as usual for each week. Only for players named with the bye.
4) No change and donuts recorded where full team not able to fielded,
Know a bit complicated but can we have some discussions or other alternatives on how to score the bye rounds.
Option 3 for me.
Yeah, think I like option 3 as well.
1) Do away with the 3 Round Robin and have no comp for the 3 bye rounds.
3.
Byes wouldn't be too bad. But I guess what you've got for #3 makes it pretty well even.
But I'll pick the byes :)
Not option 2. Fine with either 1 or 3
Option 3
Any option but #2 here
I really like the Round robin idea, so I'm a fan of keeping it so option 3 appeals.
Option 3 as well. Liked the way we did byes this year.
Been playing around with the draw this year and another discussion point throwing out here and not fussed one way or the other,
We have 5 Thursday night games this year which means 5 Partial lock outs.
Do we also lock captains and vc at that time or allow only players involved in the Thursday night game to be locked effectively opening a VC Loophole.
Also pondering the idea of multiplying VC by 1.5 thoughts on this as well.
I'm fine with partial lockout, but know that others might not be, so would another alternative be: Partially lock in C and VC, and if on Friday night we find out that one of them is out, then we can change them?
Also, happy to have VC multiplied by 1.5, but if so, then I guess no to the partial lockout?
Not a fan of multiplying VC captains. Also I think the VC loophole option is fine, don't use it if you don't want to. Use it if you do but obviously there is a risk involved.
Quote from: Vinny on November 13, 2014, 10:42:02 PM
Not a fan of multiplying VC captains. Also I think the VC loophole option is fine, don't use it if you don't want to. Use it if you do but obviously there is a risk involved.
Quote from: Nige on November 13, 2014, 10:43:01 PM
Quote from: Vinny on November 13, 2014, 10:42:02 PM
Not a fan of multiplying VC captains. Also I think the VC loophole option is fine, don't use it if you don't want to. Use it if you do but obviously there is a risk involved.
Yep keen on multiplying vc scores
Quote from: LF on November 13, 2014, 10:44:37 PM
Quote from: Nige on November 13, 2014, 10:43:01 PM
Quote from: Vinny on November 13, 2014, 10:42:02 PM
Not a fan of multiplying VC captains. Also I think the VC loophole option is fine, don't use it if you don't want to. Use it if you do but obviously there is a risk involved.
Have paused the draw at Round 11 the bye rounds as we are playing through them just need some discussion on how we apply the scoring and rule.
Same rule to be sorted for all three byes
Using Round 11 Players from Adelaide. Richmond, Brisbane, Western Bulldogs, Carlton and Hawthorn,
Option I am thinking off Players from these teams must be named when naming team for Round 11 but there scores will be the score from Round12. Rationale we have emergencies named so should be no different from late outs, Thoughts.
Bumping as no comments yet. If no comments assume you are happy with ruling that full teams locked on Friday.
So, to make sure I understand this: We're doing the R11 players scores for round 12 (along with R12 players), so we need to name our R11 players before R11 lockout?
I'm fine with that if that's the case.
Put simply for Round 11 you will also name players from Adelaide. Richmond, Brisbane, Western Bulldogs, Carlton and Hawthorn by Round 11 lock out but scores will not be known for these players only till round 12. Similar for Rounds 12 and 13.
Quote from: Ringo on November 16, 2014, 02:06:37 PM
Put simply for Round 11 you will also name players from Adelaide. Richmond, Brisbane, Western Bulldogs, Carlton and Hawthorn by Round 11 lock out but scores will not be known for these players only till round 12. Similar for Rounds 12 and 13.
Hmm seems a tad confusing.
I'm in favour of the method we used this year - that worked well in my opinion.
Quote from: Ringo on November 16, 2014, 02:06:37 PM
Put simply for Round 11 you will also name players from Adelaide. Richmond, Brisbane, Western Bulldogs, Carlton and Hawthorn by Round 11 lock out but scores will not be known for these players only till round 12. Similar for Rounds 12 and 13.
Oh, not a big fan of that tbh. Would prefer to name the players with the R11 bye when they actually play, and not a week before.
Would rather name the players when they play as well
This is what we used last year Memph except that we had North v South for the mid bye week, We were able to use the mid bye round to add 1st and 3rd bye round. As we are playing through need slight adjustment and just need to decide on when to lockout the bye players, I am comfortable with full lockout the week before for bye players,
Quote from: Ringo on November 16, 2014, 02:19:50 PM
This is what we used last year Memph except that we had North v South for the mid bye week, We were able to use the mid bye round to add 1st and 3rd bye round. As we are playing through need slight adjustment and just need to decide on when to lockout the bye players, I am comfortable with full lockout the week before for bye players,
Oh okay.
I'd prefer it if we could lock the Round 11 bye players out on Friday that week then the Round 12 ones the Friday the following week.
Just say no loopholes to people (or allow it).
For what it's worth I prefer the same method as used this year.
Quote from: Rusty00 on November 16, 2014, 09:09:26 PM
For what it's worth I prefer the same method as used this year.
This, however I don't really mind what we do.
Quote from: nrich102 on November 16, 2014, 09:33:57 PM
Quote from: Rusty00 on November 16, 2014, 09:09:26 PM
For what it's worth I prefer the same method as used this year.
This, however I don't really mind what we do.
Just checking, 40 seniors and 4 rookies on our lists yeah?
Quote from: elephants on November 20, 2014, 01:28:56 PM
Just checking, 40 seniors and 4 rookies on our lists yeah?
Pretty sure it is 41 and 4.
Quote from: SydneyRox on November 20, 2014, 01:37:48 PM
Quote from: elephants on November 20, 2014, 01:28:56 PM
Just checking, 40 seniors and 4 rookies on our lists yeah?
Pretty sure it is 41 and 4.
That's correcto. Because of the Rookie Draft being so big, we pick a 45 list and pick any 4 players to be rookies.
Ah yep bewdy. I did know that actually :p
Cheers lads!
Could say keep up to date with the threads or read the rules which I keep up to date but I won't. ;)
Quote from: Ringo on November 20, 2014, 05:39:02 PM
Could say keep up to date with the threads or read the rules which I keep up to date but I won't. ;)
Haha I looked this morning but ehhh, this was easier :p
Cheers all
Just keep an eye on the draft and delisting threads in the coming works.
I will be asking you to nominate if you wish to pass on National Draft picks in that thread prior to setting final order.
Remember there will only be 4 Rounds of the National Draft and the rookie draft will be used to allow filling of teams to the required 45 players.
Also remember for this year only you can nominate your 4 rookies on final list lodgements,
Been trying to find out whether substitutes will be in play next year. was reported will be done away with but can not find anything official.
So probably time to start some debate again as to what happens if subs continue.
My thoughts are:
We name 4 emergencies one for each line ie Def, Mid, Ruck, Fwd.
At the end of the round sub score applied as follows:
Ascertain the lowest score of players on field and if your emergency score for that line is higher than emergency score is used.
If however the emergency has been used go to the next lowest score in the next lines and follow same process.
Does not apply for utilities and can only be used once per round.
Comments on this or alternatives.
sounds fine to me so you get the 4 best scorers out of 5 players for each line
encourages good depth also
Not quite KB sub is only used once so put simply you get the best 4 scores for the line your lowest score is including emergency.
Not each line as subs are used only once. Know it sounds complicated how I put it but also have to account emergencies used for late outs.
Happy with that Ringo. Think I like it better than this year.
I know people don't like the idea of copying or anything, but I think we should do it the way Worlds does it.
Not a real fan of the Worlds system as it allows for a player starting in green vest or a red vest before half time.
Because of these restrictions sub rule is not very often invoked in Worlds.
Trying to find something that aligns closely to AFL as subs are used every week and think what I have come up may work but open to all ideas and discussion.
yeah i prefer this sub rule over Worlds
So just to make sure I'm understanding this correctly, is this whats happening (will use my team as an example):
Simpson (105), Higgins (80), Waters (85), Harwood (90)
EMG Broughton (90)
So Broughton would then replace Higgins?
And if I'd already used Broughton to fill in for a defender if they were a late out or something, then if I have an emg in another line score better than someone on the field in that same line, I can use them instead?
If so, kinda seems like it makes it a bit easier to choose your best starting team each week.
Correct Intepratation GL so Long as Higgins is the lowest scoring player in your team.