Feel free to voice any potential rule changes you would like to have considered at the end of this season to be implemented for the 2016 season.
Please note that voting on any rule changes will occur before the trade period opens in the off-season, so if you have a suggestion or change you would like to see in the competition, make sure you get in with it soon.
Rules to Vote on
Note: If there are any additional rules you would like to see changed, or any extra options for what a rule could be changed to, post in this thread or send me a pm before the end of this week. This thread will be locked and votes go out for rule changes on Sunday (13th September) morning.
Also note that there will be a forced change this season in relation to trades in the second trade window (following drafting). All trades in the second trade period will need to be like for like in terms of which list players are on. So a rookie can only be traded for a rookie and a senior for a senior.
- Sub Rule
- Change to AXV Rookie List (possibly abolished or senior list changed to allow rookies to be upgraded mid-season)
- Changes to priority picks system
- Introduction of a point cap
- AXV Grand Final held in round 22 of AFL Season to prevent being hurt by resting
- Free Agency system (Similar to what PB Suggested - see http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,104554.msg1670482.html#msg1670482 (http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,104554.msg1670482.html#msg1670482)
- Trade Approvals Process
- Penalties for not naming a team (Possibly not being able to win a match)
I'd like to see a rule where if a player can't take any further part in the game before halftime then the emergency comes on to cover them.
Because, with only 15 scoring players on each team if one goes down early and scores say 0 it then becomes very difficult for a team to compete in the match.
Whereas in the AFL if a player goes down early with injury it might hurt them a bit late on but, it generally doesn't decide the outcome of a match.
Which is why I think having some rule for injured players would be good, to better reflect real life.
The rule proposal Ringo came up with in British which I think could work for us as well was this:
If a player is replaced before half time or if he spends less than 40% time on ground then substitution from emergency players is allowed at either full points if emergency is from same line or half points if OOP emergency is used. Administrator to decide if TOG is injury related or not to remove cases where player is sparingly used.
Isn't the afl looking to get rid of subs? not sure if i like that one sorry Memph. I'd always back this comp to be more like real life. So if a player is injured and can't take any further part in the game then it should be the same here... if the sub is kicked next year. If it stays then i like it
Why are people so against trading future picks? I like the idea cause it means I can try and get lots of first round picks in this years trading window :P
Quote from: Ricochet on August 13, 2015, 08:31:38 AM
Isn't the afl looking to get rid of subs? not sure if i like that one sorry Memph. I'd always back this comp to be more like real life. So if a player is injured and can't take any further part in the game then it should be the same here... if the sub is kicked next year. If it stays then i like it
It's not so much a sub rule Ricochet as a rule to help teams with an early injury. Did you read this bit?
With only 15 scoring players if one goes down early and gets 0 it then becomes very difficult for a team to compete in the match. Whereas in the AFL if a player goes down early with injury it might hurt them a bit late on but, it generally doesn't decide the outcome of a match.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 13, 2015, 10:15:16 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 13, 2015, 08:31:38 AM
Isn't the afl looking to get rid of subs? not sure if i like that one sorry Memph. I'd always back this comp to be more like real life. So if a player is injured and can't take any further part in the game then it should be the same here... if the sub is kicked next year. If it stays then i like it
It's not so much a sub rule Ricochet as a rule to help teams with an early injury. Did you read this bit?
With only 15 scoring players if one goes down early and gets 0 it then becomes very difficult for a team to compete in the match. Whereas in the AFL if a player goes down early with injury it might hurt them a bit late on but, it generally doesn't decide the outcome of a match.
I did read it mate, just don't agree
Luck will always be apart of this game. Good or bad
I would like to see the rookie list disappear and for teams to have one list. Reason being, the rookie list has almost disappeared from AFL. Teams are now leaving one or 2 players short on the senior list so they can upgrade a rookie or 2 after seeing them play the preseason.
Another reason is that teams are now delisting a player and then committing to them to be picked up as a rookie. The way the system currently works here is that a team will require to delist a delisted player. Even if they have been guaranteed a spot on the rookie list eg Broughton, Schneider.
Not sure if we do it for admin reasons (to make it easier for you guys at the end of a round) but I really dislike the team submission sheets at the moment and would much rather just name the 15 like the other comps do it.
i.e.
D: X, X, X, X
M X, X, X, X
R: X
F: X, X, X, X
U: X, X
Quote from: Ricochet on August 13, 2015, 10:28:49 AM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 13, 2015, 10:15:16 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 13, 2015, 08:31:38 AM
Isn't the afl looking to get rid of subs? not sure if i like that one sorry Memph. I'd always back this comp to be more like real life. So if a player is injured and can't take any further part in the game then it should be the same here... if the sub is kicked next year. If it stays then i like it
It's not so much a sub rule Ricochet as a rule to help teams with an early injury. Did you read this bit?
With only 15 scoring players if one goes down early and gets 0 it then becomes very difficult for a team to compete in the match. Whereas in the AFL if a player goes down early with injury it might hurt them a bit late on but, it generally doesn't decide the outcome of a match.
I did read it mate, just don't agree
Luck will always be apart of this game. Good or bad
Yep definitely agree with Rico here. I also like the fact that it gives weaker teams a chance to pull off an upset if their opposition cops an early injury, which is good for the comp.
Quote from: Toga on August 13, 2015, 10:49:13 AM
Not sure if we do it for admin reasons (to make it easier for you guys at the end of a round) but I really dislike the team submission sheets at the moment and would much rather just name the 15 like the other comps do it.
i.e.
D: X, X, X, X
M X, X, X, X
R: X
F: X, X, X, X
U: X, X
Also agree with this.
Quote from: Adamant on August 13, 2015, 11:05:01 AM
Quote from: Toga on August 13, 2015, 10:49:13 AM
Not sure if we do it for admin reasons (to make it easier for you guys at the end of a round) but I really dislike the team submission sheets at the moment and would much rather just name the 15 like the other comps do it.
i.e.
D: X, X, X, X
M X, X, X, X
R: X
F: X, X, X, X
U: X, X
Also agree with this.
Think we need to do something about the unevenness of the comp.
I know this probably won't be popular but what about some kind of point cap?
That would probably have to lead to unlimited list movements, which I'm sure will be more popular :P
I don't think a point system is a bad idea but I wouldn't like to see anything else happen :)
Quote from: JROO8 on August 13, 2015, 01:18:21 PM
Think we need to do something about the unevenness of the comp.
I know this probably won't be popular but what about some kind of point cap?
That would probably have to lead to unlimited list movements, which I'm sure will be more popular :P
I don't think we need to do anything about the unevenness of the competition. If anything this season has been more even. There is a wide gulf between the top and the bottom teams in the competition (probably Top 4 and bottom 4) but, that's because we have a few teams in rebuilding mode.
We started on our rebuild just two seasons ago and are already starting to show signs that we will be able to turn things around with a strong back end of this season.
The Llamas who lost most games two seasons ago are starting to rise up the ladder now and I'm sure the other rebuilding sides will do in the future.
I think the Folders and Dongs only started their rebuild last season so they'll need another season or two before we see good signs while the Vipers have some talent on the list and I think are in a similar spot to the Folders and Dongs.
Perhaps the one thing which could benefit teams doing a rebuild is priority picks? If after two seasons you've won less than X games (I'd suggest 10) then you get an end of first round priority pick?
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 14, 2015, 12:06:53 PM
Quote from: JROO8 on August 13, 2015, 01:18:21 PM
Think we need to do something about the unevenness of the comp.
I know this probably won't be popular but what about some kind of point cap?
That would probably have to lead to unlimited list movements, which I'm sure will be more popular :P
I don't think we need to do anything about the unevenness of the competition. If anything this season has been more even. There is a wide gulf between the top and the bottom teams in the competition (probably Top 4 and bottom 4) but, that's because we have a few teams in rebuilding mode.
We started on our rebuild just two seasons ago and are already starting to show signs that we will be able to turn things around with a strong back end of this season.
The Llamas who lost most games two seasons ago are starting to rise up the ladder now and I'm sure the other rebuilding sides will do in the future.
I think the Folders and Dongs only started their rebuild last season so they'll need another season or two before we see good signs while the Vipers have some talent on the list and I think are in a similar spot to the Folders and Dongs.
Perhaps the one thing which could benefit teams doing a rebuild is priority picks? If after two seasons you've won less than X games (I'd suggest 10) then you get an end of first round priority pick?
At the moment if you win less than 2 games in a season you get a priority pick. Going to be very hard to get a priority pick with that. I say maybe if you win 4 or less games 2 seasons in a row?
Yeh priority picks are the best way to equalize the comp
Yeah I'd be happy for the teams that need it, to get priority picks.
Fairly certain Worlds is
<4 wins for 1 year is priority pick at start of 2nd Round
<4 wins for 2 years in a row is priority pick at start of 1st Round
Quote from: JROO8 on August 13, 2015, 01:18:21 PM
Think we need to do something about the unevenness of the comp.
I know this probably won't be popular but what about some kind of point cap?
That would probably have to lead to unlimited list movements, which I'm sure will be more popular :P
They traded there old guns away its their own faults
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 14, 2015, 04:51:16 PM
Quote from: JROO8 on August 13, 2015, 01:18:21 PM
Think we need to do something about the unevenness of the comp.
I know this probably won't be popular but what about some kind of point cap?
That would probably have to lead to unlimited list movements, which I'm sure will be more popular :P
They traded there old guns away its their own faults
Thats just stupid. Is it wrong to trade out 30 year old players who only have 1-2 years left so we get something for them. Would you rather the team just gets worse over time before eventually hitting rock bottom when heaps of players retire in the same year and have no picks to replace them with?
I like the worlds system.
Quote from: nrich102 on August 17, 2015, 04:19:52 PM
Thats just stupid. Is it wrong to trade out 30 year old players who only have 1-2 years left so we get something for them. Would you rather the team just gets worse over time before eventually hitting rock bottom when heaps of players retire in the same year and have no picks to replace them with?
I like the worlds system.
I think there has to be some kind of balance. Trading because you want to get value is not always the best option. Enright, Kelly (to an extent), NRoo are a few guys that will retire this year maybe next, and all have been more than serviceable to their AXV teams.
The teams with the old guys win the premierships, the teams with the young guys will not necessarily get better in the near future.
Avoiding a time where everyone retires is good/bad management, but players will retire, and constantly having an average age of 25 and selling everyone once they hit 28 is not going to win you anything, ever.
Quote from: PowerBug on August 17, 2015, 06:05:57 PM
Quote from: nrich102 on August 17, 2015, 04:19:52 PM
Thats just stupid. Is it wrong to trade out 30 year old players who only have 1-2 years left so we get something for them. Would you rather the team just gets worse over time before eventually hitting rock bottom when heaps of players retire in the same year and have no picks to replace them with?
I like the worlds system.
I think there has to be some kind of balance. Trading because you want to get value is not always the best option. Enright, Kelly (to an extent), NRoo are a few guys that will retire this year maybe next, and all have been more than serviceable to their AXV teams.
The teams with the old guys win the premierships, the teams with the young guys will not necessarily get better in the near future.
Avoiding a time where everyone retires is good/bad management, but players will retire, and constantly having an average age of 25 and selling everyone once they hit 28 is not going to win you anything, ever.
Very good point. But for example, what I got at the dongs I had no choice but to sell everyone 30+ because they were all going to retire within 2 years, so it was either mid table team for 2 years before hitting rock bottom with everyone retiring and then have no picks to get back up with. Of course the Dongs are an extreme example, and yes I have regretted a couple of trades that I've made, but really I did what had to be done.
I'd like to propose that we finish our season in Round 22 instead of ROund 23 so mass AFL restings don't affect us.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 01, 2015, 09:46:56 PM
I'd like to propose that we finish our season in Round 22 instead of ROund 23 so mass AFL restings don't affect us.
I'm going to miss Barlow and possibly Goldy this week, so I'm definitely in favour of this.
Quote from: Ricochet on August 14, 2015, 04:34:46 PM
Fairly certain Worlds is
<4 wins for 1 year is priority pick at start of 2nd Round
<4 wins for 2 years in a row is priority pick at start of 1st Round
Looking at this again.
Would people be against being even more lenient than worlds with priority picks?
Like <4 wins for the year and teams get one at the start of the first round AND one at the start of the second?
Personally I don't think giving lower teams (which are young), the ability to draft extra youth, it won't change anything. How many draft picks are going to become guns straight away in terms of fantasy scoring?
Player Poaching is this answer. Why do players leave AFL teams? One reason is they aren't getting enough games.
I'll expand more another time, within the next week. Bit busy atm
Quote from: PowerBug on September 02, 2015, 01:18:35 PM
Personally I don't think giving lower teams (which are young), the ability to draft extra youth, it won't change anything. How many draft picks are going to become guns straight away in terms of fantasy scoring?
Player Poaching is this answer. Why do players leave AFL teams? One reason is they aren't getting enough games.
I'll expand more another time, within the next week. Bit busy atm
If a bottom team was looking to improve quickly they wouldn't be taking those extra picks to the draft though. It gives them someone else that's valubale to trade for proven players
Quote from: Ricochet on September 02, 2015, 01:46:59 PM
Quote from: PowerBug on September 02, 2015, 01:18:35 PM
Personally I don't think giving lower teams (which are young), the ability to draft extra youth, it won't change anything. How many draft picks are going to become guns straight away in terms of fantasy scoring?
Player Poaching is this answer. Why do players leave AFL teams? One reason is they aren't getting enough games.
I'll expand more another time, within the next week. Bit busy atm
If a bottom team was looking to improve quickly they wouldn't be taking those extra picks to the draft though. It gives them someone else that's valubale to trade for proven players
I think it leaves scope for either approach........
1. To trades those picks for established players for more immediate improvement
2. To utilize those picks to draft the best available youth for longer term improvement and possible 10 year players who will be the core of future success
Both are valid tactics, dependant very much on the coaches strategy, drafting skill and trading nous.
That is very much why this is such a great comp, there is no exact formulae for success.
Quote from: Ricochet on September 02, 2015, 12:11:44 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 14, 2015, 04:34:46 PM
Fairly certain Worlds is
<4 wins for 1 year is priority pick at start of 2nd Round
<4 wins for 2 years in a row is priority pick at start of 1st Round
Looking at this again.
Would people be against being even more lenient than worlds with priority picks?
Like <4 wins for the year and teams get one at the start of the first round AND one at the start of the second?
No. Only one priority pick should be handed out to teams. Either at the start of the first round (after any other clubs who've also scored less than 4 wins have picked) or at the end of the first round.
Giving out two makes in harder for middle-tier teams to rebuild through the draft and encourages people to god for a complete rebuild if they're not challenging rather than try improve their fortunes from mid-table.
Those top picks (1-10) can be the super guns, especially the key forwards, and while they might not impact straight away long term they will guns and the best fantasy scorers.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 02, 2015, 02:18:02 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 02, 2015, 12:11:44 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 14, 2015, 04:34:46 PM
Fairly certain Worlds is
<4 wins for 1 year is priority pick at start of 2nd Round
<4 wins for 2 years in a row is priority pick at start of 1st Round
Looking at this again.
Would people be against being even more lenient than worlds with priority picks?
Like <4 wins for the year and teams get one at the start of the first round AND one at the start of the second?
No. Only one priority pick should be handed out to teams. Either at the start of the first round (after any other clubs who've also scored less than 4 wins have picked) or at the end of the first round.
Giving out two makes in harder for middle-tier teams to rebuild through the draft and encourages people to god for a complete rebuild if they're not challenging rather than try improve their fortunes from mid-table.
Those top picks (1-10) can be the super guns, especially the key forwards, and while they might not impact straight away long term they will guns and the best fantasy scorers.
How much harder does it make it for middle teams though? You'd only move down 1 or 2 spots in the 2nd round. Does that really affect the middle teams that much?
I think the first part of my suggestion is... To change the minimum games from 2 to 4. Which i think is more than fair.
The second part is adding a second priority pick at the start of the second round.
So it'd look like this
Priority Pick1. Manila Folders
2. Vietnam Vipers
Round 13. Manila Folders
4. Vietnam Vipers
5. Taiwan Dolphins
6. Honk Kong Dongs
7. PNG Head Hunters
8. Turkish Gazelles
9. Tibetan Llamas
10. Bangkok Crabs
11. KL Crocodiles
12. Bangladesh Bears
13. Kathmandu Eskimos
14. Australian Ales
15. Sri Lanka Strikers
16. UAE Tigers
17. Mongolian Lambs/Laos Elephants
18. Mongolian Lambs/Laos Elephants
Priority Pick19. Manila Folders
20. Vietnam Vipers
Round 221. Manila Folders
22. Vietnam Vipers
23. Taiwan Dolphins
24. Honk Kong Dongs
25. PNG Head Hunters
26. Turkish Gazelles
27. Tibetan Llamas
28. Bangkok Crabs
29. KL Crocodiles
30. Bangladesh Bears
etc
So the middle teams only really move down two spots at pick 25ish. Will that make such a big difference??
Not a fan of rewarding tanking at all!
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on September 02, 2015, 02:49:20 PM
Not a fan of rewarding tanking at all!
Yep, I am with this. At most one pick.
If the top guys have huge depth (ie UAE) that haven't even played a match for them during the season, why should they be able to just sit in their squad as they depth? In real life the players will want to leave the club and go somewhere they will actually play. That will equalise the comp, the worst teams already get higher draft picks, how much equalisation do we need?
OK, fair enough. Just a suggestion to help out the lower clubs.
Quote from: Ricochet on September 02, 2015, 02:26:53 PM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 02, 2015, 02:18:02 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 02, 2015, 12:11:44 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 14, 2015, 04:34:46 PM
Fairly certain Worlds is
<4 wins for 1 year is priority pick at start of 2nd Round
<4 wins for 2 years in a row is priority pick at start of 1st Round
Looking at this again.
Would people be against being even more lenient than worlds with priority picks?
Like <4 wins for the year and teams get one at the start of the first round AND one at the start of the second?
No. Only one priority pick should be handed out to teams. Either at the start of the first round (after any other clubs who've also scored less than 4 wins have picked) or at the end of the first round.
Giving out two makes in harder for middle-tier teams to rebuild through the draft and encourages people to god for a complete rebuild if they're not challenging rather than try improve their fortunes from mid-table.
Those top picks (1-10) can be the super guns, especially the key forwards, and while they might not impact straight away long term they will guns and the best fantasy scorers.
How much harder does it make it for middle teams though? You'd only move down 1 or 2 spots in the 2nd round. Does that really affect the middle teams that much?
I think the first part of my suggestion is... To change the minimum games from 2 to 4. Which i think is more than fair.
The second part is adding a second priority pick at the start of the second round.
So it'd look like this
Priority Pick
1. Manila Folders
2. Vietnam Vipers
Round 1
3. Manila Folders
4. Vietnam Vipers
5. Taiwan Dolphins
6. Honk Kong Dongs
7. PNG Head Hunters
8. Turkish Gazelles
9. Tibetan Llamas
10. Bangkok Crabs
11. KL Crocodiles
12. Bangladesh Bears
13. Kathmandu Eskimos
14. Australian Ales
15. Sri Lanka Strikers
16. UAE Tigers
17. Mongolian Lambs/Laos Elephants
18. Mongolian Lambs/Laos Elephants
Priority Pick
19. Manila Folders
20. Vietnam Vipers
Round 2
21. Manila Folders
22. Vietnam Vipers
23. Taiwan Dolphins
24. Honk Kong Dongs
25. PNG Head Hunters
26. Turkish Gazelles
27. Tibetan Llamas
28. Bangkok Crabs
29. KL Crocodiles
30. Bangladesh Bears
etc
So the middle teams only really move down two spots at pick 25ish. Will that make such a big difference??
Yeah not a huge fan of this.
The Dolphins and Dongs only won 4 games each compared with the 3 from the Vipers and Folders.
Giving the Vipers and the Folders two priority picks each is a massive, massive disadvantage for the other two rebuilding teams in the Dongs and Dolphins in this regard.
That makes no sense what so ever sorry. I wasn't going to comment but couldn't help myself after seeing the tanking comment.
Isn't that why all trades have to be approved? How is this tanking? This is a keeper league not a one season league so there will always be different strategies when it comes to squads. Just because a coach chooses to be strong and competitive for a decade rather than next year, that is not tanking.
If all trades are approved and verified as fair then it cannot be considered tanking.
Trading an older guy for a young guy or early draft pick is a strategy for a keeper league to replenish the list. I would never expect someone to trade a very promising youngster for an older better scoring guy with one year left. This is closer to tanking than the reverse.
Tanking is not playing your best players on field in the hope for a better draft pick.
It is definitely not trading for a draft pick or young player.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on September 02, 2015, 02:49:20 PM
Not a fan of rewarding tanking at all!
Who's been tanking?
Change all the rules you want! (Though not really)
Nothing can stop the Llamas! 8)
Get ........... amongst the Llamas
Every team should be aspiring to be premiers, not make the average age of their squad as young as possible. Teams go way too extreme in one direction and it doesn't do anything good for the competition.
The Drafts are in reverse finishing order and repeat to compensate for the poorer clubs, and give them first shot at the next lot of youth. No club in my opinion was poor enough to deserve getting extra compensation by way of extra draft picks.
However some teams carry players in their lists that do absolutely nothing except sit as squad depth. I don't know entirely about other clubs, but when I look at my club, a player like Lachie Henderson played 16 AFL games this season, and I reckon I named him in my XV about twice, probably both over the byes. Now why should a player like that be allowed to stay on my list for free, I have no intentions of giving him games. Sam Gray played 9 AFL games (4 of which was when he was on my rookies list), I didn't name him once. Riley Knight 7 AFL games, 0 times in my XV, Bailey Dale 10 AFL games, 0 times in my best XV. David Ellard 8 AFL games, 0 times in my best XV.
Now these are the sorts of players that should have the potential to go to other clubs through some kind of free agency. Obviously it has to be restricted, you don't want the top sides losing all of their young depth as all it will do is hurt them once their top players retire, but somehow the players that are clearly unwanted by the AXV side in terms of actually starting (Like Lachie Henderson and Bailey Dale) should have a way of getting to the bottom clubs that could use more options without requiring them to trade for it.
JRoo stated he wants to get rid of his depth to the bottomg clubs which is a nice move on his behalf, but he has no obligation to do so, he could just sit on his team, maybe trade in one younger player for some older ones, keep his depth and draft picks, and remain a top side for years to come. He has probably got more guys that have played numerous AFL matches and haven't featured in his AXV side at all (excluding byes). Why should he have the option to sit on his team?
Finding a way to introduce this will see teams take player management into accordance more, they will play their fringe players so they don't lose them, strategically of course. That also gives a way in for the middle tier clubs which will be the beneficiaries by coming up against a team who doesn't play their best XV, because they believe they can win without doing so.
It's all just a thought, but if you want to make measures into equalising the competition, you give teams players that we know get AFL matches, not MORE draft picks that might not play for the first season and a half (Sam Durdin, Blaine Boekhorst as examples). The bottom sides get their draft pick priority already, they get to pick before the reigning premiers every round!
You raise some good points there Powerbug especially about players getting to weaker sides.
The problem with the weaker sides is they don't really have any bargaining chips to get players in aside from their really good youngsters or the few stars they have. But, if they trade one of them then that weakens their team long term and if they keep doing it it's a cycle where they can improve but, perhaps not ever enough to challenge for the flag.
So we are forced to play the long game where we trade off only the older players, don't look at picking up older guys ourselves, get lots of great picks and young kids and develop them to the point where we are competitive.
Don't get me wrong - that is going to work long term. I have complete faith that the Dolphins will be a whole lot more competitive given another couple of seasons. But, it takes time and a few season of 2, 3, 4 or 5 wins before we start the climb upwards. I've had two already and I expect at least one more before I'm back challenging for a positioning the 8 and if I'm very lucky the season after I could push Top 4.
So the rebuild is a 5-6 year process.
But, why don't we trade in established talent to improve faster? Well I've outline some reasons above but, without naming names I'll use a real-life situation from this off-season to illustrate why. Please don't take offence if you are this clubs involved.
A top club had a premium midfielder available for trade. Not too young but in a nice age range (26-29). Someone who, although on the fringes of the team they were at due to that side have excess midfield talent, I thought would work perfectly for my team.
They would have competed hard to be my captain every week and would have lifted our average score every week by about 100 points in my books as I'd be playing them over a first or second year mid.
So I put in an offer with what little bargaining chips I had and the club were relatively keen on it. It was looking like it could go through and would be a win-win for both sides (they'd improve another area they were short on).
But, then that coach decided to advertise the player to other clubs. Which is completely fair and I would do the same in their position. And, another big club, who were a finalist this year, came in with a bid that not only surpassed my offer but I had no way to match without sacrificing my team's future. They were able to offer players better than mine to improve that team's Best XV that I couldn't.
I completely get where both other coaches are coming from and they have to look out for their own interests but, at the end of the day my team is going to be less competitive next season because of this. I'll still be playing that second year kid (albeit with a bright future ahead of them) and will probably end up with 5 instead of 3 wins.
So what do I take out of this? That I'm back to the long rebuild. I'd back myself to perhaps get it done quicker thanks to an awesome draft last year but, it's still going to be a while.
Also that the teams who have the good players don't want to trade them for lesser players if they can. There's certain teams in the comp who have 5 of the best 20 or so midfielders in the competition, or 6 of the best. 20 forwards. As a coach of those clubs you want to keep those guns for depth not trade them unless it's for a premium on another line.
Poaching penalises the coaches who have managed their list well. That's not right.
I'm with Rico, if we want to speed up the rebuild of a bottom side, just give 'em an extra pick and we can all slide down 1 - no big deal.
Personally though, I don't think any equalisation measures are needed as yet. There are always going to be bottom sides, but we have good coaches at the helm here so I'm sure they'll be able to turn it around.
Quote from: Jayman on September 02, 2015, 11:49:23 PM
Poaching penalises the coaches who have managed their list well. That's not right.
I'm with Rico, if we want to speed up the rebuild of a bottom side, just give 'em an extra pick and we can all slide down 1 - no big deal.
Personally though, I don't think any equalisation measures are needed as yet. There are always going to be bottom sides, but we have good coaches at the helm here so I'm sure they'll be able to turn it around.
It's players that are clearly not needed at your club though, if they were you'd be playing them.
I agree with the final statement though as well
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 02, 2015, 11:29:58 PM
The problem with the weaker sides is they don't really have any bargaining chips to get players in aside from their really good youngsters or the few stars they have.
Quote from: Ricochet on September 02, 2015, 01:46:59 PM
If a bottom team was looking to improve quickly they wouldn't be taking those extra picks to the draft though. It gives them someone else that's valuable to trade for proven players
^
There's a few things about extra picks though:
1. Sometimes the quality of the draft pool isn't great (e.g. this year, plenty of KPP prospect - admittedly not too bad in this comp though)
2. We say that people can trade them for players, usually some coaches don't want to, and the ones that do can't because nobody else seems to want them.
3. Most people have no idea about drafting youth. You can research in 5-10 mins, but they don't even want to put in the effort.
Ultimately though:
Quote from: Jayman on September 02, 2015, 11:49:23 PM
Personally though, I don't think any equalisation measures are needed as yet. There are always going to be bottom sides, but we have good coaches at the helm here so I'm sure they'll be able to turn it around.
Quote from: Nige on September 03, 2015, 10:44:02 AM
There's a few things about extra picks though:
1. Sometimes the quality of the draft pool isn't great (e.g. this year, plenty of KPP prospect - admittedly not too bad in this comp though)
2. We say that people can trade them for players, usually some coaches don't want to, and the ones that do can't because nobody else seems to want them.
3. Most people have no idea about drafting youth. You can research in 5-10 mins, but they don't even want to put in the effort.
Ultimately though:
Quote from: Jayman on September 02, 2015, 11:49:23 PM
Personally though, I don't think any equalisation measures are needed as yet. There are always going to be bottom sides, but we have good coaches at the helm here so I'm sure they'll be able to turn it around.
I agree with everyone that it seems like we have good enough coaches in this league to turn the teams around. Like, I said before I'm confident Taiwan is on the upward trend now and I think the Vipers will start to improve from next year. The Dongs and Folders probably might sink lower next year (or still be at the bottom) but, can rebound with a good couple of off-seasons.
With regards to your points Bigey:
1. Every year at least the first round of the draft (up to about Pick 25) contains some decent players. Sometimes it extends further but, there is usually at least some good talent for clubs to pick up. Even if some of them take longer (kpp).
2. I agree here. I haven't really found that clubs in contention who have the players weaker clubs need to improve want draft picks. For example if I offered Pick 3 to the Tigers, Crocodiles, Elephants, Lambs or the other good sides I very much doubt they'd give me a premium in return. Maybe a younger player with some potential but, not an out-and-out premium like we see in the AFL. Take Dayne Beams as an example. Lets say I had offered Pick 5 and 25 and Crisp to the Crocodiles last year for Beams (remember this is before we knew how good Crisp was) would they have taken it? I highly doubt so. Same if I offer Pick 3 and 19 this year. Who's going to give me a genuine gun premium in return? No-one.
3. This is the area where if teams are going the rebuild need to be hot on. If you are doing this you need to have, or have someone on the coaching staff, a good knowledge of the draftees and the youngsters developing already on lists who aren't playing yet. If you don't have this then you can end up with teams like New Delhi (I'm not saying this is your fault Ric/Ele - it was the guy before you who screwed that team), or Staines when I inherited them.
And finally - it will be interesting to see what happens at Bangladesh this off-season. They are surely going to need to do a bit of a rebuild with all their retirees/aging stars. But, will their guns be traded to the weaker clubs or will they be snapped up by the clubs who are already strong? I'm tipping the latter...
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 03, 2015, 01:43:46 PM
Quote from: Nige on September 03, 2015, 10:44:02 AM
There's a few things about extra picks though:
1. Sometimes the quality of the draft pool isn't great (e.g. this year, plenty of KPP prospect - admittedly not too bad in this comp though)
2. We say that people can trade them for players, usually some coaches don't want to, and the ones that do can't because nobody else seems to want them.
3. Most people have no idea about drafting youth. You can research in 5-10 mins, but they don't even want to put in the effort.
Ultimately though:
Quote from: Jayman on September 02, 2015, 11:49:23 PM
Personally though, I don't think any equalisation measures are needed as yet. There are always going to be bottom sides, but we have good coaches at the helm here so I'm sure they'll be able to turn it around.
I agree with everyone that it seems like we have good enough coaches in this league to turn the teams around. Like, I said before I'm confident Taiwan is on the upward trend now and I think the Vipers will start to improve from next year. The Dongs and Folders probably might sink lower next year (or still be at the bottom) but, can rebound with a good couple of off-seasons.
With regards to your points Bigey:
1. Every year at least the first round of the draft (up to about Pick 25) contains some decent players. Sometimes it extends further but, there is usually at least some good talent for clubs to pick up. Even if some of them take longer (kpp).
2. I agree here. I haven't really found that clubs in contention who have the players weaker clubs need to improve want draft picks. For example if I offered Pick 3 to the Tigers, Crocodiles, Elephants, Lambs or the other good sides I very much doubt they'd give me a premium in return. Maybe a younger player with some potential but, not an out-and-out premium like we see in the AFL. Take Dayne Beams as an example. Lets say I had offered Pick 5 and 25 and Crisp to the Crocodiles last year for Beams (remember this is before we knew how good Crisp was) would they have taken it? I highly doubt so. Same if I offer Pick 3 and 19 this year. Who's going to give me a genuine gun premium in return? No-one.
3. This is the area where if teams are going the rebuild need to be hot on. If you are doing this you need to have, or have someone on the coaching staff, a good knowledge of the draftees and the youngsters developing already on lists who aren't playing yet. If you don't have this then you can end up with teams like New Delhi (I'm not saying this is your fault Ric/Ele - it was the guy before you who screwed that team), or Staines when I inherited them.
And finally - it will be interesting to see what happens at Bangladesh this off-season. They are surely going to need to do a bit of a rebuild with all their retirees/aging stars. But, will their guns be traded to the weaker clubs or will they be snapped up by the clubs who are already strong? I'm tipping the latter...
I wouldn't rule that out so easily.
I know its a different comp but from 2 years ago
New Delhi trade: Pick 4, Pick 5 and Pick 63
New York trade: Andrew Gaff, Toby Greene and Pick 29
You may not get a "Dayne Beams type" but you'll be able to advance by 2 years. Or even get 2 players just under premo level for the one high pick.
Crabs traded Dion Prestia for Anthony Miles + nat 13 last year.
Even though we missed the finals this year, I would rate the Crabs list up there with the best. JOM, BCrouch missing all the year and Swallow the majority of the year really hurt us.
Not everyone shares the same philosophy.
So now with the season over, we can turn our attention to the off-season matters. And we will be starting with voting on rule changes.
I plan to keep the rule discussion thread open until the end of the week to allow coaches to have their own say on rules and make any further suggestions for rule changes. If coaches would prefer to pm me any potential rule changes, they can do that too.
I have compiled a list of rules that have been brought up in the rule discussion thread, and those that I can recall being brought up mid season. I am sure I have missed some along the way, so please remind me if a rule you would like to be discussed is not in this list, and I can add it.
Rules to Vote on
Note: If there are any additional rules you would like to see changed, or any extra options for what a rule could be changed to, post in this thread or send me a pm before the end of this week.
Also note that there will be a forced change this season in relation to trades in the second trade window (following drafting). All trades in the second trade period will need to be like for like in terms of which list players are on. So a rookie can only be traded for a rookie and a senior for a senior.
- Sub Rule
- Change to AXV Rookie List (possibly abolished or senior list changed to allow rookies to be upgraded mid-season)
- Changes to priority picks system
- Introduction of a point cap
- AXV Grand Final held in round 22 of AFL Season to prevent being hurt by resting
- Free Agency system (Similar to what PB Suggested - see http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,104554.msg1670482.html#msg1670482 (http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,104554.msg1670482.html#msg1670482)
- Trade Approvals Process
- Penalties for not naming a team (Possibly not being able to win a match)
There's been discussion in some other XVs about a potential sub rule for next season despite the AFL abolishing their one.
I think one of the proposed ideas, which was seemingly very popular, was to have it based on TOG. So if a player spent x% TOG or less, they'd be 'subbed off' and replaced by an emg.
Personally I'm in favour of this, particularly after it appeared to be rather costly for me in the grand final (note: not blaming the loss on this, but it clearly played a part in me losing).
I know we've got pretty big lists as it stands and the rookie list itself is like 6 players. I reckon at the very least, we should just get rid of the rookie list (or cull it by 2 or something).
Grand Final should definitely be held in Round 22. Again, to use an example, Todd Goldstein (my ruck all season and captain at times) missed the grand final and as a result I had to play a ruck OOP in the biggest game of the year.
Also personally believe penalties for not naming a team should be slightly harsher than they currnetly are. I think the proposed idea of them being ineligible to actually win the game that week is fair though, because to me it seems unfair that the opposition goes to the effort of submitting their team but still end up losing.
The only rule suggestion I see missing from the list BB was my suggestion about naming the team - the current format can be a bit tedious so I suggested naming it in a different format. But I can understand if the current format makes it a lot easier for you to record scores then that's fine!
Quote from: Toga on September 07, 2015, 07:49:21 PM
The only rule suggestion I see missing from the list BB was my suggestion about naming the team - the current format can be a bit tedious so I suggested naming it in a different format. But I can understand if the current format makes it a lot easier for you to record scores then that's fine!
Yeah, I agree with using the same conventional method used in all the other XVs.
I'm against a sub rule. I think that we should go with what the AFL is going with and getting ridof it. Injuries are part of the game, and it is unfortunate when you get them but its part of the game.
I don't mind the rookie list tbh. Maybe 6 is a bit many but I reckon 4 would be a good number.
Should definently have the grand final in the second last round, not the last one.
I'm all for the Grand Final in Rd.22 as well given the mass restings that seem to happen these days.
I like the rookie list and would like it to remain. I like having it similar to the AFL and it adds more strategy by needing to have some late draft picks to upgrade rookies. Perhaps given we have 6 rookies, we could have the ability to automatically elevate one rookie midway through the season like the AFL. Perhaps just before the byes.
I'm for the idea of an automatic loss if you don't name a team and keep the scores as is so percentage isn't totally skewed.
Not really fussed either way on a sub rule.
I also think keep priority picks as they are.
I think we do unlimited trades :P
Quote from: nrich102 on September 07, 2015, 08:03:33 PM
I'm against a sub rule. I think that we should go with what the AFL is going with and getting ridof it. Injuries are part of the game, and it is unfortunate when you get them but its part of the game.
I don't mind the rookie list tbh. Maybe 6 is a bit many but I reckon 4 would be a good number.
Should definently have the grand final in the second last round, not the last one.
Yeh i'm against any sub rule as well
It'll be gone from the AFL next year and they will have to cop bad luck when they lose a player in the first quarter. Bad luck is a massive part of the XVs comps, fantasy comps and real life. We just have to deal with it.
Also there's been a few arguments about the injured player is replaced in real life by a bench player. A bench player in real life is a U1 or U2 in XV, so they're already a starter. The team still loses 1 person if they go down early.
Yep like the GF a week earlier
i'd push for priority picks for under 4 wins to help bottom teams
Leadership group idea just brought into worlds is pretty cool. Basically you nominate your 5 leaders at the start of the year and only they an be your Capt or Vice Capt. Just like in real life
i like the points cap in theory. We'd have to get it 100% right though
Leadership group very good idea :)
Quote from: nrich102 on September 07, 2015, 10:18:15 PM
I think we do unlimited trades :P
Kinda latching on to this, not a huge fan of the 'list movements' thing.
For example, if one wanted to get an extra pick in to upgrade a rookie, it kinda sucks having to get in an extra pick just to elevate somebody.
Obviously this doesn't really matter if we're scrapping rookie lists (which I believe BXVs is doing).
Unlimited trades would mean I could get the dongs better quicker.
Quote from: Ricochet on September 07, 2015, 11:56:16 PM
Quote from: nrich102 on September 07, 2015, 08:03:33 PM
I'm against a sub rule. I think that we should go with what the AFL is going with and getting ridof it. Injuries are part of the game, and it is unfortunate when you get them but its part of the game.
I don't mind the rookie list tbh. Maybe 6 is a bit many but I reckon 4 would be a good number.
Should definently have the grand final in the second last round, not the last one.
Yeh i'm against any sub rule as well
It'll be gone from the AFL next year and they will have to cop bad luck when they lose a player in the first quarter. Bad luck is a massive part of the XVs comps, fantasy comps and real life. We just have to deal with it.
Also there's been a few arguments about the injured player is replaced in real life by a bench player. A bench player in real life is a U1 or U2 in XV, so they're already a starter. The team still loses 1 person if they go down early.
I disagree completely
I think we need a sub rule or an emergency rule if you don't want to call it the sub rule. Otherwise an early injury in an AXV final could essentially end the game straight away. If it happened in a grand final it would be really disappointing to know that a team had no chance just because one of their players copped an early injury.
We only have 15 players who count for our scores in the XVs comp so a guy getting subbed out on 0, or less than say 30 points, is a big disadvantage in any contest and
an early injury will likely decide the outcome of the match.
In the AFL an injured player will not decide the match. The injured player sits on the bench and the club is down a rotation but, it ultimately doesn't affect things too much.
The Utilities aren't the bench. The emergency line is like the bench. Expect we can't rotate those players on. Which is fine unless injury strikes.
Whether the rule is a % of Time on Ground (TOG) or just a flat out rule that if a player doesn't come back on after quarter time, or half time - I think we need something in place. If it was the XXII's or even maybe in the XVIII's where you have 18 players) then it wouldn't be so bad but, with only 15 players' scores counting we need one.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 08, 2015, 02:13:56 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 07, 2015, 11:56:16 PM
Quote from: nrich102 on September 07, 2015, 08:03:33 PM
I'm against a sub rule. I think that we should go with what the AFL is going with and getting ridof it. Injuries are part of the game, and it is unfortunate when you get them but its part of the game.
I don't mind the rookie list tbh. Maybe 6 is a bit many but I reckon 4 would be a good number.
Should definently have the grand final in the second last round, not the last one.
Yeh i'm against any sub rule as well
It'll be gone from the AFL next year and they will have to cop bad luck when they lose a player in the first quarter. Bad luck is a massive part of the XVs comps, fantasy comps and real life. We just have to deal with it.
Also there's been a few arguments about the injured player is replaced in real life by a bench player. A bench player in real life is a U1 or U2 in XV, so they're already a starter. The team still loses 1 person if they go down early.
I disagree completely
I think we need a sub rule or an emergency rule if you don't want to call it the sub rule. Otherwise an early injury in an AXV final could essentially end the game straight away. If it happened in a grand final it would be really disappointing to know that a team had no chance just because one of their players copped an early injury.
We only have 15 players who count for our scores in the XVs comp so a guy getting subbed out on 0, or less than say 30 points, is a big disadvantage in any contest and an early injury will likely decide the outcome of the match. In the AFL an injured player will not decide the match. The injured player sits on the bench and the club is down a rotation but, it ultimately doesn't affect things too much.
The Utilities aren't the bench. The emergency line is like the bench. Expect we can't rotate those players on. Which is fine unless injury strikes.
Whether the rule is a % of Time on Ground (TOG) or just a flat out rule that if a player doesn't come back on after quarter time, or half time - I think we need something in place. If it was the XXII's or even maybe in the XVIII's where you have 18 players) then it wouldn't be so bad but, with only 15 players' scores counting we need one.
Emergencies aren't the bench mate, our U1 amd U2 are. In AFL bench players have just as much TOG as starting 18. Barlow starts on the bench every week for Freo and has 75-80% time on ground just like every other player.
I can agree with having 15 contributors in XV compared to 22 in real life. But if Tom Rockliff goes down for Brissie in the first 5 minutes their chances of winning are completely gone. It's the same thing. It's just bad luck
Quote from: Ricochet on September 08, 2015, 02:40:29 PM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 08, 2015, 02:13:56 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 07, 2015, 11:56:16 PM
Quote from: nrich102 on September 07, 2015, 08:03:33 PM
I'm against a sub rule. I think that we should go with what the AFL is going with and getting ridof it. Injuries are part of the game, and it is unfortunate when you get them but its part of the game.
I don't mind the rookie list tbh. Maybe 6 is a bit many but I reckon 4 would be a good number.
Should definently have the grand final in the second last round, not the last one.
Yeh i'm against any sub rule as well
It'll be gone from the AFL next year and they will have to cop bad luck when they lose a player in the first quarter. Bad luck is a massive part of the XVs comps, fantasy comps and real life. We just have to deal with it.
Also there's been a few arguments about the injured player is replaced in real life by a bench player. A bench player in real life is a U1 or U2 in XV, so they're already a starter. The team still loses 1 person if they go down early.
I disagree completely
I think we need a sub rule or an emergency rule if you don't want to call it the sub rule. Otherwise an early injury in an AXV final could essentially end the game straight away. If it happened in a grand final it would be really disappointing to know that a team had no chance just because one of their players copped an early injury.
We only have 15 players who count for our scores in the XVs comp so a guy getting subbed out on 0, or less than say 30 points, is a big disadvantage in any contest and an early injury will likely decide the outcome of the match. In the AFL an injured player will not decide the match. The injured player sits on the bench and the club is down a rotation but, it ultimately doesn't affect things too much.
The Utilities aren't the bench. The emergency line is like the bench. Expect we can't rotate those players on. Which is fine unless injury strikes.
Whether the rule is a % of Time on Ground (TOG) or just a flat out rule that if a player doesn't come back on after quarter time, or half time - I think we need something in place. If it was the XXII's or even maybe in the XVIII's where you have 18 players) then it wouldn't be so bad but, with only 15 players' scores counting we need one.
Emergencies aren't the bench mate, our U1 amd U2 are. In AFL bench players have just as much TOG as starting 18. Barlow starts on the bench every week for Freo and has 75-80% time on ground just like every other player.
I can agree with having 15 contributors in XV compared to 22 in real life. But if Tom Rockliff goes down for Brissie in the first 5 minutes their chances of winning are completely gone. It's the same thing. It's just bad luck
No it doesn't.
Gold Coast won after their captain Ablett went down last year. Would the Crocodiles do the same if he was your captain? I very much doubt it.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 08, 2015, 09:56:42 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 08, 2015, 02:40:29 PM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 08, 2015, 02:13:56 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 07, 2015, 11:56:16 PM
Quote from: nrich102 on September 07, 2015, 08:03:33 PM
I'm against a sub rule. I think that we should go with what the AFL is going with and getting ridof it. Injuries are part of the game, and it is unfortunate when you get them but its part of the game.
I don't mind the rookie list tbh. Maybe 6 is a bit many but I reckon 4 would be a good number.
Should definently have the grand final in the second last round, not the last one.
Yeh i'm against any sub rule as well
It'll be gone from the AFL next year and they will have to cop bad luck when they lose a player in the first quarter. Bad luck is a massive part of the XVs comps, fantasy comps and real life. We just have to deal with it.
Also there's been a few arguments about the injured player is replaced in real life by a bench player. A bench player in real life is a U1 or U2 in XV, so they're already a starter. The team still loses 1 person if they go down early.
I disagree completely
I think we need a sub rule or an emergency rule if you don't want to call it the sub rule. Otherwise an early injury in an AXV final could essentially end the game straight away. If it happened in a grand final it would be really disappointing to know that a team had no chance just because one of their players copped an early injury.
We only have 15 players who count for our scores in the XVs comp so a guy getting subbed out on 0, or less than say 30 points, is a big disadvantage in any contest and an early injury will likely decide the outcome of the match. In the AFL an injured player will not decide the match. The injured player sits on the bench and the club is down a rotation but, it ultimately doesn't affect things too much.
The Utilities aren't the bench. The emergency line is like the bench. Expect we can't rotate those players on. Which is fine unless injury strikes.
Whether the rule is a % of Time on Ground (TOG) or just a flat out rule that if a player doesn't come back on after quarter time, or half time - I think we need something in place. If it was the XXII's or even maybe in the XVIII's where you have 18 players) then it wouldn't be so bad but, with only 15 players' scores counting we need one.
Emergencies aren't the bench mate, our U1 amd U2 are. In AFL bench players have just as much TOG as starting 18. Barlow starts on the bench every week for Freo and has 75-80% time on ground just like every other player.
I can agree with having 15 contributors in XV compared to 22 in real life. But if Tom Rockliff goes down for Brissie in the first 5 minutes their chances of winning are completely gone. It's the same thing. It's just bad luck
No it doesn't.
Gold Coast won after their captain Ablett went down last year. Would the Crocodiles do the same if he was your captain? I very much doubt it.
You mean the game he went down in the 3rd quarter? He scored 90odd SB points..
If you're going to go down that way Memph then you need to question whether a captain's 150pt output is really worth 300pts?
At the end of the day your emergencies are your emergencies. Your Utilities are your bench. If someone goes down in XV, its the same if someone does in real life
Quote from: Ricochet on September 08, 2015, 10:54:03 PM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 08, 2015, 09:56:42 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 08, 2015, 02:40:29 PM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 08, 2015, 02:13:56 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 07, 2015, 11:56:16 PM
Quote from: nrich102 on September 07, 2015, 08:03:33 PM
I'm against a sub rule. I think that we should go with what the AFL is going with and getting ridof it. Injuries are part of the game, and it is unfortunate when you get them but its part of the game.
I don't mind the rookie list tbh. Maybe 6 is a bit many but I reckon 4 would be a good number.
Should definently have the grand final in the second last round, not the last one.
Yeh i'm against any sub rule as well
It'll be gone from the AFL next year and they will have to cop bad luck when they lose a player in the first quarter. Bad luck is a massive part of the XVs comps, fantasy comps and real life. We just have to deal with it.
Also there's been a few arguments about the injured player is replaced in real life by a bench player. A bench player in real life is a U1 or U2 in XV, so they're already a starter. The team still loses 1 person if they go down early.
I disagree completely
I think we need a sub rule or an emergency rule if you don't want to call it the sub rule. Otherwise an early injury in an AXV final could essentially end the game straight away. If it happened in a grand final it would be really disappointing to know that a team had no chance just because one of their players copped an early injury.
We only have 15 players who count for our scores in the XVs comp so a guy getting subbed out on 0, or less than say 30 points, is a big disadvantage in any contest and an early injury will likely decide the outcome of the match. In the AFL an injured player will not decide the match. The injured player sits on the bench and the club is down a rotation but, it ultimately doesn't affect things too much.
The Utilities aren't the bench. The emergency line is like the bench. Expect we can't rotate those players on. Which is fine unless injury strikes.
Whether the rule is a % of Time on Ground (TOG) or just a flat out rule that if a player doesn't come back on after quarter time, or half time - I think we need something in place. If it was the XXII's or even maybe in the XVIII's where you have 18 players) then it wouldn't be so bad but, with only 15 players' scores counting we need one.
Emergencies aren't the bench mate, our U1 amd U2 are. In AFL bench players have just as much TOG as starting 18. Barlow starts on the bench every week for Freo and has 75-80% time on ground just like every other player.
I can agree with having 15 contributors in XV compared to 22 in real life. But if Tom Rockliff goes down for Brissie in the first 5 minutes their chances of winning are completely gone. It's the same thing. It's just bad luck
No it doesn't.
Gold Coast won after their captain Ablett went down last year. Would the Crocodiles do the same if he was your captain? I very much doubt it.
You mean the game he went down in the 3rd quarter? He scored 90odd SB points..
If you're going to go down that way Memph then you need to question whether a captain's 150pt output is really worth 300pts?
At the end of the day your emergencies are your emergencies. Your Utilities are your bench. If someone goes down in XV, its the same if someone does in real life
I don't know how much clearer I can be.
If someone goes down in real life they are replaced by a player from the bench in the game aka there are still 18 players on the field
If someone goes down in AXV they are not replaced aka the contest now becomes 14 scorers versus 15. If two players go down it's still 18 vs 18 in the AFL on the field but it's 13 vs 15 in AXV and so on and so on.
Big difference.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 10, 2015, 08:04:38 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 08, 2015, 10:54:03 PM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 08, 2015, 09:56:42 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 08, 2015, 02:40:29 PM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 08, 2015, 02:13:56 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 07, 2015, 11:56:16 PM
Quote from: nrich102 on September 07, 2015, 08:03:33 PM
I'm against a sub rule. I think that we should go with what the AFL is going with and getting ridof it. Injuries are part of the game, and it is unfortunate when you get them but its part of the game.
I don't mind the rookie list tbh. Maybe 6 is a bit many but I reckon 4 would be a good number.
Should definently have the grand final in the second last round, not the last one.
Yeh i'm against any sub rule as well
It'll be gone from the AFL next year and they will have to cop bad luck when they lose a player in the first quarter. Bad luck is a massive part of the XVs comps, fantasy comps and real life. We just have to deal with it.
Also there's been a few arguments about the injured player is replaced in real life by a bench player. A bench player in real life is a U1 or U2 in XV, so they're already a starter. The team still loses 1 person if they go down early.
I disagree completely
I think we need a sub rule or an emergency rule if you don't want to call it the sub rule. Otherwise an early injury in an AXV final could essentially end the game straight away. If it happened in a grand final it would be really disappointing to know that a team had no chance just because one of their players copped an early injury.
We only have 15 players who count for our scores in the XVs comp so a guy getting subbed out on 0, or less than say 30 points, is a big disadvantage in any contest and an early injury will likely decide the outcome of the match. In the AFL an injured player will not decide the match. The injured player sits on the bench and the club is down a rotation but, it ultimately doesn't affect things too much.
The Utilities aren't the bench. The emergency line is like the bench. Expect we can't rotate those players on. Which is fine unless injury strikes.
Whether the rule is a % of Time on Ground (TOG) or just a flat out rule that if a player doesn't come back on after quarter time, or half time - I think we need something in place. If it was the XXII's or even maybe in the XVIII's where you have 18 players) then it wouldn't be so bad but, with only 15 players' scores counting we need one.
Emergencies aren't the bench mate, our U1 amd U2 are. In AFL bench players have just as much TOG as starting 18. Barlow starts on the bench every week for Freo and has 75-80% time on ground just like every other player.
I can agree with having 15 contributors in XV compared to 22 in real life. But if Tom Rockliff goes down for Brissie in the first 5 minutes their chances of winning are completely gone. It's the same thing. It's just bad luck
No it doesn't.
Gold Coast won after their captain Ablett went down last year. Would the Crocodiles do the same if he was your captain? I very much doubt it.
You mean the game he went down in the 3rd quarter? He scored 90odd SB points..
If you're going to go down that way Memph then you need to question whether a captain's 150pt output is really worth 300pts?
At the end of the day your emergencies are your emergencies. Your Utilities are your bench. If someone goes down in XV, its the same if someone does in real life
I don't know how much clearer I can be.
If someone goes down in real life they are replaced by a player from the bench in the game aka there are still 18 players on the field If someone goes down in AXV they are not replaced aka the contest now becomes 14 scorers versus 15. If two players go down it's still 18 vs 18 in the AFL on the field but it's 13 vs 15 in AXV and so on and so on.
Big difference.
I can't be any clearer either haha.
Emergencies in real life are the same as Emergencies in XV
Bench in real life is the same as U1 and U2.
AFL isnt 18 contributing, it's 22. The guys on the bench play as much as everyone else. If a guy goes down then others pick up his place but they also fatigue quicker or play out of position, etc and still severely costs the team. Goldstein goes down and the team doesn't get a replacement gun ruckman straight away from the bench
I think it's fair to say a player going down early hurts a lot more in AXV then it does in AFL.
Do you want games decided by luck? With the Sub vests, we should have done what WXV does. Now that there are no vests next season, I'm not so sure.
The element of luck gives weaker teams a chance to win more often, which is probably good for the comp.
Maybe we could implement a replacement rule during Finals only? I wouldn't want a Grand Final decided by an injury.
I'm not saying it doesnt hurt when a player goes down early but you cannot discount how much losing a player early in real life severely hurts a teams chances of winning in RL.
If Ablett goes down in the first quarter then GCs hopes of winning are hurt drastically. Its the same if he only scores 40 for a quarters worth of XV.
If we still had the sub rule in RL then a sub rule definitely makes sense here because in RL it was 21 on 21. If someone got injured then the vest comes on and its still 21 on 21. Now if someone gets injured its 21 vs 22.
I understand the argument of 18 vs 18 memph but there are 22 players worth of output in RL. Players rotate that heavily and the game is that fast that if they lose one of those rotations early then they are severely hampered. Its just plain bad luck.
Why change it when we didnt even have the sub rule when there were subs in RL?
Quote from: Ricochet on September 10, 2015, 09:25:33 PM
I'm not saying it doesnt hurt when a player goes down early but you cannot discount how much losing a player early in real life severely hurts a teams chances of winning in RL.
If Ablett goes down in the first quarter then GCs hopes of winning are hurt drastically. Its the same if he only scores 40 for a quarters worth of XV.
If we still had the sub rule in RL then a sub rule definitely makes sense here because in RL it was 21 on 21. If someone got injured then the vest comes on and its still 21 on 21. Now if someone gets injured its 21 vs 22.
I understand the argument of 18 vs 18 memph but there are 22 players worth of output in RL. Players rotate that heavily and the game is that fast that if they lose one of those rotations early then they are severely hampered. Its just plain bad luck.
Why change it when we didnt even have the sub rule when there were subs in RL?
In real life sure it hurts GC if Ablett goes down, But it doesn't hurt them as much if i.e. Danny Stanley goes down early.
Where as in AXV if you have Stanley on field and he gets 20pts. that's the game basically over.
yeh but 20pts is literally like 2-3 touches or 5min. If any player goes down in 5 minutes in RL then the oppo team gains a massive advantage, especially towards the end of the game. i agree it's slightly more of an impact in XV but i dont think it's that big. And let's be honest, how often does a best XV player go down in the first 5min?
I just think it's a rule that isn't needed (since we didn't even have it when subs were in the AFL) and doesnt reflect real life at all if we do bring it in now.
But just my opinion. That's the last I'll say on it :)
Quote from: Ricochet on September 10, 2015, 09:25:33 PM
Why change it when we didnt even have the sub rule when there were subs in RL?
To prevent the situation where a final, or worse a grand final, is decided by an early injury.
Remember when SJ was knocked out at the first bounce? That would have cost his XVs team the game (had we been running then).
However, it didn't cost the Cats the game - they won that match by 27 points. I'm sure there are other examples.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 10, 2015, 11:45:45 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 10, 2015, 09:25:33 PM
Why change it when we didnt even have the sub rule when there were subs in RL?
To prevent the situation where a final, or worse a grand final, is decided by an early injury.
But then you need to look at Captains and other scoring? Matches are decided if Pendles has a bad game and only gets 80 (160) while Deledio gets 150 (300)
Its just bad luck
Just a reminder that a vote on rule changes will be sent out tomorrow, so if there are any other changes you would like discussed, please mention them now.
Trading future draft picks. Will probably be voted down but can we just put it to a vote?
Quote from: nrich102 on September 12, 2015, 05:15:03 PM
Trading future draft picks. Will probably be voted down but can we just put it to a vote?
I'd hate this myself..........Rids and l took over a horrendous list in BXV, if trading of future picks had been allowed l have no doubt they'd have been gone too.
Imagine trying to attract prospective coaches in such circumstances.
Quote from: nostradamus on September 14, 2015, 05:57:37 PM
Quote from: nrich102 on September 12, 2015, 05:15:03 PM
Trading future draft picks. Will probably be voted down but can we just put it to a vote?
I'd hate this myself..........Rids and l took over a horrendous list in BXV, if trading of future picks had been allowed l have no doubt they'd have been gone too.
Imagine trying to attract prospective coaches in such circumstances.
True, same would have happened to me at the Dongs, but I think that it could work well.
This might seem like a stupid question .......... but when does trading start ??
All other XV comps have started and there seems no logical reason why we haven't either.
Quote from: nostradamus on September 14, 2015, 09:35:12 PM
This might seem like a stupid question .......... but when does trading start ??
All other XV comps have started and there seems no logical reason why we haven't either.
As soon as everyone gets their votes on the rules man. Couldn't start trading until rules were finalised just in case new rules changed peoples views on players/strategies/trades.
Just a comment for discussion (or maybe a question for BB/Rico) regarding the vote on leadership groups.
I would assume there would be some leniency during the bye rounds as I think we are the only comp that plays regular games through the byes?
Quote from: Ricochet on September 14, 2015, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: nostradamus on September 14, 2015, 09:35:12 PM
This might seem like a stupid question .......... but when does trading start ??
All other XV comps have started and there seems no logical reason why we haven't either.
As soon as everyone gets their votes on the rules man. Couldn't start trading until rules were finalised just in case new rules changed peoples views on players/strategies/trades.
Yeah l understand about needing to get any rule changes done ......... just a shame we didnt do it in a more timely manner like other comps did
Quote from: nostradamus on September 14, 2015, 10:02:50 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 14, 2015, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: nostradamus on September 14, 2015, 09:35:12 PM
This might seem like a stupid question .......... but when does trading start ??
All other XV comps have started and there seems no logical reason why we haven't either.
As soon as everyone gets their votes on the rules man. Couldn't start trading until rules were finalised just in case new rules changed peoples views on players/strategies/trades.
Yeah l understand about needing to get any rule changes done ......... just a shame we didnt do it in a more timely manner like other comps did
We're only a week later? We've got ages to do trades man. Tbh I'm kinda glad all comps don't open their trade windows at the same time, I'd end up going crazy trying to keep up with all the pms :P
EDIT: We're a week behind WXVs, and 4 days behind EXVs. Just feels like longer because we're the last to open :)
Quote from: Rusty00 on September 14, 2015, 10:00:49 PM
Just a comment for discussion (or maybe a question for BB/Rico) regarding the vote on leadership groups.
I would assume there would be some leniency during the bye rounds as I think we are the only comp that plays regular games through the byes?
I'll have a chat to BB mate
Quote from: nostradamus on September 14, 2015, 10:02:50 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 14, 2015, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: nostradamus on September 14, 2015, 09:35:12 PM
This might seem like a stupid question .......... but when does trading start ??
All other XV comps have started and there seems no logical reason why we haven't either.
As soon as everyone gets their votes on the rules man. Couldn't start trading until rules were finalised just in case new rules changed peoples views on players/strategies/trades.
Yeah l understand about needing to get any rule changes done ......... just a shame we didnt do it in a more timely manner like other comps did
Hopefully it isn't too much of an inconvenience to start the trade period a week later. Most coaches have already responded to votes, so hopefully tomorrow we can get the last few votes in and open up the trade window!
Quote from: Rusty00 on September 14, 2015, 10:00:49 PM
Just a comment for discussion (or maybe a question for BB/Rico) regarding the vote on leadership groups.
I would assume there would be some leniency during the bye rounds as I think we are the only comp that plays regular games through the byes?
If the leadership group rule does get voted in, there would be leniency in the bye rounds and with injuries to players.
And with that I think I might lock this thread now as we should get the last few votes in tomorrow and then we can get trading started.