Figured I should create this thread, in case there's anything people want to discuss, whether it be changing a current rule, removing a rule, or adding something new to the competition :)
Currently, there are a few items that may need to be discussed:
- Do we want HGA next season? It's very easy for myself and Ringo to make final adjustments to scores at the end of the year, so that is not an issue. If we were to implement this, we would likely take the same path that AXVs has implemented, and add 3% of your total score as your HGA.
- The sub rule. Are people happy with how it is currently implemented? Do people prefer the old sub rule, where your nominated sub replaces your lowest scoring player? Do people want it scrapped altogether?
- Posting of teams. There have been a few occasions this year where not posting a team has caused a few issues for some teams. Having people post their full teams (or alternatively, like what some coaches have done this year and at least say that their UF team is accurate), allows Ringo and I to make sure that coaches are active, and also with UF sometimes being a bit buggy, can give coaches proof that they were meant to have made a certain change to their team. This may be a change that we decide to introduce no matter what though, as the activity of some coaches has dropped dramatically this season.
- Lockouts. Do people prefer the Thursday full lockouts? This sort of ties into the previous point, where if people had to post their team on FF as well, then this can be done easily. When final teams for Sunday teams aren't named until Friday afternoon/evening, it can be unfair for those that have players in their Best XV left out of their respective AFL side after we're already in full lockout, and it seems as though the AFL are playing more Thursday night games this season. As mentioned earlier, it is easy for us to make any changes to final results if we do have a partial lockout on Thursday night games. I will add though, we will not allow loopholing, so there will be rules in place to make sure of this if people do wish to have a partial lockout for Thursday games.
- Trade movements. Did anyone have any issues with how trading was done last year? At the moment, trading a draft pick, or on-trading someone you brought into your team, will not cost you any trade movements (we have 15 at the moment). Would people like no limit, a smaller amount of allowable movements, change what constitutes a movement, or simply keep as is?
Please feel free to give your own input guys! And please, don't attack anyone who has a different opinion than your own (how fun was last year? :P).
Other items brought up:
- Rivalry Round
- Delistings (before/after AFL draft, etc.)
Get rid of trade limit? :D
Quote from: iZander on July 26, 2016, 01:36:36 PM
Get rid of trade limit? :D
Ah yes, trade movements was another I was meant to bring up!
Keep trade limit the comp is becoming fairly even now and allowing a free for all could affect that.
Yeah partial lockout again for Thursday nights would be great.
Still not a fan of any sub rule.
HGA would be nice to have it again especially if we are still having HGA for finals after not having all season,it just makes sense to have it the whole year.
Would also like the rivalry rounds to be back if possible.
Quote from: LF on July 26, 2016, 03:17:53 PM
Keep trade limit the comp is becoming fairly even now and allowing a free for all could affect that.
Yeah partial lockout again for Thursday nights would be great.
Still not a fan of any sub rule.
HGA would be nice to have it again especially if we are still having HGA for finals after not having all season,it just makes sense to have it the whole year.
Would also like the rivalry rounds to be back if possible.
Agreed on all points.
Quote from: LF on July 26, 2016, 03:17:53 PM
Keep trade limit the comp is becoming fairly even now and allowing a free for all could affect that.
I disagree, whats the main purpose of this comp? Fun? i assume anyway. Its meant to be fun. I cant speak for all but personally trade period is the most fun time of the year (ive heard others say it). So why put a limit on fun?
As for the the comp being fairly even atm. I believe lifting a 15 trade cap would not change that much at all? What helps that is the fact that Ringo accesses whether the trade is fair or not. Which would still be in place i believe :)
iZander
Quote from: iZander on July 26, 2016, 03:50:54 PM
Quote from: LF on July 26, 2016, 03:17:53 PM
Keep trade limit the comp is becoming fairly even now and allowing a free for all could affect that.
I disagree, whats the main purpose of this comp? Fun? i assume anyway. Its meant to be fun. I cant speak for all but personally trade period is the most fun time of the year (ive heard others say it). So why put a limit on fun?
As for the the comp being fairy even atm. I believe lifting a 15 trade cap would change that much at all? What helps that is the fact that Ringo accesses whether the trade is fair or not. Which would still be in place i believe :)
iZander
Take a good look at the comps with trade limits and compare it to comps with none and you'll see why we need to keep it
In regards to the posting of teams, maybe we should just do it on UF for now on and not worry about posting here as well. I find it saves a few minutes which is handy when we have multiple keeper teams to sort out (as many of us do).
Just the order of emerg and captains, vice captains and EXV should suffice.
I think we must keep the trade limit. The competition is levelling up nicely and will be very tight next year.
Quote from: Rids on July 26, 2016, 03:53:54 PM
In regards to the posting of teams, maybe we should just do it on UF for now on and not worry about posting here as well. I find it saves a few minutes which is handy when we have multiple keeper teams to sort out (as many of us do).
Just the order of emerg and captains, vice captains and EXV should suffice.
I think we must keep the trade limit. The competition is levelling up nicely and will be very tight next year.
Just on this point, if we make it on UF only (which is fine) i think we should have the option to name it here incase UF screws up. But if someone were to choose not to name it here and UF 'screws up' then theyd just cop the error as we would have no way of knowing what they really did?
Quote from: Rids on July 26, 2016, 03:53:54 PM
In regards to the posting of teams, maybe we should just do it on UF for now on and not worry about posting here as well. I find it saves a few minutes which is handy when we have multiple keeper teams to sort out (as many of us do).
Just the order of emerg and captains, vice captains and EXV should suffice.
I think we must keep the trade limit. The competition is levelling up nicely and will be very tight next year.
As I said, posting that your team is the same as what is in UF is fine. Mainly, we want to encourage active coaches, and also have something to go off when someone complains that they were meant to make a certain change, or if there are allegations of tanking, or anything like that.
So you don't need to post every player or anything like that. E.g. "Team same as UF, emergency order is same, Prestia EVC" would suffice. But a lot of teams don't post anything or maybe post here once a month, and that's a bit disappointing as assistant admin :-\
Quote from: iZander on July 26, 2016, 03:56:48 PM
Quote from: Rids on July 26, 2016, 03:53:54 PM
In regards to the posting of teams, maybe we should just do it on UF for now on and not worry about posting here as well. I find it saves a few minutes which is handy when we have multiple keeper teams to sort out (as many of us do).
Just the order of emerg and captains, vice captains and EXV should suffice.
I think we must keep the trade limit. The competition is levelling up nicely and will be very tight next year.
Just on this point, if we make it on UF only (which is fine) i think we should have the option to name it here incase UF screws up. But if someone were to choose not to name it here and UF 'screws up' then theyd just cop the error as we would have no way of knowing what they really did?
I spose we could just add the team as a pic if people are worried about UF screwing up
Quote from: Rids on July 26, 2016, 04:15:56 PM
Quote from: iZander on July 26, 2016, 03:56:48 PM
Quote from: Rids on July 26, 2016, 03:53:54 PM
In regards to the posting of teams, maybe we should just do it on UF for now on and not worry about posting here as well. I find it saves a few minutes which is handy when we have multiple keeper teams to sort out (as many of us do).
Just the order of emerg and captains, vice captains and EXV should suffice.
I think we must keep the trade limit. The competition is levelling up nicely and will be very tight next year.
Just on this point, if we make it on UF only (which is fine) i think we should have the option to name it here incase UF screws up. But if someone were to choose not to name it here and UF 'screws up' then theyd just cop the error as we would have no way of knowing what they really did?
I spose we could just add the team as a pic if people are worried about UF screwing up
Yeah, we just need some way to confirm teams tbh as there has already been a few cases this year when someone has had trouble with UF and if they dont post on FF then we cant really know if they did those changes or if they didnt :P
I have no concerns with believing people and what they say. Nostra is the same as me. We took Torp on his word and were more than fine for him to have those changes.
People just need to use common sense tbh when it comes to mistakes or glitches.
Quote from: Rids on July 26, 2016, 04:58:55 PM
I have no concerns with believing people and what they say. Nostra is the same as me. We took Torp on his word and were more than fine for him to have those changes.
People just need to use common sense tbh when it comes to mistakes or glitches.
Yeah you're probably right, if we really want to save time we could just not post teams at all and people can just use common sense to work out the best 15.
In other words, obviously most cases are obvious. For example, if someone were to put Ben Kaeys as captain. Obviously a mistake, with a clear other options of Zaha.....but the thing is there could be a less obvious case and i just think its good to have some structure to avoid the doubt and what not. If a team is posted on FF its unlikely to have a mistake in it compared to posting it on UF :)
Quote from: Nige on July 26, 2016, 03:24:40 PM
Quote from: LF on July 26, 2016, 03:17:53 PM
Keep trade limit the comp is becoming fairly even now and allowing a free for all could affect that.
Yeah partial lockout again for Thursday nights would be great.
Still not a fan of any sub rule.
HGA would be nice to have it again especially if we are still having HGA for finals after not having all season,it just makes sense to have it the whole year.
Would also like the rivalry rounds to be back if possible.
Agreed on all points.
Agree with all points except I like the 20% tog rule. Getting Sinclair's 0 because he played 1 minute of the match would have been super annoying. I know sh*t happens and sometimes you cop it, but I mean if we can avoid it why not?
Quote from: Rids on July 26, 2016, 03:53:54 PM
In regards to the posting of teams, maybe we should just do it on UF for now on and not worry about posting here as well. I find it saves a few minutes which is handy when we have multiple keeper teams to sort out (as many of us do).
Just the order of emerg and captains, vice captains and EXV should suffice.
I think we must keep the trade limit. The competition is levelling up nicely and will be very tight next year.
Agree with this also
Finally back in the land of the living and catching up on posts.
After having UF for this year and a few little hitches will be suggesting these possible changes. Know that we know we have the ability to adjust scores as well this will assist with some changes if approved.
Do our own draw to incorporate a rivalry round. This will also allow us to do HGA for the season. I believe we can then enter our won draw into UF.
With Partial lock out for Thursday night games it will be imperative for those rounds for teams to be named in the thread as UF does not allow for temporary change.
The 20% TOG seemed to work OK but do we need to tweek it at all? Say do we need to say use utilities before emergencies. Rule at the moment is emergency in position is promoted. Also is 20% TOG fair.
I would like to see a rivalry round. I believe you are correct and draws can be manually adjusted.
I dont mind with Partial Lockout tbh. Does this mean captains and vice captains will be locked as of Thursday or are we introducing a loophole?
20% TOG is fair imo. No need to use utilities in this scenario imo.
Quote from: Rids on August 08, 2016, 02:45:25 PM
I would like to see a rivalry round. I believe you are correct and draws can be manually adjusted.
I dont mind with Partial Lockout tbh. Does this mean captains and vice captains will be locked as of Thursday or are we introducing a loophole?
20% TOG is fair imo. No need to use utilities in this scenario imo.
Yeah I'd also like to bring back the rivalry round :)
Would also mean everyone plays an even amount of home and away games (I'd like to have hga back of course)
Wouldn't be allowing loopholes, captains and vice captains would be locked unless not named in final teams (and if you obviously choose someone who is no chance of playing initially, then there would be some sort of penalty most likely).
Yeah 20% has been fine this year I reckon. Hedgies needed it this week, and if they were the home team, not having this rule would have cost them a preliminary final, and it would be a really shower way to get knocked out imo.
Anything else people would like brought up? Ideally, we'd want rules finalized before trading opens, in case it impacts what type of trades people may want to make.
I proposed that when all my players are inevitably injured for the finals again next season that I should receive their average, their highest score for the year, their highest score for their career or a score by other means sufficiently high enough to ensure I win.
Just another one I will throw out for discussion
At the moment we lock players positions as at Rd 1 in UF.
As we know UF review and change positions during the season so basiaclly should we allow the change of position when UF do or keep locked as at Rd 1. No real position either way so just putting it out for discussion and to see whether we need to vote.
Quote from: Ringo on September 05, 2016, 10:44:36 AM
Just another one I will throw out for discussion
At the moment we lock players positions as at Rd 1 in UF.
As we know UF review and change positions during the season so basiaclly should we allow the change of position when UF do or keep locked as at Rd 1. No real position either way so just putting it out for discussion and to see whether we need to vote.
Personally i like it locked in round 1 :)
Personally I don't really mind. Probably better off locking it in Round 1 though.
I dont mind the idea of following with the UF side of things, make for a unique point to the comp
Quote from: iZander on September 05, 2016, 10:46:38 AM
Quote from: Ringo on September 05, 2016, 10:44:36 AM
Just another one I will throw out for discussion
At the moment we lock players positions as at Rd 1 in UF.
As we know UF review and change positions during the season so basiaclly should we allow the change of position when UF do or keep locked as at Rd 1. No real position either way so just putting it out for discussion and to see whether we need to vote.
Personally i like it locked in round 1 :)
50/50 on this. Could come in handy if during the season & cop a lot of outs / injuries.
Lock at start
If we were to go with UF changes all season, it would be for this reason:
Quote from: SydneyRox on September 05, 2016, 11:02:46 AM
I dont mind the idea of following with the UF side of things, make for a unique point to the comp
I don't know if I would want to do it just to help with covering injuries and all that (as nas suggested), because I think that's what the trade period is for (either getting solid depth on all lines, or sacrificing it for a better team on field and taking the risk on injuries).
However, I think I'd prefer to lock from the start.
I actually wouldn't mind us following UF positions as they change during the season.
The reason being is for players who are played in different positions and suffer a subsequent points loss because of it. Say for example you have a high scoring mid, but due to club team needs he's played off a fwd flank and suffers lower output because of it ......... it'd be nice to be able to play him as a fwd once positions were altered, therefore gaining some benefit from what would otherwise be a bad situation.
As always though, more than happy to go with the concensus.
The other thing, is that like DPP it takes some investigation and research to pick the right players.
People will trade now thinking (or hoping) that someone is going to gain/retain/lose DPP next season
Not much different to changes during the year, which I think only affected like 40players this year?
I like the idea of making more players relevant throughout the season. UF are a lot stricter with the allocation of DPPs than AF as well. So only players who deserve it will get it eg Mills.
Quote from: Rids on September 06, 2016, 08:37:22 PM
I like the idea of making more players relevant throughout the season. UF are a lot stricter with the allocation of DPPs than AF as well. So only players who deserve it will get it eg Mills.
Steins are happy with this!
I assume that UF only add DPPs throughout the year and not take it away?
Quote from: Rusty00 on September 06, 2016, 10:53:17 PM
I assume that UF only add DPPs throughout the year and not take it away?
yep
Quote from: iZander on September 06, 2016, 10:54:07 PM
Quote from: Rusty00 on September 06, 2016, 10:53:17 PM
I assume that UF only add DPPs throughout the year and not take it away?
yep
Correct.
Players are reviewed after every three rounds to determine if they have been primarily playing in a position that they are not already eligible for in Ultimate Footy.
If this is the case, a player positional change may be made.
Check back after rounds 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 to see what changes have been made.
For full details and criteria used check the Position Changes help section.
Quote from: nas on September 06, 2016, 10:56:42 PM
Quote from: iZander on September 06, 2016, 10:54:07 PM
Quote from: Rusty00 on September 06, 2016, 10:53:17 PM
I assume that UF only add DPPs throughout the year and not take it away?
yep
Correct.
Players are reviewed after every three rounds to determine if they have been primarily playing in a position that they are not already eligible for in Ultimate Footy.
If this is the case, a player positional change may be made.
Check back after rounds 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 to see what changes have been made.
For full details and criteria used check the Position Changes help section.
I suppose I could've looked that up myself :P
Hedgies support any changes being made on UF being live.
Option 2
All votes are now in -
We will be locking positions as at Rd 1 as we did this year. Voting was very tight with final count 9-7 in favour of retaining existing.
Quote from: Ringo on September 09, 2016, 12:58:40 PM
All votes are now in -
We will be locking positions as at Rd 1 as we did this year. Voting was very tight with final count 9-7 in favour of retaining existing.
boring
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on September 09, 2016, 08:18:40 PM
Quote from: Ringo on September 09, 2016, 12:58:40 PM
All votes are now in -
We will be locking positions as at Rd 1 as we did this year. Voting was very tight with final count 9-7 in favour of retaining existing.
boring
Maybe you should have said something earlier then? :P (assuming you're implying it would have been better to have constantly changing positions)
Actually I regret my decision haha... The changes would of been kinda fun.
Quote from: GoLions on September 09, 2016, 08:33:47 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on September 09, 2016, 08:18:40 PM
Quote from: Ringo on September 09, 2016, 12:58:40 PM
All votes are now in -
We will be locking positions as at Rd 1 as we did this year. Voting was very tight with final count 9-7 in favour of retaining existing.
boring
Maybe you should have said something earlier then? :P (assuming you're implying it would have been better to have constantly changing positions)
why posting wouldn't change the voting results
i'm not that fussed just think it would of been more fun
oh well there's always next time for those who now agree that it would be a good thing
Quote from: Pkbaldy on September 09, 2016, 08:42:53 PM
Actually I regret my decision haha... The changes would of been kinda fun.
RECOUNT!! :-X :-X
Quote from: SydneyRox on September 16, 2016, 11:19:45 AM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on September 09, 2016, 08:42:53 PM
Actually I regret my decision haha... The changes would of been kinda fun.
RECOUNT!! :-X :-X
Not a bad idea really ........ why go into a new season with what now seems to be a majority of coaches not in favour of the rule
Quote from: nostradamus on September 16, 2016, 04:37:16 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on September 16, 2016, 11:19:45 AM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on September 09, 2016, 08:42:53 PM
Actually I regret my decision haha... The changes would of been kinda fun.
RECOUNT!! :-X :-X
Not a bad idea really ........ why go into a new season with what now seems to be a majority of coaches not in favour of the rule
It's been voted on already too bad
Quote from: LF on September 16, 2016, 04:39:28 PM
Quote from: nostradamus on September 16, 2016, 04:37:16 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on September 16, 2016, 11:19:45 AM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on September 09, 2016, 08:42:53 PM
Actually I regret my decision haha... The changes would of been kinda fun.
RECOUNT!! :-X :-X
Not a bad idea really ........ why go into a new season with what now seems to be a majority of coaches not in favour of the rule
It's been voted on already too bad
I was pressured into my vote. Recount ;)
Quote from: LF on September 16, 2016, 04:39:28 PM
Quote from: nostradamus on September 16, 2016, 04:37:16 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on September 16, 2016, 11:19:45 AM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on September 09, 2016, 08:42:53 PM
Actually I regret my decision haha... The changes would of been kinda fun.
RECOUNT!! :-X :-X
Not a bad idea really ........ why go into a new season with what now seems to be a majority of coaches not in favour of the rule
It's been voted on already too bad
are you a mod here now or something?
This is a discussion thread..........that's what we're doing .........discussing
Quote from: nostradamus on September 16, 2016, 04:37:16 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on September 16, 2016, 11:19:45 AM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on September 09, 2016, 08:42:53 PM
Actually I regret my decision haha... The changes would of been kinda fun.
RECOUNT!! :-X :-X
Not a bad idea really ........ why go into a new season with what now seems to be a majority of coaches not in favour of the rule
Wouldn't that make it 50/50? We'd need more than 50% to overturn the vote (unless Ringo makes an executive decision either way). However, in like a month from now people might change their mind again, and then again a month after that. If we did do a re-vote, it would likely be next year I would think.
Quote from: Pkbaldy on September 16, 2016, 04:47:07 PM
Quote from: LF on September 16, 2016, 04:39:28 PM
Quote from: nostradamus on September 16, 2016, 04:37:16 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on September 16, 2016, 11:19:45 AM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on September 09, 2016, 08:42:53 PM
Actually I regret my decision haha... The changes would of been kinda fun.
RECOUNT!! :-X :-X
Not a bad idea really ........ why go into a new season with what now seems to be a majority of coaches not in favour of the rule
It's been voted on already too bad
I was pressured into my vote. Recount ;)
Haha what are you on about?
Quote from: nostradamus on September 16, 2016, 04:48:44 PM
Quote from: LF on September 16, 2016, 04:39:28 PM
Quote from: nostradamus on September 16, 2016, 04:37:16 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on September 16, 2016, 11:19:45 AM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on September 09, 2016, 08:42:53 PM
Actually I regret my decision haha... The changes would of been kinda fun.
RECOUNT!! :-X :-X
Not a bad idea really ........ why go into a new season with what now seems to be a majority of coaches not in favour of the rule
It's been voted on already too bad
are you a mod here now or something?
This is a discussion thread..........that's what we're doing .........discussing
Seriously your going to be like that now I'm entitled to say whatever the hell I want to just like you are
You can discuss it all you want I don't care but I don't see why we have to have a revote because one person wishes they voted the other way now
We had a vote because people wanted it resolved prior to trade period as it may assist with some trades.
So decision has been made on this rule change and as such can not be changed until end of next season. Reasonings were given and decision made based on that.
Drunken Marlon voted haha
And im only flowering around. What's voted should stay.
Personally i think there should be a vote on whether we revote
and then have a revote on the revote option for those that changed their mind on the revote.
Quote from: Ringo on September 16, 2016, 05:47:07 PM
and then have a revote on the revote for those that changed their mind,
exactly!
And a vote to give me a usable ruck.
With 8 Thursday night games this year we need to firm up on the rules for rolling lock out. UF only has the 2 options so we will have to do some manual calculations to fix.
So here are my thoughts as to rule to apply. Teams are still loaded into UF.
1. Players from Teams playing Thursday Night are locked at bounce.
2. Captains and Vice Captains are also locked at Thursday bounce.
3. Emergency players loophole not allowed.
4, Final Teams to be lodged in the weekly thread prior to bounce of Friday night game. If Team not lodged team in UF will be taken as final team.
Comments welcome.
Yes please!
One small adjustment I reckon; captains and vice captains locked in on Thursday night unless they are a late out on the Friday (i.e. if you name someone not named, can't change them no matter what, but if they were named and are a late out, then you can change your C/VC). I guess you can sort of loophole here, but if you name a Thursday night VC, then by naming a C not already named you're basically already choosing your VC as C so no point.
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:37:11 PM
One small adjustment I reckon; captains and vice captains locked in on Thursday night unless they are a late out on the Friday (i.e. if you name someone not named, can't change them no matter what, but if they were named and are a late out, then you can change your C/VC). I guess you can sort of loophole here, but if you name a Thursday night VC, then by naming a C not already named you're basically already choosing your VC as C so no point.
Or maybe just name EVC? surly you cant have 3 late outs :P
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:41:15 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:37:11 PM
One small adjustment I reckon; captains and vice captains locked in on Thursday night unless they are a late out on the Friday (i.e. if you name someone not named, can't change them no matter what, but if they were named and are a late out, then you can change your C/VC). I guess you can sort of loophole here, but if you name a Thursday night VC, then by naming a C not already named you're basically already choosing your VC as C so no point.
Or maybe just name EVC? surly you cant have 3 late outs :P
Allows you to change your emergencies as well though, whereas by locking them in on Thursday night, you can't.
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:45:25 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:41:15 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:37:11 PM
One small adjustment I reckon; captains and vice captains locked in on Thursday night unless they are a late out on the Friday (i.e. if you name someone not named, can't change them no matter what, but if they were named and are a late out, then you can change your C/VC). I guess you can sort of loophole here, but if you name a Thursday night VC, then by naming a C not already named you're basically already choosing your VC as C so no point.
Or maybe just name EVC? surly you cant have 3 late outs :P
Allows you to change your emergencies as well though, whereas by locking them in on Thursday night, you can't.
Id prefer it locked in thursday night :P
Just lock the EVC on Thursday as well?
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:47:34 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:45:25 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:41:15 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:37:11 PM
One small adjustment I reckon; captains and vice captains locked in on Thursday night unless they are a late out on the Friday (i.e. if you name someone not named, can't change them no matter what, but if they were named and are a late out, then you can change your C/VC). I guess you can sort of loophole here, but if you name a Thursday night VC, then by naming a C not already named you're basically already choosing your VC as C so no point.
Or maybe just name EVC? surly you cant have 3 late outs :P
Allows you to change your emergencies as well though, whereas by locking them in on Thursday night, you can't.
Id prefer it locked in thursday night :P
But then you may as well lock out the whole team...or is that what you want done? :P
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:50:22 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:47:34 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:45:25 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:41:15 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:37:11 PM
One small adjustment I reckon; captains and vice captains locked in on Thursday night unless they are a late out on the Friday (i.e. if you name someone not named, can't change them no matter what, but if they were named and are a late out, then you can change your C/VC). I guess you can sort of loophole here, but if you name a Thursday night VC, then by naming a C not already named you're basically already choosing your VC as C so no point.
Or maybe just name EVC? surly you cant have 3 late outs :P
Allows you to change your emergencies as well though, whereas by locking them in on Thursday night, you can't.
Id prefer it locked in thursday night :P
But then you may as well lock out the whole team...or is that what you want done? :P
if that isnt what you wanted, why did you suggest locking in the c and vc??
Quote from: SydneyRox on October 27, 2016, 08:53:23 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:50:22 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:47:34 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:45:25 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:41:15 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:37:11 PM
One small adjustment I reckon; captains and vice captains locked in on Thursday night unless they are a late out on the Friday (i.e. if you name someone not named, can't change them no matter what, but if they were named and are a late out, then you can change your C/VC). I guess you can sort of loophole here, but if you name a Thursday night VC, then by naming a C not already named you're basically already choosing your VC as C so no point.
Or maybe just name EVC? surly you cant have 3 late outs :P
Allows you to change your emergencies as well though, whereas by locking them in on Thursday night, you can't.
Id prefer it locked in thursday night :P
But then you may as well lock out the whole team...or is that what you want done? :P
if that isnt what you wanted, why did you suggest locking in the c and vc??
Only if they aren't a late out, to prevent loopholing.
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:50:22 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:47:34 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:45:25 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:41:15 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:37:11 PM
One small adjustment I reckon; captains and vice captains locked in on Thursday night unless they are a late out on the Friday (i.e. if you name someone not named, can't change them no matter what, but if they were named and are a late out, then you can change your C/VC). I guess you can sort of loophole here, but if you name a Thursday night VC, then by naming a C not already named you're basically already choosing your VC as C so no point.
Or maybe just name EVC? surly you cant have 3 late outs :P
Allows you to change your emergencies as well though, whereas by locking them in on Thursday night, you can't.
Id prefer it locked in thursday night :P
But then you may as well lock out the whole team...or is that what you want done? :P
Yeah i like that
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:54:27 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on October 27, 2016, 08:53:23 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:50:22 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:47:34 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:45:25 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:41:15 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:37:11 PM
One small adjustment I reckon; captains and vice captains locked in on Thursday night unless they are a late out on the Friday (i.e. if you name someone not named, can't change them no matter what, but if they were named and are a late out, then you can change your C/VC). I guess you can sort of loophole here, but if you name a Thursday night VC, then by naming a C not already named you're basically already choosing your VC as C so no point.
Or maybe just name EVC? surly you cant have 3 late outs :P
Allows you to change your emergencies as well though, whereas by locking them in on Thursday night, you can't.
Id prefer it locked in thursday night :P
But then you may as well lock out the whole team...or is that what you want done? :P
if that isnt what you wanted, why did you suggest locking in the c and vc??
Only if they aren't a late out, to prevent loopholing.
So name a C,VC, EVC before lock out? idk im confused a little here, hows it like locking out the whole team
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:56:01 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:50:22 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:47:34 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:45:25 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:41:15 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:37:11 PM
One small adjustment I reckon; captains and vice captains locked in on Thursday night unless they are a late out on the Friday (i.e. if you name someone not named, can't change them no matter what, but if they were named and are a late out, then you can change your C/VC). I guess you can sort of loophole here, but if you name a Thursday night VC, then by naming a C not already named you're basically already choosing your VC as C so no point.
Or maybe just name EVC? surly you cant have 3 late outs :P
Allows you to change your emergencies as well though, whereas by locking them in on Thursday night, you can't.
Id prefer it locked in thursday night :P
But then you may as well lock out the whole team...or is that what you want done? :P
Yeah i like that
I dont mind this idea, but with the amount of Thursday night games it could be carnage some weeks.
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:57:13 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:54:27 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on October 27, 2016, 08:53:23 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:50:22 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:47:34 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:45:25 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:41:15 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:37:11 PM
One small adjustment I reckon; captains and vice captains locked in on Thursday night unless they are a late out on the Friday (i.e. if you name someone not named, can't change them no matter what, but if they were named and are a late out, then you can change your C/VC). I guess you can sort of loophole here, but if you name a Thursday night VC, then by naming a C not already named you're basically already choosing your VC as C so no point.
Or maybe just name EVC? surly you cant have 3 late outs :P
Allows you to change your emergencies as well though, whereas by locking them in on Thursday night, you can't.
Id prefer it locked in thursday night :P
But then you may as well lock out the whole team...or is that what you want done? :P
if that isnt what you wanted, why did you suggest locking in the c and vc??
Only if they aren't a late out, to prevent loopholing.
So name a C,VC, EVC before lock out? idk im confused a little here, hows it like locking out the whole team
I'm saying you can change your C/VC/EVC on Friday if one (or more) is a late out, just like we are proposing you can do for any member of your squad. The only difference is that you can
only drop them if they are a late out, whereas with the rest of your squad, you could drop anyone on the Friday (however I am now realizing this will also have loopholing issues).
So maybe just your entire squad is locked on Thursday nights, barring any late outs on Fridays?
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 09:01:33 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:57:13 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:54:27 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on October 27, 2016, 08:53:23 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:50:22 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:47:34 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:45:25 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:41:15 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:37:11 PM
One small adjustment I reckon; captains and vice captains locked in on Thursday night unless they are a late out on the Friday (i.e. if you name someone not named, can't change them no matter what, but if they were named and are a late out, then you can change your C/VC). I guess you can sort of loophole here, but if you name a Thursday night VC, then by naming a C not already named you're basically already choosing your VC as C so no point.
Or maybe just name EVC? surly you cant have 3 late outs :P
Allows you to change your emergencies as well though, whereas by locking them in on Thursday night, you can't.
Id prefer it locked in thursday night :P
But then you may as well lock out the whole team...or is that what you want done? :P
if that isnt what you wanted, why did you suggest locking in the c and vc??
Only if they aren't a late out, to prevent loopholing.
So name a C,VC, EVC before lock out? idk im confused a little here, hows it like locking out the whole team
I'm saying you can change your C/VC/EVC on Friday if one (or more) is a late out, just like we are proposing you can do for any member of your squad. The only difference is that you can only drop them if they are a late out, whereas with the rest of your squad, you could drop anyone on the Friday (however I am now realizing this will also have loopholing issues).
So maybe just your entire squad is locked on Thursday nights, barring any late outs on Fridays?
Yeah eithers fine with me, as long as theres no loopholing or that kind of shower :P
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 09:03:11 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 09:01:33 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:57:13 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:54:27 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on October 27, 2016, 08:53:23 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:50:22 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:47:34 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:45:25 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:41:15 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:37:11 PM
One small adjustment I reckon; captains and vice captains locked in on Thursday night unless they are a late out on the Friday (i.e. if you name someone not named, can't change them no matter what, but if they were named and are a late out, then you can change your C/VC). I guess you can sort of loophole here, but if you name a Thursday night VC, then by naming a C not already named you're basically already choosing your VC as C so no point.
Or maybe just name EVC? surly you cant have 3 late outs :P
Allows you to change your emergencies as well though, whereas by locking them in on Thursday night, you can't.
Id prefer it locked in thursday night :P
But then you may as well lock out the whole team...or is that what you want done? :P
if that isnt what you wanted, why did you suggest locking in the c and vc??
Only if they aren't a late out, to prevent loopholing.
So name a C,VC, EVC before lock out? idk im confused a little here, hows it like locking out the whole team
I'm saying you can change your C/VC/EVC on Friday if one (or more) is a late out, just like we are proposing you can do for any member of your squad. The only difference is that you can only drop them if they are a late out, whereas with the rest of your squad, you could drop anyone on the Friday (however I am now realizing this will also have loopholing issues).
So maybe just your entire squad is locked on Thursday nights, barring any late outs on Fridays?
Yeah eithers fine with me, as long as theres no loopholing or that kind of shower :P
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to prevent aha
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 09:04:11 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 09:03:11 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 09:01:33 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:57:13 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:54:27 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on October 27, 2016, 08:53:23 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:50:22 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:47:34 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:45:25 PM
Quote from: iZander on October 27, 2016, 08:41:15 PM
Quote from: GoLions on October 27, 2016, 08:37:11 PM
One small adjustment I reckon; captains and vice captains locked in on Thursday night unless they are a late out on the Friday (i.e. if you name someone not named, can't change them no matter what, but if they were named and are a late out, then you can change your C/VC). I guess you can sort of loophole here, but if you name a Thursday night VC, then by naming a C not already named you're basically already choosing your VC as C so no point.
Or maybe just name EVC? surly you cant have 3 late outs :P
Allows you to change your emergencies as well though, whereas by locking them in on Thursday night, you can't.
Id prefer it locked in thursday night :P
But then you may as well lock out the whole team...or is that what you want done? :P
if that isnt what you wanted, why did you suggest locking in the c and vc??
Only if they aren't a late out, to prevent loopholing.
So name a C,VC, EVC before lock out? idk im confused a little here, hows it like locking out the whole team
I'm saying you can change your C/VC/EVC on Friday if one (or more) is a late out, just like we are proposing you can do for any member of your squad. The only difference is that you can only drop them if they are a late out, whereas with the rest of your squad, you could drop anyone on the Friday (however I am now realizing this will also have loopholing issues).
So maybe just your entire squad is locked on Thursday nights, barring any late outs on Fridays?
Yeah eithers fine with me, as long as theres no loopholing or that kind of shower :P
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to prevent aha
Then im not too fazed how its done then :P But teams do come out on Thursday night, but it does leave a very small window of opportunity for people to name teams i guess :P
Couple of comments though:
Only players playing on Thursday Night and C, VC and EVC will be locked. Surely one of the three will play over the weekend.
Any loopholing of players can be monitored and we can impose penalties. It will become obvious with naming of emergencies and subsequent naming of players. Remember teams will be lodged in the thread so it will be transparent. UF will lock at first bounce of the round.
Round 5 will create extra issues as there are games on Monday and Tuesday. There is another Monday game as well in Rd 4.
Most of the Thursday games are in the early rounds.
Happy to lock at first bounce if that is what is desired by coaches.
Possible compromise could be we name 6 emergencies in the thread in order of preference.
Quote from: Ringo on October 27, 2016, 06:19:07 PM
With 8 Thursday night games this year we need to firm up on the rules for rolling lock out. UF only has the 2 options so we will have to do some manual calculations to fix.
So here are my thoughts as to rule to apply. Teams are still loaded into UF.
1. Players from Teams playing Thursday Night are locked at bounce.
2. Captains and Vice Captains are also locked at Thursday bounce.
3. Emergency players loophole not allowed.
4, Final Teams to be lodged in the weekly thread prior to bounce of Friday night game. If Team not lodged team in UF will be taken as final team.
Comments welcome.
I like this option. There's often less than an hour window between when full teams are named Thursday and when the Thursday night game starts. It will be easy to tell if someone is trying to loophole because their full team will be locked in UF.
Pk suggested a potential rule change to me, allowing teams to delist players after the afl rookie draft. However, doing this would mean forfeiting a rookie/nat pick (or more if you delist multiple players), and meaning you fill that spot on your list at the end of the rookie draft (i.e. supplementary draft picks)
So expanding this a little to suggest how it would work I would see it follows:
1. At end of Rookie Draft you are allowed to delist further players. A 48hr window will be allowed for this purpose,
2, A supplementary Rookie Draft of all available left over players will be conducted.
3. Supplementary draft order will then be completed based on ladder finishing positions to take all teams to 45 players.
4. Draft commences
Quote from: Ringo on November 21, 2016, 09:49:00 AM
So expanding this a little to suggest how it would work I would see it follows:
1. At end of Rookie Draft you are allowed to delist further players. A 48hr window will be allowed for this purpose,
2, A supplementary Rookie Draft of all available left over players will be conducted.
3. Supplementary draft order will then be completed based on ladder finishing positions to take all teams to 45 players.
4. Draft commences
Yeah reckon this would be of benefit to teams that have taken a chance with delisted players in hope of being picked upped, or in the case of a couple of teams who missed the deadline for delistings.
Would this be easy to implement pretty well straight away for this to proceed?
Easy to implement if we have consensus. may even add it to vote for new coach on Wednesday.
Quote from: Ringo on November 21, 2016, 09:49:00 AM
So expanding this a little to suggest how it would work I would see it follows:
1. At end of Rookie Draft you are allowed to delist further players. A 48hr window will be allowed for this purpose,
2, A supplementary Rookie Draft of all available left over players will be conducted.
3. Supplementary draft order will then be completed based on ladder finishing positions to take all teams to 45 players.
4. Draft commences
Yep so, we still have (for example) our Nov 18th deadline. Teams choosing to keep players who have been delisted in the AFL, can hold on to these players, in the hope that they get picked up. If they don't get picked up, and you choose to delist them, you forfeit the latest pick that you are currently able to use (so if 3 positions available on your list, you lose your 3rd pick, and all picks following it). You then fill that 3rd spot at the end of our rookie draft.
This would also mean we'd need to delay the NAT draft by a few days I believe.
The key dates for delisted free agents are as follows:
Saturday November 26 - NAB AFL delisted player free agency period (3) begins
Sunday November 27, 2pm - NAB AFL delisted player free agency period (3) closes
Monday November 30, 2pm - Final AFL club list lodgement
I actually like the risk factor of holding and delisting these guys. It also puts more emphasis and importance on the rookie draft as people might delist guys who then get picked up.
I think this is a difference between BXV and the other XV comps that I really like and would like to keep as is.
Quote from: Rids on November 21, 2016, 12:21:14 PM
I actually like the risk factor of holding and delisting these guys. It also puts more emphasis and importance on the rookie draft as people might delist guys who then get picked up.
I think this is a difference between BXV and the other XV comps that I really like and would like to keep as is.
Yeah I also like the risk factor, traded in Marcon and kept Cameron this year. Took the punt on Grimley the year before.
It'd go up to a vote, won't be decided by admins.
Quote from: Rids on November 21, 2016, 12:21:14 PM
I actually like the risk factor of holding and delisting these guys. It also puts more emphasis and importance on the rookie draft as people might delist guys who then get picked up.
I think this is a difference between BXV and the other XV comps that I really like and would like to keep as is.
Yeah agreed :P
Quote from: GoLions on November 21, 2016, 12:04:24 PM
Quote from: Ringo on November 21, 2016, 09:49:00 AM
So expanding this a little to suggest how it would work I would see it follows:
1. At end of Rookie Draft you are allowed to delist further players. A 48hr window will be allowed for this purpose,
2, A supplementary Rookie Draft of all available left over players will be conducted.
3. Supplementary draft order will then be completed based on ladder finishing positions to take all teams to 45 players.
4. Draft commences
Yep so, we still have (for example) our Nov 18th deadline. Teams choosing to keep players who have been delisted in the AFL, can hold on to these players, in the hope that they get picked up. If they don't get picked up, and you choose to delist them, you forfeit the latest pick that you are currently able to use (so if 3 positions available on your list, you lose your 3rd pick, and all picks following it). You then fill that 3rd spot at the end of our rookie draft.
This would also mean we'd need to delay the NAT draft by a few days I believe.
Bear in mind some of these players may be picked up in Rookie Draft as well though and also 3rd F/a. So happy to just have them de-list at end of Final Team Lodgements on 30th November and then do supplementary draft.
Another idea I had and sort of follows on is if you delist a player and that player is subsequently selected by another club you can reselect that player with your first available rookie pick. Coaches choice of course and have to nominate.
Quote from: Ringo on November 21, 2016, 04:53:07 PM
Quote from: GoLions on November 21, 2016, 12:04:24 PM
Quote from: Ringo on November 21, 2016, 09:49:00 AM
So expanding this a little to suggest how it would work I would see it follows:
1. At end of Rookie Draft you are allowed to delist further players. A 48hr window will be allowed for this purpose,
2, A supplementary Rookie Draft of all available left over players will be conducted.
3. Supplementary draft order will then be completed based on ladder finishing positions to take all teams to 45 players.
4. Draft commences
Yep so, we still have (for example) our Nov 18th deadline. Teams choosing to keep players who have been delisted in the AFL, can hold on to these players, in the hope that they get picked up. If they don't get picked up, and you choose to delist them, you forfeit the latest pick that you are currently able to use (so if 3 positions available on your list, you lose your 3rd pick, and all picks following it). You then fill that 3rd spot at the end of our rookie draft.
This would also mean we'd need to delay the NAT draft by a few days I believe.
Bear in mind some of these players may be picked up in Rookie Draft as well though and also 3rd F/a. So happy to just have them de-list at end of Final Team Lodgements on 30th November and then do supplementary draft.
Yep, delist the ones not p/upped then work as per the draft & pick from the sup draft
Suggested change for supplementary rookie draft may not be implemented this year. There is a counter argument that some coaches traded for the risk involved this year and may be now disadvantaged if change implemented this year.
This argument is valid so will put to vote but from next year.
l really like the variable of the risk factor. No one is forced to take the risk, but those who do, do so knowingly ........ they may be burnt, but they may also benefit substancially. Risk vs reward ........ love it.
It's a good POD that BXV has.
OK as we are getting close to the start of the season I will be sending out votes on the following based on discussions here:
Lodging teams in FF
Whether to lodge full teams or abbreviated,
Sub Rule
Whether to dispense or use 20% TOG.
Lock Out Arrangements
Whether full lock outs on Thursday night games or Partial.
Home Ground Advantage
Whether to reintroduce now that we have the ability to amend scores,
Most of the discussion is in this thread if you want to familiarise yourself prior to voting.
There is a bit of discussion on what HGA should be. So basically if you want something different then mention that in reply and we can revote on what HGA should be.
Main discussion is basically it is possible for say the HGA to be 100+ if all players perform and that may be a bit too great advantage.
Please feel free to continue the discussion here on this point.
Quote from: GoLions on July 26, 2016, 01:08:50 PM
- Do we want HGA next season? It's very easy for myself and Ringo to make final adjustments to scores at the end of the year, so that is not an issue. If we were to implement this, we would likely take the same path that AXVs has implemented, and add 3% of your total score as your HGA.
Used this in finals and I thought it worked well, dunno what others thought though :P