Hey all :D
For the newbies, I will be sending out a pre-vote to determine whether we're willing to approach rule discussions with an open mind, or not. Because if we're not, then I have no interest in generating the discussion.
If the majority of coaches decide to discuss rule changes, then...
ANYONE can nominate a rule change, and it will be voted on. However, be sure there is adequate explanation to validate your proposed change. If I think not enough thought has gone behind a suggestion, or it's not really feasible, then I won't put it forward.
Every now and then throughout the year, someone has brought up something they'd like Worlds to do differently. Now is the time to bring that up, and it WILL be voted on. We only have 2-3 weeks of the year to discuss rules and change them, so use this time wisely. Once the rules have been voted on, THAT IS IT for the next 12 months! (except for the review on the trade voting process that is held after the trade period).
We need all rule changes approved/rejected by Sunday the 20th of September (or whenever the AFL H&A season ends), which probably means I'll leave the final PM no later than say... I'll back us in for a quick response and say Saturday the 19th of September.
As always...
THERE WILL BE A SALARY CAP! It is the only thing that I will enforce, even if against the majority. The only thing I'll entertain is what kind of cap system we implement. It will not go away whilst I'm admin, so suggestions to get rid of it entirely are fruitless.
If you want to get a jump on the discussion whilst the vote is pending, I'll leave the floor open for rule suggestions :)
#scrapthecap
Traditional / Flood / Attack
A decision on what format we implement for the round should be open until the final lockout, and not before the first game
Even more so now if AFL teams continue to be released the night before, which has been hinted could be the case afaik
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on September 04, 2020, 08:51:05 AM
Traditional / Flood / Attack
A decision on what format we implement for the round should be open until the final lockout, and not before the first game
Even more so now if AFL teams continue to be released the night before, which has been hinted could be the case afaik
Could also be a discussion for resting as well?
Quote from: GoLions on September 04, 2020, 11:04:10 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on September 04, 2020, 08:51:05 AM
Traditional / Flood / Attack
A decision on what format we implement for the round should be open until the final lockout, and not before the first game
Even more so now if AFL teams continue to be released the night before, which has been hinted could be the case afaik
Could also be a discussion for resting as well?
Absolutely
Anything that is currently having to be decided before the 1st game, should be moved to full lockout
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on September 04, 2020, 12:30:12 PM
Quote from: GoLions on September 04, 2020, 11:04:10 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on September 04, 2020, 08:51:05 AM
Traditional / Flood / Attack
A decision on what format we implement for the round should be open until the final lockout, and not before the first game
Even more so now if AFL teams continue to be released the night before, which has been hinted could be the case afaik
Could also be a discussion for resting as well?
Absolutely
Anything that is currently having to be decided before the 1st game, should be moved to full lockout
hugely in suppport of this.
flood/attack and resting should be full lockout not partial.
Another one is a minimum HGA of 30
also regarding the cap i think past seasons should count for less.
James Harmes has put up 60 this year but will be priced as a 83 player i believe.
Simpkin on the flip side has gone 95 this year but will be priced as a 75 player.
happy to have some weighting to the past but it should be a smaller component so that Simpkin is worth considerably more then harmes not less.
happy for Purp to validate if the above 2 cases are accurate or not.
I like both of those ideas Holz :)
HGA has to count for something - if you have someone put up a sub 30 score it's not really much of an "advantage"
30 as a min seems reasonable, but if we want to keep all real scores in play, then maybe it would be easier for admin if we changed HGA from the lowest scoring player, to the lowest scoring player above 30? That way, if a player does score 20 for example, you still get their score, which is fair because that's what they actually scored - but as HGA it's not really much so you get the next guys score, lowest above 30?
As for player values - I could be wrong but I think the current formula uses the last 3 years scoring? Changing that to 2 years (current year and previous year) might be worth exploring. Curious to see what Purps has to say
Alternatively, perhaps a % formula could be introduced, to reflect big increases/drops in avg?
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on September 04, 2020, 01:44:47 PM
I like both of those ideas Holz :)
HGA has to count for something - if you have someone put up a sub 30 score it's not really much of an "advantage"
30 as a min seems reasonable, but if we want to keep all real scores in play, then maybe it would be easier for admin if we changed HGA from the lowest scoring player, to the lowest scoring player above 30? That way, if a player does score 20 for example, you still get their score, which is fair because that's what they actually scored - but as HGA it's not really much so you get the next guys score, lowest above 30?
As for player values - I could be wrong but I think the current formula uses the last 3 years scoring? Changing that to 2 years (current year and previous year) might be worth exploring. Curious to see what Purps has to say
Alternatively, perhaps a % formula could be introduced, to reflect big increases/drops in avg?
my suggestion is a weighting system.
so for example the current season is worth double the other 2 seasons. (Note for this season with the reduced season it should be 2.5)
I have run many examples on discord that all seem to work.
Votes are in, majority has revealed itself, and we are a go to discuss rules :)
My suggestions:
1) All rolling lockouts will allow emergency loopholing.
The current restrictions prohibit legitimate preferences of players from being named. I point to the Eric Hipwood example earlier in the year. In order to allow the eloquent naming of players (in some cases), emergency loopholing is the best way to allow coaches to name their most preferred players.
Note, this would only apply to rounds where a rolling lockout is enforced (which may not happen again, given success of '8 emergencies' system. Captain loopholing will still be forbidden.
2) Introduce a 4th emergency to the standard submission
I've resisted for a while, but I recognise there has been an increased need for insurance to the best XV due to changing AFL landscape. Like the AFL has introduced, I would be open to allowing 4 emergencies to be named.
3) Where teams fail to name the standard number of emergencies:
- list preferences will no longer be used to replace the empty spot in your team submission; and
- you will be exempt from the '25% late penalty rule' - no player will come in to fill a vacant spot in your starting XV if you didn't name the required number of emergencies, and you have available players outside of your submission.
I don't want to offer free rides anymore in regards to the above.
I'm opposed to suggestion numero uno. If we're going to allow loopholing, I feel it should be for all weeks, not sometimes yes or sometimes no. It wouldn't be a 'grey area' because it is clearly stated when it applies, I just think that it's an unnecessarily 'dynamic' rule to have.
As an aside, if the AFL opt to keep the current format of naming teams (ie. 6:25 AEST the day before the game), which I think is a strong possibility into post-COVID times, that would likely make most/all weeks rolling lockouts?
For what it's worth, I'm sitting in the camp of no loopholing altogether, if I was to choose between full-on loopholing and none at all.
The approach I would put forward is what we had/have to close out this season, a full lockout to kick off the round and a big, juicy emergency bench of about 8 players.
As UTM put it,
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 21, 2020, 11:35:22 PM
The more on bench the better, an AFL team would never play undermanned and neither should we because of late outs.
Name your strongest possible XV, and if a few guys are sitting under an injury cloud, ample bench coverage is provided should they later miss. Provided your emergency list is in preference order, you'll still get your next best option. This would likely be incompatible with the suggestion to change between traditional/flood/attack during a round, though.
Of course, this approach only works if loopholing is not implemented for 2021.
If the above approach is not what we end up with next season, I agree with Holz and Suggestion #2 that
Quote from: Holz on August 21, 2020, 10:07:16 AM
4 should be a absolute min with 4 positions to cover.
as well as Suggestion #3 regarding emergencies. I've felt the current approach is pretty generous, if you can't be bothered naming enough/appropriate emergencies you probably don't deserve any cover at all.
As for minimum HGA, tend to disagree, particularly regarding the "next score above 30" suggestion. In theory, you could have 14 players go 80+ and one cobba drop a juicy, uninjured 25. I don't see why your HGA should be 80 in that instance.
Agree with FTC - we either have full loopholing or none at all, and I prefer to have none at all, but am all for extending the bench
4 E's every week, and up to 8 on rounds similar to like we've had recently
As mentioned, you might have 1 or more best XV type guys under injury clouds or questionable, so just name them on field - with 8 emergencies you should have more than adequate coverage should they not play
Also agree with Purps, in that he should not have to add E's because someone was too lazy to do it - if the player is not named in the team lineup, then they should not be recognised at all
As for the min HGA thing - yeah look, I didn't give that solution too much thought heh, but I'm still on the side of sub 30 not really being a "home ground advantage" so perhaps a formula or solution can be put forward?
Maybe HGA is 2.5x instead of 2x? Dunno, we'll discuss and come up with something :)
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on September 05, 2020, 07:11:45 PM
Agree with FTC - we either have full loopholing or none at all, and I prefer to have none at all, but am all for extending the bench
4 E's every week, and up to 8 on rounds similar to like we've had recently
As mentioned, you might have 1 or more best XV type guys under injury clouds or questionable, so just name them on field - with 8 emergencies you should have more than adequate coverage should they not play
Also agree with Purps, in that he should not have to add E's because someone was too lazy to do it - if the player is not named in the team lineup, then they should not be recognised at all
Only other thing to add is that min HGA is dumb, don't be babies, cop the shower score, it's part of the game. You're already getting HGA, that's a boost in itself and a luxury your opponent that week doesn't have. I don't see why we're eliminating a random element we've stuck with for so many years.
Quote from: Nige on September 05, 2020, 09:29:27 PM
Only other thing to add is that min HGA is dumb, don't be babies, cop the shower score, it's part of the game. You're already getting HGA, that's a boost in itself and a luxury your opponent that week doesn't have. I don't see why we're eliminating a random element we've stuck with for so many years.
We could say that for every single rule that has changed before, couldn't we?
I'm certainly not married to the idea - Holz raised it, I think it has enough merit to at least discuss. If it remains as is then fine by me, but if it's being discussed then it's going to a vote, so we might as well discuss it and come up with a concrete suggestion to be voted on
Just neg it if you don't like it :)
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on September 06, 2020, 01:09:14 AM
Quote from: Nige on September 05, 2020, 09:29:27 PM
Only other thing to add is that min HGA is dumb, don't be babies, cop the shower score, it's part of the game. You're already getting HGA, that's a boost in itself and a luxury your opponent that week doesn't have. I don't see why we're eliminating a random element we've stuck with for so many years.
We could say that for every single rule that has changed before, couldn't we?
Sure, we could. But I think this is one of the least problematic/broken rules we've got and discussed to ever change.
Yea leave HGA as it is. If your worried about having a low HGA get a better 15th player.
The sub rule already eliminates bad HGA due to an injury, so therefore if your player just scores shower you should deal with it.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on September 06, 2020, 01:11:24 PM
Yea leave HGA as it is. If your worried about having a low HGA get a better 15th player.
The sub rule already eliminates bad HGA due to an injury, so therefore if your player just scores shower you should deal with it.
Hard to argue with that
Might struggle to get the votes for this one Holz
Salary caps!
Holz has suggested an alternative methodology, with regards to placing a higher waiting on the most recent year's performance by each player.
All else being equal (i.e. disregarding the other elements in the cap), the current cap considers the players average score over the past 66 games (59 for this year), and uses that as the main basis for their worth. The intention of this rule was to make sure that say, Lance Franklin is worth something next year, rather than going back to the minimum price given he has played no games in 2020.
FWIW, I'm happy with the way the cap is at the moment. But for arguments sake, lets see what it looks like under Holz' system.
Holz has nominated that 2018 scores are discounted to 75% of the original score, 100% of 2019s and 250% of 2020s.
Obviously, the cap is going to increase (by $36.5M actually) given that player averages have been modified.
The following comparisons show what the impact is:
(*cap values have been calculated on past 56 AFL games, with 3 more rounds to come)
| Holz Cap | Cap | Over Cap | Under Cap | Current Cap | Over Cap | Under Cap |
| Beijing Thunder | $12,546,000 | $246,000 | | $10,312,000 | $112,000 | |
| Berlin Brewers | $11,524,000 | | | $9,700,000 | | |
| Buenos Aires Armadillos | $11,741,000 | | | $9,326,000 | | |
| Cairo Sands | $11,511,000 | | | $9,652,000 | | |
| Cape Town Cobras | $12,260,000 | | | $9,897,000 | | |
| Christchurch Saints | $9,866,000 | | $34,000 | $8,205,000 | | |
| Dublin Destroyers | $12,132,000 | | | $9,911,000 | | |
| London Royals | $11,083,000 | | | $9,206,000 | | |
| Mexico City Suns | $11,349,000 | | | $9,255,000 | | |
| Moscow Spetsnaz | $11,791,000 | | | $10,046,000 | | |
| New Delhi Tigers | $11,543,000 | | | $9,041,000 | | |
| New York Revolution | $10,741,000 | | | $9,083,000 | | |
| Pacific Islanders | $12,527,000 | $227,000 | | $10,310,000 | $110,000 | |
| PNL Reindeers | $12,019,000 | | | $9,820,000 | | |
| Rio de Janeiro Jaguars | $11,624,000 | | | $10,185,000 | | |
| Seoul Magpies | $11,997,000 | | | $9,948,000 | | |
| Tokyo Samurai | $12,807,000 | $507,000 | | $10,341,000 | $141,000 | |
| Toronto Wolves | $11,725,000 | | | $10,048,000 | | |
| No Club | $500,000 | | | $500,000 | | |
| METRICS | | | | | | |
| AVERAGE PER PLAYER | 255,484.89 | | | 211,349.46 | | |
| PLAYERS | 827 | | | 827 | | |
| AVERAGE LIST SIZE | 45.94 | | | 45.94 | | |
| AVERAGE SALARY | $11,736,976 | | | $9,709,394 | | |
| MAX | $12,400,000 | | | $10,200,000 | | |
| MIN | $9,900,000 | | | $8,200,000 |
KEY PLAYER MOVEMENTS
(top 20 increases, top 20 decreases)
| Full Name | WXV Club | Former | Salary | Movement |
| Sam Docherty | Moscow Spetsnaz | $254,000 | $635,000 | $381,000 |
| Caleb Serong | Buenos Aires Armadillos | $188,000 | $469,000 | $281,000 |
| Noah Anderson | New Delhi Tigers | $175,000 | $439,000 | $264,000 |
| Lachie Neale | Beijing Thunder | $829,000 | $1,082,000 | $253,000 |
| Jordan Ridley | Tokyo Samurai | $241,000 | $484,000 | $243,000 |
| Ben Keays | PNL Reindeers | $194,000 | $418,000 | $224,000 |
| Trent McKenzie | New Delhi Tigers | $182,000 | $405,000 | $223,000 |
| Marc Pittonet | Dublin Destroyers | $193,000 | $416,000 | $223,000 |
| Jake Aarts | New York Revolution | $149,000 | $372,000 | $223,000 |
| Jack Macrae | Toronto Wolves | $823,000 | $1,040,000 | $217,000 |
| Shane McAdam | Cape Town Cobras | $143,000 | $358,000 | $215,000 |
| Max King | Beijing Thunder | $140,000 | $350,000 | $210,000 |
| Jack Steele | New York Revolution | $565,000 | $773,000 | $208,000 |
| John Noble | London Royals | $166,000 | $373,000 | $207,000 |
| Lachlan Ash | Buenos Aires Armadillos | $137,000 | $342,000 | $205,000 |
| Jarryd Lyons | Pacific Islanders | $566,000 | $768,000 | $202,000 |
| Sam Walsh | Mexico City Suns | $333,000 | $529,000 | $196,000 |
| Reilly O'Brien | Buenos Aires Armadillos | $324,000 | $519,000 | $195,000 |
| Marcus Bontempelli | Pacific Islanders | $651,000 | $843,000 | $192,000 |
| Zach Merrett | PNL Reindeers | $677,000 | $868,000 | $191,000 |
| Rory Thompson | Buenos Aires Armadillos | $126,000 | $100,000 | $(26,000) |
| Shane Savage | PNL Reindeers | $346,000 | $319,000 | $(27,000) |
| Joel Hamling | Rio de Janeiro Jaguars | $232,000 | $204,000 | $(28,000) |
| Jordan Murdoch | Mexico City Suns | $208,000 | $178,000 | $(30,000) |
| Willie Rioli | New York Revolution | $211,000 | $180,000 | $(31,000) |
| Kade Kolodjashnij | Moscow Spetsnaz | $145,000 | $114,000 | $(31,000) |
| Dyson Heppell | Dublin Destroyers | $433,000 | $399,000 | $(34,000) |
| Tommy Sheridan | PNL Reindeers | $159,000 | $124,000 | $(35,000) |
| Bryce Gibbs | Buenos Aires Armadillos | $293,000 | $253,000 | $(40,000) |
| Tom Langdon | Christchurch Saints | $232,000 | $192,000 | $(40,000) |
| Dom Tyson | Rio de Janeiro Jaguars | $198,000 | $158,000 | $(40,000) |
| Jack Watts | New York Revolution | $184,000 | $143,000 | $(41,000) |
| Allen Christensen | Dublin Destroyers | $244,000 | $203,000 | $(41,000) |
| Charlie Curnow | Seoul Magpies | $254,000 | $211,000 | $(43,000) |
| Josh Jenkins | Pacific Islanders | $244,000 | $201,000 | $(43,000) |
| Jimmy Webster | Buenos Aires Armadillos | $253,000 | $206,000 | $(47,000) |
| Lance Franklin | Berlin Brewers | $274,000 | $225,000 | $(49,000) |
| Ben Jacobs | Rio de Janeiro Jaguars | $209,000 | $157,000 | $(52,000) |
| Alex Rance | Berlin Brewers | $225,000 | $170,000 | $(55,000) |
| Dayne Beams | Cairo Sands | $353,000 | $287,000 | $(66,000) |
So Sam Docherty's price is huge, because given he played no games in 2018 and 2019, his entire average has increased by x2.5.
The same is for Serong and Anderson, and for a lot of the top 20.
In the bottom, Beams, Rance and Bud have the biggest decreases, because they didn't play in 2020, their scores from 2018 have been discounted to 75%, rather than the full 100% in the current system.
The key takeaway for mine is that the change... doesn't make a huge amount of difference, except for decreasing those who didn't play in 2020, and increase those who ONLY played in 2020.
Personally it looks a little harsh on first year players. I don't think Serong, Anderson and friends should cost you 400k and some change from year two, especially when they'd still be on 'rookie' contracts in the AFL.
Quote from: fanTCfool on September 06, 2020, 07:30:05 PM
Personally it looks a little harsh on first year players. I don't think Serong, Anderson and friends should cost you 400k and some change from year two, especially when they'd still be on 'rookie' contracts in the AFL.
Quote from: fanTCfool on September 06, 2020, 07:30:05 PM
Personally it looks a little harsh on first year players. I don't think Serong, Anderson and friends should cost you 400k and some change from year two, especially when they'd still be on 'rookie' contracts in the AFL.
I agree with this, but it's a tricky one, and one that I don't think has a solution for all
First year players like Serong etc shouldn't be worth that much, but at the same time someone like Jordan Ridley should be worth a hell of a lot more than 241k
What if we made first year players exempt? Perhaps the current formula that is in place remains as is for first year players, and then the new formula is used for everyone else?
I understand this could be a nightmare for Purps, and if it is then it's not worth it - just leave it all as is, and law of averages would suggest that all teams end up having 1 or 2 players who are over/under valued, so overall it balances out
Your rare examples like Docherty, well you just cop that
First year players: Original Cap Formula
Everyone else: New Cap Formula
Does that work?
There is no completely accurate cap, but that one looks just as flawed to me...so why change?
Quote from: iZander on September 06, 2020, 08:55:29 PM
There is no completely accurate cap, but that one looks just as flawed to me...so why change?
Quote from: fanTCfool on September 06, 2020, 07:30:05 PM
Personally it looks a little harsh on first year players. I don't think Serong, Anderson and friends should cost you 400k and some change from year two, especially when they'd still be on 'rookie' contracts in the AFL.
Just to clarify the above numbers were wrong I have worked with purp and will post the correct numbers.
Serong costs the exact same in the new cap and old cap.
| Player | 2020 Average | Old Cap | New Cap | Note |
| James Harmes | 61 | 82 | 77 | declined huge |
| Matthew kreuzer | 33 | 88 | 86 | missed many games this year |
| Lachie Neale | 140 | 122 | 127 | gun who has taken it to next level |
| Touk Miller | 107 | 92 | 96 | starter who is now a premo |
| Tom Mitchell | 117 | 124 | 121 | missed last year and declined abit this year |
| Jye Simpkin | 95 | 77 | 83 | breakout player |
| Jake Lukosius | 88 | 66 | 72 | second year breakout |
| Caleb Serong | 77 | 77 | 77 | first year gun |
| Darcy Macpherson | 55 | 72 | 68 | Breakout last year then declined |
| Kade Simpson | 65 | 84 | 76 | Old Guy in decline |
So the clear things up and to correct the above wrong calculations this is what my cap change actually does.
1. First year players like Serong do no change in the cap as you can see Serong is 77 regardless.
2. second year players like Lukosius do change in the cap you can see Luko averages 88 the old cap has him 66 the new cap has him 72. A good comparison is Luko 88 v Serong 77 currently serong is priced at alot more then Luko even though luko averages more my cap closes the gap abit.
3. The big comparison is Jye Simpkin v James Harmes. Simpkin averages 95 and is priced at 77 where as Harmes averages 61 and is priced at 82. My cap corrects things and has Simpkin priced at 83 and Harmes at 77. Note this is 15 less then simpkin averaged and 15 more then harmes averaged so it allows for some bounce back from harmes and some fall back from Simpkin.
I dont see how you can argue that 61 average Harmes should cost more then 95 average simpkin.
4. I have used Kreuz and Titch to show that injuries dont make this cap put up stupid numbers in fact it does very little.
5. Older guys in declined like Simpson are priced accordingly he averages 65 the old system has him 84 because he was a gun 2 years ago and i have him 68 which is still 13 above what he avegs but better then the 19 under the old cap.
I am happy to do the calc for any players but i have put alot of thought into the numbers for the scaling and i imagine most people can see that this is a tweak that prices players more accurately to their actual scoring.
Screw the cap, where's the Designated Spud?
For too long the Nathan Brown and Zaine Cordy types have had next to no value in WXV. It's time for their pitiful contribution to be celebrated.
For those who aren't aware of the rule, the designated spud is your U2 and their score is subtracted from your team's total score. Let's say your 14 others score 1400 points, and your spud scores 40. Your team total is 1360.
It eliminates the need to have 6 gun midfielders, thus creating a more even competition, while making plenty of irrelevant players relevant.
Alright, I got Holz' proposed cap wrong the first time. Here is the corrected version, for all players (I've divided all caps by 1000 for readability)
| Full Name | WXV Club | Current | Proposed | Movement |
| C Petracca | Mexico City | 469 | 513 | 44 |
| And Brayshaw | Buenos Aires | 343 | 386 | 43 |
| L Neale | Beijing | 871 | 911 | 40 |
| J Steele | New York | 578 | 614 | 36 |
| N Haynes | Seoul | 457 | 492 | 35 |
| C Guthrie | New York | 337 | 370 | 33 |
| A Cerra | Buenos Aires | 298 | 330 | 32 |
| B Maynard | Rio de Janeiro | 414 | 444 | 30 |
| J Simpkin | Beijing | 369 | 398 | 29 |
| L McDonald | Cape Town | 295 | 323 | 28 |
| Z Bailey | Pacific | 223 | 251 | 28 |
| J Lyons | Pacific | 579 | 607 | 28 |
| H McCluggage | Cairo | 478 | 506 | 28 |
| J Lukosius | London | 223 | 250 | 27 |
| J Ridley | Tokyo | 285 | 311 | 26 |
| Ad Saad | London | 436 | 461 | 25 |
| A McGrath | Seoul | 355 | 380 | 25 |
| T Miller | London | 494 | 518 | 24 |
| H Greenwood | Cairo | 435 | 459 | 24 |
| M Blicavs | Christchurch | 408 | 432 | 24 |
| N Coffield | Buenos Aires | 215 | 238 | 23 |
| T English | London | 345 | 368 | 23 |
| E Hipwood | Rio de Janeiro | 252 | 275 | 23 |
| H Perryman | Pacific | 292 | 314 | 22 |
| C Daniel | Beijing | 477 | 499 | 22 |
| T Rockliff | Beijing | 401 | 423 | 22 |
| T Hawkins | Moscow | 514 | 536 | 22 |
| C Oliver | Seoul | 790 | 811 | 21 |
| T Dumont | Dublin | 409 | 430 | 21 |
| J Nelson | PNL | 184 | 205 | 21 |
| T Adams | Cairo | 511 | 532 | 21 |
| R Marshall | Toronto | 469 | 490 | 21 |
| Z Merrett | PNL | 692 | 713 | 21 |
| J Lloyd | New Delhi | 794 | 815 | 21 |
| Z Butters | New Delhi | 256 | 277 | 21 |
| D Butler | Beijing | 227 | 248 | 21 |
| M Gawn | Berlin | 899 | 919 | 20 |
| S Bolton | Mexico City | 259 | 279 | 20 |
| J Daicos | Christchurch | 221 | 241 | 20 |
| W Setterfield | Seoul | 248 | 268 | 20 |
| J Anderson | New York | 386 | 406 | 20 |
| C Dixon | Seoul | 320 | 340 | 20 |
| T Boak | Toronto | 542 | 562 | 20 |
| J Short | Tokyo | 366 | 385 | 19 |
| O McInerney | New Delhi | 275 | 294 | 19 |
| Lu Ryan | PNL | 517 | 536 | 19 |
| L Davies-Uniacke | Mexico City | 188 | 207 | 19 |
| J Berry | Buenos Aires | 421 | 439 | 18 |
| G Rohan | Rio de Janeiro | 238 | 256 | 18 |
| C Mills | Cape Town | 354 | 372 | 18 |
| H Clark | PNL | 266 | 284 | 18 |
| J Bews | London | 184 | 202 | 18 |
| R Fox | New Delhi | 197 | 214 | 17 |
| J Bowes | Cape Town | 290 | 307 | 17 |
| N Balta | Mexico City | 176 | 193 | 17 |
| J Billings | PNL | 461 | 478 | 17 |
| J Howe | Dublin | 353 | 370 | 17 |
| J Viney | Rio de Janeiro | 380 | 397 | 17 |
| T Goldstein | Dublin | 665 | 681 | 16 |
| B Sheppard | London | 426 | 442 | 16 |
| T Liberatore | Moscow | 307 | 323 | 16 |
| B Long | Tokyo | 201 | 217 | 16 |
| C Rayner | Buenos Aires | 235 | 251 | 16 |
| J Cousins | Cape Town | 186 | 202 | 16 |
| A Corr | Pacific | 206 | 221 | 15 |
| L Keeffe | Berlin | 151 | 166 | 15 |
| L Duggan | Pacific | 296 | 311 | 15 |
| S Menegola | Cape Town | 507 | 522 | 15 |
| T Marshall | Rio de Janeiro | 187 | 201 | 14 |
| Be Ainsworth | Cape Town | 238 | 252 | 14 |
| O Wines | Buenos Aires | 470 | 484 | 14 |
| B Cox | Christchurch | 224 | 238 | 14 |
| M Crouch | Dublin | 605 | 619 | 14 |
| S May | Berlin | 325 | 338 | 13 |
| M Gibbons | Tokyo | 232 | 245 | 13 |
| Da Moore | PNL | 249 | 262 | 13 |
| Ba Smith | PNL | 316 | 329 | 13 |
| Z Jones | Berlin | 369 | 382 | 13 |
| S Walsh | Mexico City | 368 | 381 | 13 |
| J Madgen | PNL | 169 | 181 | 12 |
| P Ladhams | Tokyo | 220 | 232 | 12 |
| P Lipinski | Moscow | 256 | 268 | 12 |
| J Graham | Mexico City | 289 | 301 | 12 |
| R Stanley | New York | 361 | 373 | 12 |
| O Florent | Buenos Aires | 308 | 320 | 12 |
| R Tarrant | Dublin | 359 | 371 | 12 |
| B Ellis | Beijing | 359 | 371 | 12 |
| D Shiel | PNL | 512 | 523 | 11 |
| J Thurlow | Berlin | 181 | 192 | 11 |
| B Williams | Pacific | 270 | 281 | 11 |
| N Naitanui | Mexico City | 374 | 385 | 11 |
| W Powell | Beijing | 178 | 189 | 11 |
| L Hunter | Mexico City | 529 | 540 | 11 |
| R Clarke | Moscow | 235 | 245 | 10 |
| S Collins | Cape Town | 216 | 226 | 10 |
| E Langdon | New Delhi | 428 | 438 | 10 |
| S Lycett | Tokyo | 445 | 455 | 10 |
| B Bewley | Tokyo | 171 | 181 | 10 |
| B McKay | Dublin | 139 | 149 | 10 |
| J Brander | PNL | 117 | 127 | 10 |
| B King | PNL | 150 | 160 | 10 |
| S Mayes | New Delhi | 158 | 168 | 10 |
| S Sidebottom | PNL | 549 | 559 | 10 |
| L Jong | Seoul | 154 | 164 | 10 |
| K Amon | Rio de Janeiro | 270 | 280 | 10 |
| T Cole | Mexico City | 222 | 232 | 10 |
| Li Ryan | Tokyo | 261 | 271 | 10 |
| T Stewart | Cairo | 500 | 510 | 10 |
| S Jacobs | PNL | 276 | 286 | 10 |
| K Farrell | Beijing | 147 | 156 | 9 |
| C Taylor | Seoul | 125 | 134 | 9 |
| N Broad | New Delhi | 214 | 223 | 9 |
| K McIntosh | Buenos Aires | 237 | 246 | 9 |
| D Rampe | Dublin | 416 | 425 | 9 |
| M Kennedy | PNL | 190 | 199 | 9 |
| S Lemmens | Cairo | 131 | 140 | 9 |
| A Witherden | Toronto | 340 | 349 | 9 |
| K Hartigan | London | 167 | 176 | 9 |
| J Corbett | Toronto | 119 | 128 | 9 |
| S Atley | Buenos Aires | 312 | 320 | 8 |
| M Bontempelli | Pacific | 681 | 689 | 8 |
| J Rowbottom | Christchurch | 212 | 220 | 8 |
| L Murphy | PNL | 195 | 203 | 8 |
| R O'Brien | Buenos Aires | 385 | 393 | 8 |
| L Baker | London | 234 | 242 | 8 |
| D Astbury | Moscow | 253 | 261 | 8 |
| T McCartin | Pacific | 186 | 194 | 8 |
| J Weitering | Mexico City | 289 | 297 | 8 |
| T Barrass | New Delhi | 314 | 322 | 8 |
| O Allen | PNL | 228 | 235 | 7 |
| L Fogarty | Seoul | 170 | 177 | 7 |
| E Ratugolea | New York | 194 | 201 | 7 |
| S Taylor | New Delhi | 175 | 182 | 7 |
| J Scrimshaw | Buenos Aires | 194 | 201 | 7 |
| D Sheed | London | 410 | 417 | 7 |
| B Parfitt | Christchurch | 336 | 343 | 7 |
| D Houston | New York | 389 | 396 | 7 |
| J Martin | New Delhi | 329 | 335 | 6 |
| M O'Connor | Dublin | 224 | 230 | 6 |
| T Papley | Cape Town | 336 | 342 | 6 |
| C Wilkie | Christchurch | 257 | 263 | 6 |
| J Witts | Pacific | 534 | 540 | 6 |
| B Keays | PNL | 215 | 221 | 6 |
| M Pittonet | Dublin | 193 | 199 | 6 |
| C Ah Chee | Christchurch | 184 | 190 | 6 |
| M Walters | Tokyo | 504 | 510 | 6 |
| S Pendlebury | Moscow | 539 | 545 | 6 |
| B Houli | Beijing | 356 | 362 | 6 |
| J Higgins | London | 264 | 270 | 6 |
| M Poholke | Toronto | 120 | 126 | 6 |
| J Daniher | Moscow | 149 | 155 | 6 |
| R Mathieson | London | 182 | 188 | 6 |
| M Crowden | Cape Town | 143 | 149 | 6 |
| Z Fisher | Seoul | 268 | 274 | 6 |
| J Newnes | London | 288 | 294 | 6 |
| J Waterman | London | 182 | 188 | 6 |
| Jak Lever | Berlin | 243 | 248 | 5 |
| J Battle | Cape Town | 232 | 237 | 5 |
| J Noble | London | 183 | 188 | 5 |
| D Parish | Buenos Aires | 375 | 380 | 5 |
| J Crisp | Moscow | 507 | 512 | 5 |
| B Daniels | Christchurch | 215 | 220 | 5 |
| S Weideman | Toronto | 170 | 175 | 5 |
| B Paton | Mexico City | 194 | 199 | 5 |
| B Crocker | Cairo | 122 | 127 | 5 |
| A Phillips | Rio de Janeiro | 211 | 216 | 5 |
| L Dunstan | New York | 339 | 344 | 5 |
| L Schultz | Dublin | 138 | 143 | 5 |
| G Miers | Cape Town | 242 | 247 | 5 |
| E Hughes | Tokyo | 232 | 237 | 5 |
| J Aish | Beijing | 234 | 239 | 5 |
| L Melican | Mexico City | 167 | 172 | 5 |
| J Hopper | Buenos Aires | 409 | 413 | 4 |
| T Williamson | Mexico City | 138 | 142 | 4 |
| I Quaynor | Berlin | 156 | 160 | 4 |
| B Scott | Seoul | 159 | 163 | 4 |
| P Ryder | Toronto | 322 | 326 | 4 |
| J Henry | Christchurch | 234 | 238 | 4 |
| D Grimes | London | 284 | 288 | 4 |
| T Doedee | New York | 294 | 298 | 4 |
| D McStay | London | 222 | 226 | 4 |
| G Logue | Cape Town | 172 | 176 | 4 |
| N Vlastuin | Cairo | 435 | 439 | 4 |
| D Hannebery | Toronto | 203 | 207 | 4 |
| D Mackay | New Delhi | 219 | 223 | 4 |
| Jo Dawson | New Delhi | 321 | 325 | 4 |
| B Starcevich | Dublin | 138 | 141 | 3 |
| J Caldwell | Cairo | 148 | 151 | 3 |
| C Ballard | PNL | 207 | 210 | 3 |
| H Morrison | New Delhi | 205 | 208 | 3 |
| SJ Reid | Rio de Janeiro | 200 | 203 | 3 |
| J Sicily | Mexico City | 490 | 493 | 3 |
| M Taberner | Pacific | 241 | 244 | 3 |
| N Hind | London | 163 | 166 | 3 |
| C Zurhaar | Christchurch | 221 | 224 | 3 |
| N Blakey | Moscow | 182 | 185 | 3 |
| K Langford | New York | 310 | 313 | 3 |
| R Lester | Berlin | 220 | 223 | 3 |
| Z Cordy | Christchurch | 213 | 216 | 3 |
| J Wagner | New York | 167 | 170 | 3 |
| B Cunnington | Cape Town | 472 | 475 | 3 |
| K Turner | Tokyo | 198 | 201 | 3 |
| T Duryea | Mexico City | 208 | 211 | 3 |
| D Byrne-Jones | New York | 375 | 378 | 3 |
| D Kent | Cape Town | 211 | 214 | 3 |
| Lew Jetta | London | 228 | 231 | 3 |
| J Dunkley | Tokyo | 572 | 575 | 3 |
| E Phillips | Beijing | 159 | 161 | 2 |
| M Williams | PNL | 230 | 232 | 2 |
| T Greene | Dublin | 337 | 339 | 2 |
| E Richards | Christchurch | 214 | 216 | 2 |
| D Fogarty | Seoul | 141 | 143 | 2 |
| J Rotham | New York | 159 | 161 | 2 |
| M Duncan | Cape Town | 674 | 676 | 2 |
| I Hill | Tokyo | 141 | 143 | 2 |
| I Soldo | Cape Town | 235 | 237 | 2 |
| B Ham | Tokyo | 114 | 116 | 2 |
| M Chol | Cape Town | 160 | 162 | 2 |
| J Castagna | Cairo | 257 | 259 | 2 |
| JJ Kennedy | New Delhi | 233 | 235 | 2 |
| E Vickers-Willis | Moscow | 145 | 147 | 2 |
| C Glass | Buenos Aires | 121 | 123 | 2 |
| N Brown | Christchurch | 133 | 135 | 2 |
| J Parsons | Rio de Janeiro | 142 | 144 | 2 |
| W Rioli | New York | 211 | 213 | 2 |
| T Duman | Toronto | 223 | 225 | 2 |
| E Himmelberg | New York | 160 | 162 | 2 |
| L McCarthy | Cairo | 230 | 231 | 1 |
| J Hately | Mexico City | 156 | 157 | 1 |
| L Weller | Seoul | 370 | 371 | 1 |
| J Ceglar | Seoul | 267 | 268 | 1 |
| J Worpel | Mexico City | 383 | 384 | 1 |
| H Andrews | Cape Town | 397 | 398 | 1 |
| R Wills | Toronto | 179 | 180 | 1 |
| CL Brown | Moscow | 223 | 224 | 1 |
| J Lockhart | Berlin | 148 | 149 | 1 |
| H Taylor | Berlin | 208 | 209 | 1 |
| Q Narkle | Cape Town | 173 | 174 | 1 |
| D Rioli | Beijing | 202 | 203 | 1 |
| D Clarke | New Delhi | 163 | 164 | 1 |
| A Treloar | Moscow | 580 | 581 | 1 |
| J O'Meara | Toronto | 453 | 454 | 1 |
| T Colyer | Cairo | 153 | 154 | 1 |
| J Kolodjashnij | Pacific | 221 | 222 | 1 |
| J Gresham | New York | 379 | 380 | 1 |
| P Seedsman | PNL | 296 | 297 | 1 |
| O McDonald | Moscow | 180 | 181 | 1 |
| K Brand | London | 144 | 145 | 1 |
| F Appleby | Berlin | 118 | 119 | 1 |
| Pe Wright | Pacific | 190 | 191 | 1 |
| J Hombsch | Moscow | 161 | 162 | 1 |
| A Pearce | Moscow | 160 | 161 | 1 |
| Ja Watts | New York | 184 | 185 | 1 |
| L Whitfield | Tokyo | 605 | 606 | 1 |
| J Sinclair | Moscow | 317 | 318 | 1 |
| J Marsh | Mexico City | 121 | 122 | 1 |
| L Jones | Moscow | 259 | 260 | 1 |
| S Powell-Pepper | Berlin | 326 | 327 | 1 |
| D Mundy | Berlin | 430 | 431 | 1 |
| H Crozier | PNL | 328 | 328 | 0 |
| J McGovern | Cairo | 411 | 411 | 0 |
| Mic Hibberd | Toronto | 255 | 255 | 0 |
| S Docherty | Moscow | 266 | 266 | 0 |
| C Serong | Buenos Aires | 194 | 194 | 0 |
| N Anderson | New Delhi | 191 | 191 | 0 |
| J Aarts | New York | 149 | 149 | 0 |
| S McAdam | Cape Town | 159 | 159 | 0 |
| M King | Beijing | 150 | 150 | 0 |
| L Ash | Buenos Aires | 144 | 144 | 0 |
| L Vandermeer | New Delhi | 125 | 125 | 0 |
| M Pickett | Toronto | 185 | 185 | 0 |
| C Budarick | Buenos Aires | 120 | 120 | 0 |
| K Pickett | Mexico City | 110 | 110 | 0 |
| J Mahony | Dublin | 118 | 118 | 0 |
| F McAsey | Beijing | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| L Shuey | Cape Town | 489 | 489 | 0 |
| R Conca | Rio de Janeiro | 270 | 270 | 0 |
| J Carlisle | Cape Town | 256 | 256 | 0 |
| A McDonald-Tipungwuti | Tokyo | 318 | 318 | 0 |
| J Stephenson | Cape Town | 264 | 264 | 0 |
| Da Tucker | New Delhi | 254 | 254 | 0 |
| C Spargo | London | 159 | 159 | 0 |
| B Sier | New Delhi | 181 | 181 | 0 |
| J Petruccelle | London | 134 | 134 | 0 |
| Z Guthrie | Cape Town | 101 | 101 | 0 |
| J Begley | Moscow | 117 | 117 | 0 |
| D Roberton | Cairo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| Z Smith | Pacific | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| L Greenwood | Rio de Janeiro | 176 | 176 | 0 |
| M Hartley | Buenos Aires | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Garner | Cape Town | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| M Hore | London | 178 | 178 | 0 |
| W Drew | London | 175 | 175 | 0 |
| S Naismith | PNL | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Broomhead | New Delhi | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| Le Young | Christchurch | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| C Ellis | Cairo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Allison | Pacific | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| C Wagner | Rio de Janeiro | 135 | 135 | 0 |
| N Cockatoo | New Delhi | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Schoenfeld | London | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| C Burgess | Tokyo | 121 | 121 | 0 |
| C Cox | Cape Town | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| CM Brown | Beijing | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| R Abbott | New York | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| C Constable | Mexico City | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| L Austin | New York | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| K Brooksby | Buenos Aires | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| P Naish | Moscow | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| D Fort | New York | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| R West | Seoul | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| C Jiath | PNL | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| F Watson | Beijing | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Campbell | Dublin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| M Hinge | New Delhi | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| S Skinner | Toronto | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| Der Smith | Seoul | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| C Coleman-Jones | Beijing | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| Ja Dawson | New Delhi | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| K Chandler | Seoul | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| D Minchington | Cairo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| C Graham | Seoul | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| B Zerk-Thatcher | Tokyo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| C Moore | Mexico City | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| Dy Moore | Moscow | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| Br Ainsworth | Moscow | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| D Langlands | Christchurch | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Stein | Buenos Aires | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| R Garthwaite | Moscow | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Atley | Buenos Aires | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| H Bennell | Buenos Aires | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| B Lynch | Toronto | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Garner | Christchurch | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| W Buzza | Cape Town | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| L Stocker | Christchurch | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| I Cumming | Rio de Janeiro | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Sparrow | Cairo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| K Dunkley | Cairo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| Ar Smith | New Delhi | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| La Young | London | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Jones | New York | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| W Frampton | Tokyo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| O Markov | Cairo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| P Wilson | Beijing | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| F Greene | Toronto | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Heron | Buenos Aires | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| M Eagles | #N/A | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| K Mutch | PNL | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| W Walker | Dublin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| S Simpson | New Delhi | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Murphy | Christchurch | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T De Koning | Rio de Janeiro | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| D Joyce | Dublin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| N Murphy | Pacific | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| H Macreadie | Dublin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| C Polson | Buenos Aires | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| C Idun | Pacific | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Carter | London | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| H Goddard | PNL | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| R Gardner | Berlin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| K Hayden | Beijing | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| Jam Bell | Toronto | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| Z Sproule | Berlin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| D Cameron | PNL | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| R Stoddart | Seoul | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| N Shipley | New Delhi | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| B Davis | Berlin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J McInerney | Toronto | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| C Porter | Beijing | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| Jackson Ross | Beijing | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| S Alabakis | Beijing | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| A Bradtke | Berlin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| Harrison Jones | Toronto | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Maibaum | Berlin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| L Foley | Berlin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Butts | Seoul | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| M Owies | Buenos Aires | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| N Kreuger | Buenos Aires | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| N Gown | Dublin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| B Khamis | Cairo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Kennerley | Cairo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| M Walker | Cairo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| M Flynn | Cairo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Joyce | Cairo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| B Schlensog | Cape Town | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| C Ballenden | Cape Town | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Madden | Tokyo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| W Hamill | Cape Town | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| Z Foot | Cape Town | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| A Bosenavulagi | Toronto | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| C McFadyen | Seoul | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| E Smith | Christchurch | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Payne | Christchurch | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| K Briggs | Christchurch | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Brown | Christchurch | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| B Miller | Dublin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| B Silvagni | Dublin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| E McHenry | Dublin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| F O'Dwyer | Dublin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Koschitzke | Dublin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Xerri | Dublin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| H Brayshaw | London | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Bytel | London | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Sweet | London | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Berry | London | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Cox | New York | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| X O'Neill | London | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| B Cavarra | Mexico City | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Tarca | Beijing | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| R Collier-Dawkins | Mexico City | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| M Keane | Pacific | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| S Draper | Moscow | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| S Sturt | Moscow | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Fullarton | Moscow | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| H Edwards | Pacific | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Wooller | New Delhi | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| A Nietschke | New York | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| B Jarvis | New York | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| F Turner | Cairo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| H Reynolds | New York | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| H Dixon | New York | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| I Rankine | New York | 185 | 185 | 0 |
| Ma Frederick | Tokyo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| O Brownless | New York | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| D O'Reilly | Pacific | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Mayo | Beijing | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| L Hosie | Dublin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| M Cottrell | Tokyo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| M Knoll | Rio de Janeiro | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| M Riordan | Beijing | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| N Reeves | Dublin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| S Fletcher | Beijing | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| A McPherson | Pacific | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| BJ Williams | Pacific | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| L Meek | Pacific | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| L Valente | Pacific | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Amartey | PNL | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Crocker | PNL | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| L English | PNL | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| M Lynch | PNL | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Jordon | Rio de Janeiro | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| S Hayes | Rio de Janeiro | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| W Kelly | Rio de Janeiro | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| A Tohill | Seoul | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| I Mosquito | Seoul | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J McLennan | Seoul | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| K Strachan | Buenos Aires | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| O Clavarino | Seoul | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Bedford | Seoul | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Patmore | Tokyo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| M Ling | Tokyo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| S Okunbor | Tokyo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T North | Tokyo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| W Golds | Tokyo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| X O'Halloran | Tokyo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| B Woodcock | Toronto | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| C Lyons | Toronto | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| D Greaves | Toronto | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Buckley | Toronto | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| L Sholl | Toronto | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| R Grundy | Buenos Aires | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| S Wicks | Toronto | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Watson | Toronto | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Riccardi | Seoul | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Rivers | Cape Town | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| W Day | Rio de Janeiro | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| H Schoenberg | Christchurch | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| B Close | Rio de Janeiro | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| M Georgiades | Mexico City | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Ruscoe | New York | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| S Flanders | Mexico City | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| L Henry | Seoul | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| N Reid | #N/A | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| Mit Hibberd | PNL | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| D Stephens | New Delhi | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| Mi Frederick | Dublin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| A Treacy | London | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| A Taylor | #N/A | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| B O'Connor | Dublin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| B Johnson | London | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| B Nyuon | Mexico City | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| B Rowles | Moscow | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| B Smith | Cape Town | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| B Kemp | Buenos Aires | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| C Jamieson | Pacific | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| C Taheny | Tokyo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| C Warner | Cape Town | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| C Comben | Toronto | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| C McBride | Buenos Aires | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| C Weightman | Dublin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| C Stephens | Pacific | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| D Robertson | Christchurch | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| D Williams | Tokyo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| E Taylor | Tokyo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| E Jeka | Pacific | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| F Maginness | New Delhi | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| F Perez | Mexico City | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| H Pepper | Moscow | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| Harry Jones | New York | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| H Young | Mexico City | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| H Crauford | #N/A | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| H Ralphsmith | Mexico City | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| I Butters | Beijing | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| Jac Bell | Dublin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Mead | Christchurch | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Pasini | Cairo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Prior | Beijing | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Sharp | Buenos Aires | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Honey | Moscow | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Morris | Toronto | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Worrell | Cairo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Farrar | Beijing | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| K Coleman | London | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| L Gollant | New York | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| L Johnson | New Delhi | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| F Evans | Berlin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| L Thomas | New Delhi | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| L Connolly | Toronto | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| L Butler | New York | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| F Phillips | PNL | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| L Jackson | Seoul | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| L Towey | New Delhi | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| M Rosas | New York | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| M Conroy | Pacific | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| Ch Cameron | Tokyo | 346 | 345 | -1 |
| B Acres | Moscow | 281 | 280 | -1 |
| L Parker | Buenos Aires | 650 | 648 | -2 |
| B Preuss | Berlin | 157 | 155 | -2 |
| C Jones | Mexico City | 129 | 127 | -2 |
| J Johannisen | Tokyo | 389 | 387 | -2 |
| Tr McKenzie | New Delhi | 187 | 185 | -2 |
| J Elliott | Seoul | 210 | 208 | -2 |
| D Martin | Dublin | 573 | 571 | -2 |
| G Birchall | Dublin | 161 | 159 | -2 |
| Jack Ross | Pacific | 147 | 145 | -2 |
| T Cotchin | Christchurch | 344 | 342 | -2 |
| X Duursma | New York | 235 | 233 | -2 |
| B Mihocek | Tokyo | 282 | 280 | -2 |
| M Hannan | Mexico City | 158 | 156 | -2 |
| D Gardiner | London | 282 | 280 | -2 |
| I Heeney | Toronto | 480 | 478 | -2 |
| G Hewett | Moscow | 351 | 349 | -2 |
| M Scharenberg | Moscow | 225 | 223 | -2 |
| B Banfield | Moscow | 188 | 186 | -2 |
| L Dunn | Berlin | 135 | 133 | -2 |
| G Horlin-Smith | Mexico City | 124 | 122 | -2 |
| S Savage | PNL | 346 | 344 | -2 |
| J Hamling | Rio de Janeiro | 232 | 230 | -2 |
| A Rance | Berlin | 225 | 223 | -2 |
| R Laird | Pacific | 594 | 592 | -2 |
| R Gray | PNL | 432 | 430 | -2 |
| N Wilson | Seoul | 309 | 307 | -2 |
| D Rich | Rio de Janeiro | 403 | 401 | -2 |
| A Sexton | New Delhi | 235 | 232 | -3 |
| O Baker | Rio de Janeiro | 111 | 108 | -3 |
| S Day | Pacific | 202 | 199 | -3 |
| S Frost | Berlin | 221 | 218 | -3 |
| Ja Hunt | Buenos Aires | 172 | 169 | -3 |
| R Lobb | Cairo | 334 | 331 | -3 |
| H Cunningham | Tokyo | 285 | 282 | -3 |
| M McGovern | Pacific | 185 | 182 | -3 |
| Jos Kelly | Seoul | 561 | 558 | -3 |
| S Mumford | Cairo | 211 | 208 | -3 |
| L Henderson | New York | 186 | 183 | -3 |
| J Laverde | PNL | 173 | 170 | -3 |
| T Varcoe | Berlin | 180 | 177 | -3 |
| S Durdin | Dublin | 120 | 117 | -3 |
| Shan Edwards | Cairo | 333 | 330 | -3 |
| B Ronke | Buenos Aires | 178 | 175 | -3 |
| Jacks Trengove | Christchurch | 220 | 217 | -3 |
| D McKenzie | Cairo | 175 | 172 | -3 |
| J Murdoch | Mexico City | 208 | 205 | -3 |
| K Kolodjashnij | Moscow | 145 | 142 | -3 |
| C Curnow | Seoul | 254 | 251 | -3 |
| N Answerth | New Delhi | 172 | 169 | -3 |
| T Taranto | Rio de Janeiro | 493 | 489 | -4 |
| W Snelling | Cairo | 199 | 195 | -4 |
| S Higgins | Cape Town | 481 | 477 | -4 |
| J Pittard | Cape Town | 288 | 284 | -4 |
| J Walker | Rio de Janeiro | 239 | 235 | -4 |
| J Townsend | Cairo | 130 | 126 | -4 |
| E Betts | New York | 213 | 209 | -4 |
| N Holman | Tokyo | 244 | 240 | -4 |
| D Lloyd | Berlin | 204 | 200 | -4 |
| J Clark | Mexico City | 161 | 157 | -4 |
| D Lang | Cape Town | 146 | 142 | -4 |
| J Schache | PNL | 158 | 154 | -4 |
| J Webster | Buenos Aires | 253 | 249 | -4 |
| L Brown | Rio de Janeiro | 270 | 266 | -4 |
| W Hayes | Berlin | 131 | 126 | -5 |
| M Hurley | Pacific | 383 | 378 | -5 |
| T Clurey | Christchurch | 267 | 262 | -5 |
| H Himmelberg | Pacific | 330 | 325 | -5 |
| J Polec | London | 462 | 457 | -5 |
| B Ah Chee | Christchurch | 167 | 162 | -5 |
| B Dale | Rio de Janeiro | 187 | 182 | -5 |
| O Hanrahan | Cairo | 124 | 119 | -5 |
| Z Tuohy | Seoul | 301 | 296 | -5 |
| T Thomas | Rio de Janeiro | 181 | 176 | -5 |
| M Parker | Moscow | 137 | 132 | -5 |
| W Schofield | Rio de Janeiro | 118 | 113 | -5 |
| T Dickson | London | 143 | 138 | -5 |
| D Beams | Cairo | 353 | 348 | -5 |
| A Vandenberg | Berlin | 141 | 136 | -5 |
| C Sutcliffe | Christchurch | 121 | 116 | -5 |
| R Burton | Toronto | 255 | 249 | -6 |
| J Darling | Toronto | 425 | 419 | -6 |
| K Lambert | Beijing | 410 | 404 | -6 |
| T Kelly | Toronto | 564 | 558 | -6 |
| M Cox | Beijing | 198 | 192 | -6 |
| R Bonner | Buenos Aires | 236 | 230 | -6 |
| C Nash | London | 137 | 131 | -6 |
| J Silvagni | Mexico City | 175 | 169 | -6 |
| L Franklin | Berlin | 274 | 268 | -6 |
| M McGuinness | Cairo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| M Rowell | Seoul | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Pina | Berlin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| M Bergman | Moscow | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| M O'Neill | Christchurch | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| J Rantall | PNL | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| N Cahill | New York | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| N Bryan | Seoul | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| N Cumberland | Moscow | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| P Murtagh | New York | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| R Garcia | Cairo | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| R O'Connor | New York | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| R McQuillan | Buenos Aires | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| R Byrnes | Christchurch | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| S De Koning | London | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| S Philp | Rio de Janeiro | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Hutchesson | Cape Town | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Dow | Moscow | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Green | Buenos Aires | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Hird | #N/A | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Wilson | Seoul | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Bianco | Pacific | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| T Burgoyne | Cape Town | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| S Ramsay | Berlin | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| W Gould | Pacific | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| W Martyn | Pacific | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| H Petty | Berlin | 123 | 123 | 0 |
| C McCarthy | Christchurch | 161 | 161 | 0 |
| M Buntine | PNL | 133 | 133 | 0 |
| S Giro | Berlin | 116 | 116 | 0 |
| J Joyce | Buenos Aires | 194 | 194 | 0 |
| D Venables | Cape Town | 125 | 125 | 0 |
| W Milera | Toronto | 285 | 285 | 0 |
| R Thompson | Buenos Aires | 126 | 126 | 0 |
| T Langdon | Christchurch | 232 | 232 | 0 |
| D Tyson | Rio de Janeiro | 198 | 198 | 0 |
| B Jacobs | Rio de Janeiro | 209 | 209 | 0 |
| T Stengle | Beijing | 148 | 148 | 0 |
| S Darcy | Christchurch | 233 | 233 | 0 |
| C Wingard | Buenos Aires | 389 | 389 | 0 |
| J Lonie | PNL | 210 | 210 | 0 |
| W Hayward | Buenos Aires | 220 | 220 | 0 |
| R Smith | Berlin | 125 | 125 | 0 |
| S Petrevski-Seton | Moscow | 343 | 343 | 0 |
| D Zorko | Beijing | 569 | 569 | 0 |
| A Naughton | Mexico City | 245 | 244 | -1 |
| H Hartlett | Rio de Janeiro | 255 | 254 | -1 |
| A Hall | Mexico City | 235 | 234 | -1 |
| D Cuningham | London | 173 | 172 | -1 |
| C Salem | Seoul | 409 | 408 | -1 |
| D Talia | Buenos Aires | 276 | 275 | -1 |
| H McLean | Rio de Janeiro | 142 | 141 | -1 |
| J Macrae | Toronto | 866 | 865 | -1 |
| E Curnow | Seoul | 524 | 523 | -1 |
| A Bonar | Buenos Aires | 123 | 122 | -1 |
| C Mayne | Cape Town | 267 | 266 | -1 |
| D Prestia | Toronto | 393 | 392 | -1 |
| Bra Ebert | Cape Town | 324 | 323 | -1 |
| J De Goey | Moscow | 344 | 343 | -1 |
| E Wood | Christchurch | 191 | 190 | -1 |
| A Miles | Mexico City | 235 | 234 | -1 |
| S Switkowski | New Delhi | 177 | 176 | -1 |
| P Ambrose | Christchurch | 148 | 147 | -1 |
| N Vardy | Mexico City | 148 | 147 | -1 |
| L O'Brien | Buenos Aires | 147 | 146 | -1 |
| C Marchbank | Seoul | 191 | 190 | -1 |
| J Gallucci | Rio de Janeiro | 155 | 154 | -1 |
| A Christensen | Dublin | 244 | 243 | -1 |
| L Plowman | Tokyo | 261 | 260 | -1 |
| M Guelfi | Tokyo | 199 | 198 | -1 |
| L Casboult | Moscow | 263 | 262 | -1 |
| J Jenkins | Pacific | 247 | 246 | -1 |
| T Atkins | Toronto | 175 | 169 | -6 |
| D Howard | PNL | 282 | 276 | -6 |
| T O'Brien | Pacific | 206 | 200 | -6 |
| T Scully | Christchurch | 199 | 193 | -6 |
| L Dahlhaus | New York | 334 | 328 | -6 |
| C Rozee | Moscow | 267 | 261 | -6 |
| C Hooker | Berlin | 279 | 272 | -7 |
| Br Smith | Berlin | 335 | 328 | -7 |
| M Gleeson | Tokyo | 173 | 166 | -7 |
| B Hardwick | London | 312 | 305 | -7 |
| TJ Lynch | Cairo | 294 | 287 | -7 |
| M Redman | Moscow | 212 | 205 | -7 |
| Jo Roughead | Buenos Aires | 228 | 221 | -7 |
| J Frawley | Cairo | 199 | 192 | -7 |
| M Kreuzer | Rio de Janeiro | 284 | 277 | -7 |
| S Hill | New Delhi | 182 | 175 | -7 |
| H McKay | Christchurch | 221 | 214 | -7 |
| N Fyfe | Rio de Janeiro | 662 | 654 | -8 |
| Ad Kennedy | Mexico City | 216 | 208 | -8 |
| M Murphy | Seoul | 359 | 351 | -8 |
| T Walker | Beijing | 235 | 227 | -8 |
| C O'Riordan | Dublin | 162 | 154 | -8 |
| A Francis | Rio de Janeiro | 201 | 193 | -8 |
| I Smith | Tokyo | 327 | 319 | -8 |
| B Reid | Christchurch | 145 | 137 | -8 |
| P Puopolo | Mexico City | 201 | 193 | -8 |
| R Knight | New Delhi | 175 | 167 | -8 |
| W Brodie | PNL | 192 | 184 | -8 |
| A Gaff | Pacific | 655 | 646 | -9 |
| Joe Smith | Berlin | 118 | 109 | -9 |
| D Howe | Beijing | 237 | 228 | -9 |
| JP Kennedy | Dublin | 492 | 483 | -9 |
| N Larkey | Toronto | 162 | 153 | -9 |
| P Hanley | New York | 195 | 186 | -9 |
| W Hoskin-Elliott | Berlin | 270 | 261 | -9 |
| J Lienert | Berlin | 201 | 192 | -9 |
| Ja Cameron | PNL | 109 | 100 | -9 |
| B Matera | Christchurch | 211 | 202 | -9 |
My views... I actually don't mind.
| WXV Club | Proposed | Over Cap | Under Cap | Current | Over Cap | Under Cap |
| Beijing Thunder | $11,054,000 | $154,000 | | $11,030,000 | $130,000 | |
| Berlin Brewers | $10,187,000 | | | $10,271,000 | | |
| Buenos Aires Armadillos | $10,017,000 | | | $9,866,000 | | |
| Cairo Sands | $10,132,000 | | | $10,223,000 | | |
| Cape Town Cobras | $10,800,000 | | | $10,704,000 | | |
| Christchurch Saints | $8,570,000 | | $130,000 | $8,582,000 | | $118,000 |
| Dublin Destroyers | $10,480,000 | | | $10,521,000 | | |
| London Royals | $9,940,000 | | | $9,845,000 | | |
| Mexico City Suns | $9,958,000 | | | $9,897,000 | | |
| Moscow Spetsnaz | $10,660,000 | | | $10,645,000 | | |
| New Delhi Tigers | $9,460,000 | | | $9,466,000 | | |
| New York Revolution | $9,675,000 | | | $9,659,000 | | |
| Pacific Islanders | $10,952,000 | $52,000 | | $10,957,000 | $57,000 | |
| PNL Reindeers | $10,611,000 | | | $10,511,000 | | |
| Rio de Janeiro Jaguars | $10,687,000 | | | $10,769,000 | | |
| Seoul Magpies | $10,814,000 | | | $10,735,000 | | |
| Tokyo Samurai | $11,051,000 | $151,000 | | $11,041,000 | $141,000 | |
| Toronto Wolves | $10,551,000 | | | $10,610,000 | | |
| No Club | $500,000 | | | $500,000 | | |
| METRICS | | | | | | |
| AVERAGE PER PLAYER | 225,029.02 | | | 224,706.17 | | |
| PLAYERS | 827 | | | 827 | | |
| AVERAGE LIST SIZE | 45.94 | | | 45.94 | | |
| AVERAGE SALARY | $10,337,833 | | | $10,323,001 | | |
| MAX | $10,900,000 | | | $10,900,000 | | |
| MIN | $8,700,000 | | | $8,700,000 |
The average salary is about the same. Min and Max caps are the same.
And players such as Petracca and Simpkin are priced more, given their recent form. Which makes sense, because they'd be worth a lot more because of their recent form.
Conversely, Stefan Martin, Ben Brown and Tom McDonald are worth less, because... well... in TMac;s case... you all know I feel about that.
I would be for this change.
Gets my vote too
The fact that it doesn't really make any glaring impact on each teams overall cap, but does put more weighting onto each individual player and their most recent form, makes complete sense to me
One thing to flag with you all in this upcoming trade/draft/list management season...
AFL lists are forecasted to reduce in size. This will have implications on how many draft picks you will be allocated, and also the min/max salary caps.
Hopefully the AFL will announce what the go is soon. But, my intention is to calculate the average salary per CURRENTLY LISTED AFL PLAYER, multiply that by the average AFL list size, to give us our average cap (and thus min/max).
I recall a suggestion meow had a year or two ago, which I rejected, but will seemingly be in force under the above approach.
He suggested that the cap calculations should not account for retired players (i.e. inactive AFL players). I led the 'rejection' vote claiming it was both too subject to change per-day, thus requiring multiple recalculations, and also, because I felt the current calculations show what the cap should be after a complete season, and therefore, no teams should be managing their teams either above or below the cap applied to a 'full' and 'active' list.
So, to clarify, this means:
- There'll at least be 1 less round in the national and rookie drafts, potentially more. This means you cannot trade 5th round national draft picks, or 4th round rookie draft picks.
- The min/max caps will be subject to change, until a certain point in time (this will become clear when the AFL actually makes a decision on whats happening).
So be prepared.
11 votes in
The following options have received 10 or more votes, and have thus decided the rule outcome
4. 'Default' WXV team submission (assuming the release of AFL team submission returns to normal next year)
A) Keep as is - best XV + 3 emergencies
B) Extra emergency - best XV + 4 emergencies
7. Salary cap modification
Please see this summary (salaries accurate as at the end of AFL Round 16)
A) Keep as is
B) Introduce an increased weighting to most recent year performance
So gone are the days of naming 3 emergencies, and we have now modified our cap slightly :)
13 votes in... another vote decided (option received at least 10 votes)
3. Minimum HGA
A) Keep as is - HGA score is the lowest scoring player
B) HGA score is the lowest scoring player, or 30, whichever is the highest
And with vote 14, another option has received the 10 required votes:
5. Rolling Lockouts (this is only in the context of rounds that require additional submission allowances i.e. for rounds where the default submission format is insufficient)
A) Continue to allow as necessary
B) Discontinue entirely and replace with 'best XV + 8 emergencies' submissions
Rolling lockouts now ded.
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 20, 2020, 05:43:47 PM
And with vote 14, another option has received the 10 required votes:
5. Rolling Lockouts (this is only in the context of rounds that require additional submission allowances i.e. for rounds where the default submission format is insufficient)
A) Continue to allow as necessary
B) Discontinue entirely and replace with 'best XV + 8 emergencies' submissions
Rolling lockouts now ded.
This makes the resting and team format votes irrelevant now i assume?
Quote from: GoLions on September 20, 2020, 10:32:01 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 20, 2020, 05:43:47 PM
And with vote 14, another option has received the 10 required votes:
5. Rolling Lockouts (this is only in the context of rounds that require additional submission allowances i.e. for rounds where the default submission format is insufficient)
A) Continue to allow as necessary
B) Discontinue entirely and replace with 'best XV + 8 emergencies' submissions
Rolling lockouts now ded.
This makes the resting and team format votes irrelevant now i assume?
Partial lockouts would still be there i believe. Rolling lockouts to me where the ones over multiple games.
Quote from: GoLions on September 20, 2020, 10:32:01 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 20, 2020, 05:43:47 PM
And with vote 14, another option has received the 10 required votes:
5. Rolling Lockouts (this is only in the context of rounds that require additional submission allowances i.e. for rounds where the default submission format is insufficient)
A) Continue to allow as necessary
B) Discontinue entirely and replace with 'best XV + 8 emergencies' submissions
Rolling lockouts now ded.
This makes the resting and team format votes irrelevant now i assume?
Huh! Good question.
The only instance a partial lockout would apply is when an AFL round spans over Thursday to Sunday, and that the weekend team information is released Friday night before the full lockout.
If the team format vote gets up, this partial lockout would be important, should you decide to change the team format with the benefit of the weekends teams being known. Likewise resting I suppose.
Mexico City, Tokyo and Rio votes yet to be received
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 21, 2020, 09:04:59 PM
Mexico City, Tokyo and Rio votes yet to be received
I sent mine through two days ago?
Quote from: PowerBug on September 21, 2020, 11:24:57 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 21, 2020, 09:04:59 PM
Mexico City, Tokyo and Rio votes yet to be received
I sent mine through two days ago?
Caretaker votes not allowed, we're waiting on Levi
Quote from: PowerBug on September 21, 2020, 11:24:57 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 21, 2020, 09:04:59 PM
Mexico City, Tokyo and Rio votes yet to be received
I sent mine through two days ago?
*checks*
yes you did - apologies
Alrighty, 17 votes in (remaining coach, would still like to hear your thoughts) but all votes have been decided
1. Indication of Traditional/Flood/Attack
A) Keep as is - must be nominated before the first partial lockout 7
B) Can be nominated/changed before and after partial lockouts, but before full lockout 10
2. Indication of rested player
A) Keep as is - must be nominated before the first partial lockout 10
B) Can be nominated/changed before and after partial lockouts, but before full lockout (obviously still cannot rest a player that has already played) 7
3. Minimum HGA
A) Keep as is - HGA score is the lowest scoring player 14
B) HGA score is the lowest scoring player, or 30, whichever is the highest 3
4. 'Default' WXV team submission (assuming the release of AFL team submission returns to normal next year)
A) Keep as is - best XV + 3 emergencies 1
B) Extra emergency - best XV + 4 emergencies 16
5. Rolling Lockouts (this is only in the context of rounds that require additional submission allowances i.e. for rounds where the default submission format is insufficient)
A) Continue to allow as necessary 5
B) Discontinue entirely and replace with 'best XV + 8 emergencies' submissions 12
6. Auto-correction of misstated emergencies
A) Keep as is - the admin uses teams list preferences to name missing emergencies 7
B) Discontinue - the admin no longer replaces omitted emergencies, and the team will be exempt from the '25% late inclusion' rule if otherwise eligible for the week 10
7. Salary cap modification
A) Keep as is 2
B) Introduce an increased weighting to most recent year performance 15
So we can now nominate flood/attack after partial lockouts, but before full lockouts.
However, restings must continue to be nominated before the first partial lockout
HGA will remain as the lowest scoring player in the team
The default WXV submission will have 4 emergencies
For those rounds requiring additional submission allowances, we'll use 8 emergencies rather than a rolling lockout
You lazy sods will now suffer the consequence of not naming your full set of emergencies :P
And the salary cap will be amended slightly with an increased weighting on the most recent year results.
Thanks everybody :)
Can we vote on allowing loopholing in partial lockout rounds?
Also there’s discussion on discord about flood/attack in general (and “smallâ€). Will we be voting on that?
Quote from: PowerBug on September 23, 2020, 11:53:00 AM
Can we vote on allowing loopholing in partial lockout rounds?
Also there’s discussion on discord about flood/attack in general (and “smallâ€). Will we be voting on that?
The flood/attack stuff was never mentioned on this thread, so no - the time has passed for that.
Partial lockout suggestion I guess I might entertain given it's a follow-up discussion based on a rule that just passed... but I'm inclined to not want to, given we're about to kick off the trade period.
If two more people want to discuss that, say so here and we'll do it. But I'm no longer entertaining brand new suggestions until next year.
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 23, 2020, 12:17:55 PM
Quote from: PowerBug on September 23, 2020, 11:53:00 AM
Can we vote on allowing loopholing in partial lockout rounds?
Also there’s discussion on discord about flood/attack in general (and “smallâ€). Will we be voting on that?
The flood/attack stuff was never mentioned on this thread, so no - the time has passed for that.
Partial lockout suggestion I guess I might entertain given it's a follow-up discussion based on a rule that just passed... but I'm inclined to not want to, given we're about to kick off the trade period.
If two more people want to discuss that, say so here and we'll do it. But I'm no longer entertaining brand new suggestions until next year.
I mentioned loopholing back in August in the general discussion thread before this thread was a thing :(
Will set a reminder to wait for this specific thread next year, I thought new rule ideas were still being taken :’(
Quote from: PowerBug on September 23, 2020, 12:25:16 PM
I mentioned loopholing back in August in the general discussion thread before this thread was a thing :(
Will set a reminder to wait for this specific thread next year, I thought new rule ideas were still being taken :’(
Yes - I'm not realistically monitoring discord and other threads noting down all suggestions; they had to be brought forward here.
And I did say in my PM to mention any rules you thought weren't captured in the vote BEFORE the results came out :P
Quoteif there is any new ideas you want to discuss between now and when I announce the results of this PM, I'll entertain them.
...
If you feel like I've missed one of your suggestions, please re-post it in the Rule Discussion thread
There's also this from the OP
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 03, 2020, 08:57:34 PM
We need all rule changes approved/rejected by Sunday the 20th of September (or whenever the AFL H&A season ends), which probably means I'll leave the final PM no later than say... I'll back us in for a quick response and say Saturday the 19th of September.
So this is on you :P
Can't argue with that ;D Will be more awake next year :-*
Alrighty, all votes are in.
A) Forced Democracy - keep as is - where all coaches have to vote 11
B) Optional democracy - no penalties for not voting, all votes are assumed to be a 'pass' unless told otherwise. The onus is on coaches to 'neg' a trade within a certain timeframe. 7
C) Partial dictatorship - I decide which trades I want the community to vote on (which will be most of them - the intention behind this option is to not bother coaches with 'transactional' trades like clearly fair pick swap for example). 0
Current method wins!
Stay tuned for the next vote where we review neg levels.
Alrighty!
11 votes in, and we have a result.
10 coaches voted for "Keep as is", so that's what we'll do.
Interestingly, the second preferences were split between "Hold to higher standard" and "Relax". So looks like we have the winning formula in place.
Some of you may have seen this as a waste of time.
But you're wrong!
It's a necessary reflection piece to make sure that what we're doing, is the preferred way moving forward.
Now, here's to no more votes til September/October!