Starting this for discussion and based on comments:
1) Do we revert back to a manual system for MVP or continue with UF?
Manual system to be used for MVP 12 votes
2) Rising Star do we do away with minimum 5 games required and vote on all 15 nominations one per round?
Remove Minimum games requirement 12 votes
3) Do we need a mid season draft similar to AFL? Rules around this would need to be set as well.
No 12 votes
4) Teams to be submitted in this thread or via discord.
Teams to be lodged in discord or FF 9 votes
5) Players picked in mid season draft stay on rookie draft or National Draft.
Mid season drafted players to remain in rookie draft 13 votes.
Discussion welcomed and any rules you think that should be added.
Manual MVP
Do away with the min games requirement
No MSD
Quote from: Nige on July 20, 2021, 11:05:25 PM
Manual MVP
Do away with the min games requirement
No MSD
+1 to the above.
Also, can we remove 'as UF' as a legitimate submission? Imo if we're in a keeper league, we should be obliged to submit a proper team each week.
Quote from: SilverLion on July 21, 2021, 12:23:52 AM
Quote from: Nige on July 20, 2021, 11:05:25 PM
Manual MVP
Do away with the min games requirement
No MSD
+1 to the above.
Also, can we remove 'as UF' as a legitimate submission? Imo if we're in a keeper league, we should be obliged to submit a proper team each week.
+1 to the 3 above, plus SL's additional request
I am also on board with SL's additional request
Quote from: Rusty00 on July 23, 2021, 02:32:15 PM
Quote from: SilverLion on July 21, 2021, 12:23:52 AM
Quote from: Nige on July 20, 2021, 11:05:25 PM
Manual MVP
Do away with the min games requirement
No MSD
+1 to the above.
Also, can we remove 'as UF' as a legitimate submission? Imo if we're in a keeper league, we should be obliged to submit a proper team each week.
+1 to the 3 above, plus SL's additional request
+1 to all of the above
Quote from: Urbaninfinnity on July 23, 2021, 05:14:06 PM
Quote from: Rusty00 on July 23, 2021, 02:32:15 PM
Quote from: SilverLion on July 21, 2021, 12:23:52 AM
Quote from: Nige on July 20, 2021, 11:05:25 PM
Manual MVP
Do away with the min games requirement
No MSD
+1 to the above.
Also, can we remove 'as UF' as a legitimate submission? Imo if we're in a keeper league, we should be obliged to submit a proper team each week.
+1 to the 3 above, plus SL's additional request
+1 to all of the above
+1 to all of the above
As above
Are there are spare spots in any of these leagues?
Another rule change regarding DPP Players and open for discussion.
This will require some admin work but I believe is workable:
If a player has a DPP and you want them to cover two positions in emergency need to specify in your team lodgement thread:
How I see it working when lodging teams in the thread and using Zorko as an example. You would list him in mids with DPP/F. After emergencies you would add the clause Should a forward require replacing Zorko moves to forwards and player x replaces Zorko in mids, Obviously player x would come from your squad.
Any comments drawbacks as you see it.
Quote from: Ringo on July 30, 2021, 06:41:11 PM
Another rule change regarding DPP Players and open for discussion.
This will require some admin work but I believe is workable:
If a player has a DPP and you want them to cover two positions in emergency need to specify in your team lodgement thread:
How I see it working when lodging teams in the thread and using Zorko as an example. You would list him in mids with DPP/F. After emergencies you would add the clause Should a forward require replacing Zorko moves to forwards and player x replaces Zorko in mids, Obviously player x would come from your squad.
Any comments drawbacks as you see it.
Opposed to this suggestion. If you want your DPP players to cover another line you should name them as utilities. This will unnecessarily complicate submissions IMO.
Quote from: fanTCfool on July 30, 2021, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: Ringo on July 30, 2021, 06:41:11 PM
Another rule change regarding DPP Players and open for discussion.
This will require some admin work but I believe is workable:
If a player has a DPP and you want them to cover two positions in emergency need to specify in your team lodgement thread:
How I see it working when lodging teams in the thread and using Zorko as an example. You would list him in mids with DPP/F. After emergencies you would add the clause Should a forward require replacing Zorko moves to forwards and player x replaces Zorko in mids, Obviously player x would come from your squad.
Any comments drawbacks as you see it.
Opposed to this suggestion. If you want your DPP players to cover another line you should name them as utilities. This will unnecessarily complicate submissions IMO.
Quote from: fanTCfool on July 30, 2021, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: Ringo on July 30, 2021, 06:41:11 PM
Another rule change regarding DPP Players and open for discussion.
This will require some admin work but I believe is workable:
If a player has a DPP and you want them to cover two positions in emergency need to specify in your team lodgement thread:
How I see it working when lodging teams in the thread and using Zorko as an example. You would list him in mids with DPP/F. After emergencies you would add the clause Should a forward require replacing Zorko moves to forwards and player x replaces Zorko in mids, Obviously player x would come from your squad.
Any comments drawbacks as you see it.
Opposed to this suggestion. If you want your DPP players to cover another line you should name them as utilities. This will unnecessarily complicate submissions IMO.
Using my situation this year as an example, Ive had Slyce R1 and Ladhams as the only backup so have utilised a tactical donut to allow myself to have Ladhams play fwd but cover ruck.
Do we think it's better to have a legal tactical donut or a legal submission 'clause'?
Quote from: SilverLion on July 30, 2021, 10:15:40 PM
Quote from: fanTCfool on July 30, 2021, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: Ringo on July 30, 2021, 06:41:11 PM
Another rule change regarding DPP Players and open for discussion.
This will require some admin work but I believe is workable:
If a player has a DPP and you want them to cover two positions in emergency need to specify in your team lodgement thread:
How I see it working when lodging teams in the thread and using Zorko as an example. You would list him in mids with DPP/F. After emergencies you would add the clause Should a forward require replacing Zorko moves to forwards and player x replaces Zorko in mids, Obviously player x would come from your squad.
Any comments drawbacks as you see it.
Opposed to this suggestion. If you want your DPP players to cover another line you should name them as utilities. This will unnecessarily complicate submissions IMO.
Using my situation this year as an example, Ive had Slyce R1 and Ladhams as the only backup so have utilised a tactical donut to allow myself to have Ladhams play fwd but cover ruck.
Do we think it's better to have a legal tactical donut or a legal submission 'clause'?
Naming a tactical donut isn't 'illegal' so I don't think we need to bring any rules in place about it. Even if you left it blank in your submission or named a fictional person at F4 the effect is the same. I suppose you could 'endorse' naming P. Inn at F4 as a tactical donut but I really think that adding a 'clause' or anything requiring administrative interpretation is asking for trouble in a competition where coaches can't even type out their XV week to week.
Quote from: fanTCfool on July 31, 2021, 12:07:37 AM
Quote from: SilverLion on July 30, 2021, 10:15:40 PM
Quote from: fanTCfool on July 30, 2021, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: Ringo on July 30, 2021, 06:41:11 PM
Another rule change regarding DPP Players and open for discussion.
This will require some admin work but I believe is workable:
If a player has a DPP and you want them to cover two positions in emergency need to specify in your team lodgement thread:
How I see it working when lodging teams in the thread and using Zorko as an example. You would list him in mids with DPP/F. After emergencies you would add the clause Should a forward require replacing Zorko moves to forwards and player x replaces Zorko in mids, Obviously player x would come from your squad.
Any comments drawbacks as you see it.
Opposed to this suggestion. If you want your DPP players to cover another line you should name them as utilities. This will unnecessarily complicate submissions IMO.
Using my situation this year as an example, Ive had Slyce R1 and Ladhams as the only backup so have utilised a tactical donut to allow myself to have Ladhams play fwd but cover ruck.
Do we think it's better to have a legal tactical donut or a legal submission 'clause'?
Naming a tactical donut isn't 'illegal' so I don't think we need to bring any rules in place about it. Even if you left it blank in your submission or named a fictional person at F4 the effect is the same. I suppose you could 'endorse' naming P. Inn at F4 as a tactical donut but I really think that adding a 'clause' or anything requiring administrative interpretation is asking for trouble in a competition where coaches can't even type out their XV week to week.
Hit the nail on the head, particularly with the last part.
Well, I did ask
Another rule for discussion which I am putting out there:
If a player retires after final submissions or during the season a replacement player may be picked for remaining players.
Example this year Dylan Roberton from Leeches who retired in March.
Quote from: Ringo on August 08, 2021, 08:46:52 PM
Another rule for discussion which I am putting out there:
If a player retires after final submissions or during the season a replacement player may be picked for remaining players.
Example this year Dylan Roberton from Leeches who retired in March.
Think replacing players mid season is a bit of an unfair advantage. Essentially getting an early rookie draft pick during the season.
As long as its prior to round 1, I think it's fair to get a replacement from the rookie draft pool (not including that season's SSP players) though.
Quote from: SilverLion on August 08, 2021, 09:34:39 PM
Quote from: Ringo on August 08, 2021, 08:46:52 PM
Another rule for discussion which I am putting out there:
If a player retires after final submissions or during the season a replacement player may be picked for remaining players.
Example this year Dylan Roberton from Leeches who retired in March.
Think replacing players mid season is a bit of an unfair advantage. Essentially getting an early rookie draft pick during the season.
As long as its prior to round 1, I think it's fair to get a replacement from the rookie draft pool (not including that season's SSP players) though.
Fair comment so what say we put a limit on it say up Rd 5.
Quote from: SilverLion on August 08, 2021, 09:34:39 PM
Quote from: Ringo on August 08, 2021, 08:46:52 PM
Another rule for discussion which I am putting out there:
If a player retires after final submissions or during the season a replacement player may be picked for remaining players.
Example this year Dylan Roberton from Leeches who retired in March.
Think replacing players mid season is a bit of an unfair advantage. Essentially getting an early rookie draft pick during the season.
As long as its prior to round 1, I think it's fair to get a replacement from the rookie draft pool (not including that season's SSP players) though.
Only thought of this one as I was working though matters:
With having a mid season draft do we include players taken in this draft in the National Draft or Rookie Draft?
Quote from: Ringo on August 18, 2021, 01:00:56 PM
Only thought of this one as I was working though matters:
With having a mid season draft do we include players taken in this draft in the National Draft or Rookie Draft?
As said on Discord, definitely rookie. They're rookies in the AFL, and having them there adds to the depth, quality and value of the BXVs rookie draft.
Votes for Rules 1 - 5 updated - All coaches votedm