Hey all :D
The majority has revealed itself with a resounding 'yes' (12-4) for rule discussion, so lets get stuck into it :o
ANYONE can nominate a rule change, and it will be voted on. However, be sure there is adequate explanation to validate your proposed change.
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 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 Monday the 22nd of August, which probably means I'll leave the final PM no later than August 20th.
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.
So with the above in mind, I'll leave the floor open for rule suggestions :)
1. Move mid-season draftees and pre-season SSP players into the pre-season draft (2023 onwards)
One that has come up a lot, coaches have often described the PSD has a 'rubbish' draft, and felt that moving the mid-season draftees and SSP players (selected prior to the start of the season) into the pre-season draft would make it more valuable.
Secondary to this, if the above rule gets voted in, I propose we vote to introduce it to THIS upcoming pre-season draft, however, restrict the vote to the top 9 teams only (as they stand to benefit the least).
Thoughts?
Align nomination of REST with FLOOD/ATTACK
For rounds with partial lock-out, we can nominate whether we are going Traditional, or Flooding/Attacking right up until FULL lockout, but when it comes to RESTING we can only do that up until PARTIAL lockout
I'd like to vote that we align these, and that they are either BOTH allowed up to Partial lockout, or BOTH allowed up to FULL lockout
Doesn't make sense that they have different time frames imo
Scrap priority picks to be given for lack of wins, PP to be only given in extreme cases if voted on by majority of coaches.
Also surely no rule changes to effect this years drafts
Quote from: Purple 77 on July 31, 2022, 09:02:51 PM
1. Move mid-season draftees and pre-season SSP players into the pre-season draft (2023 onwards)
One that has come up a lot, coaches have often described the PSD has a 'rubbish' draft, and felt that moving the mid-season draftees and SSP players (selected prior to the start of the season) into the pre-season draft would make it more valuable.
Secondary to this, if the above rule gets voted in, I propose we vote to introduce it to THIS upcoming pre-season draft, however, restrict the vote to the top 9 teams only (as they stand to benefit the least).
Thoughts?
I am actually in favour of the opposite of this. All players in the one singular draft. Having MSD/SSP players in the ND is one of the few differentials we have from other comps, and it adds a little bit of strategy.
Someone who might be guaranteed to go Pick 1 in the PSD could go anywhere between 10-50 in the ND, and I think that's the beauty of it. See who bites.
I would also like to see future 1st trading discussed/voted, with the caveat of needing to take 1 first round pick every 'x' years (either 2 or 3).
Allow ONE Attack/Flood for finals teams
What the part in bold says. Each finals team is given exactly one attack/flood which they can use in any week of finals if they so desire. There is no carry over from the minor rounds.
Rivalry Round
Just an idea I had - not fussed if it doesn't pass, but thought it might add some fun to the round
The only thing we need to do for this round is name VC and C/CC (To still leave an element of luck/skill in the round)
Being a rivalry, we want the best of both teams highlighted, so the entire list (44 or whatever) is at play for this round, and you get the highest scores for every line (must be traditional)
D: Top 4 def scores for the round on your list
M: Top 4 mid scores for the round on your list
R: Top ruck score for the round on your list
F: Top 4 fwd scores for the round on your list
U: Next top 2 scores
And just to clarify, it seems the 3 options we have in regards to the drafts are
1) Move MSD/SSP picks to PSD (This means Nat is just for Nat picks only, and everything else goes into PSD)
2) Combine all picks (Nat/MSD/SSP/PSD/Delisted) into 1 overall draft
3) Keep as is (Nat has Nat and MSD/SSP players plus delisted players, while PSD has the rest - rookies, leftover delisted)
Alright, let's do this one more time.
Tagging
A simple implementation for now - I see great potential here - but baby steps.
In the efforts of increasing a coaches influence on games, I propose this:
- You can nominate ONE tagger per game
- The TAGGER sacrifices his game (-50%) to limit the score of the TAGGEE (-30% or the taggee is capped at 100 points maximum, whichever results in a lower score)
- The TAGGER must be in a corresponding position:
- DEF can only tag FWD
- FWD can only tag DEF
- MID can only tag MID
- RUC can only tag RUC
- A player from the bench conforms to the above rules based on their inherit position
- If the TAGGER or TAGGEE is subbed out, or doesn't play, the tag is void
- A tag does not effect captain bonuses, or other score modifiers
For example...
Rio de Janeiro plays Berlin. Berlin only has one good player - Max Gawn. And... he plays Hawthorn, a team he normally dominates.
Rio's R1 is Tom De Koning - season average 75.
Rio opts to use TDK to TAG Max Gawn, who they expect to score say 130.
If players score to expectation... TDK goes from 75 down to 38 points (losing 37), whilst Gawn goes from 130 down to 91 (loss of 39 points).
Or maybe Gawn goes ballistic and scores 180? But wait - he's tagged - and score a max of 100 (-80 points).
But the stock example is pretty even isn't it? What's the point you may ask?
Well really, it's to get us used to the concept of being able to influence the opposition scores, as that is ultimately what I want this comp to get to. Points-boosting flood/attacks, more elaborate tags, mid-game moves... but we're not ready for that yet. We are however ready for this; a simple, easy to understand implementation which I think will add intrigue to games.
Make it 25% and you might get my vote :P
Not voting on the same rule for atleast 3 years
- Would cut down alot of the voting, which would be nice
Mid Season Trade Period.
Limited to a few moves, during the byes.
Also live pick trading during the draft.
Would need to be 1 for 1, 2 for 2 etc.. but you could include Future picks.
So Pick 14 for Pick 20 + Future 2nd as its still 1 for 1 with list sizes.
15 coaches have voted, and we have outcomes for the following trades:
1. Move mid-season draftees and pre-season SSP players into the pre-season draft (2023 onwards)
A) Keep as is (i.e. the aforementioned remain in the international draft) 10
B) Move the aforementioned players to the pre-season draft 5
2. Align nomination of REST with FLOOD/ATTACK
A) Keep as is - resting is LOCKED at 1st partial lockout; Flood/Attacks LOCKED at full lockout 4
B) Align - both restings and Flood/Attacks are LOCKED at full lockout 11
3. Revise priority pick allocation methodology
A) Keep as is (i.e. criteria is teams are awarded PPs if they win less than 4 games) 4
B) Priority picks can only be applied for and awarded via a majority-wins vote by the competition. 11
6. Adjust Rivalry Round
A) Keep as is 12
B) "Best XVs" (https://www.fanfooty.com.au/forum/index.php?topic=114557.msg2026388#msg2026388) 3
17 coaches have voted
5. Allow ONE Attack/Flood for finals teams
A) No 10
B) Yes 7
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 07, 2022, 08:32:07 PM
Alright, let's do this one more time.
Tagging
A simple implementation for now - I see great potential here - but baby steps.
Okay, I am a big big fan of tagging, and very much on board with the proposal mentioned by Purps here and I want this in the competition from next year.
To anyone who has reservations with it and is currently thinking of voting no, can you please detail why so we can iron out your issues with it and if needed alter the suggestion in a way that can get it to pass :) As was said, we should look to improve this competition in a way that allows you to have a direct impact on your opponent, and this is a good way, an easy to introduce way, to start us off.
If it ends up not working after a year we can always vote it out straight away, but PLEASE let us know of your reservations before we vote on it.
Thanks <3
ill build of Daz idea.
I like it as it provides a real tactic of playing against your opposition, rather then it mainly being used when you have injuries on one line and lack of good cover.
it should be a 10% buff if you have a extra player and a 10% nerf if you have 1 less. 20% if 2 extra.
So if NDT names 4 defenders and 4 forwards and I name 5 forwards and 3 defenders t because I think NDT defences is really strong then it would be
5 Dublin fwds v 4 NDT defenders so 10% buff to my fwds and 10% nerf to NDT defenders and vice versa.
NDT could counter by naming 5 defenders themselves so then its 5 v 5.
Or it could go to a 20% if i was playing Rio and they named 5 fwd ands and I named 5fwds
So 5 Dublin fwds v 3 Rio Defenders so thats a 20% buff to my fwd and a 20% nerf to Rio defenders and vice versa.
Neither of those posts are directly related to tagging. We can discuss Flood/Attack and whether adjustments should/could be made to them separately.
Is there anything specifically wrong with the tagging rule implementation that will cause you to vote no?
Quote from: PowerBug on August 10, 2022, 10:59:39 AM
Neither of those posts are directly related to tagging. We can discuss Flood/Attack and whether adjustments should/could be made to them separately.
Is there anything specifically wrong with the tagging rule implementation that will cause you to vote no?
My issues is why vote in a new rule
When current rule is flawed
I don’t really like all the +/- tbh
But dislike the flood/attack and rest rule
As no risk for flood/attack
If no good enough in finals shouldn’t be in regular season imo
Allow all loopholing
DPP Covering Late Outs
At the moment, we don't allow DPP players to cover late outs
Eg/ If you named a R/F in your fwd line, and your ruc was a late out, your R/F in the fwd line cannot cover the ruck, so a player from your bench comes on and is OOP ruck
Same applies for all positions - Your M1 could be a late out, and you might have a F1 with DPP who could cover, but that's not the case as is, and this could result in a different/lesser EMG coming on to replace them, as opposed to the order you have listed your E's
I simply propose that DPP players are now able to cover any late outs within the starting 15, and in turn EMG order is used
vote to remove flood/attack
atm it is 2 forms of get out of jail free card
1. to avoid a OOP penalty
2. a way ppl who have better def over fwds to flood or vice versa, surely the amount of times i see in the chat "get better depth" yet we allow this?
a few other reasons as well that make it flawed
if we all believe finals should be traditional then why can it be used in season? the other arguement usually is to align like the AFL, they don't swap it all up as soon as finals start.
for it to really be a proper tactic there should be more too it. you play a loose man in defence his going to rack up the intercept marks but in doing so you leave lance franklin as a free man? you better believe his kicking 10
so atm it is basically a get out of ja free card for poor lists
i don't have the stats but would love to see year on year usage of teams
4. Allow the trading of future first round picks
A) No (4 votes re-casted due to being in minority)
B) Yes (with caveats TBC) 13
C) Yes (no caveats) 5
(if the B+C votes form a majority, I will re-send this vote without option A)
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 12, 2022, 11:22:19 PM
DPP Covering Late Outs
At the moment, we don't allow DPP players to cover late outs
Eg/ If you named a R/F in your fwd line, and your ruc was a late out, your R/F in the fwd line cannot cover the ruck, so a player from your bench comes on and is OOP ruck
Same applies for all positions - Your M1 could be a late out, and you might have a F1 with DPP who could cover, but that's not the case as is, and this could result in a different/lesser EMG coming on to replace them, as opposed to the order you have listed your E's
I simply propose that DPP players are now able to cover any late outs within the starting 15, and in turn EMG order is used
I am in opposition to this.
The original intent of the XV was based on the premise of naming a side with 4 defenders, 4 mids, 4 forwards, 1 ruck, and they would in-substance PLAY those positions for the entire game. If you have a M/F and you name them as a FWD, your nominating them to play FWD for the whole match - not swing between FWD and MID. SuperCoach, DT and all other fantasy comps are all played on this premise.
If you have a DPP player, and want the flexibility as outlined by RD, you name them specifically as a UTILITY, because as the name implies, they are
able to play in a position of your choosing. This has been a structural feature of WXVs since day 1, and whilst I respect the suggestion, is something I would be disappointed to have altered.
Ruck OOP to be 25% penalty if using tall player.
I am proposing instead of chucking any player in as OOP ruck, you can put in a 'Tall' player to fill the role of OOP, but instead of a 50% hit
that player takes a 25% point penalty instead.
What i'd define as a tall player, as someone who either plays a key position role or just having it as someone over 195cm (Shortest player with R currently is 196cm)
I think this will stop the gross over paying for rucks each year during trade period, stop the huge gap where OOP is basically an instead
if playing someone with a healthy ruck, and actually boost the value of talls who aren't premium.
If you do not have a squad member playing that's over that height, you can still play a shorter player, but you get the full penalty.
After 15 votes, the following have been decided
10. Remove the option of proposing a rule change previously rejected in the past 3 years
A) Keep as is - propose any rule each year 13
B) Remove the ability to propose a previously rejected rule proposal from the past 3 years 2
11. Implement a mid-season trade period (during the representative bye round)
A) No 11
B) Yes 4
13. Allow all loopholing
A) No 11
B) Yes 4
15. Add score modifiers to FLOOD and ATTACKS
A) No - Keep as is 11
B) Yes 4
16. Enable DPPs to cover late outs if they are named in the starting 13 (i.e. not a utility or emergency)
A) No 11
B) Yes 4
All coaches have voted
7. Merge international draft and preseason drafts into one singular draft?
A) Keep as is (International draft has Nat and MSD/SSP players plus delisted players, while PSD has the rest - rookie drafted players, leftover delisted) 10
B) Merge into a singular draft 8
8. Caveats associated with the Trading of Future 1st Round Picks
A) Teams are permitted to trade their Future 1st Round Pick, provided they use at least one 1st round pick every 2 years 3 initially, moved onto 2nd preference
B) Teams are permitted to trade their Future 1st Round Pick, provided they use at least one 1st round pick every 3 years 9
C) Teams are permitted to trade their Future 1st Round Pick, provided they don't trade their FUTURE 1st round pick in consecutive years (i.e. this would allow teams to still trade their current 1st round pick in any given year) 9
We have a tie! Haven't had one in a while... which means the option I voted for is the one we do, because I'm the one that manages and administers it. Which means Option C wins
9. Implement the ability to Tag as explained below
A) No 10
B) Yes 8
12. Implement live pick trading during the draft
A) No 9
B) Yes 9
And another one! Again, my vote decides it... I voted Option B. Why not?
14. Remove the ability to FLOOD or ATTACK
A) No - keep as is 11
B) Yes - remove 7
Rule Suggestion:
You need to be Above min cap after the PSD draft not before the Nat.
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 07, 2022, 08:32:07 PM
Alright, let's do this one more time.
Tagging
A simple implementation for now - I see great potential here - but baby steps.
In the efforts of increasing a coaches influence on games, I propose this:
- You can nominate ONE tagger per game
- The TAGGER sacrifices his game (-50%) to limit the score of the TAGGEE (-30% or the taggee is capped at 100 points maximum, whichever results in a lower score)
- The TAGGER must be in a corresponding position:
- DEF can only tag FWD
- FWD can only tag DEF
- MID can only tag MID
- RUC can only tag RUC
- A player from the bench conforms to the above rules based on their inherit position
- If the TAGGER or TAGGEE is subbed out, or doesn't play, the tag is void
- A tag does not effect captain bonuses, or other score modifiers
For example...
Rio de Janeiro plays Berlin. Berlin only has one good player - Max Gawn. And... he plays Hawthorn, a team he normally dominates.
Rio's R1 is Tom De Koning - season average 75.
Rio opts to use TDK to TAG Max Gawn, who they expect to score say 130.
If players score to expectation... TDK goes from 75 down to 38 points (losing 37), whilst Gawn goes from 130 down to 91 (loss of 39 points).
Or maybe Gawn goes ballistic and scores 180? But wait - he's tagged - and score a max of 100 (-80 points).
But the stock example is pretty even isn't it? What's the point you may ask?
Well really, it's to get us used to the concept of being able to influence the opposition scores, as that is ultimately what I want this comp to get to. Points-boosting flood/attacks, more elaborate tags, mid-game moves... but we're not ready for that yet. We are however ready for this; a simple, easy to understand implementation which I think will add intrigue to games.
Proposal for the tag again, but with the following modifications:
- As a trial for next year, the tag will be restricted to mids tagging mids (including any mid eligible player named as a utility)
- You can only tag up to 5 times over the course of the home and away season
- You cannot tag in finals
Quote from: GoLions on August 17, 2022, 09:33:40 AM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 07, 2022, 08:32:07 PM
Alright, let's do this one more time.
Tagging
A simple implementation for now - I see great potential here - but baby steps.
In the efforts of increasing a coaches influence on games, I propose this:
- You can nominate ONE tagger per game
- The TAGGER sacrifices his game (-50%) to limit the score of the TAGGEE (-30% or the taggee is capped at 100 points maximum, whichever results in a lower score)
- The TAGGER must be in a corresponding position:
- DEF can only tag FWD
- FWD can only tag DEF
- MID can only tag MID
- RUC can only tag RUC
- A player from the bench conforms to the above rules based on their inherit position
- If the TAGGER or TAGGEE is subbed out, or doesn't play, the tag is void
- A tag does not effect captain bonuses, or other score modifiers
For example...
Rio de Janeiro plays Berlin. Berlin only has one good player - Max Gawn. And... he plays Hawthorn, a team he normally dominates.
Rio's R1 is Tom De Koning - season average 75.
Rio opts to use TDK to TAG Max Gawn, who they expect to score say 130.
If players score to expectation... TDK goes from 75 down to 38 points (losing 37), whilst Gawn goes from 130 down to 91 (loss of 39 points).
Or maybe Gawn goes ballistic and scores 180? But wait - he's tagged - and score a max of 100 (-80 points).
But the stock example is pretty even isn't it? What's the point you may ask?
Well really, it's to get us used to the concept of being able to influence the opposition scores, as that is ultimately what I want this comp to get to. Points-boosting flood/attacks, more elaborate tags, mid-game moves... but we're not ready for that yet. We are however ready for this; a simple, easy to understand implementation which I think will add intrigue to games.
Proposal for the tag again, but with the following modifications:
- As a trial for next year, the tag will be restricted to mids tagging mids (including any mid eligible player named as a utility)
- You can only tag up to 5 times over the course of the home and away season
- You cannot tag in finals
I think it should be - a team can only have tag used against it 5 times rather than a team can tag 5 times. Prevents 17 teams tagging Tuok.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2022, 10:10:02 AM
Quote from: GoLions on August 17, 2022, 09:33:40 AM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 07, 2022, 08:32:07 PM
Alright, let's do this one more time.
Tagging
A simple implementation for now - I see great potential here - but baby steps.
In the efforts of increasing a coaches influence on games, I propose this:
- You can nominate ONE tagger per game
- The TAGGER sacrifices his game (-50%) to limit the score of the TAGGEE (-30% or the taggee is capped at 100 points maximum, whichever results in a lower score)
- The TAGGER must be in a corresponding position:
- DEF can only tag FWD
- FWD can only tag DEF
- MID can only tag MID
- RUC can only tag RUC
- A player from the bench conforms to the above rules based on their inherit position
- If the TAGGER or TAGGEE is subbed out, or doesn't play, the tag is void
- A tag does not effect captain bonuses, or other score modifiers
For example...
Rio de Janeiro plays Berlin. Berlin only has one good player - Max Gawn. And... he plays Hawthorn, a team he normally dominates.
Rio's R1 is Tom De Koning - season average 75.
Rio opts to use TDK to TAG Max Gawn, who they expect to score say 130.
If players score to expectation... TDK goes from 75 down to 38 points (losing 37), whilst Gawn goes from 130 down to 91 (loss of 39 points).
Or maybe Gawn goes ballistic and scores 180? But wait - he's tagged - and score a max of 100 (-80 points).
But the stock example is pretty even isn't it? What's the point you may ask?
Well really, it's to get us used to the concept of being able to influence the opposition scores, as that is ultimately what I want this comp to get to. Points-boosting flood/attacks, more elaborate tags, mid-game moves... but we're not ready for that yet. We are however ready for this; a simple, easy to understand implementation which I think will add intrigue to games.
Proposal for the tag again, but with the following modifications:
- As a trial for next year, the tag will be restricted to mids tagging mids (including any mid eligible player named as a utility)
- You can only tag up to 5 times over the course of the home and away season
- You cannot tag in finals
I think it should be - a team can only have tag used against it 5 times rather than a team can tag 5 times. Prevents 17 teams tagging Tuok.
Yeah I was trying to think of a rule for that...perhaps you can only tag a team in your 'tier' of 6?
If we go back to Purps vision, which is what we want to align our changes down, we do want to introduce this, but in a way that gets people used to the concept, more than anything that is necessarily going to have a huge impact in its first season. We tune and tweak at the end of 2023 again once it's been run and tested in practice.
So if we ease this is with either a maximum tags applied by a team or max tags applied against a team that would be reasonable. I think in practicality we won't see anyone get targeted 17 times, especially now that we are looking to limit it to mid/mid only. It would require a poor scoring mid to be used as the tagger, which isn't as common as the dud forward or dud defender. So I would say it's fine to introduce it as maximum 5 tags applied by a team.
Edit: also remove that 100 point cap, I know it's been mentioned by Purps in discord that we won't include it but given it's still in the post I thought I'd mention it.
Now that we can trade future 1st round picks, I would like to put a vote to the following
A) Keep as is (Can trade your future 1st, but cannot do so in consecutive years)
B) No limitations (Can trade your future 1st every year)
Option B is essentially "no caveats" and I know there are several coaches who in hindsight would have voted for this instead of with caveats, and now that trading Future 1st's is part of the game, technically I can put this up for a vote now ;)
Tagging - AnalysisIntroductionThe discord is popping off way too much with a lot of straw clutching theories, analogies, and "what if" scenario. So i thought it would be good to look in the other direction and see what we can decipher from the season that has just passed.
Firstly, the admin wants to go down this direction. This is the reason why reasons were asked for voting against it, and why there will likely be a second vote on it this year, as those who are big on this rule being introduced (e.g. myself), focus on finding a happy medium which the majority will accept. There is also an expectation to increase the impact in future years as we aren't ready to jump straight in yet (as has been shown by the amount of vocal opposition to certain areas). This means the initial proposal and implementation will not be as dramatic as we would like, but it will allow us to see this rule in action before making modifications to it in the future.
What I have decided to look in to is how good/bad each teams worst midfielder is. I've looked at each matchup across the 2022 H&A season and recorded the score. This will allow us to theorize less when it comes to what is too strong, too weak, who is way too advantaged and who isn't.
Assumptions
- We will only be considering mid to mid tagging
- When people name their teams they do so in rough preference order (E.g. A mid only U1 is 'worse' than the M4)
- Teams will always want to name their strongest 15. There is no benefit to deliberately picking a crap player just to tag
- Where DPP players are deliberately used as utilities (E.g. Mitch Duncan, Adam Treloar), they are ignored for the purpose
- Where the worst named midfielder is a DNP for WXV's purposes, the field for that team/round is left blank
- Year to year the ability of SC midfielders as a whole is roughly the same
Results(https://scontent.fmel16-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/292235794_1099601460683044_6173967785187987573_n.png?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=kdvGqWppKV8AX822zXm&_nc_ht=scontent.fmel16-1.fna&oh=03_AVLDwnI9VclEoyET5TRnUMwLhAct9XpGMHYMsF_E_81lNA&oe=6323EEC8)
The average score of the worst named midfielder for each club, alongside their finishing position for 2022 (P.S. Sorry Dillos)(https://scontent.fmel16-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/293628725_621474796281872_2277657456807952961_n.png?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=n9BvW_HurhwAX8chAbH&tn=E6LXRqUDH2-aQCFi&_nc_ht=scontent.fmel16-1.fna&oh=03_AVJ56u5vDwD9Ov-Q_ucMJia0-q0tZbKiX04zeizqrJ_OIA&oe=6321439C)
The number of sub 70, sub 60 and sub 50 scores for each team(https://scontent.fmel16-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/298299146_523611966194998_2743380180863534991_n.png?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=3W5xNIuiUXsAX82i6V6&tn=E6LXRqUDH2-aQCFi&_nc_ht=scontent.fmel16-1.fna&oh=03_AVKoFbJHLO2IyNkh-6ibgVatgST8uN1WNkYNfNdqt2c6tw&oe=6320ED9D)
Scores required to breakeven on the tagDiscussionOne thing to me automatically stands out. Those are some high averages across the board. Given the proposal is a 50% reduction to the tagger, the league average of 76 would imply that the taggee scores 126 just to break even. There does appear to be some correlation between being higher on the ladder and having a higher average, this may be expected, however it is not a given. Tokyo and Cape Town not naming any weak mids, whlist a team like Pacific had a 5 game stretch where their worst mid averaged 54.4, a perfect time to tag. Also surprising that whilst Buenos Aires had a high average overall, they had 4 sub 50 scores which would prove to be very beneficial if they apply a tag in those games.
The lowest score amongst these worst mids was a 2 by Greg Clark for Dublin, a game where he got subbed on in the AFL but Dublin had no mid emergencies to take his place in WXV. The highest score was an Angus Brayshaw 176 in Round 3, before kb realised that he was going to be a gun all season, an unlikely tagger anyway. There is also a clear trend that the season average dropped as the season went on, a sign of both us as coaches being more aware of who our best and worst players are, and also injuries seeing us have to name worse players.
I don't have numbers on how high top midfielders score, but my guess is that every team has someone who is capable of hitting that 105 mark on any given week (Not necessarily the same player each week because matchups). So if we use the sub 60 tagger scores, there's
no team who would definitely find a benefit from using this more than half the season.
ProposalGiven the above, given the randomness involved with scoring (which no one seems to want to talk about, everyone seems so definite on how things play out each week), I think the best method to introducing this system, is to
allow each team 5 opportunities a season to tag an opposition midfielder of their choice. This will give everyone ample ability to see the rule in action in a way which is definitely not too strong, but if used correctly will give a benefit to teams. Then in 12 months it can be reviewed (Like we did with resting upping it from 10% to 20%) to see if it needs to have increased power or exposure.
I'm interested to hear what else people take out of the above tables as well :)
Sensational PB, I'm inclined to put that one forward.
Any further rule suggestions must be submitted by Friday 5pm AEST
Rules currently in the next vote:
- Ruck OOP to be 25% penalty if using tall player
- Being above min cap after the PSD draft not before the Nat.
- Tag Lite
- Trading future firsts
My Ruck suggestion is again one which has been brought up before (3 years ago), which I think is worthy of another mention.
We've seen rucks become less important over the course of the last 3 years, teams often running guys like Dunkley, SPP and Cripps in the ruck. So I vote that in conjunction with Flood/Attack, we add "Small", so teams can go without a ruckman and instead name a 3rd Utility. It would just form part of the current usage of 5 times per year in the H&A season, a limit barely any teams use up anyway.
Reasons to vote....
For:
- Gives ruck relief when you get cucked in a given round.
- Isn't something which changes trade value of rucks as they are still necessary in finals.
- Is somewhat realistic with teams opting to run the extra mid/runner at the expense of a ruck and they don't get penalised for it in the right circumstances, whereas doing it every week would eventually cause issues.
- Matches the relief provided for Fwds and Defs with the existing rule.
- Provides an option which is probably the most tactical of the three, there's some dodgy rucks going around but your 15th best non-ruck might be worth rolling with even when stocked with rucks.
- Our F/A limits don't get used up by a lot of teams (Need Purps to provide data on this one that's just my guess), this provides an alterative for teams to use it up.
Against:
- Doesn't change the trade value of rucks. Some people are of the opinion ruck value needs to be dropped
- You want Flood/Attack scrapped and this just adds to the 'free pass' for poor squad depth (It just got voted to stay in for another year though)
- You believe being ruckless is always worthy of a penalty due to the importance of rucks in the AFL
- Being able to name a "7th mid" (4 + 3 util) is too over powered, even if it's only 5 times a season and not in finals.
So there's thoughts that this is too overpowered as a tactical option. As usual I figured well let's look in to 2022 and see what we can take from this
Assumptions
- The highest named preference emergency subs on for the "forced" R1 selection
- If said emergency has already subbed on, the next named emergency is chosen
- If a team named more than 1 ruck or if not naming their R1 wouldn't result in them using this tactic, there is a blank space
- If the first preference emergency was a named ruckman, there is a blank space
Results(https://scontent.fmel16-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/298845299_1032050754159948_7594808458401621905_n.png?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=ZGpBMpVFJzsAX-YtBn9&_nc_ht=scontent.fmel16-1.fna&oh=03_AVKM1xuRhyZ4fajZ8KoVNe7oWhdlK-dDxXCLkXZc4FApCQ&oe=63265543)
The numbers behind this:
- There were 27 times OOP was forced, all of these result in a positive gain
- 201 opportunities where a club "could have" chosen to employ this tactic. This is just every time a team only named one ruck where the 16th player was also not a ruck
There is obviously some use to the OOP usage of this. If you wish to vote against this proposal due to it's OOP usage, that is a perfectly reasonable stance to have
(https://scontent.fmel16-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/292975667_465578618757980_3316234281384001611_n.png?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=DXnmAl6lLQMAX8zztWa&_nc_oc=AQlLTIjhs2uvxnoSlxJCcIjmsLSvOHLdD7n0PuEQQkBOUCdTKc9ranWTimgDCKSakIA&_nc_ht=scontent.fmel16-1.fna&oh=03_AVJeSbF7ehJ5gsZI86B7yb682h6gaBZ9HTwxX29RtUAjSQ&oe=6323CF8C)
The numbers where this could have been employed tacticallyDiscussionLets look at this more in depth
- 201 opportunities for tactical usage, 49 where there's a net positive result. ~25%
- 27 times where there's a >20 point gain. 13.5%
- 5 times where there's a significant >50 point gain
- The 5 pairings that would result in these gains: McEvoy for Gunston (Rd 17), Caleb Graham for Curtis Taylor (Rd 13), Rozee over Draper (Rd 3), Stanley for Hardwick (Rd 15), Ryder for Breust (Rd 16). This assumed that the coach chose to use the tactic. Seoul had 8 OOP opportunities before their first big tactical win arose to use one.
- Some of the other big wins include tactically dropping the likes of the following: OMac, Goldstein, Pittonet, ROB.
In reality, there's very few scenarios where this is actually beneficial, a 25% chance of being right if you select randomly, even Rome with Draper or Rio with TDK/SHayes would've make a mistake over 50% of the time. There's no basis for this being game changing, there's no basis for this completely ruining trade value. It mayhave a minor effect on the pursuit of backups rucks, but come finals you still need your ruckman playing. The aim of this competition to build a balanced, good squad is still very much intact.
If you want to vote against this, it's because you don't like rucks being given the opportunity for some OOP leeway, like we currently have for defenders and forwards. It is NOT because you think this is an over-powered tactical advantage
PowerBug
Quote from: PowerBug on August 19, 2022, 01:51:29 PM
PBs Ruck suggestion is again one which has been brought up before (3 years ago), given that a few teams have neglected their ruck lines its worth them trying to get this rule pushed rather then actually drafting and trading in rucks like the rest of the competition does.
Reason to vote
For:
- It benefits your team
Against:
- Fundamental rule change that effects past trade and draft decisons.
- Gives ruck relief when you havent got ruck cover like the rest of the comp has paid up for
- You want Flood/Attack scrapped and this just adds to the 'free pass' for poor squad depth
- You believe being ruckless is always worthy of a penalty due to the importance of rucks in the AFL
- Being able to name a "7th mid" (4 + 3 util) is too over powered, even if it's only 5 times a season and not in finals.
-It vastly changes trade value of rucks and ladder positioning, HG and double chances which are necessary in finals.
- The realism of teams opting to run the extra mid/runner at the expense of a ruck is the same as a team playing a mid up forward in fact mids going up forward is far more common and the roles are more compatible
so if this added no reason we cant just add another mid fwd
- not comparable to relief provided for Fwds and Defs due to the differing nature of the postions.
- There are no penalties attached so there is limited to no tactical implication apart from covering a OOP or passing on a spud ruck for a premo on another line.
Rule suggestion:
Flooding and Attack (and Small if it gets through) is allowed only if you have 4 players play that week in the position you are choosing to play 3 players in.
This is to make it more of a tactical move and to take out just covering an OOP.
16 votes in
17. Ruck OOP penalty to be reduced to 25% penalty if using player 196cm or taller
A) Keep as is 12
B) Reduce penalty as outlined above 4
18. Move the requirement for teams to be above the minimum salary cap to post the PSD draft, rather than before the international draft
A) Keep as is 10
B) Move the requirement as outlined above (note that all teams will accept the risk of potentially not having access to players with sufficient salary in the drafts required to get above minimum cap, and if any team finishes below the minimum cap after 'filling' your list according to the size requirements as at list lodgement, you will be subject to the penalty of a loss of 1st round draft pick and 4 premiership points the following year - NO EXCEPTIONS) 6
20. Trading of future first round picks
A) Keep as is (Can trade your future 1st, but cannot do so in consecutive years) 3
B) No limitations (Can trade your future 1st every year) 13
All coaches have voted
19. Implement tagging as outlined in below post
https://www.fanfooty.com.au/forum/index.php?topic=114557.msg2026558#msg2026558 (https://www.fanfooty.com.au/forum/index.php?topic=114557.msg2026558#msg2026558)
Key points
- Can use a tag 5 times per year
- only mids can tag other mids
- no OOP mids can tag another mid
A) No 8
B) Yes 10
21. Introduce the ability to go "Small" in addition to Flood/Attack, where you can name a U3 in place of a R1 (forms part of the current allowance of 5 times per year)
A) No 8
B) Yes 10
Rules are now locked in for 2023