WXV Rules Discussion 2020

[Purple 77]

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 :)

[JBs-Hawks]

#scrapthecap

[Purple 77]

#scrapthecap

:P

[RaisyDaisy]

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

[GoLions]

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?

[RaisyDaisy]

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

[Holz]

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.

[Holz]

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.

[RaisyDaisy]

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?

[Holz]

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.

[Purple 77]

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.

[fanTCfool]

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,

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

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.

[RaisyDaisy]

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 :)

[Nige]

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.

[RaisyDaisy]

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 :)