WXV Rules Discussion 2018

[Nige]

I've always liked the fact that we just don't have any form of loopholing allowed at all.

Personally, for a bunch of these ideas (probably the more controversial but also significant ones), I think that unless it's blatantly obvious that a strong majority wants them, or that it's unanimous, we shouldn't implement them.

If half or less really don't want something like a mid-season trade period or partial lockout loophling, then they'll do it, get their advantage and abuse it while the others who wanted no part of it suffer because they're on the receiving end, didn't ask for it and don't use it.

[Holz]

Basically i think we need to decide between two things to make it fair.

1. No Loopholes ever

2. Rolling Lockout every week, every game: While this would be fun I think its unfair to ask Purp to do it as it increases his workload.

[JBs-Hawks]

And Rolling Lockout loopholing should be allowed. Maybe not partial lockout loopholing, but I think there is merit in Rolling Lockout loopholing, as because as we saw earlier in the year, you might innocently have to do it just to name your preferred team.

For reference:

I named the following team in WXV Rd 12 (AFL Rd 12 + AFL Round 13 scores from Carlton, Hawthorn, West Coast, Western Bulldogs, Port Adelaide + Gold Coast).

D: Thompson, Witherden, ________, ________ (Robertson E3)
M: Pendlebury, Kelly, Blakely, ________ (Hopper E1)
U: ________, ________
R: Bellchambers
F: Hogan, Boak, Mundy, Apeness (Melksham E2)

@Purple77, a question regarding non-loopholing. I intend to name Macrae at M4, Naitanui at U1 and Redden at U2 next week, however if E1 Hopper scores 120+ this weekend and any of those aforementioned players are unavailable for selection next week, would I be forced to name an inferior player to avoid getting his score as it would be seen as loopholing (when in reality he would have been the next player selected anyway)?

Conversely, if Hopper scores 37 this weekend and one of Macrae/Naitanui/Redden are unavailable for selection, but Dion Prestia becomes available for selection next week (a player that I would have selected ahead of Hopper if fit), would I be prevented from naming him as it would be seen as avoiding Hopper's score?

This is why I was absolutely baffled to see loopholing scrapped. Seems like far too much grey area to me!

I also believe partial lockout loopholing should be allowed as the situation above applies to it too. I really don't see any downside to it - people might argue it's an unfair advantage if you have three players playing on Thursday night and your opponent has none, but that would be forgetting that it can also work the opposite way. How many times in SC or DT have you taken a VC loophole score only for the player you were originally going to captain outscore them anyway (losing you points)? I'd argue that the overall difference is negligible. It adds an element of coaching skill which can make Thursday night games a bit more entertaining.

People also argue that loopholing advantages those that can be online all weekend to make changes on the fly, whereas the inactive will be disadvantaged.

Now I am all for this as the more active 'better' coaches should have an advantage as they are willing to put in the extra work.

Also will allow for more activity in match threads.

[Adamant]

I've always liked the fact that we just don't have any form of loopholing allowed at all.

Personally, for a bunch of these ideas (probably the more controversial but also significant ones), I think that unless it's blatantly obvious that a strong majority wants them, or that it's unanimous, we shouldn't implement them.

If half or less really don't want something like a mid-season trade period or partial lockout loophling, then they'll do it, get their advantage and abuse it while the others who wanted no part of it suffer because they're on the receiving end, didn't ask for it and don't use it.

I don't think you can compare loopholing to something as radical as a mid-season trade period. We have had it for every single season of Worlds apart from this year have we not? Do we actually have any evidence where having the ability to loophole has proven to be a consistent advantage?

Tom Mitchell, Jack Macrae, Patrick Cripps, Josh Kelly, Nat Fyfe, Patrick Dangerfield, Steele Sidebottom, Nick Holman. Imagine they are the 8 midfielders on your list. Collingwood play on Thursday night and Sidebottom isn't in your top 6 midfielders so you name him at E1 as he is clearly the next best player from your remaining midfielders. He scores 138.

It's now Friday and the final Sunday teams have been released. Josh Kelly has been withdrawn from the Giants squad due to calf tightness. You now need to name a player for the final utility spot. Sidebottom is clearly the next best player on your list and would usually be named in this instance but you can't name a non-playing player to collect his score as that would be loopholing and loopholing is forbidden. You are forced to name the 69-averaging Nicholas Holman. He scores 33 and you lose your matchup by 11 points.

How is that fair?

[Adamant]

People also argue that loopholing advantages those that can be online all weekend to make changes on the fly, whereas the inactive will be disadvantaged.

Now I am all for this as the more active 'better' coaches should have an advantage as they are willing to put in the extra work.

Also will allow for more activity in match threads.

Couldn't agree more.

[Holz]

I've always liked the fact that we just don't have any form of loopholing allowed at all.

Personally, for a bunch of these ideas (probably the more controversial but also significant ones), I think that unless it's blatantly obvious that a strong majority wants them, or that it's unanimous, we shouldn't implement them.

If half or less really don't want something like a mid-season trade period or partial lockout loophling, then they'll do it, get their advantage and abuse it while the others who wanted no part of it suffer because they're on the receiving end, didn't ask for it and don't use it.

I don't think you can compare loopholing to something as radical as a mid-season trade period. We have had it for every single season of Worlds apart from this year have we not? Do we actually have any evidence where having the ability to loophole has proven to be a consistent advantage?

Tom Mitchell, Jack Macrae, Patrick Cripps, Josh Kelly, Nat Fyfe, Patrick Dangerfield, Steele Sidebottom, Nick Holman. Imagine they are the 8 midfielders on your list. Collingwood play on Thursday night and Sidebottom isn't in your top 6 midfielders so you name him at E1 as he is clearly the next best player from your remaining midfielders. He scores 138.

It's now Friday and the final Sunday teams have been released. Josh Kelly has been withdrawn from the Giants squad due to calf tightness. You now need to name a player for the final utility spot. Sidebottom is clearly the next best player on your list and would usually be named in this instance but you can't name a non-playing player to collect his score as that would be loopholing and loopholing is forbidden. You are forced to name the 69-averaging Nicholas Holman. He scores 33 and you lose your matchup by 11 points.

How is that fair?

on the flip side say you had Tom Mitchell, Jack Macrae, Patrick Cripps, Josh Kelly, Nat Fyfe, Connor Blakely, Nick Holman

Holman plays Thursday night and drop 122.

You see this and you name a non playing guy and pick up the 122 instead of the 80ish from Blakely.

or you put the VC on Kelly instead of just going for Titch and Kelly drop 200 so you lock him in.

How is that fair to the other team?

[Adamant]

In my instance your hands are tied, you are forbidden from naming a certain player. In your instance you still have a choice.

That's exactly my point - it works both ways. So why not just remove the grey area altogether when you can't say for certain that it gives the team loopholing a deceitful advantage?

Also Holman would never score 122 in Australia so that's a moot point.

[JBs-Hawks]

I've always liked the fact that we just don't have any form of loopholing allowed at all.

Personally, for a bunch of these ideas (probably the more controversial but also significant ones), I think that unless it's blatantly obvious that a strong majority wants them, or that it's unanimous, we shouldn't implement them.

If half or less really don't want something like a mid-season trade period or partial lockout loophling, then they'll do it, get their advantage and abuse it while the others who wanted no part of it suffer because they're on the receiving end, didn't ask for it and don't use it.

I don't think you can compare loopholing to something as radical as a mid-season trade period. We have had it for every single season of Worlds apart from this year have we not? Do we actually have any evidence where having the ability to loophole has proven to be a consistent advantage?

Tom Mitchell, Jack Macrae, Patrick Cripps, Josh Kelly, Nat Fyfe, Patrick Dangerfield, Steele Sidebottom, Nick Holman. Imagine they are the 8 midfielders on your list. Collingwood play on Thursday night and Sidebottom isn't in your top 6 midfielders so you name him at E1 as he is clearly the next best player from your remaining midfielders. He scores 138.

It's now Friday and the final Sunday teams have been released. Josh Kelly has been withdrawn from the Giants squad due to calf tightness. You now need to name a player for the final utility spot. Sidebottom is clearly the next best player on your list and would usually be named in this instance but you can't name a non-playing player to collect his score as that would be loopholing and loopholing is forbidden. You are forced to name the 69-averaging Nicholas Holman. He scores 33 and you lose your matchup by 11 points.

How is that fair?

on the flip side say you had Tom Mitchell, Jack Macrae, Patrick Cripps, Josh Kelly, Nat Fyfe, Connor Blakely, Nick Holman

Holman plays Thursday night and drop 122.

You see this and you name a non playing guy and pick up the 122 instead of the 80ish from Blakely.

or you put the VC on Kelly instead of just going for Titch and Kelly drop 200 so you lock him in.

How is that fair to the other team?

Team 1s captain scores 150

Teams 2s captains scores 60

How is that fair to the other team?

[RaisyDaisy]

Won't somebody think of Purps workload!

If we're bringing back VC loop then it's any players any time, not that restricted to Thurs crap

[Holz]

Team 1s captain scores 150

Teams 2s captains scores 60

How is that fair to the other team?

its fair if both teams had 1 shot to pick both captains.

[Nige]

Won't somebody think of Purps workload!

Being considerate? Not even once.

[JBs-Hawks]

Team 1s captain scores 150

Teams 2s captains scores 60

How is that fair to the other team?

its fair if both teams had 1 shot to pick both captains.

Both teams can loophole

[meow meow]

How is it fair that one team has to upgrade a pick to trade a 80+ forward?

[Levi434]

There is an easy way we can loophole and all of that but it would probably involve not using FF.

[Jroo]

Not a fan of loopholing keep it as it is