WXV Rules Discussion 2019

[Ringo]

Agree Flood Attack should not be used in finals.

[PowerBug]

Last year Rio bought Sinclair(Sydneys #1 Ruck).  Every draft year coaches don't draft rucks until late, why? 
   Buy a Ruck, draft a Ruck, don't expect to just get one handed to you.

I'm also happy to lose the Flood/Attack, let's test clubs depth.

For pick 6 as well. And I thought Naismith would play so I was in essence getting a guy who’d sit forward and score 60s all year.

Yep it cost #6, but you were still able to get him.  Point being it's still possible to get Rucks.
   Coaches don't plan ahead and get young rucks, then expect to buy them for nothing once they start getting games.

And traded in Ivan Soldo who's played a bunch of games, also got lucky with Zac Clarke returning to the AFL.

It's certainly possible to go out and get a ruckman.




I'll backtrack a little on a previous comment however. I like Flood/Attack being available in finals, however I don't think we should be able to rest in finals because no team does that (Should be allowed to rest in the final round though).

[upthemaidens]

Agree Flood Attack should not be used in finals.

Why?  If you can do something in the regular season, why suddenly change just because of finals?
    The AFL don't change the 50m penalty to 70m, or the 666 rule to something else once finals start.

[DazBurg]

Agree Flood Attack should not be used in finals.

Why?  If you can do something in the regular season, why suddenly change just because of finals?
    The AFL don't change the 50m penalty to 70m, or the 666 rule to something else once finals start.

Technically with the 6-6-6 rule it negates flossing/attacking in general

[GoLions]

Agree Flood Attack should not be used in finals.

Why?  If you can do something in the regular season, why suddenly change just because of finals?
    The AFL don't change the 50m penalty to 70m, or the 666 rule to something else once finals start.

Technically with the 6-6-6 rule it negates flossing/attacking in general

Dentists hate the 6-6-6 rule

[upthemaidens]

Agree Flood Attack should not be used in finals.

Why?  If you can do something in the regular season, why suddenly change just because of finals?
    The AFL don't change the 50m penalty to 70m, or the 666 rule to something else once finals start.

Technically with the 6-6-6 rule it negates flossing/attacking in general

It's always good to floss, but if you get bleeding from the gums it's best to see a specialist.

[DazBurg]

Haha I love phone typo posting  ;D ;D

[Bill Manspeaker]

Haha I love phone typo posting  ;D ;D

it's ducking hilarious

[RaisyDaisy]

Seems like the majority commenting so far are happy to scrap flood attack

For those that aren't, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning why you think flood attack is fair (which although might be seen as a tactic of the game also covers people who don't draft enough depth) yet the ruck position which has a much lesser active player pool should continue to be heavily penalised when OOP?

I'm genuinely interested in the reasoning behind your thoughts on it. I've given my reasoning why I believe it's unfair and should be scrapped so would be good to hear a productive counter

[PowerBug]

Scrap - Rd, Daz, Nig, Holz
In favour - Koop, utm, PB
Indifferent/leave as is/minor tweak - ftc, Ringo

That's not the majority commenting in favour of scrapping at this stage.



It's tactical, different unique. Allows you to target certain areas (E.g. imagine owning guys like Maynard, Rich, Luke Brown who all take kick ins thinking they'd get a points boost the next season through a rule change) and try to play the fixtures more. I like it, I'd like to see it allowed in finals as well.

Perhaps you could add in a "small man" mode which lets you play a fwd (Can't go mid or util, too much advantage there) over a ruck? 4-4-0-5-2? And make that one of the ways you can use your 5 team lineup modifiers?

[fanTCfool]

An AFL team without a ruck will have a significant disadvantage, so it is intuitive that a WXV team without a ruck is also significantly disadvantaged with a 0.5 penalty.

[upthemaidens]

PB I don't want it, but if we do keep it then it should be allowed during finals.

[Nige]

An AFL team without a ruck will have a significant disadvantage, so it is intuitive that a WXV team without a ruck is also significantly disadvantaged with a 0.5 penalty.

[Purple 77]

I echo Koop RE: Flood/attack.

It's a long year. 22 players available per week on average, it's common to have fluctuating availability to fill 4 positions.

There is just 1 ruck spot to fill. Certainly recognise the ongoing difficulty to fill it, though, but it is just 1 spot. Often repeat OOP ruck offenders either had their main guy go down with a LTI, or simply strategically copped it for 1 year in the hope one of their current crop will develop into a starter.

FTC recent post nails it.

In saying this, I like the idea of nominating your ONE pinch hitter at the start of the year, and they'd be penalised by only 25%.

[upthemaidens]

Could just go without a ruck altogether then.  Do the clubs that got Rucks under the past rule get any compensation?

… Would much prefer to see a Ruck option added to the Flood/Attack/Ruckless.
   Can play another player instead of a ruckman with no penalty, but still only use those options 5 times a year(including finals).