Huge congrats to @Len and @dmandrews - best of luck in the bigone this coming weekend - hope all your players are fit (as far as possible) and no-one gets injured! Bad luck @graeme and @jimbowan on the weekend but congrats on your excellent seasons. And good luck to @Bandit and @Lenny120 in the Zac Dawson - neither of you should feel the need to get stuffed
Disappointing for us to bow out on a low this week, would have loved Stanley to play and Darling to have not scored (-1) which was a particularly nasty kick in the underdogs (as my 6yr old would say! lol) but there were plenty of underachievers and we had our chances. The coach having Murdoch 110 on the bench and Waite 114 (oop) didn't help the teams chances. I wonder if I had played Darling as an oop ruck would he have scored -2? or 0? Congrats to you Dean, its hard not to root for you this year, I even dont really mind you beat me as I would like to see you win one. Good Luck to you and Len in the big game next week.
"I wonder if I had played Darling as an oop ruck would he have scored -2? or 0?" @jimbowan that is one of the greatest points of clarification ever. Would love to know @walesy 's response. I think you can argue either way - but zero would be my guess as minus 0.5 would be rounded up to 0 if you see rounding up as the benefit to the holder of the oop player. Imagine a game going down to that.
Haha are you sure it would round UP @graeme? There are 2 ways to look at this. 1) Halving, if you are looking at this purely mathematically would be -1 > -0.5 which as you correctly point out would be rounded up to 0 - a BENEFIT to my team 2) In the spirit of OOP which should be a DISADVANTAGE to your team it should maybe be DOUBLED and thus become -2? Start the debate.
Probably best to only apply the 50% OOP weighting to positive SC scores and leave negative SC scores unadjusted. Doubling a theoretical -9 oop SC score to -18 would be cruel indeed while halving it to -4 (rounded up) provides a benefit to a team fielding an out of position player over one that fields a non oop player achieving the same SC score. Given the rarity of negative scores is probably isn't worth getting @walesy to code in a change to the TSLeagues calcs.
Agree @TheTassieHawk leaving it as is makes the most sense, also agree we dont need to bother Walsey with it! Probably should stick it somewhere in our ORRFA rules @Len as would be horrible for a match to come down to it.
I've scribbled it down to check exactly what math applies, we will make that the rule, as a JIC. Also need to add in one for a draw in finals for an even more unlikely JIC. Will do both soonish, right know busy trying to infiltrate PA management to force them to play Ryder, on one leg if required
Apologies to all who took my comment seriously. I thought @walesy might have got a smile out of what to me was the most laugh out loud piece of humour I'd come across in a long time - Monty Pythonesque in fact.