I was going to raise the finals format again, but on reflection was pretty happy with the way it went this year. Particularly since there was no escape for the top two - would not have mattered who they picked - like swimming with a shark.
Aye, this is my only bugbear also. Currently this is the rule (current exiting precedent) 12. LOOPHOLING 12.1 During standard rounds with a rolling lockout due to Thursday games it is possible to enable a previously played emergency score 12.2 You must name a player in every slot on a line to activate an emergency, an empty slot will not activate an emergency, by design 12.3 There may be a need to alter this approach by instance (round) for rounds listed at 11.2 I suggest the following: 12. LOOPHOLING 12.1 During standard rounds with a rolling lockout due to Thursday games it is possible to enable a previously played emergency score 12.2 You must name a player in every slot on a line to activate an emergency, an empty slot will not activate an emergency, by design 12.3 It is not allowable to name a player not listed to play that week IF the coach has a player listed to play at the league lockout whom could have been named in that slot without leaving another playing slot empty instead. It is not required that coaches should have to play OOP to fill the slots, but if a full team of players listed to play AFL can be named it must be done instead of utilising a non playing member for that week. 12.4 There may be a need to alter this approach by instance (round) for rounds listed at 11.2 I believe this amendment would allow for the practical application of naming an emergency prior to lockout in a split round, but removes the "taint of cheating" from the process.
Agree with the sentiment. Is the suggested change practical? Would it be up to an opponent to object? Plus, channelling my inner pedant: 12.3 It is not allowable to name a player not listed to play that week IF the coach has a player listed to play at the league lockout whom could have been named in that slot without leaving another playing slot empty instead. It is not required that coaches should have to play OOP to fill the slots, but if a full team of players listed to play AFL can be named it must be done instead of utilising a non playing member for that week.
Fixed. In so far as policing rules go, very little is programmed into the system, most require someone noting am oddity and bringing it to the attention of those who can check do something about it. I believe there are enough people with a genuine aversion towards the practice that an active spotter wouldn't be rare
@Len - by "listed to play" does this mean (a) listed in the 22 (or 26 prior to emergencies being named) rather than (b) listed as an emergency or not in the 26 at all?
Named to play onfield so not an emergency, 12.4 would obviously have to come into play for rounds where we only have extended benches at our lockouy, or worse no team at all as we did this year
I don’t mind any of the suggested changes thus far, except for this aspect of it. I think it should be fine to name players onfield if they’re an emergency for their AFL team. There are lots of times where I name a player onfield who is actually an emergency in AFL, just on the off chance they play because I’d rather them than my next best option (who I name as emergency). I do this in actual SuperCoach, and in the ORFF. I’m sure others do this as well. I’m not sure why we shouldn’t be allowed to do it, even if the FA emergency has already played.
I believe SC is irrelevant, we don't try to emulate it in any way, we use their positional designations and scores only. Equally what is done in other leagues is not all that important to the discussion on rules for the FA. What you have stated as the objection is something I have received multiple messages every time detailing frustration and occasional anger at what is perceived to be playing outside the spirit of the league. To be blunt your actions in this regard have been one of the common targets of complaint. The problem in avoiding being black and white is the resulting creation of blurred lines that create opportunities for misunderstanding. I feel the only time we should consider an AFL emergency the same way we do a named AFL player is if we lockout with extended benches open, ie the very rare weekends, and only those on the (still) extended benches should be considered players. My position is that if you have 5 players to choose from for 4 slots make a choice, don't try to have 50c each way. Worse, don't try to make it sound legitimate by naming an AFL emergency when you have named players available. Every 9 game weekend there are 72 emergencies named, at best 6 or 7 of those may play, naming them is therefore seen as a charade, and personally I agree with that opinion 90% of the time.
"I’m not sure why we shouldn’t be allowed to do it, even if the FA emergency has already played." @anthak - In a standard week - which we could define as no game(s) played before lockout - there is no problem with naming an afl emergency in your starting side in the hope that he is a late in. Nor in having an E in your team whose score will count if the afl emergency does not play. Note neither players' score is known at lock out. Now in a non-standard week - which we could define as a round where a game(s) is played before lockout - there is nothing to stop you entering a team in the manner you describe. Note the score of the player you are opting for as an E in ORFFA is known at lock out. The substantive issue is what score do you get. Here are the possibilities under the proposed rule change: If the afl emergency plays you get his score; or if the afl emergency does not play, you get the emegency player's score IF and only IF no player in your squad not named in your ORFFA team, but from the same SC category* as the afl emergency, played in that round. In summary there is no rule stopping you from rolling the dice with selections, but be aware of the manner in which scores in ORFFA are complied each week. * same SC category means if the position is as a (say) M, then another M, D/M, F/M or R/M.
That’s a bit unfair for people to think I’ve been disengenuous. There’s never been any charades. I don’t see the point in pretending when it’s been totally legal to loophole. There are others who loopholed as well, not just me (however one of those has just dropped out of the league) and I was always open about it. If I genuinely wanted to loophole I’d use a player who wasn’t an emergency so there was no chance it would mess up. Even in full lockout rounds, I often put players in my first 15 who were emergency in AFL, hoping they’d play instead of my next best option who I’d put as FA emergency. I really don’t see a problem with this, whether a split round or not. We’ve got a squad of players and we try to name our best players in our best 15. I’m really confused as to why people have perceived my loopholing as charades and reported as such to you. Ive never cared in the slightest about whether we are allowed to do it or not, and I’ve never ever tried to hide the fact that I’m doing it.
Hi G... sorry I was typing my msg whilst you were and I hadn’t seen this msg before posting mine. I think you might have misunderstood what is being proposed, because I don’t think your summary is in line with Len’s proposal. I do appreciate you trying to help clarify it though.
I don't believe the commentary in the messages I received was personal, nor do I believe people had a personal issue with you and the others who were doing it, but that the fact that we allowed it as a league was offensive, making some matchups a charade. Anything that even bordered on personal attack would have been shut down immediately by myself, nothing done in this space so far is deemed outside the rules as stated. Going forward from a personal point of view: I find the practice as it has been done here on some occasions to be offensive and not within the spirit of the league. I don't see how it can possibly be necessary to loophole to avoid having to choose between two similar placed players, the idea is to try and name the best possible 15 PLUS emergencies, not to name a 15 that allows you to use the emergency slots as playing ones. Getting those choices right or wrong is for mine an important part of the game. I can see why someone would want to name an AFL emergency instead of an OOP player, with the OOP player in the emergency slot, hope springs eternal after all, but naming an AFL emergency instead of a named player just in case they do well, is for mine, nothing more than "edging". I also believe the practice assists those who find it easy to field a full side whilst disadvantaging those who struggle, thus increasing the angst if one is on the negative side of that ledger. It is far less offensive to not have it, not having should cause no-one a problem, problems and ill feelings only exist by having it. The reality is we have two vocal minorities and it's the silent majority that will determine the outcome when the proposed rule change goes to vote, which will be at the end of this week.
A point of clarification please @Len. Does post #14 correctly describe the scoring methodology we would have should the rule change be agreed? BTW, I had a lot of trouble trying to describe my understanding in, what I thought was, an unambiguous way. There were a number of revisions. I applaud anyone who can perfectly "frame" a rule.
Hi mate, the answer is "sort of". Where we to allow that scenario to run Les would have to do a heap of specific programming for us and I don't believe that is or should be called for. For that very reason I have proposed that AFL emergencies can only be named on field if there is no other option other than OOP. It is possible to run the way you have described but it would require myself or a handful of others (site wide) to go through, check possible vs actual and amend the teams as named to reflect the rule, so essentially possible but not practical.