the bolded part is fine if their status isn't known, ie they are on an extended bench and they are legally nameable players
I think you’re over complicating it. If we decide on a way forward as a group, I can’t see any of us purposefully going against it. And if on the off chance that someone did, I reckon it’d more than likely be picked up by their opponent anyway.
This would be true if it was a Monday game for arguments sake, but I was referring to extended bench on say a Sunday. To validly select an AFL emergency under Bandit’s suggestion, they’d have to be selected prior to the first lockout (perhaps a Thursday night) but if they came from a Sunday game we wouldn’t know if they’re an emergency until the Friday night final teams. It’s not even a big deal
But prior to Friday night teams you would know re the Sunday teams, so they are indeed as you say, no big deal, there should be no issue simply following the proposed path?
Correct Ant, and that is my point, if you want to really roll the dice, the you roll the dice... if you want to name a guy that is an AFL emergency on the field on the off chance that he plays, and name a 'fallback' as ORFFA emergency, then to me it is not too much of an extension to name a guy that is on an extended bench who may not even get a run. However if he doesn't get a run (more than likely), then your fallback that you nominated is clear and visible from the off, and everything is transparent. And I am not sure that anything else needs to be done from a rules/coding/administrative perspective then @Len ? Maybe I'm not getting my point across clearly, as even when i read it I am not sure what I am saying lol... might have to do with the gazillion beers I had last night at the MCG watching my Hawks get stitched up
The exercise of putting thoughts down in writing is helpful, if only for the writer. It straightens out the logic. The "loop-holing" rule under discussion comes into play on 5 (? - just a guess) of our 20 rounds. No change is proposed for the other rounds. I like Fitzy's commentary (#'s 25 and 29), the latter being: "Ah OK thanks for clearing it up. Sounds good "
I am seriously struggling with this. I have already noted that naming a player on an extended bench is perfectly ok, if he later becomes an emergency it doesn't matter, he was named by the FA side perfectly legally as an extended bench player, no smell of attempting to name a non-player exists? Is this the point I am supposed to be explaining because if it isn't I need more whiskey
Perfect, that's what I thought, therefore no mods or changes required to cover the issue. I like to cover all the food groups
Well, it is an important part of a healthy diet. Whiskey is made from a variety of grains and, as we know, grains are important sources of many nutrients, including fibre, B vitamins and a number of minerals. Dietary fibre from grains also helps reduce blood cholesterol levels and may lower risk of heart disease. In much the same way, I drink beer for the health benefits too:
And grapes grow on a vine a lot like tomatoes. Will be having a mixed salad later for dinner - ever so healthy us ORFFANs.
I think I got you off track by bringing up the extended bench issue. You should note I had also said wasn’t actually a big deal. I was only explaining it over and over because you weren’t understanding (I still don’t think you get that by the way, but I’m not gonna bother to go over it again). as I said, that wasn’t actually a big deal anyway. The actual point was to be able to name an emergency onfield in the line of a emergency who is a 1st lockout player. I think 4 or 5 of us said this would be preferable, and Bandit came up with an idea that we could name an AFL emergency onfield in the line of a 1st lockout emergency, only as long as they are both named before the 1st lockout. This was the crux of the discussion. The other talk of extended benches was only because I put forward some potential issues with Bandit’s idea. I quickly claimed they didn’t matter that much, but then it got legs anyway. I still don’t understand why you haven’t agreed to allow Bandit’s idea? Or have you, but the proposal didn’t need changing to accommodate it?
Hey mate, I get where you’re coming from now. You’re right, it is stiff shit! The onus would be on the coach to realise the player is on an extended bench and name them early just in case. Fair enough. In any case, I don’t think this would be legal under the new rule that’s been proposed. I kinda wish I didn’t bring up these alternative scenarios and we just stuck with discussing your original idea. I understand the idea wasn’t necessarily for your benefit too, so I appreciate you putting it forward to try to reach a suitable solution for all.
I went with @Bandit own assessment when I asked him, there was no change required as the change would have allowed it in the "right" scenario and disallowed it in the wrong one. As you'd know by now I love keeping it simple, a lot less room for ambiguity in simple