Didn't expect to come out on top, but very pleased we rose to the occasion and put up a competitive score in the process. Now onto what will hopefully be the first of many title defences when we play the Virgins & then a little extra on the line during rivalry round!
I originally posted these three comments in an old thread from 2018. And I’ve just moved them to this thread. it didn’t effect the result of the game, but one of Port Lincoln’s def emergencies score counted even though they had a blank spot on field
Don’t think it was deliberate Ant. Prob just a mis-click. Done it myself. Not entirely sure why the interface needs two emergency slots anyway?
No I’m not sure if deliberate, I wasn’t suggesting that. I just noticed it was set up this way and I wondered what would happen. the score ended up counting. To save us having to check manually, I wonder if it can be set up to automatically not count if covering a vacant onfield position?
Yeah not sure of the value? TBH not sure why this is even a rule? Not to combat looping. We allow looping as far as I recall so what’s the diff if we use and non playing placeholder or a blank space?
I think it’s pretty simple that an emergency should be covering a player. Why would they be an emergency if there’s no player selected onfield? ORFFF teams consist of 15 players. Then we can have emergencies if numbers permit.
I think in a Nicky’s instance, she accidentally selected two emergencies rather than one on field and one emergency. As mentioned, looping is permitted in FFF so naming an emergency and then an non player or blank on field would enable the loop.
Yeah I think this week’s instance clearly wasn’t intentional. I’m pretty sure one of Nikki’s emergencies didn’t even play this round, so it looks to be a mistake. As I said before I never suggested it was deliberate. I was just responding to your question about what the difference is between selecting a non-playing placeholder or leaving it blank. I see that it’s less about loopholing and more about how it doesn’t make sense why a football team would name an emergency when they don’t have enough players in the team. But in regards to loopholing, we’ve got a certain amount of players on our lists, and I personally see it as being underhanded to just leave a spot blank to activate an emergency. If you can’t set up your team with the players we have on our list, then tough luck IMO. I considered leaving a spot blank this week because my player was named as the sub in the Monday game, because I preferred not to have him onfield. But then I checked up the rules and changed my team around to ensure I had players in all onfield positions.
Yep it’s in the rules so that’s fine. Your inference about how we oversee and enforce it? Dunno, either we put faith in the coaches to do the right thing or you hit up walesy to see if he can tweak the code to prevent an emergency fielding a blank space. I’m happy to run with the current honesty system but if you wanna chase a coding alternative then go for it.
I am hopeful @walesy may be able to rejig the TSleagues setup to limit emergencies to 1 per line and recode the emergencies so that they don’t replace a blank. Not for this example solely but because I am keen to look at developing an AFLW SuperCoach/salary cap with dynamic pricing style game prior to 2022 and these are a couple of the things that would need to be operational for that to run smoothly.