ORRFU Rules Discussion Thread

I'm happy to put my hand up and say I shouldn't have made the post. I didn't intend to offend anyone but clearly i have so apologies. Won't hear anything similar from me in the future

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

Hey maybe the pandemic has something to do with it, but it seems unlikely to me.

I'm not suggesting the top teams are getting stronger because of the 28 and 4 change. I'd say it's probably because they play the game better, ie make more favourable trades. And again I don't begrudge them for that one bit, it's a competition, we should be playing to win. What I am saying is the 28 and 4 change has made it harder for the lower teams to catch up because the advantage they get in the draft has been greatly reduced and the draft is our only equalisation measure.

 

Picks in the draft certainly don't guarantee success. They are however the only measure we have of benefitting lower finishing teams. So if we are looking for ways to equalise the competition to a degree, they have to involve skewing the draft somehow in favour of lower teams or improving the quality of players in the draft.

I tend to agree with @Wolffy84 that rather than penalising the top teams it would be better to provide extra picks to lower teams, ala the AFL. In the Addicts this season we gave extra picks to the bottom 2 teams, along with the usual mandatory delistments (which were more severe this year as squads were reduced to pre-covid sizes). Personally I'd be happy with a return to the original rules including list sizes as I think it makes list management more interesting but I understand others might enjoy more spaces for speculative players. Logic says the smaller the lists the more change each season.

 

Agreed on the judging. I'd like to feel I can comment on issues without being told I haven't earnt the right. I certainly only ever say anything disparaging about others, after they first make a comment of that nature.

As for the trades, well there's a veto process. So whilst I understand the feeling that they are sometimes lopsided, clearly nobody ever considers them bad enough to veto. In which case there's no point complaining afterwards. Personally it just makes me think 'damn I wish I'd asked about that player, I would've given them more than what they actually got". The price I pay for being less active Interestingly a trade between Mick and myself was nearly vetoed years ago as it was thought I was getting too much advantage. I gave him Dunkley for 4 players. Only 1 of them is still playing and it's pretty clear now that he won that trade. So good luck to those that trade well and I agree that if we're not going to veto then we shouldn't be making judgements unless it's done in a good natured way.

 

There's no doubt logically that cutting deeper with forced delistments (not simply turnover) and smaller list sizes enables more change from season to season and benefits those with higher draft picks. And you're spot on that seeing as elite players generally play 10+ seasons, change is very slow. The question is do we want a team at the bottom to have to wait 5-10 years before they are competitive again? I disagree that you have to delist below 15 to have an effect though. What forced delistment above that number does is make it difficult for teams to have 15 quality starters AND quality young players underneath. A bit like in the AFL how fringe players at top teams often leave to become starters at other clubs. When the top team's older players start retiring, they then don't have those ready made replacements.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the VETO removed due to coaches over using said VETO and this is why no one has vetoed any trades over the past few years.

 

Honestly if we cut too deep I'm out! We call ourselves TOO SERIOUS, some of spend way to many hours researching players , I dare say it some coaches might barely spend anytime. I took the worst team in the league to arguably the best team in the league. Was it luck ? I don't think so , so why should any other team spend 5-10 years at the bottom? Like anything in life the more you put in the more you get out of it. I'm certainly not of the mind to be giving more hand outs.

 

I agree with the above. When I first joined, I'd never taken part in a league anywhere near this deep. Was quite concerned that I wouldn't be able to follow what is going on. Now I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

Not that I can remember. I'd be surprised if we've ever had more than 3/4

 

I'm not necessarily advocating for equalisation measures, I'm just pointing out what works and what doesn't. What balance of those measures is right for us is up to everyone to come to some agreement on. The idea of course is that no team spends an extended period at the bottom, that rebuilding isn't a decade long thing. With any game in life, it's important to keep in mind that if it's not fun for all players then you eventually end up with nobody to play against.

I'll address the points you made though. No I wouldn't think it was luck. I think you inherited a very young list that because of its age profile started very badly before it matured. As I mentioned last week, I think the increased list sizes then benefitted younger lists as it became so much harder to get those developing players. I also think you've traded very well. You clearly follow the U/18 and feeder comps much closer than most of us here and have good knowledge of developing players as a result. I'd say to you though if we had forced delistments that would only increase the importance of the draft. So if you've got a superior knowledge of those developing players it's not going to hurt you. In the Addicts we cut a quarter of our list each year and yet it's regularly the same teams finishing near the top.

 

i wasn't aware that the veto existed but that is probably on me for not reading the rules thoroughly

 

Yeah. Even though I finished bottom last year, that was mostly on me. A bit of bad luck with injuries. But a lot of self made disaster. So I don't really think we need equalisation measures. Because I think I've been able to fix up a lot of what I did by trading the pick 1 that I got for multiple picks and players.

 

Wasn't there some type of drama around vetoes? Is there way to search the forum for the last discussion around veto?

 

Seems like 2020 is the year we cleaned up our act. Terrible memory here......oh dear never realised you could type in where it says the word search. Always gave an error in white search boxes

 

Bloody hell you lot. I take a couple days off ORFFU and you are all off the chain!

67 pages of stats from Fresh has done my head in and I have no idea whats good or bad anymore

You blokes are the best, I love trading and drafting and the more of it the better!

Personally, for someone that has been down the bottom for a while and will hopefully have a good team one day, I reckon we should have the same list size but perhaps instead of 4 list changes, it's 4 delistments at the end of the year for everyone.

The way it is currently set up, Mick and I could swap 4 players each in the MSD trade period and tick our requirements off. But, that has not helped any other team pick up some talent in the MSD draft. But, if we were all forced to drop 4 players, then the PSD would be much better with new talent and delisted talent available for everyone. Then it is up to you if you take a top 10 talent or someone that has been in the system for a few years.

My 2 cents anyhow.

Time for a vote?

 

Vote, Vote, Vote... Fight, Fight.... Vote, Vote, Vote!

 

Make it easy on yourself commish.
Set up the first vote to be - Change list management vs Leave things as they are. If the majority votes change then you'd have to trawl through the thread and figure out the viable options. Might save yourself some effort if the vote comes in as don't change things.