Alright, we're all aware that Serengeti failed to post a team in the first two rounds. The rules state that it requires three strikes for a draft penalty, so one does not apply here. The issue is that since this incident occurred in round one, there was no 'last weeks team', so Serengeti has two rounds of zeros in their points for aggregate. The MSD is based on each teams points for aggregate, so the question becomes: does this give Serengeti an unfair advantage and a reward for not posting a team, akin to tanking? We have 3 options, as per the poll questions. More can be added, if you'd like. Any comments below will be considered. Please all 'FU coaches, vote asap, as the poll will expire on Wednesday 3 June, and this is important as it affects all of us. 1) Zero is still a score. The rules state that three weeks of not posting a team will be punished, and there's only been two weeks, so there should be no further action against Serengeti, and their total score will be whatever they have at the end of round 10. 2) Its unfair on the rest of us. We're basically gifting Serengeti the number 1 pick in the MSD for not posting a team. We should take their mean average score over the other weeks, and then add two weeks worth of this score to their points for aggregate, to make it fairer on everyone. 3) Are you serious? Punish Serengeti. Pick 18 at best. They missed two weeks in a row at the start of the year. I apologize if any of these comments come across as offensive. They're just a descriptive way of explaining the options.
I'm caught in two minds...on one hand I'm sure it wasn't done intentionally and I doubt in the spirit of the league it would happen again, however, the first decision on any issue sets a precedent that determines future decisions. Just on that, I'd like to thank Tim Watson for his trial by media on Elliot Yeo, Essendon are innocent...the players are innocent, yet a slightly late clumsy spoil, in the contest, needs a suspension! The game is turning into Auskick!! It's a disgrace!!! Anyhow, I digress...decisions, decisions.
Going to be hard to argue this without sounding like I am coming from a biased position but I do think it is important. Regardless of what the issue is I don't think we can change/make rules during a season. If we are considering precedents, this creates a situation where any rule that doesn't seem to work the way we had planned can be changed when some coaches had been structuring their team and playing for that rule only for it to change before the season is even finished. Please don't read this as me admitting to purposely not posting a team in the first 2 weeks, that was definitely not the case and I have apologised and moved on from there. Think I had something else to add but I can't remember it, not enough coffee yet this morning so I'll leave it at that! EDIT: Coffee is kicking in and I remember what I wanted to add. I remember this sort of situation being discussed at the end of last season and I think my own vote was to have the last weeks score added for points for but a loss recorded regardless of result to avoid any possible deliberate attempt to gain an advantage but that did not get up and in the FU Rules for 2015 we have the comment: '(h) If you don't field a team, in the first instance you get last weeks posted team, on the second occasion you will get zero, for the third time you will get zero as well as your first 3 rounds of post season draft picks forfeited and serious questions will be asked about your commitment with the possible removal from ORFFU.' So to me it is pretty simple. There should be a zero for round 2 and then for round 1 it would be my score from last round in previous season. Again, it is hard to make this sound like I am not arguing a stance to ensure I get pick 1 in this draft but that is not my intention. Trying to argue for consistency around rules and against mid-season changes regardless of the situation.
wrightbrendan wrote: Going to be hard to argue this without sounding like I am coming from a biased position but I do think it is important. Regardless of what the issue is I don't think we can change/make rules during a season. If we are considering precedents, this creates a situation where any rule that doesn't seem to work the way we had planned can be changed when some coaches had been structuring their team and playing for that rule only for it to change before the season is even finished. Please don't read this as me admitting to purposely not posting a team in the first 2 weeks, that was definitely not the case and I have apologised and moved on from there. Think I had something else to add but I can't remember it, not enough coffee yet this morning so I'll leave it at that! EDIT: Coffee is kicking in and I remember what I wanted to add. I remember this sort of situation being discussed at the end of last season and I think my own vote was to have the last weeks score added for points for but a loss recorded regardless of result to avoid any possible deliberate attempt to gain an advantage but that did not get up and in the FU Rules for 2015 we have the comment: '(h) If you don't field a team, in the first instance you get last weeks posted team, on the second occasion you will get zero, for the third time you will get zero as well as your first 3 rounds of post season draft picks forfeited and serious questions will be asked about your commitment with the possible removal from ORFFU.' So to me it is pretty simple. There should be a zero for round 2 and then for round 1 it would be my score from last round in previous season. Again, it is hard to make this sound like I am not arguing a stance to ensure I get pick 1 in this draft but that is not my intention. Trying to argue for consistency around rules and against mid-season changes regardless of the situation. I can't argue with this - partly because I helped write it! The problem is that we never expected anyone to miss week 1. Its a spanner that no-one envisaged. I do have to give you credit though mate - if you're going to f*ck things up, f*ck them up good and proper! There's no point doing it half-ar5ed... Maybe we need some opinions on the week one score. Should it be for round 23 last year? Should it be the average from this year? What's fairer? (regardless of the poll, I'm just canvasing opinions).
I like the idea of the score of last H&A game last year being carried over to calculate Serengeti's round 1 score. I'd forgotten about that rule and I remember that I always liked the idea that when a team doesn't get entered they get last week's score and a win recorded for the purposes of the draft (it was an idea raised in FL or FA, can't remember which). Anyway, I've gone completely off track...round 23 or whatever the last H&A round was is what I like the sound of.
Here's my take on it. I also don't believe that Serengeti purposely avoided naming a side in Rds1 and 2. People have lives outside of ORFFU, believe it or not, and sometimes those lives take precedence. (insert humour attempt here) ........Not sure why, but they do.......... So what to do about the situation is the poser. I don't believe we should revisit Rd23 of 2014 for part of the answer as there's been a draft and trading period since then and teams change. I also don't believe our Rules adequately cover this situation. So I propose the way around it, to achieve a relatively fair MSD, as Serengeti have only played 6 rounds out of the 8, and there are still 2 rds before the draft, is to average out his scores from this year (6157/6 =1026.166) and bring it up to date to show his points for as 8209 (1026.166x8) at the end of rd8, and to move on from there as normal.......Just sayin'
Echoing the sentiment that its not really about wrightbrendan, its more about closing a loophole in the rule. He is just the unlucky bloke caught in the middle. Lots of respect for conducting yourself with that fact in mind. Well played!
Ok, so if the general consesus and the winner is that he gets an average score, then the 2 teams that played him in the first two weeks need to have their % adjusted to reflect. This may be very important come end of the year when a team is fighting to get into the top 4 or top 8.
Not that it is what I think should happen but if it is going to be an average applied to one or both of the rounds, shouldn't it be an average of all rounds played up to the MSD rather than an indiscriminate number of rounds from when we decided to look at it?
wrightbrendan wrote: Not that it is what I think should happen but if it is going to be an average applied to one or both of the rounds, shouldn't it be an average of all rounds played up to the MSD rather than an indiscriminate number of rounds from when we decided to look at it? Agree with this. @Marty, the ladder is set up so that positions are determined by points for rather than %.
Just thinking about it a bit more, I like the idea of using the points from last year's final round. 1 of the reasons for giving a team last week's points was to avoid the opposition getting an automatic win, which of course disadvantages the rest of the competition. I think this is the only way to solve that problem and in hindsight should have been brought up back in round 1. FYI, Serengeti scored 1064 in last year's final round which would not have been enough to win either of their first 2 games this year (thankfully cause that would have made things messy if we go that way!).
There could be another option. Im not keen on using round 23 score as its been already said team changes drafts happened, so I propose new rule: automatic team selection based on players averages so that would represent a true reflection of the team's score.
There will be absolutely no changes to the points scored for those teams that played the Buffalos. Those scores would be there regardless of what the Buffalos scored be it zero, average or true score. The ladder is set up as wins, then points for. So we won't be changing ts scores for Buffalos either, if anything it will be done in a spreadsheet offline for the order of the MSD. The Board has issued a vote and once closed the Board will make a decision using the vote as a source not necessarily the decision as we will take in other factors. It may be a once off decision or one that the Board feels necessary to update the rules for future issues. please continue to post comments so the best possible decision can be made for the league.
With 15 votes counted, and assuming they're all ORFFU voters, I think we have a clear winner. I'm not sure what this'll do to the MSD ladder, we'll have to find out. The average will be calculated from the Serengeti scores of rounds 3 through 10, and then added (twice over) to make up for the missed rounds 1 and 2. This will give Serengeti a total points for aggregate equivalent to the rest of us for MSD rankings. Good luck to all for the next two weeks and in the MSD (unless you're playing against the Prospectors, in which case I hope your team get a serious case of food poisoning!)
Did I miss something here? Had taken from Yad's post that it would be a commission discussion and decision with the vote only part of what would be taken into account? I thought it was established in the rules that the 2nd round was a 0 and the score for round 1 was the only thing that needed clarifying. Keen to understand the process for changing rules mid-season that have been put in place before the season commences.
wrightbrendan wrote: Did I miss something here? Had taken from Yad's post that it would be a commission discussion and decision with the vote only part of what would be taken into account? I thought it was established in the rules that the 2nd round was a 0 and the score for round 1 was the only thing that needed clarifying. Keen to understand the process for changing rules mid-season that have been put in place before the season commences. Yeah sorry. I might have jumped the gun. Just keen to get a resolution to this one...