2014 Draft Rule Amendment

Proposed change to the draft rules for the upcoming season. This change was always something I wanted to happen hand in hand with the change to the squad size, but I did not want to confuse that discussion by adding so many variables that no-one knew what they were voting on or for. Effectively we agreed that we would expand the lists to 28 and that we would keep the current number of compulsory delists. What I propose is a change to how those delistments should occur.


Currently
The current rules are based upon how each manager participates in the PSD ie;
Each team enter the Pre-season draft with 24 or less squad members, if entering that draft with 22 or less then any activity in the Mid season draft is optional, as below;

PSD 24 MSD 26 (4 compulsory PSD, 2 MSD)
PSD 23 MSD 25 (4 + 1 PSD, 1 MSD)
PSD 22 MSD Optional (All 6 taken in PSD)


Proposed
Each team enters the Pre-season draft with 22 or less squad members, all Mid-season draft activity is optional.


Why
Originally when cutting 6 in the PSD we were cutting down to 20 leaving us no room to invest in the future, before the future broke out.. Now, with squad sizes of 28 enforcing the full 6 delists in the PSD leaves us with 22 players, allowing us to keep those two extra players safe, which was my primary aim in proposing squad expansion.

By enforcing a cut to 22 in a single draft we will be encouraging a refreshing of squads and improving the draft pool at the same time. It will also add considerably to the drama of delisting and drafting, and we all know the draft is a far more fun thing to participate fully in than it is to watch. Proposal Summary
Each team must enter the 2014 Pre Season Draft with a maximum of 22 players - there is no applicable minimum.
All Mid Season Draft activity is optional. All other draft rules would remain unchanged.

 

edit: Now I think about this a bit more, it is a no from me.

 

Sorry Chels, minimum 22
<strong style='font-family: Helvetica, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 16px; outline: 0px; color: #000000;]Proposed[/b]<br style='color: #000000; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, San-Serif; line-height: 16px;[/img] Each team enters the Pre-season draft with 22 or less squad members

 

Disagree with the proposal on the grounds that it will force us to cut 6 players in time for the pre-season draft. This is the clause I have serious misgivings over: Proposed
Each team enters the Pre-season draft with 22 or less squad members, all Mid-season draft activity is optional. I disagree with this very strongly, as what this does is severely reduces our options in terms of drafting and recruiting players - something which I believe should be opposed. This clause virtually forces us all to take a major role in the pre-season draft as we are compelled to get rid of 6 players before entering that draft period. But there are a number of us who have used the mid-season draft more heavily (or just as heavily) in the past and who, under this clause, will no longer be able to. We all ended up happily surprised with the mid-season draft pool this year. The mid-season draft process played a major role in rejuvenating and re-shaping a number of teams whose coaches were brave enough or perceptive enough to make cuts into their list (or were forced to by injury). But with the rule that we MUST cut to 22 players before the pre-season draft, the mid-season draft loses a large amount of its relevancy. And that I don't think is fair. There needs to be more than one way for coaches to recruit players - as there is for AFL teams to recruit players. And we should be encouraged to use all methods to their fullest, as AFL teams do.
If coaches wish to focus on the pre-season draft, they should be able to - but that should also mean that those coaches who wish to focus on the mid-season draft can do so with the same commitment and fervour. Speaking personally I have used the past two midseason drafts heavily to make-over my team, and believe it is a perfectly legitimate alternative to the pre-season draft to do so.
When we instituted the expanded lists, it was to encourage flexibility and to allow us to keep youngsters/injured players on our list. Cutting 6 players minimum before the pre-season draft completely and utterly negates that flexibility and in fact reverses the ability for many teams to hold onto and persist with those youngsters or injured players they have. If we are forced to trim our lists by 6, who are going to be the first to go? Those who are long term injured and those who are untried. This is the opposite to what many of us in this league wish to encourage. Also - and I stand to be correct here - but when we decided to set in place lists of 28 (expanded from 26) there was no mention at all about a corresponding jump in the number of delistments before the pre-season draft. I think a fairer and much more reasonable and flexible way of working is to set down a minimum number of delistments but to have that number enforced across the entire year. That way coaches can pick and choose if and when they wish to cut deeply, when they want to retain young players or injured players, and when they wish to top up their list or rebuild. I disagree with this very strongly, and think it is a hugely retrograde step.

 

Fitzy wrote:
I vote no, don't see the reason on making it compulsory to delist 6. I thought we agreed on it mid-season that you must cut 6 throughout the year, not at end of year. Just think its unnecessary. 100% correct Fitzy. Spot on. My thoughts exactly.

 

Fitzy wrote:
I vote no, don't see the reason on making it compulsory to delist 6. I thought we agreed on it mid-season that you must cut 6 throughout the year, not at end of year. Just think its unnecessary. It was discussed in the context of increased squads Fitzy, but it was not voted on, a specific change was deliberately excluded from the vote discussion for reasons outlined above. From memory I stated how the drafts would be affected if the squad size changed, ie reiterating that a change to the cut numbers and method was not part of the proposal and how it would work in that context. Certainly that was my intent. This second step was kicking around in my head at the time, but I thought I had been successful in keeping it from affecting the discussion at the time, perhaps not

 

chris88 wrote:
Disagree with the proposal on the grounds that it will force us to cut 6 players in time for the pre-season draft. This is the clause I have serious misgivings over: Proposed
Each team enters the Pre-season draft with 22 or less squad members, all Mid-season draft activity is optional. I disagree with this very strongly, as what this does is severely reduces our options in terms of drafting and recruiting players - something which I believe should be opposed. This clause virtually forces us all to take a major role in the pre-season draft as we are compelled to get rid of 6 players before entering that draft period. But there are a number of us who have used the mid-season draft more heavily (or just as heavily) in the past and who, under this clause, will no longer be able to. We all ended up happily surprised with the mid-season draft pool this year. The mid-season draft process played a major role in rejuvenating and re-shaping a number of teams whose coaches were brave enough or perceptive enough to make cuts into their list (or were forced to by injury). But with the rule that we MUST cut to 22 players before the pre-season draft, the mid-season draft loses a large amount of its relevancy. And that I don't think is fair. There needs to be more than one way for coaches to recruit players - as there is for AFL teams to recruit players. And we should be encouraged to use all methods to their fullest, as AFL teams do.
If coaches wish to focus on the pre-season draft, they should be able to - but that should also mean that those coaches who wish to focus on the mid-season draft can do so with the same commitment and fervour. Speaking personally I have used the past two midseason drafts heavily to make-over my team, and believe it is a perfectly legitimate alternative to the pre-season draft to do so.
When we instituted the expanded lists, it was to encourage flexibility and to allow us to keep youngsters/injured players on our list. Cutting 6 players minimum before the pre-season draft completely and utterly negates that flexibility and in fact reverses the ability for many teams to hold onto and persist with those youngsters or injured players they have. If we are forced to trim our lists by 6, who are going to be the first to go? Those who are long term injured and those who are untried. This is the opposite to what many of us in this league wish to encourage. Also - and I stand to be correct here - but when we decided to set in place lists of 28 (expanded from 26) there was no mention at all about a corresponding jump in the number of delistments before the pre-season draft. I think a fairer and much more reasonable and flexible way of working is to set down a minimum number of delistments but to have that number enforced across the entire year. That way coaches can pick and choose if and when they wish to cut deeply, when they want to retain young players or injured players, and when they wish to top up their list or rebuild. I disagree with this very strongly, and think it is a hugely retrograde step. It's a step that the ORFFL have currently, except that they have to do it from lists of 26. My opinion, and thus the proposal is that the extra two slots provide the proper balance, I do not see this as a backward step.

 

Jen wrote:
I vote no - we should be able to cut when we like as long as it tallies up to 6 delistment through the year. I am not sure if you meant that literally Jen, but if so I am completely against it, we need healthy draft pools and only deepish cuts provide those.

 

Lenh191 wrote:
chris88 wrote:
Disagree with the proposal on the grounds that it will force us to cut 6 players in time for the pre-season draft. This is the clause I have serious misgivings over: Proposed
Each team enters the Pre-season draft with 22 or less squad members, all Mid-season draft activity is optional. I disagree with this very strongly, as what this does is severely reduces our options in terms of drafting and recruiting players - something which I believe should be opposed. This clause virtually forces us all to take a major role in the pre-season draft as we are compelled to get rid of 6 players before entering that draft period. But there are a number of us who have used the mid-season draft more heavily (or just as heavily) in the past and who, under this clause, will no longer be able to. We all ended up happily surprised with the mid-season draft pool this year. The mid-season draft process played a major role in rejuvenating and re-shaping a number of teams whose coaches were brave enough or perceptive enough to make cuts into their list (or were forced to by injury). But with the rule that we MUST cut to 22 players before the pre-season draft, the mid-season draft loses a large amount of its relevancy. And that I don't think is fair. There needs to be more than one way for coaches to recruit players - as there is for AFL teams to recruit players. And we should be encouraged to use all methods to their fullest, as AFL teams do.
If coaches wish to focus on the pre-season draft, they should be able to - but that should also mean that those coaches who wish to focus on the mid-season draft can do so with the same commitment and fervour. Speaking personally I have used the past two midseason drafts heavily to make-over my team, and believe it is a perfectly legitimate alternative to the pre-season draft to do so.
When we instituted the expanded lists, it was to encourage flexibility and to allow us to keep youngsters/injured players on our list. Cutting 6 players minimum before the pre-season draft completely and utterly negates that flexibility and in fact reverses the ability for many teams to hold onto and persist with those youngsters or injured players they have. If we are forced to trim our lists by 6, who are going to be the first to go? Those who are long term injured and those who are untried. This is the opposite to what many of us in this league wish to encourage. Also - and I stand to be correct here - but when we decided to set in place lists of 28 (expanded from 26) there was no mention at all about a corresponding jump in the number of delistments before the pre-season draft. I think a fairer and much more reasonable and flexible way of working is to set down a minimum number of delistments but to have that number enforced across the entire year. That way coaches can pick and choose if and when they wish to cut deeply, when they want to retain young players or injured players, and when they wish to top up their list or rebuild. I disagree with this very strongly, and think it is a hugely retrograde step. It's a step that the ORFFL have currently, except that they have to do it from lists of 26. My opinion, and thus the proposal is that the extra two slots provide the proper balance, I do not see this as a backward step. Following the ORFFL shouldn't be something we aspire to do.We are separate leagues - what's good for them isn't necessarily good for us ... and vice versa I might add I'll still vote against it, given that we are trying to encourage a keeper league rather than a washing machine league where players are spun in and out of teams. And I vote against it because I kind of like the mid-season draft, which has the potential of being reduced to a shadow of its former self under this plan.

 

Fitzy wrote:
also Chels, its spelt Fitzy*
I thought it was Fisty?
/Portals/0/User%20Images/12%20hour%20FISTY.jpg' style='width: 400px; height: 310px;

 

chris88 wrote:

It's a step that the ORFFL have currently, except that they have to do it from lists of 26. My opinion, and thus the proposal is that the extra two slots provide the proper balance, I do not see this as a backward step. Following the ORFFL shouldn't be something we aspire to do.We are separate leagues - what's good for them isn't necessarily good for us ... and vice versa I might add I'll still vote against it, given that we are trying to encourage a keeper league rather than a washing machine league where players are spun in and out of teams. And I vote against it because I kind of like the mid-season draft, which has the potential of being reduced to a shadow of its former self under this plan. Lol, as an outspoken individual about our right to be different you are preaching to a converted room on the ORFFL v us my man, I just mean they are cutting to 20, we would currently cut to 24, my belief is the middle ground is correct.
Re the MSD, as the incumbent draft queen I also love the draft, I think both would be improved by this, otherwise I would not propose it.
I did say I had a topic for discussion, and don't get me wrong I do appreciate the discussion..