2017 Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'ORFFU' started by JPK, Jan 3, 2017.

  1. JPK

    JPK Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    4,667
    Likes Received:
    3,122
    Now that its the new year, let us commence with a new 2017 discussion thread.

    I'd like to start by asking the question of "what do we do with the Port-GC bye in round 9?"
    There are three options currently being floated, but if anyone has any other ideas, please put them forward:
    1. Take the averages of the missing players, but only if they played in R8.
    2. Reduce the number of players required in ORFFU for the round, from 15 down to 13 or 14 per side.
    3. Use the extra 2 squad players that we'll have to cover for these outs for one week.
    4. Allow OOP players without penalty to cover the bye players.
    What are everyone's preferences regarding this, or are there any alternate suggestions? Please let us know, so that we can make a final ruling sooner rather than later (as it may effect some trading / drafting strategy).
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2017
  2. Tylo

    Tylo Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    473
    I don't mind either way but another alternative would be to allow players to play out of position without penalty to cover missing players. Again it should probably only be for those that played round 8.
     
  3. wrightbrendan

    wrightbrendan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,092
    Likes Received:
    1,173
    I think option 1 works best with the added point that the player isnt on the AFL injury report, e.g. played rnd 8 but got injured and would have missed rnd 9 anyway
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. choppers

    choppers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,566
    Likes Received:
    2,404
    Option 1 for me as well, at this stage, with the same proviso @wrightbrendan posted.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2017
  5. JPK

    JPK Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    4,667
    Likes Received:
    3,122
    My opinion started with option two, but I've moved to option three.
    Quite simply: if a player doesn't play, he can't score points!

    We're increasing the squad sizes this year, so here is a chance to make use of it (and yes, I'm greatly effected with 5 players missing out - T Jonas, O Wines, B Ebert, J Westhoff, and T Miller).
     
  6. JPK

    JPK Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    4,667
    Likes Received:
    3,122
    I like this suggestion - its been added to the list.
     
  7. choppers

    choppers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,566
    Likes Received:
    2,404
    The problem I have with that option, even though we'll have 28 players, is that the team that Coolgardie plays, if you can't replace those 5 players, that then gives an unfair boost in %, which may come into play, later on maybe in determining final positions. And Banchang has 7 players in that same position or 25% of my team unavailable.......so whoever we play gets a huge leg up.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2017
  8. bryzza

    bryzza Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,917
    Likes Received:
    1,244
    im for keeping it simple and fair ....... option 1 :D
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. insider

    insider Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,730
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    option 1
     
  10. eagle_eyed

    eagle_eyed Training the house down!

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    1,353
    Going to put this out there; our scores each round depend on who the AFL clubs are playing, even more so in the finals. If we have a team laden with players from clubs that have easy draws in the last part of the season we have an advantage; similarly if your stars are playing tougher teams then it becomes a disadvantage. I would like to think that we would play the round as any other and use our squads to cover players that are out. Yes I'll only be missing two players but one will be my first choice ruck. I was short 4 players due to doping suspensions this year but I knew something was going to happen and was prepared to wear the pain. There is plenty of time prior to the season to trade players out if people want to and when it comes to the draft people can choose which club they are drafting from. I would hope that with a squad of 28 we would be able to cover the guys that are out; even if it means playing OOP at half points.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  11. fresh

    fresh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    1,546
    I think the Geelong v Adelaide clash of 2014 is sort of a 'kind of precedent' for this round, option 1 gets my vote.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. wrightbrendan

    wrightbrendan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,092
    Likes Received:
    1,173
    I just don't think it is reasonable to expect coaches to rearrange their squads based on one game that isn't a regular occurrence.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. choppers

    choppers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,566
    Likes Received:
    2,404
    I agree, especially when no-one knew this game was happening when putting their squads together. Now, if this game is a success in China, then it will probably become a regular occurrence, maybe not with the same 2 teams however. If that becomes reality, then we need to come up with a solution that is fair to all teams, and I think option 1 is the best way to do that.
     
  14. Tylo

    Tylo Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    473
    Option 1 seems fair but I am a little against it because it takes away some of the realism of our competition. I enjoy the illusion that these are real teams running out against each other every week.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  15. HOLKY

    HOLKY Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,936
    Likes Received:
    1,699
    Option 1
     
  16. martyg

    martyg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    1,030
    Option 1 or 2 works for me. Vote time?
     
  17. choppers

    choppers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,566
    Likes Received:
    2,404
    I count 16 people have voted so far.
    7 for Option 1... wrightbrendan,insider,fresh, marty,mick,Damo and choppers
    9 for Option 3...JPK, tyze, eagle-eyed,bryzza, Tomster, tylo, Yad, batfink, holky

    THE POLL IS NOW CLOSED AND OPTION 3 GOT THE NOD AND WILL BE IN EFFECT FOR RD 9 THIS YEAR.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Tylo

    Tylo Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    473
    I dunno that I'm actually voting for option1. I just said it seems fair
     
  19. choppers

    choppers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,566
    Likes Received:
    2,404
    edited to suit.....
     
  20. tyze1

    tyze1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    1,781
    all views have merit, I agree that the expanded squads should help cover any losses and we should just have to suck it up...
    If option 1 gets up (which I think it will) then it should be on proviso that GC / PA players played in the previous week / are not listed as an out / suspended on AFL site
     
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page