2022 List sizes - Poll

Discussion in 'ORFFL' started by stripey, Feb 3, 2022.

?

Who is in favour of increasing list sizes for 2022 (once off) to provide extra Covid cover?

  1. No stick with 26

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Increase by 2

    3 vote(s)
    20.0%
  3. Increase by 4

    12 vote(s)
    80.0%
  4. Increase by 6

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. stripey

    stripey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,535
    Likes Received:
    1,049
    As suggested in the other chat, the best way to combat likely Covid impacts during the year is to extend list sizes.

    I propose we do the normal delistings but extend list sizes by 4-6 players as a once off for the 2022 season. It will be up to coaches to ensure they have a spread of players across the teams so they aren’t too impacted if one or two matches don’t take place on a given weekend.

    note if we do this our normal draft schedule will have to move forward by a week or so as there could be an additional 80 or so draft picks to go through …
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2022
    • Like Like x 1
  2. graeme

    graeme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,825
    Likes Received:
    2,454
    Agree that an increase in squad size is probably the best defence against bad covid outcomes. Am happy with what ever decision is reached; itching to get on with some footy.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Gumby

    Gumby Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    105
    Given we have 4 lines - DEF, MID, RUC & FWD - it would seem 4 would be the most logical # if we're going to go down this path?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. PhilArthur

    PhilArthur Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    29
    I'm in favour of 4 extra players on our lists, looking like it could be a COVID disrupted season ahead especially considering the close contact rules such as the crows news tonight with 16 players ruled out in one hit.
     
  5. port_leschenault

    port_leschenault Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,709
    Likes Received:
    1,696
  6. graeme

    graeme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,825
    Likes Received:
    2,454
    @port_leschenault I guess two thirds majority for 30 is a final decision. What, to my knowledge, we have not agreed on is how to allocate / choose the extra four. Time might mean autopicks but I am hopeful based on the speed at which we are drafting that there nay be some choice.
     
  7. stripey

    stripey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,535
    Likes Received:
    1,049
    Yes I think we could get through two extra rounds of picks - 2 picks each round? Snake style maybe?
     
  8. stripey

    stripey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,535
    Likes Received:
    1,049
    I’m about to go back into the comms void that is my world atm, hoping to get out at some stage tomorrow….
     
  9. Len

    Len Cockburn Knightrider Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    10,165
    Likes Received:
    5,524
    Send one of us a pick list mate, avoid shit
     
  10. port_leschenault

    port_leschenault Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,709
    Likes Received:
    1,696
    Depends how important we view aiming to balance lists wherever it's snake or just pure draft order, doesn't matter too much since its the back end of lists anyway.

    Double pick is fine, people having their own choice is good, no first year players to encourage selecting those more likely to play?
     
  11. TerryinBangkok

    TerryinBangkok Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    5,671
    Likes Received:
    2,061
    I am not in favour of restricting first year players.

    You make your choice. If it doesn't work you cop the donut.
     
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page