Not that it has overly impacted me... but want to open the conversation on a LTI replacement type process Thoughts: Some teams have significant injuries to a number of key players making them uncompetitive, and in some cases, making other teams gain wins they would not normally have had which could have an impact in the draft. For example let's say this scenario (Jim I hope this never happens) Iron Knob were struck down with 3-4 key players (Gazza anyone) for a long period of time in the first 3-4 rounds of the season. Lets assume they are injuries of 8+ weeks to each of the players... and their scoring output drops by about 200 pts per week, or maybe even more if they have donuts Iron Knob have close to the best starting 15 kicking around, but because of this, they lose a number of close games, and oscillate around (and finish) 12th for the season. This will give them pick 7 in the mid season draft and in next years draft... a fairly good advantage. What then happens is that Iron Knob get their gun players back, and go back to having a very strong list, and get a high first round draft pick to further strengthen their team, to a point where the next season they are even stronger than the current season. The teams that have squeaked out the close wins are further up the table and are effectively 'punching above their weight'... but get a draft pick behind one of the gun teams What if instead, we had the ability to 'elevate' a free agent for a period of time to compensate for injuries, just like in the AFL. A couple of conditions: It has to be a Long Term injury - lets say 8 weeks but we can work out the number later The player that gets moved to the LTI list must stay on the LTI list for that period of time, regardless if they come back early in real life or not. This may or may not be a good thing... I'm still thinking about it The player must be moved to the LTI list in the week after the injury is assessed to be long term, this is to stop people hedging their bets (again not sure if good or bad) The elevated player must be released back to the list when the LTI players 'offlist' period has expired The player that is elevated is not available for MSD, but is available for PSD by any club, regardless of the duration of the LTI. Benefits: Team remains competitive - especially if they do not have a player to fill a spot Removes some of the 'luck of the draw' of coming across a team when it is soft I'm sorry my head is all over the place with this, and some of what is above may not make a lot of sense, just a brain dump as I thought of it just now and have to jump into a meeting! Discuss
I don't disagree with any of what Bandit has written above. But there was one thing ... did we extend our squads from 26 to 28 at mid-year last year to try to address this problem? I can't recall for sure, but was that the main reason behind the squad expansion?
I'd welcome peoples thoughts on this also, going back to the league expansion proposals I ventured a very similar idea with similar structure but it got buried in the rest of the discussion..
Chris, my recollection of the expansion (and I cannot be certain either) was to allow room for teams to hold young players they took in a draft while still being able to field a team. But, I may be wrong....
chels wrote: Chris, my recollection of the expansion (and I cannot be certain either) was to allow room for teams to hold young players they took in a draft while still being able to field a team. But, I may be wrong.... I think that may well have been an element of it Chels - reckon you are right there. But I also had the feeling there was some talk around the impact of injuries on players and on squads as well. Bandit makes some really good points and I agree with quite a few of them. I have a couple of my own: First up - I put forward the suggestion that there should be a limit of one LTI replacement per team per season. The reason I say this is that this limit really makes our coaches (like AFL teams) have to think about putting someone on the LTI list and finding someone else to fill in. I'll use my mob as an example - I have Michael Walters and Josh Gibson as two LTIs that have been out for quite a while. I reckon replacing one of them with someone off the free agent list (for Walters that might well have been, ironically, Ben McGlynn) is cool. But having two 'ring-ins' running around I'm not too keen on. I reckon that makes things a bit easy and really ends up seeing the league not impacted at all by LTIs. There should be some thought processes and decision making required for coaches when it comes to all injuries, including LTIs. In Supercoach, we have gazillions of Gary Ablett owners deciding whether to hold or trade. If you trade - you lose the trade. You don't get it back, you can't use it again. If you hold, you lose a player but gain the ability to cover him with someone you already have - one of your reserves - and reserve the opportunity to use that trade at a later date. I see ORFFA as a similar situation. If you use an LTI pick up early in the year, then that's it, that is your allowance for the year and you get no more. Again, I would've been inclined to use my LTI pick-up very early in the year (Round 3) to replace Walters. But I would also have been cursing a bit because when Gibson went down I was down to the barest minimum of defenders (others were out, not playing or had niggles) ... I would've been thinking- 'Maybe I should've held that LTI replacement ....' Second point - anyone who drafts someone with a pre-existing injury - a young draftee in the PSD or someone in the MSD - does not have the opportunity to then bung them on the LTI and get a replacement. That isn't really fair. If you want to draft someone with an injury, then that's your choice, and you have to wear the short term pain for long term gain. Again, I recall Nathan Wright from StKilda being dropped before the MSD, with LTI a factor. Someone else has picked him up to stash him as good young talent. Now that person who picked up Nathan Wright has done so with the view that the long term gain is worth Wright missing in the short term. They shouldn't be able to have an LTI replacement as well. Third point - If we go down this trail, would it be worth considering whether a team that has a player that has filled in for their team in an LTI replacement capacity should have first dibs on them in the next draft in order to draft them permanently into their side. That 'dibs' costs of course - maybe a second round pick in the PSD. But again, if I'd bunged Walters on the LTI, picked up Ben McGlynn as a like for like replacement, then I'd probably have gotten to like his efforts and would be keen to keep him right now. So I'd say that I would keep him, it'll cost me my second round PSD draft pick, and I have to nominate a player I'm going to delist to make room for him. It just strengthens the loyalty thing we try to have in this league - and it also makes coaches think wisely about whether it is a worthwhile cost to bring the free agent onto their team permanently. Again, this is why point 2 is important - that way we cant draft injured players into our sides and then decide to get first dibs on an LTI replacement as well. That's not fair.
I don't really have a strong opinion one way or another, but if it were to go ahead, Bandit's second point that the player that is put on the injured list has to serve the full time on the injured list regardless of if he comes back early from injury HAS to be one of the conditions. Otherwise, people can just hedge their bets and place anyone and everyone on the injured list and churn through players. What the minimum time would be is up for debate I guess. 10 weeks sounds about right to me. Has to be long enough that it is a deterrent for people putting players on there, but also allows players to be compensated when bad luck befalls them. Having said that, bad luck is part of the game. It has decided AFL premierships, ORFFA premierships already...
I agree with your points Chris, except the 3rd one... if that person remained a free agent then everyone would have dibs on them come the draft... this should be no different and I think the side that used them to cover an LTI will just need to stump up the early draft pick if they think they are good enough. I especially like the limit of LTI players... maybe 1 at a time vs 1 per season. <p >Agree with the exclusion of players who have been drafted with an injury The only other thing is... if we don;t limit the number of LTI claims a side can have, what would you do about a player like Daniel Menzel... he comes back to training, but before he plays a game breaks down again... does he or doesn't he quality as an LTI, as if he is technically fit in pre-season (ie not on the injury list) then it may prompt someone to take a punt
Bandit wrote: I agree with your points Chris, except the 3rd one... if that person remained a free agent then everyone would have dibs on them come the draft... this should be no different and I think the side that used them to cover an LTI will just need to stump up the early draft pick if they think they are good enough. I especially like the limit of LTI players... maybe 1 at a time vs 1 per season. Agree with the exclusion of players who have been drafted with an injury The only other thing is... if we don;t limit the number of LTI claims a side can have, what would you do about a player like Daniel Menzel... he comes back to training, but before he plays a game breaks down again... does he or doesn't he quality as an LTI, as if he is technically fit in pre-season (ie not on the injury list) then it may prompt someone to take a punt I'd look at Menzel alongside a bevy of other players who end up injured in the pre-season. If they are injured late enough in the pre-season (that is, after the chance to delist them might have passed) then they could be put on the LTI list. But - and this would be the thing - because there are often a number of pre-season injuries, we could consider a limitation that no LTI replacements are allowed until round 6 or 8 of the season. That would prevent a mad rush to the free agent list at the start of the season, and may in fact allow some players to recover and get back on the park, meaning no LTI replacements would be needed. I take on board what CR says above though too and agree with what he says. Injuries do play a part in all these things and sometimes bad luck is just bad luck. If we went down this LTI replacement track, we'd probably need pretty strict limits on its usage - not so it wouldn't be abused, but so it actually doesn't take away from the random elements of the game we already play. Injuries, suspensions, freak accidents, mid year retirements - they all happen. In the majority of cases we should just roll with the punches. I've had 3 guys injured in warm-ups this year, a guy fall off his bike and break a toe and someone get a gash so deep that their leg got infected from the toxic Docklands turf. Sometimes these things just happen and you just have to go with them.
Interesting. Thanks Bandit - the idea has some merit, even if Len claims it as his own. I take it we are hypothetically looking at season 2015? On squad size, both the comments above are correct. It was having an investment in young talent and being pressured to give them up partly because LTI's hit other players. As for classifying an LTI (how long, etc.) I would be inclined to simply follow the AFL system. He is listed by his club as LTI and the day the injured player runs onto the park for the firsts, he is no longer LTI and you have to give up your fill-in player back to the pool. The subtle difference between ORFFA and AFL is that AFL clubs are forced to promote a rookie to replace an LTI. We have neither a rookie list nor the numbers that AFL clubs have. In the above scenario, a coach could look at the free agent talent available and decide to hold, rather than bring in a temp. Don't think it has been mentioned, but the temp would have to have the same position as the LTI, but that does not restrict you to play him in that position (same as the rest of your squad). Yes? If at the first opportunity you offload your LTI, then the temp has to return to the pool and your squad size is only reduced by one (i.e., the LTI). Also yes? Personally I don't think such a move would be reducing the 'luck' element too much since it is a common occurrence in the AFL. 'Luck' would be if the real life LTI is replaced by a rookie who just happens to be also on your list + you get a temp. Some good discussion so far and I hope a few other coaches will drop in.
I am a not sure on LTI replacements. I have held Chris Knights who was injured in (I think) round 7 last year, almost got on the track this year before being injured in the magoos in round 3 and might get on the park before year end. Giving purely a personal perspective I would love to have been able to retain him on the list and field a replacement. It really would be the best of both worlds. I would have seen who was playing well and then 'double dipped.' What I (in common with chief) accepted as rub of the green would have been converted into a good break. At the same time I have been fortunate enough to be able to field a full team nearly every week. Had I not been so fortunate I would be more in the LTI replacement camp. Bearing that in mind I would be happy to consider a LTI replacement with a series of caveats, not restricted to, but along the lines of: 1. The replacement player must fill the same line. If you lose a forward, your replacement LTI guy must be a forward. In the case of a dual position player, then the line the injured player filled most often in the year to date is his designated line. 2. The LTI replacement must be made within two game weeks of the player going on the LTI list. Some rookie elevations are done on Friday and it would be unfair to miss out on a replacement due to late notice by the AFL club. 3. In the event of two or more LTI replacements being requested in the same week, the order of choice is determined by reverse ladder position (i.e., lowest to highest). 4. An LTI replacement is the player of last resort. If you can fill a line with players selected on Thursday evening (or the equivalent time) then the LTI replacement can be no more than an emergency. Your opponent can call 'foul' if you slot a LTI replacement in ahead of a selected player on the same line. The latter clause might seem harsh but for mine the point of the replacement is to enable us to field a full team not to enhance a squad. Happy to enter into further debate on this.
Further point - if you trade in or draft a player on a LTI list there should be a restriction on him being then held and replaced by another player.
Or, to keep it simple, an LTI is classified only as a player listed as 'season'? What would people think about the case of Dayle Garlett?
TerryinBangkok wrote: Or, to keep it simple, an LTI is classified only as a player listed as 'season'? What would people think about the case of Dayle Garlett? I disagree with that. Again, I look at my Walters example. He has never been out for the season but has been listed as being out 14-16 weeks from the date of injury. That's an LTI. Also - as the season draws closer to an end, more players are out for the remainder of the season because there are fewer weeks left. Again, as an example, I wouldn't be able to replace Walters, who copped his LTI in Round 3, but Jen could replace Rosa - injured this week and out for the season. No disrespect of course to Jen or Matty Rosa, who's been playing well, but that seems a bit lopsided. As for Garlett - he wasn't injured so no dice on that one.
OK, let me try and consolidate this into a list of points / rules / guidelines that have been discussed and hopefully get this to a point where we can gain agreement. The definition of a Long Term Injury in the AFL Collective Bargaining agreement is: [span style='color: #ff0000;]A long term injury means an injury or illness suffered by a Playerwhich, in the opinion of the AFL Medical Officer, after consultation with the AFL Club Medical Officer, will prevent or is likely to prevent a Player, having dueregard to his health and safety, from participating in a Match for a period of not lessthan eight weeks from the date the injury or illness is diagnosed. <div> Therefore I propose that the definition of a Long Term injury is any entry on the AFL Injury list that states a player is going to be out for at least 8 weeks. Key points for us to consider: 1. Only 1 LTI substitution allowed at any one time 2. The new player added to the playing list must fill the same line as the player he is substituting, however he can play across any line (ie you can play him OOP or using Dual position) 3. The new player can only be in the starting 15 if the team is going to have a donut, it is fine to be listed as an emergency. The new player does not need to fill the donut however. (Coach can opt to have another player fill the donut as OOP) 4. The new player added to the playing list, if still on the list at the start of the MSD, is not available to be drafted by any team (including the team that holds the player temporarily) 5. The new player added to the playing list will be available for all teams to draft at the commencement of the pre-season draft, with no special consideration given to the team that added him to their playing list as their LTI replacement 6. The LTI player must remain off the playing list for the club for the full duration of the original injury prognosis, irrespective of if he returns to his AFL club earlier 7.[span style='color: #000000; background: #ffffff;]The player must be moved to the LTI list in the two weeks after the injury is assessed to be long term [span style='color: #000000; background: #ffffff;]8. A player drafted with a pre existing injury can not be moved to the LTI list until he resumes playing for his AFL club (can be reserves or seniors) [span style='color: #000000; background: #ffffff;]9. If the player with a LTI is delisted from their club, then the player substituting for the LTI player must also be released at the same time [span style='color: #000000; background: #ffffff;]10.[span style='color: #000000; background: #ffffff;]In the event of two or more LTI replacements being requested by ORFFA clubs in the same week, the order of choice is determined by reverse ladder position (i.e., lowest to highest). [span style='color: #000000; background: #ffffff;] [span style='color: #000000; background: #ffffff;]Does that sum it up? good discussion so far
Bandit wrote: OK, let me try and consolidate this into a list of points / rules / guidelines that have been discussed and hopefully get this to a point where we can gain agreement. The definition of a Long Term Injury in the AFL Collective Bargaining agreement is: [span style='color: #ff0000;]A long term injury means an injury or illness suffered by a Playerwhich, in the opinion of the AFL Medical Officer, after consultation with the AFL Club Medical Officer, will prevent or is likely to prevent a Player, having dueregard to his health and safety, from participating in a Match for a period of not lessthan eight weeks from the date the injury or illness is diagnosed. <div> Therefore I propose that the definition of a Long Term injury is any entry on the AFL Injury list that states a player is going to be out for at least 8 weeks. Key points for us to consider: 1. Only 1 LTI substitution allowed at any one time 2. The new player added to the playing list must fill the same line as the player he is substituting, however he can play across any line (ie you can play him OOP or using Dual position) 3. The new player can only be in the starting 15 if the team is going to have a donut, it is fine to be listed as an emergency. The new player does not need to fill the donut however. (Coach can opt to have another player fill the donut as OOP) 4. The new player added to the playing list, if still on the list at the start of the MSD, is not available to be drafted by any team (including the team that holds the player temporarily) 5. The new player added to the playing list will be available for all teams to draft at the commencement of the pre-season draft, with no special consideration given to the team that added him to their playing list as their LTI replacement 6. The LTI player must remain off the playing list for the club for the full duration of the original injury prognosis, irrespective of if he returns to his AFL club earlier 7.[span style='background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% #ffffff; color: #000000;]The player must be moved to the LTI list in the two weeks after the injury is assessed to be long term [span style='background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% #ffffff; color: #000000;]8. A player drafted with a pre existing injury can not be moved to the LTI list until he resumes playing for his AFL club (can be reserves or seniors) [span style='background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% #ffffff; color: #000000;]9. If the player with a LTI is delisted from their club, then the player substituting for the LTI player must also be released at the same time [span style='background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% #ffffff; color: #000000;]10.[span style='background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% #ffffff; color: #000000;]In the event of two or more LTI replacements being requested by ORFFA clubs in the same week, the order of choice is determined by reverse ladder position (i.e., lowest to highest). [span style='background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% #ffffff; color: #000000;] [span style='background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% #ffffff; color: #000000;]Does that sum it up? good discussion so far My opinions; Prologue - Agree 1. Per team Yes 2. Agree 100%, appreciate the opposing argument but this is simpler, I like simple (remember too that positioning will be ts status) 3. Disagree - If you have him on your list you play him when and where you like for that period (No AFL team is forced to play their elevated rookies) 4. Disagree, at MSD they are released into the pool (it goes for 3 weeks) they can draft a replacement or decide to suck it up. 5. Agree 6. Who and how is this policed? Easier to say and manage that the replacement must be released when the LTI is named for AFL 7. Not sure I understand this 8. Agree 9. Agree 10. Agree Also, implementation if agreed to is Next year, nothing changes this year.
In the interest of the KISS principle, the reason we increased the list size was to reduce the likelihood of fielding unfilled teams. To a large extent this has worked. Certainly at least for me. We risk making it all too complex and onerous if we bring in exceptions to the rule. If we still feel this is a serious problem, perhaps we can extend the list to 29 or 30 players. People who do their homework and pick players that are not injury prone and turn up to play each week should be rewarded. If you're unlucky, as they say in San Fermin,'Sometimes, the bull, she wins.'
[span style='color: #000000; background: #f1f1f1;]7.[span style='color: #000000; background: none 0% 0% repeat scroll #ffffff;]The player must be moved to the LTI list in the two weeks after the injury is assessed to be long term. [span style='color: #000000; background: none 0% 0% repeat scroll #ffffff;] [span style='color: #000000; background: none 0% 0% repeat scroll #ffffff;]Len, the idea behind this (perhaps the wording could be better) was once a player's injury is assessed as being long term (whatever definition we agree) and is listed ion the ORFFA injury list as such, the ORFFA manager has two weeks to place the player on the LTI list and nominate the replacement. [span style='color: #000000; background: none 0% 0% repeat scroll #ffffff;] [span style='color: #000000; background: none 0% 0% repeat scroll #ffffff;]Perhaps the LTI list may be included in the injury list thread?
chels wrote: [span style='background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% #f1f1f1; color: #000000;]7.[span style='background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% #ffffff; color: #000000;]The player must be moved to the LTI list in the two weeks after the injury is assessed to be long term. [span style='background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% #ffffff; color: #000000;] [span style='background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% #ffffff; color: #000000;]Len, the idea behind this (perhaps the wording could be better) was once a player's injury is assessed as being long term (whatever definition we agree) and is listed ion the ORFFA injury list as such, the ORFFA manager has two weeks to place the player on the LTI list and nominate the replacement. [span style='background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% #ffffff; color: #000000;] [span style='background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% #ffffff; color: #000000;]Perhaps the LTI list may be included in the injury list thread? Got it, ta that makes sense Overall I am not sure if I am pro or anti the idea, I do think it has merit but I also tend to agree with Andy's point.. I am also conscious of not creating anything requiring much admin, from memory my proposal was a rookie list, where we picked one or 2 extras that could elevated from our own list for an LTI or at periods similar to the AFL lists. As one of the few who have been unable to field a full team many times through injury i am not that fussed and am not sure I need or deserve the coverage. Caveat Emptor.
TerryinBangkok wrote: I thought Prap picked up Caveat Emptor in the last MSD? Is he now LTI? I need more non giants remember, trade in