I prefer cats for good reason I still think it's an odd idea tbh, I significantly prefer the 1 v 8 approach, but then I won't be playing finals this year.
I think we go with the standard AFL finals approach Failing that, I'm sure Duckworth Lewis have a nice convoluted formula that hopefully has some sort of decision review system underpinning it so we can go over this again in a week or so
TerryinBangkok wrote: Read all that. Think there was desire for a spirit of conformity with ORRFL at the time some of those views were tossed around. Funny how quickly things can change when some dog craps in your tuckerbox. Aren't committees supposed to report to somebody? I have the impression, but may be wrong, that the match committee, having done it's job, on the seventh day had a bbq and a swim. It was then discovered that finals had not been adequately resolved with any clarity. Thus it is quite possible that the chairman was unable to raise the committee from their merriment and interpreted the (ORFFL) rules in the OP as being suggested ORFFA rules, hence went down the pick your partners and dosie doe path. Still, ample time - any strong views out there? Thanks for that vote of confidence Terry! We actually had quite a few days of back and forth discussion on the matter, albeit it was probably left a little late... Here is my view on it at the time which I still hold to, the basic feel was the AFL awards teams with a double chance, something we cant offer, so a 'choice of opponent' was our resolution of the 'reward for finishing top'. Of course ORFFL does the same so it seemed a good idea at the time. I believe it was a unanimous vote. Like anything it should be reviewed at seasons end if enough GM's dont like it... <p > <dd class='meta' style='margin-bottom: 10px; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 20px; outline: 0px; background-color: #eeeeee; -webkit-transition: all 0.15s ease; transition: all 0.15s ease; color: #333333;]<em style='font-size: 15px; outline: 0px; background-color: transparent; -webkit-transition: all 0.15s ease; transition: all 0.15s ease;]jimbowan</dd> <dd class='message' data-bind='text: Body' style='margin-bottom: 15px; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 20px; outline: 0px; background-color: #eeeeee; -webkit-transition: all 0.15s ease; transition: all 0.15s ease; color: #888888;]Hi guys,<br style='transition: all 0.15s ease; -webkit-transition: all 0.15s ease;[/img] <br style='transition: all 0.15s ease; -webkit-transition: all 0.15s ease;[/img] I like the ORFFL structure. The problem with 1 v 8 and so on is a team could go undefeated during the year, finish top and have to play 8th who might be on a mini tear and a tough opponent.<br style='transition: all 0.15s ease; -webkit-transition: all 0.15s ease;[/img] <br style='transition: all 0.15s ease; -webkit-transition: all 0.15s ease;[/img] I like that 1st gets to pick his opponent. Maybe 5th hasnt won in 4 games, has a ton of injuries etc and so would be a better choice for 1.<br style='transition: all 0.15s ease; -webkit-transition: all 0.15s ease;[/img] <br style='transition: all 0.15s ease; -webkit-transition: all 0.15s ease;[/img] But WHY favour 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th so much?<br style='transition: all 0.15s ease; -webkit-transition: all 0.15s ease;[/img] <br style='transition: all 0.15s ease; -webkit-transition: all 0.15s ease;[/img] Beacuse in the standard format they would get a double chance which we can not offer them.<br style='transition: all 0.15s ease; -webkit-transition: all 0.15s ease;[/img] <br style='transition: all 0.15s ease; -webkit-transition: all 0.15s ease;[/img] So letting them choose their match up seems to swing the power back to the top teams, and why shouldnt they be rewarded for finishing top? The AFL rewards them with a double chance.<br style='transition: all 0.15s ease; -webkit-transition: all 0.15s ease;[/img] <br style='transition: all 0.15s ease; -webkit-transition: all 0.15s ease;[/img] Jimbos vote - ORFFL rules, top 4 pick opponents in order 1st through to 4th.</dd>
Whodaone undefeated thru the season? The ORFFA brain's trust can't come up with anything better at short notice, so guess it is best to leave it alone this year, even if some don't like it (e.g. 5-8). Jimbos vote - ORFFL rules, top 4 pick opponents in order 1st through to 4th. Just so it is clear. All finals are elimination. The top 4 pick opponents, but those opponents could be any team ranked 1-8, not necessarily 5-8? Or will the natural order of things determine 5-8 anyway? It would, in my view, make it a bit fairer if the top 4 nominated their opponents immediately at the conclusion of the final round (when the ladder is posted). Always have my confidence Jimbo. It's just that at the time Trigg was on an extended holiday and wasn't too sure if anyone was doing any work.
Lenh191 wrote: What if one picks two, because two has just lost three players to injury? Does two then get to pick? I would say no, then the pick that the second placed team has would fall to 5 or lower if 5 is picked etc
Bandit wrote: Lenh191 wrote: What if one picks two, because two has just lost three players to injury? Does two then get to pick? I would say no, then the pick that the second placed team has would fall to 5 or lower if 5 is picked etc That effectively kills the idea that this would naturally result in rewarding the teams finishing top 4 then.
To clarify I am pretty sure it was meant 1 would pick from 5-8 and then 2 would pick from whats left, then 3 and then 4. All of the top 4 should be rewarded as in the AFL season when they get a double chance. Also agree it should be done at the very end of the final round and not when teams come out on the Thu etc. Maybe it should be posted by the WED of the first finals week?
Sorry, did not realise this discussion was being had... I better sit down on my chair and add 2c... anthak wrote: On the decision, we did consider all the feedback (found mostly here) and had to make a call that wasnt going to be everyone's cuppa tea. As a Committee, we've been discussing this by PM, on and off, since late March; we threw around plenty of ideas, but figured this format, announced above, to be the best bet. anthak wrote: i must add that we have also discussed logistics of when decisions of opponents need to be made by etc, but we havent came up with an answer yet. We'll get back to that and announce something shortly. These two quotes come from this thread, up above. As the few that were delegated to come up with a format, we did take in and consider the feedback in this thread and also in the link that is in the first quote, and then we had a good discussion about it between us over PM. We came up with a decision that we thought was best, and it was unanimous consensus (is that tautology; anyway, I feel it is necessary). As indicated in the 2nd quote, we had already started discussing logistics, ie what timeframe is available to make the selection. I remember that chels had some interesting ideas about that side of things... But we had not made any decisions. yet... Maybe its about time we reconvened and sorted that stuff out.... We'll get back to y'all. And, on behalf of the match committee, apologies for the confusion about whether the top 3 can pick other top 4 teams as opponents. It was my impression, from our discussions, and the final wording, that top 4 had to pick someone from 5-8, but I may be wrong... We better get back to yas about that point too
jimbowan wrote: To clarify I am pretty sure it was meant 1 would pick from 5-8 and then 2 would pick from whats left, then 3 and then 4. All of the top 4 should be rewarded as in the AFL season when they get a double chance. Also agree it should be done at the very end of the final round and not when teams come out on the Thu etc. Maybe it should be posted by the [span style='text-decoration: line-through;]WED [span style='font-size: 24px; color: #ff0000;]MON of the first finals week?
I am with Jimbo on this one: 'Jimbos vote - ORFFL rules, top 4 pick opponents in order 1st through to 4th.' A basic understanding of English suggests that teams one through four must select from teams five through eight and the order of picking is set. That said, I did not previously contemplate the top side selecting the second side in round one. But lets stick with the Jimbo manifesto. As to when the picks need to be made, it is possible the exact composition of the eight will not be known until the results summary is published after round 17. I accept everyone in the top four would like to be able to see the details of any citings by the judiciary before they make their pick. Not the outcome just the detail. That would, I think, typically be around 6pm AEST on the Tuesday, which also gives times for the four and eight to be publicised. There is a problem with getting all of us online at the same stage, so I suggest each of the top three send Ant (or his nominee if his team is in the top four) a list of picks. One gives one pick, two would need to give two picks (in case one has taken that pick already) and three would need to give three picks - number four does not need to pick. It is up to Ant to decide whether he makes all picks public. Over to you, the golf course calls.
Ok, we've got two convos going about these points: one in this forum and 1 by pm, with just FIXture committee members. As Chair, I'm not going to push my views, just try and facilitate an agreement... At this stage though, we have 3 different suggestions up in the air (from 3 different Committee members) and appreciated, not so subtle, input from the Comish too, which is different again though. Maybe I should suggest Friday and, between 5 of us, we would have every week day covered bahaha... Anyway, I reckon it's prob best for us to try and agree on a day by PM and then announce it. If anyone else wants to give feedback, nows the time, and here's the spot.
Fitzy wrote: Announcment on the format of the ORFFA 2013 Finals Series We have ended up coming to a conclusion that we would go with: Finals, week 1: top 8 qualify; 1st picks opponent, then 2nd picks opponent, then 3rd picks; then remaining two teams play each other. &euro; Finals week 2: The four week 1 winners progress; top ranked (from final regular season standings) winner picks opponent; and other 2 play each other. Finals, week 3: The two week 2 winners progress to the Grand final. All games are at the home ground of the team that finished the regular season ranked higher on the ladder. Just for further clarity, The FIXture committee are all in agreement that in week 1 of the finals, the Top3 teams can only select their opponent from teams ranked 5-8 on the final ladder. We'll get back to you about week 2, and on what day the decision needs to be made in each week.
chels wrote: I am with Jimbo on this one: 'Jimbos vote - ORFFL rules, top 4 pick opponents in order 1st through to 4th.' A basic understanding of English suggests that teams one through four must select from teams five through eight and the order of picking is set. That said, I did not previously contemplate the top side selecting the second side in round one. But lets stick with the Jimbo manifesto. As to when the picks need to be made, it is possible the exact composition of the eight will not be known until the results summary is published after round 17. I accept everyone in the top four would like to be able to see the details of any citings by the judiciary before they make their pick. Not the outcome just the detail. That would, I think, typically be around 6pm AEST on the Tuesday, which also gives times for the four and eight to be publicised. There is a problem with getting all of us online at the same stage, so I suggest each of the top three send Ant (or his nominee if his team is in the top four) a list of picks. One gives one pick, two would need to give two picks (in case one has taken that pick already) and three would need to give three picks - number four does not need to pick. It is up to Ant to decide whether he makes all picks public. Over to you, the golf course calls. No finals for me but ill +1 chels
When it comes time to review finals (after they are done and dusted), I would toss in that coming 4th is worthless in terms of picking your opponent. But anyway, let's agree that it is 5-8 as I think everyone pretty much expected it to be and we await thoughts on chels' ideas.
As stated above I think it's an unnecessary complication and a bit odd, but am content to have it tried, I do understand the intent, I am just not sure that this addresses it.