ORFFA 2014 Round 1 - FFAF

Len wrote:
chris88 wrote:
Final team for Darraweit as follows: DEF: Rance, McKenzie, Walker, James Frawley (McPharlin) MID: Cornes, Brendan Goddard, David Armitage, Ivan Maric (to allow Coniglio onto the field), (Coniglio) RUCK: Nic Naitanui FWD: Westhoff, Walters, Vickery, Brent Harvey (McDonough) I/C: Brad Hill, Dom Tyson (Foley) Players in bold are playing this weekend. Chris Maric's team has already played, he can't be added. Geez - sorry about that Len, JC, everyone. Simply didn't think ... didn't occur to me that Maric's team had already played. It has been a long week. OK - It's after the first game on Friday now, so the best thing to do is simply withdraw Maric and leave the spot blank. I know the upshot of that is most likely the same as having him in, but still - he's out. Again, apologies everyone.

 

Looks like my young bench mids (with help from Goddard) might've done enough to save my bacon against Birdsville - Dom Tyson and Brad Hill scored 200+ between them in today's games, which is very handy. Hopefully Nic Nat plays enough time off the bench to gather the points I need to edge into the lead tomorrow. But stranger things have happened. Meanwhile Jen is lamenting leaving Chappy and Josh Saunders (both 110+ points) on the bench. There's some depth at the Lilacs this year it seems.

 

chris88 wrote:
Looks like my young bench mids (with help from Goddard) might've done enough to save my bacon against Birdsville - Dom Tyson and Brad Hill scored 200+ between them in today's games, which is very handy. Hopefully Nic Nat plays enough time off the bench to gather the points I need to edge into the lead tomorrow. But stranger things have happened. Meanwhile Jen is lamenting leaving Chappy and Josh Saunders (both 110+ points) on the bench. There's some depth at the Lilacs this year it seems. Saunders should have been a misfit or a devil, I know I was taking him with the next pick, are you sure Jen isn't a secret sainter??

 

Jen wrote:
Len wrote:
chris88 wrote:
Looks like my young bench mids (with help from Goddard) might've done enough to save my bacon against Birdsville - Dom Tyson and Brad Hill scored 200+ between them in today's games, which is very handy. Hopefully Nic Nat plays enough time off the bench to gather the points I need to edge into the lead tomorrow. But stranger things have happened. Meanwhile Jen is lamenting leaving Chappy and Josh Saunders (both 110+ points) on the bench. There's some depth at the Lilacs this year it seems. Saunders should have been a misfit or a devil, I know I was taking him with the next pick, are you sure Jen isn't a secret sainter?? HELL NO Len, it's Geelong all the way for me. Between both Chris and I we have 6 Sainters. Just checking

 

chris88 wrote:
Len wrote:
chris88 wrote:
Final team for Darraweit as follows: DEF: Rance, McKenzie, Walker, James Frawley (McPharlin) MID: Cornes, Brendan Goddard, David Armitage, Ivan Maric (to allow Coniglio onto the field), (Coniglio) RUCK: Nic Naitanui FWD: Westhoff, Walters, Vickery, Brent Harvey (McDonough) I/C: Brad Hill, Dom Tyson (Foley) Players in bold are playing this weekend. Chris Maric's team has already played, he can't be added. Geez - sorry about that Len, JC, everyone. Simply didn't think ... didn't occur to me that Maric's team had already played. It has been a long week. OK - It's after the first game on Friday now, so the best thing to do is simply withdraw Maric and leave the spot blank. I know the upshot of that is most likely the same as having him in, but still - he's out. Again, apologies everyone. I've been mulling over this. nothing against Chris of course. I think we should set up some sort of rule to stop this happening. We've got 28 players so its a bit silly to have a spot in the 15 blank, whether they are all playing or not. Am I being too pedantic? I realise it's the same result either way, so doesn't really matter. I just think its better that we name at least all 15 onfield positions.

 

We have always named blanks if we didn't have enough fit bodies, as someone who often had to I am sure of that What we can't do and never have done is name players from a team that has played. It's a loophole activation, is that ethical? no more or less than naming a non player for mine.. Unfortunately while ever we have rolling lockouts we have loopholes, I set my team up to gain advantage if I could, as it turned out I couldn't... /2c

 

Just speaking on the Maric snafu, the only reason he went into the side was because he wasn't playing. I still can't fathom how I stuffed this up - I blame the split round personally. If I had my time over I'd leave the spot blank, as my understanding was that leaving a blank in situations like this where there is a rolling lockout was OK. I reckon if we have rolling lockouts, we're always going to have the ability to 'use the loophole' - and thus have the risk of having to leave a blank spot somewhere. I'd be happier if we didn't have split rounds and Thursday night games. It'd make life a lot easier!

 

Just to clarify, I've got no problems at all about the loophole being utilised. I even used it myself with Dayle Garlett allowing Matt De Boer to come on. I just have a problem with a position in the 1st 15 being left blank altogether when there's an active emergency in the same line. It doesn't sit right with me. As I mentioned before, I realise it's kinda pedantic, cause the end result of both setups is that the emergency comes into play, but it's not really fair to just leave it blank. 2 main reasons that I can think of now: * if the team has no players available that are not playing (ie all remaining players are named to play AFL that round) then they should not be able to exploit the loophole by leaving a position blank. It should be that teams bad luck (or bad management) that they have to name one of their players and miss the emergencies score. * naming an actual player has some risk involved, whereas leaving the position blank does not. For example, there was a minuscule chance Dayle Garlett could have played this round and I would have missed out on De Boer's score. I think if someone is exploiting the loophole, this risk (although very small) is part of it, and should not be able to be avoided by leaving a spot blank. Lastly, if a team has absolutely no players left that can fill a hole in the 1st 15, then they should not have had an emergency on that line. It doesnt really make sense and i suppose it is ultimately poor management. ... And once again, I want to reiterate that I have nothing against Chris for doing what he did. It seems to have been within our unwritten rules. I think it just brought the situation to light, and I feel it needs to be addressed.

 

Think I tend to agree with you ant. An honest mistake I guess we have no worries with (although the opponent of the mistaker has to declare this). I also have some serious doubts about working a loophole in this league. Everyone gets what should be sufficient advantage through the rolling lockout. If we did not have this advantage, then I would have far less concern with the loophole.

 

I'm confused, I thought we were being practical, if we are being impractical of course you can eliminate the loophole, bags you guys do the manual on how....

 

anthak wrote:
Just to clarify, I've got no problems at all about the loophole being utilised. I even used it myself with Dayle Garlett allowing Matt De Boer to come on. I just have a problem with a position in the 1st 15 being left blank altogether when there's an active emergency in the same line. It doesn't sit right with me. As I mentioned before, I realise it's kinda pedantic, cause the end result of both setups is that the emergency comes into play, but it's not really fair to just leave it blank. 2 main reasons that I can think of now: * if the team has no players available that are not playing (ie all remaining players are named to play AFL that round) then they should not be able to exploit the loophole by leaving a position blank. It should be that teams bad luck (or bad management) that they have to name one of their players and miss the emergencies score. * naming an actual player has some risk involved, whereas leaving the position blank does not. For example, there was a minuscule chance Dayle Garlett could have played this round and I would have missed out on De Boer's score. I think if someone is exploiting the loophole, this risk (although very small) is part of it, and should not be able to be avoided by leaving a spot blank. Lastly, if a team has absolutely no players left that can fill a hole in the 1st 15, then they should not have had an emergency on that line. It doesnt really make sense and i suppose it is ultimately poor management. ... And once again, I want to reiterate that I have nothing against Chris for doing what he did. It seems to have been within our unwritten rules. I think it just brought the situation to light, and I feel it needs to be addressed. In round 1, part 1 it was obvious to me that I would not have enough players to fill the team. However, 2 giants were named emergency, Tomlinson and Kelly. I named them as my emergencies as if they did get to play I would have the option to include their score and hopefully field a playing 15. This didn't happen but it did I wasn't cheating. I wouldn't have been cheating either if I then decided to name Sewell in the mids and Dunstan on the IC. What precisely is the difference between naming Sewell in the mids, or leaving it blank? What would be the difference if I named Bellchambers there instead?

 

What would be the difference in putting your entire 15 on the paddock and then change it as needs dictate by using the rolling lockout? Our baseline here is a normal round everyone naming their squads. Late outs. Stiff. The purpose of the rolling lockout, at least in our use of it, is to have the ability to replace players who were not named when (rolling) teams were announced. Anything else is a fiddle as far as I am concerned, but if coaches place such a high value on winning, go ahead.

 

TerryinBangkok wrote:
What would be the difference in putting your entire 15 on the paddock and then change it as needs dictate by using the rolling lockout? Our baseline here is a normal round everyone naming their squads. Late outs. Stiff. The purpose of the rolling lockout, at least in our use of it, is to have the ability to replace players who were not named when (rolling) teams were announced. Anything else is a fiddle as far as I am concerned, but if coaches place such a high value on winning, go ahead. The issue here is these are not normal rounds, if they were we wouldn't be having the discussion, the issue here is there is a rolling lockout in place. As I said above, if you can find a way to eliminate the loophole than awesome, but if defies my sensibilities to grade the amount of loophole allowed. For the record I am only using my team as an example because I know it. Say we named the best 15 last round, I put Kelly as Mid E, by week 2 I end up with only 3 playing backs, 4 mids, 4 fwds and a ruck, no harm done. What if Kelly played, the only way for me to get an IC score is then to delete a mid and put him at IC, allowing me to score 4 mids and at least 1 IC. How is the blank any different to naming Bontempelli? What if all my other mids played week 1? That's my fault somehow, or poor man management??? I am all for simplicity and trying to manage this equitably feels horribly complicated, but as I said, if I can be showed how the rules can be written to eliminate it in manner that passes the laws of logic than I am on board. Until then, I am just WTF...

 

Len wrote:
anthak wrote:
Just to clarify, I've got no problems at all about the loophole being utilised. I even used it myself with Dayle Garlett allowing Matt De Boer to come on. I just have a problem with a position in the 1st 15 being left blank altogether when there's an active emergency in the same line. It doesn't sit right with me. As I mentioned before, I realise it's kinda pedantic, cause the end result of both setups is that the emergency comes into play, but it's not really fair to just leave it blank. 2 main reasons that I can think of now: * if the team has no players available that are not playing (ie all remaining players are named to play AFL that round) then they should not be able to exploit the loophole by leaving a position blank. It should be that teams bad luck (or bad management) that they have to name one of their players and miss the emergencies score. * naming an actual player has some risk involved, whereas leaving the position blank does not. For example, there was a minuscule chance Dayle Garlett could have played this round and I would have missed out on De Boer's score. I think if someone is exploiting the loophole, this risk (although very small) is part of it, and should not be able to be avoided by leaving a spot blank. Lastly, if a team has absolutely no players left that can fill a hole in the 1st 15, then they should not have had an emergency on that line. It doesnt really make sense and i suppose it is ultimately poor management. ... And once again, I want to reiterate that I have nothing against Chris for doing what he did. It seems to have been within our unwritten rules. I think it just brought the situation to light, and I feel it needs to be addressed. In round 1, part 1 it was obvious to me that I would not have enough players to fill the team. However, 2 giants were named emergency, Tomlinson and Kelly. I named them as my emergencies as if they did get to play I would have the option to include their score and hopefully field a playing 15. This didn't happen but it did I wasn't cheating. I wouldn't have been cheating either if I then decided to name Sewell in the mids and Dunstan on the IC. What precisely is the difference between naming Sewell in the mids, or leaving it blank? What would be the difference if I named Bellchambers there instead? In that scenario, it wouldn't matter whatsoever, because the emergencies didn't even play. Sorry, that's all I got time to write now. I'll check back in later.

 

anthak wrote:
Len wrote:
anthak wrote:
Just to clarify, I've got no problems at all about the loophole being utilised. I even used it myself with Dayle Garlett allowing Matt De Boer to come on. I just have a problem with a position in the 1st 15 being left blank altogether when there's an active emergency in the same line. It doesn't sit right with me. As I mentioned before, I realise it's kinda pedantic, cause the end result of both setups is that the emergency comes into play, but it's not really fair to just leave it blank. 2 main reasons that I can think of now: * if the team has no players available that are not playing (ie all remaining players are named to play AFL that round) then they should not be able to exploit the loophole by leaving a position blank. It should be that teams bad luck (or bad management) that they have to name one of their players and miss the emergencies score. * naming an actual player has some risk involved, whereas leaving the position blank does not. For example, there was a minuscule chance Dayle Garlett could have played this round and I would have missed out on De Boer's score. I think if someone is exploiting the loophole, this risk (although very small) is part of it, and should not be able to be avoided by leaving a spot blank. Lastly, if a team has absolutely no players left that can fill a hole in the 1st 15, then they should not have had an emergency on that line. It doesnt really make sense and i suppose it is ultimately poor management. ... And once again, I want to reiterate that I have nothing against Chris for doing what he did. It seems to have been within our unwritten rules. I think it just brought the situation to light, and I feel it needs to be addressed. In round 1, part 1 it was obvious to me that I would not have enough players to fill the team. However, 2 giants were named emergency, Tomlinson and Kelly. I named them as my emergencies as if they did get to play I would have the option to include their score and hopefully field a playing 15. This didn't happen but it did I wasn't cheating. I wouldn't have been cheating either if I then decided to name Sewell in the mids and Dunstan on the IC. What precisely is the difference between naming Sewell in the mids, or leaving it blank? What would be the difference if I named Bellchambers there instead? In that scenario, it wouldn't matter whatsoever, because the emergencies didn't even play. Sorry, that's all I got time to write now. I'll check back in later. So we can name blanks, they just cant play or come into play?