ORFFA 2014 Round 1 - FFAF

Simonoz wrote:
Simonoz wrote:

.......and away we go; bold denotes playing this week: DEF: Mitchell / Suckling / Mullett / Goodes (N Wright) MID: Martin / Rocky / Adams / Neale (Hartung) RCK: Sandi (Witts) FWD: Lyons / Dickson / Stringer / Kommer (xxxx) I/C: Webster / Talia (xxxx) ** I don't even know if this legal but big apols, the team above differs from the one I entered into the tsLeagues feature; once ROK was dropped Thursday, Iremoved himwhen I input it here but forgot to change the one on tsL. I only checked just now when I saw that he was a late emergency recall, albeit as a Sub. Anyway......the above side entered in this thread is my preferred team for this split round over the tsL one that has: mid: rok / rocky / adams / Neale (talia) IC: Webster / martin ....but will take either team deemed official. I have not changed it on tsL before the game just in case. Noting this 60 mins before Swans game starts. Sorry lads, sNoZ This is why snoz, I'll fix it to match.

 

TerryinBangkok wrote:
Len wrote:
Once Walesy gives me access I'll go through and ensure that the teams look like people wanted them to based on teams listed and then adjusted in this thread.. I'd say we will roll with the dual 'official' entry points for a few weeks while we iron out the kinks, but as soon as practical the only official place for teams will be the teams entry section. We do not have a full rolling lockout in place, never have & probably never will, teams were locked for part one of round 1 at kickoff on Friday night and will be for part 2 on Thursday night, luck of the draw if you get it right or wrong, to do anything different would be a significant deviation from the leagues policies and practices. We have a tradition of showing leniency in R1 Simon, so you are all square on that one. /Portals/0/User%20Images/Stop.jpg It is each coaches responsibility to enter their teams. For the last year we did this using a thread and it worked. We are now trialling a wonderful new whizzbang. It looks the goods, but I would suggest that until at least R5 we also enter our teams using the thread. And we use the thread as the definitive up until then. Now, that might create a problem where there is a difference between the two systems. The problem is, I am not sure walesy's system can be adjusted. There could be errors in scores, between which Lynch or Crouch - all sorts of things. So, lets go dual until we are all comfortable? I am a little confused over why Len would want walesy to give him access, but he is an enthusiastic lad. The problem is access comes with responsibility and I have seen how this can turn into a nasty thing in other areas of TS. What if the mistake is Len's? And why, since most of us are near enough to grown adults, do we need someone to check our entries? Only in Thailand do you get that sort of service. But yes, eventually the tsleagues will be the one and only. The potential for a 2015 version with match day scores and head to head, plus auto tallied B&F and RS votes, etc. is very much in our favour. And this is why

 

Len wrote:
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? If one has less than 15 players who play in a round, I can't see how it would matter if there are blanks in their team. My concerns are around using a blank instead of a (non playing) player to activate an emergency. Ive already stated what the difference is between using a Sewell/Bellchambers/Garlett instead of a blank. Despite the end result most often being the same, we should at least have to name a player to get the end result. My concerns are more around the scenarios where a team does not have a non-playing player and/or no more eligible players at all - and to cover these situations we should just have a blanket rule, maybe that an emergency's score does not count unless all positions in the line they are covering are full/selected. That would work. I'm not sure how this could be confusing.

 

This scenario is still un-addressed, or if it is it is in a way that prevents me getting the only healthy players I have on the field. 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 if it did I wasn't cheating or trying to take unfair advantage. 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? 1. If a rule were to be brought in of that nature in 98% of cases it would have roughly the same effect as stipulating all teams must be entered using the mouse left handed. 2. If it were able to be applied in the other 2% it would only effect teams struggling to enter a full team. 3. We are not in the habit of making rule changes during the season. 4. Pedantry is bloody annoying.

 

Are you serious?

 

tooserious

 

lets use Chris' team as a case study. 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) at the stage of lockout, players from the following teams could be selected: Kangas Essendon Hawthorn Brisbane Stk Melbs WestCoast Bulldogs Players available for selection who were not already named in his team above are as follows: Josh Gibson Jack Newnes Lachlan Hunter Thomas Curren ** So, Josh Gibson did not play and potentially could have been chosen to activate the emergency. BUT, just for arguments sake, what if Chris did not have Josh Gibson. All of the other 3 played in round 1. We should not be allowed to leave a position blank to activate an emergency. If Chris did not have Josh Gibson and all of his remaining players were playing, it would be his bad luck (or bad management) that he would have to name a playing player and miss the emergency's score. As it turns out Coniglio scored more than all three (or 4) of those players Chris could have selected.

 

Len wrote: 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... Are you having fun with fonts or is it just your browser? I accept, after ploughing through all of this, that naming a blank is no different to naming a non-playing player. And I enjoyed ant's witticism about having a blanket rule. So it comes down to personal preference. I don't like blanks - I like to see the solid meat of a non-playing player and when I scan a team entry I can see all the 'blanks' are filled. I guess it can be either, provided no one tries to play the fiddle, but suggest there would be a few less smelly rats if a player's name appears in the appropriate box.

 

Happens randomly not sure what the issue is to be honest, it only happens when I am quoting a post, but not always..

 

Forgot Misfits like double-random.

 

TerryinBangkok wrote:
Forgot Misfits like double-random. We ARE the double random

 

anthak wrote:
lets use Chris' team as a case study. 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) at the stage of lockout, players from the following teams could be selected: Kangas Essendon Hawthorn Brisbane Stk Melbs WestCoast Bulldogs Players available for selection who were not already named in his team above are as follows: Josh Gibson Jack Newnes Lachlan Hunter Thomas Curren ** So, Josh Gibson did not play and potentially could have been chosen to activate the emergency. BUT, just for arguments sake, what if Chris did not have Josh Gibson. All of the other 3 played in round 1. We should not be allowed to leave a position blank to activate an emergency. If Chris did not have Josh Gibson and all of his remaining players were playing, it would be his bad luck (or bad management) that he would have to name a playing player and miss the emergency's score. As it turns out Coniglio scored more than all three (or 4) of those players Chris could have selected. I made a mistake. Josh Gibson did play. I'm not sure why I forgot, but anyway, he did. therefore, all 4 of the players Chris had available to select were actually playing. I don't think it is fair at all that we should be able to not select anyone in this type of situation. A blank will allow for the emergency to come on, but Chris actually had players available to select. Again, Chris, nothing against you.... But thank you for bringing this situation to light. In this situation it is clearly not the same thing to select a player or leave the spot blank, because if an actual player]had been selected, that player's score would have counted instead of Coniglio's. Leaving a spot blank should not be allowed; not if it directly causes an emergency's score to come into play. Sometimes it will not make a difference, but a blanket rule (i liked that too TiB ) will make it easier and simpler for everyone.

 

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. I have highlighted in bold the reason I provided previously, before I realised it is actually what happened in round 1.

 

The problem is ant, you are only giving examples where your point works, it is equally possible to give examples where instead of eliminating something currently legal and calling it a new form of cheating, the outcome will be that a coach will be prevented from getting the maximum number he can of players scores to count.. From a purely ethical point of view, naming a blank rather than an available player leaves a nasty taste in my mouth too, but a fix on that would only be acceptable to me if it all it eliminated was that. The issue you are trying to fix is a player should not be allowed to name a blank when he has an available playing player, that is a completely different issue to a coach should not be allowed to name emergencies before his team is full. If a rule change was proposed to take affect at the next suitable time, whenever that may be, along the lines of 'A coach cannot deliberately name a blank when he has an available 'listed to play' player for that position I would consider supporting it, there are a lot of variables though; What if the playing player is on an extended bench, named emergency, a late out on the Saturday, late named on Sunday etc etc. Remember we are now using an electronic means of naming teams that will lock them in with no option to change. As it stands, a blanket no blanks rule is not something I would support.

 

Len wrote:
The problem is ant, you are only giving examples where your point works, it is equally possible to give examples where instead of eliminating something currently legal and calling it a new form of cheating, the outcome will be that a coach will be prevented from getting the maximum number he can of players scores to count.. From a purely ethical point of view, naming a blank rather than an available player leaves a nasty taste in my mouth too, but a fix on that would only be acceptable to me if it all it eliminated was that. The issue you are trying to fix is a player should not be allowed to name a blank when he has an available playing player, that is a completely different issue to a coach should not be allowed to name emergencies before his team is full. If a rule change was proposed to take affect at the next suitable time, whenever that may be, along the lines of 'A coach cannot deliberately name a blank when he has an available 'listed to play' player for that position I would consider supporting it, there are a lot of variables though; What if the playing player is on an extended bench, named emergency, a late out on the Saturday, late named on Sunday etc etc. Remember we are now using an electronic means of naming teams that will lock them in with no option to change. As it stands, a blanket no blanks rule is not something I would support. I don't understand your first sentence so I will not respond to it. ... Please note, I never stated that I believe a coach should not be able to name an emergency before their team is full. For example, I actually have no problem with people naming an emergency and then naming an eligible player who is not playing to allow that emergency's score to count. As you have pointed out, having a rule along the lines of 'A coach cannot deliberately name a blank when he has an available 'listed to play' player for that position' is problematic. This is why I suggested a blanket rule along the lines of 'an emergency's score only counts if players are selected in all onfield positions of their line' - this seems so logical to me. If the coach wasn't going to have a full line of players selected, why did they select an emergency? When you look at the final team selected, it just does not make sense. Playing the loophole is risky, and should be. Being able to select a blank position takes away all risk and I'm not in favour of that at all. It would not be outlandish to presume I'm arguing for status quo as it seems odd to me that we would allow any other way, but what happened on the weekend (and in this discussion) demonstrates otherwise. Thanks to Len, TiB, Lenny, Chris for your input... Im interested to hear from others too

 

anthak wrote:
Len wrote:
The problem is ant, you are only giving examples where your point works, it is equally possible to give examples where instead of eliminating something currently legal and calling it a new form of cheating, the outcome will be that a coach will be prevented from getting the maximum number he can of players scores to count.. From a purely ethical point of view, naming a blank rather than an available player leaves a nasty taste in my mouth too, but a fix on that would only be acceptable to me if it all it eliminated was that. The issue you are trying to fix is a player should not be allowed to name a blank when he has an available playing player, that is a completely different issue to a coach should not be allowed to name emergencies before his team is full. If a rule change was proposed to take affect at the next suitable time, whenever that may be, along the lines of 'A coach cannot deliberately name a blank when he has an available 'listed to play' player for that position I would consider supporting it, there are a lot of variables though; What if the playing player is on an extended bench, named emergency, a late out on the Saturday, late named on Sunday etc etc. Remember we are now using an electronic means of naming teams that will lock them in with no option to change. As it stands, a blanket no blanks rule is not something I would support. I don't understand your first sentence so I will not respond to it. ... Please note, I never stated that I believe a coach should not be able to name an emergency before their team is full. For example, I actually have no problem with people naming an emergency and then naming an eligible player who is not playing to allow that emergency's score to count. As you have pointed out, having a rule along the lines of 'A coach cannot deliberately name a blank when he has an available 'listed to play' player for that position' is problematic. This is why I suggested a blanket rule along the lines of 'an emergency's score only counts if players are selected in all onfield positions of their line' - this seems so logical to me. If the coach wasn't going to have a full line of players selected, why did they select an emergency? When you look at the final team selected, it just does not make sense. Playing the loophole is risky, and should be. Being able to select a blank position takes away all risk and I'm not in favour of that at all. It would not be outlandish to presume I'm arguing for status quo as it seems odd to me that we would allow any other way, but what happened on the weekend (and in this discussion) demonstrates otherwise. Thanks to Len, TiB, Lenny, Chris for your input... Im interested to hear from others too You need to look at the example I gave above until you do understand it, and at the way the Misfits were named this round, and then we can talk about why your solution doesn't work and I would not vote for it.

 

Len wrote:
anthak wrote:
Len wrote:
The problem is ant, you are only giving examples where your point works, it is equally possible to give examples where instead of eliminating something currently legal and calling it a new form of cheating, the outcome will be that a coach will be prevented from getting the maximum number he can of players scores to count.. From a purely ethical point of view, naming a blank rather than an available player leaves a nasty taste in my mouth too, but a fix on that would only be acceptable to me if it all it eliminated was that. The issue you are trying to fix is a player should not be allowed to name a blank when he has an available playing player, that is a completely different issue to a coach should not be allowed to name emergencies before his team is full. If a rule change was proposed to take affect at the next suitable time, whenever that may be, along the lines of 'A coach cannot deliberately name a blank when he has an available 'listed to play' player for that position I would consider supporting it, there are a lot of variables though; What if the playing player is on an extended bench, named emergency, a late out on the Saturday, late named on Sunday etc etc. Remember we are now using an electronic means of naming teams that will lock them in with no option to change. As it stands, a blanket no blanks rule is not something I would support. I don't understand your first sentence so I will not respond to it. ... Please note, I never stated that I believe a coach should not be able to name an emergency before their team is full. For example, I actually have no problem with people naming an emergency and then naming an eligible player who is not playing to allow that emergency's score to count. As you have pointed out, having a rule along the lines of 'A coach cannot deliberately name a blank when he has an available 'listed to play' player for that position' is problematic. This is why I suggested a blanket rule along the lines of 'an emergency's score only counts if players are selected in all onfield positions of their line' - this seems so logical to me. If the coach wasn't going to have a full line of players selected, why did they select an emergency? When you look at the final team selected, it just does not make sense. Playing the loophole is risky, and should be. Being able to select a blank position takes away all risk and I'm not in favour of that at all. It would not be outlandish to presume I'm arguing for status quo as it seems odd to me that we would allow any other way, but what happened on the weekend (and in this discussion) demonstrates otherwise. Thanks to Len, TiB, Lenny, Chris for your input... Im interested to hear from others too You need to look at the example I gave above until you do understand it, and at the way the Misfits were named this round, and then we can talk about why your solution doesn't work and I would not vote for it. Ok, I think I get what your saying in that example, but if I understand you correctly, I don't really get your point. I can only think of one single example you suggest is equally possible to come up with. And I had already raised it earlier, which is not in line with your statement I have only given examples to the contrary. I think you make the suggestion of the rule possibly causing a coach to get less scoring players in a round then they possibly could've in the same situation without the rule. The only way i see that happening is if the coach had an emergency selected, but not enough eligible players left to fill the onfield positions in that line, which would therefore not allow the emergency's score to count, but as I stated earlier, that could be considered poor team management and they prob should not deserve it anyway. I actually can't imagine any of us ending up in a situation like this anyway (we've got 28 players).. It is possible, but imo its no big deal if it occurs; you'd miss out on the emergency, but it should be your own silly fault for selecting an emergency without enough players to go onfield. I also do not see anything wrong with how you selected your round 1 team. So far, you seem to be the only one advocating for your view that we should be allowed to leave an onfield position blank to activate an emergency. Chris only did it cause lockout had already passed by the time he'd realised he'd selected an ineligible player. I can't recall him actually advocating for your interpretation of what is allowed. TiB initially supported my point i raised, and ended up acknowledging its pretty much the same thing to select a blank as a non-playing player ... Which it is, but it's not the same in the case like last round where Chris' only remaining players were actually all selected to play AFL. He had a close win against JC. I haven't bothered to check if selecting any of his 4 eligible players would have changed that result. I did realise 1 of them scored a tonne, which wouldn't have been too shabby as a genuine selection Lenny stated he agreed with my points. TiB, Chris, Lenny - correct me if I'm wrong at all. I don't think anyone else has commented. It would be good to hear from others, cause I think this is a significant rule that should be sorted. And I'm surprised you refer to it as changing a rule, cause I would have presumed the rule would have been (albeit unwritten) that we had to have players on the field before emergencies come into play.

 

After writing that last comment, I actually read back through this thread and saw that Chris did state that he thought we'd always been able to select blanks for the loophole. And I realised TiB still essentially supported my proposal, even after acknowledging the difference between a blank and a non-player is minimal. Sorry, I should have read back before commenting on them in my last comment. Still, Chris, TiB, Lenny, correct me if it seems I've misinterpreted any of you at all.