Haha, not exactly, well it was intentional in the end, I’m not sure how one could accidentally loophole because it takes fielding a non-player. What I was getting at was that i know it would’ve seemed like a bullshit excuse but I actually really intended for the player to be my emergency if my best team was selected... but then they did well, so I loopholed them in. I thought I explained it well enough in my first comment I think this has only ever happened to me twice. All the other times I’ve ever loopholed players in it’s been fully intentional! Like last week where I started Lambert as a emergency when he would’ve ordinarily been in my best 4 forwards. And like this week where I started Scott Selwood as emergency when he wouldn’t have been in my best 19 if he wasn’t playing Thursday. I think it would rarely affect the outcome of a match or ladder position, but it’s fun to strategise it.
We’re staying at Hugh Greenwood’s and Tom Hickey’s house this weekend. Will be good to catch up with the old Gariwerd boys. Here’s our squad: In: Sam Murray, Grant Birchall (& possibly Scott Selwood if Birchall doesn’t get up!) Out: Harry Taylor New: Sam Murray D: Laird, Hurn, Tuohy, Murray (HTaylor) M: Steven, Miller, NJones, Rockliff (Masten) R: Bellchambers F: Wallis, Lambert, Wingard, Christensen (Walker) I: MCrouch, Birchall (SSellwood)
Considering Birch hasn’t played all year and Murray hasn’t been named, what’s the point in naming them?
Birchall is to loophole Selwood’s score in (as mentioned in my comment at 10:47), and Murray is an emergency for Collingwood so I’m hoping he plays for them. If he plays I think he’d do better than Harry Taylor. I’m hoping Houli is back next week though!
I guess we see it differently, I name my best 15 as my starting 15... in the Lambert case if he had an early injury or scored shit you could have then named another player on the field, which you normally couldn’t have done. That is something I wouldn’t do... but each to their own That stuff could affect the game... although I agree it would be rare
Understand, but it’s something I wouldn’t do. I name my real emergency as my emergency, not the starting 15 player, regardless of if there is a rolling lockout or not.
First, I accept that loop holing is currently part of ORFFA. I would prefer it wasn't. Do I loop hole? Yes, as it is "legal." However, I admire the standpoint of those who refuse to loop hole. I would like to have a more simple game where I select my best 15 players who fit into the pre-assigned categories. (AFL Fantasy v Fantasy AFL if you will). We will, as the Commish noted, debate this later in the year. Second, I detest the bullshit that can surround loop holing. Stating something like - after he played - I was not sure Lambert (as E) would be available for some reason. Just loop hole - don't insult my intelligence. Or, suggesting a team is tanking because they do not loop hole - that, IMO, is low. It may have been in jest. But, there was potential to interpret it in another way - as I did. May I appeal to you to please not provoke / insult those who have a different approach.
I’m sorry, I don’t see it as provoking or insulting. I thought wed know each other well enough to know it’s in good spirits. There’s a lot of well natured shit giving that goes on in this league. Furthermore, I’ve got absolutely no issue with anyone having a different view. I actually don’t have a firm view on it myself. Whilst it’s accepted practice I will unashamedly continue to loophole, but if the group decides to ban it, then I’m fine with that too. Your reference to my comment about Lambert last week is funny. It was supposed to be a joke, i wasn’t ever trying to cover up my loopholing. I’ve always been open about loopholing. If you have a look, I said that I wasn’t sure if Lambert would have enough time to get to Gariwerd in time for the game following the last minute trade, clearly all in a fantasy world I made up just to take the piss. geez, if that’s what you meant when you mentioned not liking bullshit excuses, I got you wrong, I thought you meant people trying to hide the fact they’re loopholing. whilst I don’t like people making excuses, and whilst I don’t always get time, I’m not gonna stop making up stupid fantastical bullshit stories, it’s one of the things I like most about this game, and it’s something many of us do including yourself, maybe moreso in times gone by at the Bulls Hit tavern
I just had a look back and I wasn’t explicitly clear that’s what I meant, but it’s pretty easy to work out given what I did write in the context of the comment I replied to. I can’t believe you think i was trying to fool people
Kade Simpson is a late withdrawal for the Nuffers with Jesse Joyce suiting up on Sunday as a late in.
My 2c is that while the AFL are dumb enough to schedule Thursday games, it makes it difficult to scope out who is playing on Sunday, and this makes it difficult to name teams accurately. It is hard enough with late withdrawals and replacements as it is. I find myself naming emergencies who would normally be on the field anyway because I am not sure someone who is named is going to actually play - hello Jed Anderson last week. If a byproduct of Thursday games is loopholing, so be it. I have already stated I hate Thursday games in the ORFFA context, and nothing much will change my viewpoint. Loopholing seems a small price to pay in ensuring everyone has a chance to get their best team on the park. For the record I've loopholed the last two weeks, one accidentally and one with Aliir last week where he didn't get a run as a loophole and he was meant to - which was my stupidity. This week I appear to have given Aliir a run as a loop hole as intended - but to be honest he was going to get a run anyway after last week, loophole or none. But for some reason I buggered up rucks so badly without intending to loophole that I will get a doughnut. Probably an indication that I simply don't have the time right now to be trying to craft out such arrangements. So maybe I am not exactly the posterboy for the practice ...
Ant just trying to understand the logic......Birch hasn’t played all year so Selwood’s EM score was always going to count. How is that a loophole? Wouldn’t you just name Selwood and be done with it? It wasn’t like Birch was going to be a late in or anything.
@snoz - I presume that @anthak has another player in his 28 he would have named at IC2 if Selwood had scored a lesser score.
TTH - but you can’t do that can you? With Selwood named as an EM, he is locked with that Thursday night game & can’t be changed pre lockout when the Friday night game starts.
Oh, ok, I get what you were asking now. I did think it odd as I read it first... I personally don’t agree that it’s the same thing to leave the position blank as it is to name a player who won’t play. We’ve had this discussion before regarding leaving positions blank to activate emergencies and whilst opinions were somewhat divided, I recall we decided collectively that it wasn’t in the spirit of the game to have blank spots activate emergencies, and banned it. I remember there were some people who felt strongly on both sides of the argument, and there were some who didn’t care either way. This was years ago. I look at it this way: the final team sheet should be like in real life, and why would you name an emergency if you didn’t have enough actual players to fill that line? If you’re silly enough to name someone as an emergency but not have any non-playing players to use to activate their score then that is your own poor management and you should’ve just named them onfield to begin with.
But if Selwood had scored badly, and I don't actually know what he'd scored, loopholing would've seen a playing player named in Selwoods stead so that the playing player's score counted. Did Selwood score ok? If so, that's why Birchall would've been named - so his zero was replaced by Selwood's score.