ORFFA Round 15 - Teams and Discussion

anthak wrote:
Yeah, that is kinda laughable Len. That's not exactly the point tho. The problem was that in round 1, Chris didn't even have any non playing players to name. So instead of naming a player who was playing, it was allowed to be left blank, bringing on the emergency. That is not fair. I agree, but right now we only know half the squads.. I have deliberately named Terlich and Kelly as emergencies this week because I was confident one would get the vest and the other was only named emergency. Currently I have blanks in both spots, I'll be buggered if I see the benefit of a rule outlawing blanks to someone juggling to get a team on board. The rule to be debated should be that a named player who can be named must be instead of a blank. I would vote for that. Excuse my abruptness today please, on top of some family circumstances the news of the last few days has me lacking the ability to deal with 'petty' issues with any kind of serious game face...

 

Len wrote:
anthak wrote:
Yeah, that is kinda laughable Len. That's not exactly the point tho. The problem was that in round 1, Chris didn't even have any non playing players to name. So instead of naming a player who was playing, it was allowed to be left blank, bringing on the emergency. That is not fair. I agree, but right now we only know half the squads.. I have deliberately named Terlich and Kelly as emergencies this week because I was confident one would get the vest and the other was only named emergency. Currently I have blanks in both spots, I'll be buggered if I see the benefit of a rule outlawing blanks to someone juggling to get a team on board. The rule to be debated should be that a named player who can be named must be instead of a blank. I would vote for that. Excuse my abruptness today please, on top of some family circumstances the news of the last few days has me lacking the ability to deal with 'petty' issues with any kind of serious game face... I guess you're referring to St Kilda's big win

 

I would be extremely surprised that we would have to vote on that. Should that rule not already be a given? Of course we should be selecting named players in the 15 if possible! If that's where you want to settle, Len, I can't imagine anyone being against it as a minimum, and what we should vote on is the penalty for not abiding by the rule. Anyway, I still don't think that rule goes deep enough and is also more difficult to police. Too hard to know everyone's listed players and whether they've been selected that particular round. I still think whats best is a blanket rule on blanks when emergencies are involved. It is counter-intuitive to have an emergency backing up a blank. I am really struggling with it. If someone needs an emergency to fill in for a blank, they should have had them in the 15 to begin with. It's not difficult to plan the weekend out accordingly. Thats why I only named 3 of my emergencies this week; and it's why CR said he wasn't able to do any loopholing this round. If someone stupidly names emergencies with not enough players to fill the onfield positions then that's their stiff luck.

 

The chief reason why this occurred at my end this week is because I have been away interstate since Friday morning and thought that the Geelong GWS game was actually going to be played this weekend. Because of this, I thought I had the allowance of Coniglio, Lamb and most likely Bews to be able to put into my team as zeroes (non playing players) in the coming days. I didn't realise my error until well into the weekend. Spent most of the weekend watching the news and shaking my head a lot to be honest. I debated not saying anything at all, but given that the issue has already been one that has been discussed, and that I said I'd try to avoid in the future - I thought I'd speak up very late on Saturday night. I agree that naming blanks in the team is not adequate. If/when there's a vote at the end of the year I'll be in favour of saying it isn't allowed. As for this week, I'll hope that perhaps Brandon Jack, Matty McDonough and one other guy (Hill? Gibson?) don't get games this week so I can slot them into the various lines as non-playing zeroes. This would avoid the 'blank spaces in team' issue. But I wouldn't have named emergencies as I did if I didn't think I had the non-playing players required to cover them. I can't even use Walker or Walters because their teams have already played. I'll do the best I can to avoid making this an issue when the remainder of the squads are announced this week.

 

Thanks Chris. I just want to let you know that I didn't think anything untoward is happening. At this stage of the round, I can't see any issues with how anyone has named their teams thus far.

 

anthak wrote:
Thanks Chris. I just want to let you know that I didn't think anything untoward is happening. At this stage of the round, I can't see any issues with how anyone has named their teams thus far. That's OK Ant. No worries. It is more that I am acutely aware what happened earlier in the year and am not really happy that it may be happening again. Also out of interest, the battle for eighth spot between Birdsville and Lovely Banks looks like going down to the wire. There's not much in it at all, with across the board consistency from Birdsville matched by almost 420 points from Lovely Banks' three Essendon players yesterday. Going to be very interesting to see what happens next weekend.

 

JC wrote:
chris88 wrote: Also out of interest, the battle for eighth spot between Birdsville and Lovely Banks looks like going down to the wire. There's not much in it at all, with across the board consistency from Birdsville matched by almost 420 points from Lovely Banks' three Essendon players yesterday. Going to be very interesting to see what happens next weekend. I think I'm somewhat less enamoured with the Essendon outcome than you are, Chris. I'd have gladly taken 220 from the 3 of them! I had a quick check of the scores just before I headed out late yesterday, around 1/4 time in the Bombers/Bulldogs game, and saw I was going along nicely at 8 played for nearly 800. A quick look at the 1/4 time scores in that game showed the Lilacs had Carlisle going gangbusters on close to 50 but Chappy and Winderlich on 11 and 2 respectively. For Birdsville Howlett was tracking ok with 23 or 24. So a few hours later I get home to find final scores of: Carlisle 188, Chappy 122, Winderlich 111 and Howlett..... 25. Just a shade less than excited to see how proceedings had changed. Jen was pretty unimpressed after Matty White got subbed off with about 30-odd points, but was rather more impressed after the Essendon game. I can't believe Howlett's score - that is just bizarre to score that much after 1 quarter and then nothing after that.

 

chels wrote:
I am confused by the discussion of xxx's and empty fields. A simple question - for those of us who listed a full team before first bounce in the first week of the split round, are we then able to reshuffle our team when this week's teams are announced? Or are we left at a disadvantage vis a visan opponent who only listed players from the first week? BTW, it is possible to access TSLeagues and change my team's composition. Prap, this is not a dig at you; I am happy to take a loss if that's what happens. In fact it would suit me as it might help me move up the draft order for next year. All I am looking for is a clarification of what is (to me anyway) a confusing set of arrangements. You are unable to move a player whose team has already played chels, apart from that go your hardest

 

anthak wrote:
I would be extremely surprised that we would have to vote on that. Should that rule not already be a given? Of course we should be selecting named players in the 15 if possible! If that's where you want to settle, Len, I can't imagine anyone being against it as a minimum, and what we should vote on is the penalty for not abiding by the rule. Anyway, I still don't think that rule goes deep enough and is also more difficult to police. Too hard to know everyone's listed players and whether they've been selected that particular round. I still think whats best is a blanket rule on blanks when emergencies are involved. It is counter-intuitive to have an emergency backing up a blank. I am really struggling with it. If someone needs an emergency to fill in for a blank, they should have had them in the 15 to begin with. It's not difficult to plan the weekend out accordingly. Thats why I only named 3 of my emergencies this week; and it's why CR said he wasn't able to do any loopholing this round. If someone stupidly names emergencies with not enough players to fill the onfield positions then that's their stiff luck. That's exactly the situation that started the discussion last time around, so yeah, we need a vote..

 

Len wrote:
anthak wrote:
I would be extremely surprised that we would have to vote on that. Should that rule not already be a given? Of course we should be selecting named players in the 15 if possible! If that's where you want to settle, Len, I can't imagine anyone being against it as a minimum, and what we should vote on is the penalty for not abiding by the rule. Anyway, I still don't think that rule goes deep enough and is also more difficult to police. Too hard to know everyone's listed players and whether they've been selected that particular round. I still think whats best is a blanket rule on blanks when emergencies are involved. It is counter-intuitive to have an emergency backing up a blank. I am really struggling with it. If someone needs an emergency to fill in for a blank, they should have had them in the 15 to begin with. It's not difficult to plan the weekend out accordingly. Thats why I only named 3 of my emergencies this week; and it's why CR said he wasn't able to do any loopholing this round. If someone stupidly names emergencies with not enough players to fill the onfield positions then that's their stiff luck. That's exactly the situation that started the discussion last time around, so yeah, we need a vote.. I think it was a mistake last time. ]Yeah, o]f course]we should vote to check. I personally feel it should be a given.

 

I was net-less all of Sunday and have a packed inbox that I still cannot open. Having read through the discussion, some of which is not as succinct as it might be, perhaps it was a blessing in disguise that I could not access it at the time. In forming a league such as ORFFA, the first premise is that those joining are honest and believe in fair play. When the discussion turns to amending or writing new rules I can only be left with the assumption that the first premise is incorrect. The alternative is a never ending cycle of shutting the gate after the horse has bolted, that is amending the rules. This can sometimes lead to acrimonious discussion which is not what we are supposed to be about. I take very much the view expressed by Simon on loop holing, or even attempted loop holing. Does winning (in this league) really mean all that much that you need to consider such? How do you think your fellow coaches feel about this? My full team was entered and I have the right to chop and change during the course of this week anyone who has not yet played. That should be sufficient advantage and a level playing field. Is it just me, or why can't other coaches simply follow this? I see no difference between a blank and a TBA, especially where emergencies are named in the same line. If there is a need for a rule or amendment, the discussion will be taken up at the end of the year, as earlier noted. But I can't help feeling that it is an indictment on our league that we need to discuss such issues (let's call it cheating) at all. The sheep station ain't worth it.

 

/Portals/0/User%20Images/10,000%20regulations.jpg