Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be able to do it at all, even in a round where its a regular lockout?
Nope, all discussion has been around loop-holing, if loop-holing is not possible due to scheduling then the rule as amended would have no impact either way
Is this something that we want? Loophole: definition an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules. "they exploited tax loopholes" synonyms: means of evasion, means of avoidance;
Alright then - just back from DC (no not to meet Trumpy nor to attend McCains funeral) and trying to catch up. It seems there are three loud voices and 15 quiet ones which is all good, voting will fix that up. I am agst loopholing. That being said in Anths defense I tend to agree that if I have 4 defs named on field in the AFL but I have a better def named as an emergency as well, then in hopes he actually plays I name him as d4 and name my on field def as the emergency. Most times it will be irrelevant but considering all five are defs and all are named then I have no problem with it. I guess to me that’s not loopholing. On the flip side, naming players who are known to be out injured, haven’t played all year or are oop and then using those players to loop is where I have a problem. Make sense or am I a rambling idiot ?
I'm for loopholing, not overly fussed at the end of the day though. I am definitely for naming an AFL emergency on field though, a few times this year I'd have an AFL emergency who, if he was a late in, I'd rather have play than an OOP. That to me is just smart coaching.
Just going to add in, under the current rules I think its unfair on Ant that anyone has a problem with what he (and other coaches) have been doing.
I'm OK with this, in principle, but I think where people (including me) get shirty is the practice of naming someone that you don't think will do a better job as an emergency, but may pull out a ton out of their arse and then you name an AFL emergency player on field as you know he is 99% unlikely to play, but if the guy doesn't ton up you name a dude who will spit out a 60 or 70 to get you through. I guess if I were to put my thoughts into words, my opinion is that everyone should name their best available 15 as their best 15, and not play games to try and take advantage of a rolling lockout. I just don't see that in the spirit of the game. Sure it is allowed, but this is a keeper league not a supercoach public league, and there are relationships (albeit virtual in most cases) created here that I believe means we should treat our opponent with a little more respect (other than the occasional get stuffed) If someone wants to roll the dice on an emergency being in their best 15 and taking the field, then I would like to see BOTH players (the on field AFL emergency and the additional emergency player) named before the first game of the rolling lockout. At last there is some transparency there but it will always come down to opinion on the likelihood of someone playing and are they better than another player etc
To be clear, other than for loopholing purposes the proposed change does not alter that capacity 100% agree which is why I aired it.
Actually thinking more about it, i can see a couple of issues... What if the later teams being announced throws up another option, which is the whole point of having a rolling lockout. It’s difficult to pick teams without having full knowledge of final AFL teams. The other issue is that the player in question could be on an extended bench and we didn’t know at the first lockout that they would end up being an emergency.
A player on an extended bench is not an AFL emergency, this is why the final point in that section of the rules remains unchanged, we deal with the exceptions through it
That was in response to Bandits proposal. If a player on an extended bench became an emergency we might not have put them in the 15 before the first lockout.
I am rather tired so probably being dumb, but I think this then is actually neither a positive or a negative as far as the proposal goes, it's a comment on a comment only? Forgive me, just making sure I am not missing a point, been a very long day
I see that as a bit of stiff shit if I am honest... you are rolling the dice on if they are going to play anyway, so why does it matter if they don;t end up playing, you have named your emergency to cover it regardless
To answer the question it seem you have to ask - is it a standard lock out week? If the answer is yes, then no problem. If the answer is no, then "if your emergency has already played do you have other players in the position who have been named as afield?" edit - for clarity
Meant to throw my thoughts in here earlier...but didn't. Would be in favour of removing the loophole thingy.
I think you misunderstood me Bandit. What I was getting at is that at first lockout we wouldn’t know if they’re an emergency or not, and might not have put them onfield before the first lockout. I agree with you about it being stiff shit if you put them there and they don’t play. That’s an obvious outcome of putting an emergency onfield, so you’ve gotta cop it. In essence, I think it was a good idea of yours that it could be ok to name an AFL emergency onfield if done before the first lockout. There are a couple of problems that could arise from it, but they are no big deal really.
Bandit made a suggestion due to a few people stating they’d still like to be able to use AFL emergencies onfield. If taken onboard, your proposal may need to be amended. I would like to see your proposal changed in line with Bandits suggestion before any votes are taken on the overarching loophole issue. Given Fitzy is the only one so far to state they want to be able to loophole, it looks fairly clear the rule will get up. However, given there have been several coaches supporting using AFL emergencies, I think it would be good go with Bandit’s suggestion and allow AFL emergencies to be named onfield on same line as a 1st-lockout emergency, as long as both are named before the first lockout.
Unfortunately that requires two things that we don't currently "legislate" to happen, one is a rule change that from experience will cause issues. Firstly that the players must be posted in the game week thread prior to the first lockout (there is no other way I can think of that publicly states that someone is playing an EFL listed emergency deliberately) The other requires that same handful of people I spoke of to @graeme to go through each player in each team in matchday, and check that the final teams do not contain any emergencies not previously named in a game week thread, then, given this is most likely to be done after the start of the second game (and take considerable time and effort), to "edit" the teams back to legality, this would also require either arbitrary decisions on whom you name in their stead, or a lengthy PM exchange that may not be completed before the end f the round. It is fine to name as many AFL emergencies as one likes in a non-rolling round, I am not proposing anything that changes that, but in a rolling round (ie the loophole rules being in play) I see no workable alternative to the rule exactly as I have proposed it. If you don't have warm legal bodies to name than naming an emergency is no issue, if you do though (and your legal emergency slot is already filled by an AFL emergency) I am not sure why it would be desirable to double down on another non-player when you don't have to? For the truly odd rounds, ie Thursday to Monday etc, those on extended benches are considered players already, and for the ones with no teams named we have rule 12.4 which has served us as well as any rule can given the crappy circumstance.