ORFFA Rules and Practices Discussion

So it (naming an AFL emergency onfield will still activate an emergency, as long as they were both named before the first lockout) is allowable then, or not?
I thought you were saying yesterday that it was too much trouble to make sure everything was above board.

 

Naming 2 AFL emergencies on one line prior to first lockout when you have named players who could be lined up instead seemed such an act of lunacy that I sought clarity from from the post you were referring to in an attempt to understand the logical argument I was missing..
The clarity was provided. I determined from the question I posed and the response that we were talking about players who were still on an extended bench when we locked out, and as I explained at that point they are not AFL emergencies so there was no issue.

For something that is no big deal, and likely to never logically happen you seem keen to push the point back into lunacy? I'm reasonably certain that were someone to actually do that I'd leave them to suck their own lemon and not attempt to edit the team, as I said that is a massive pain in the arse, I know this because I have already have had to do it, and somewhat pertinently don't plan to be in a position to do it in the future.

Anyway, the poll is posted, all are free to vote as they wish and collectively we abide by the outcome of the vote.

 

I cant believe this has turned out to be such a mess!
This was never about naming two AFL emergencies on the one line. And the point I was referring to as "not a big deal" was not the same point that Im banging on about. This is absolutely doing my head in (and seemingly yours too haha) that you are not following what im getting at.
I'm going to explain it simply, in chronological order...

Post 3 - Bandit raises the idea of stopping loopholing;
Post 4 - Len makes a proposal for a rule change;
post 8 - TTH asks if "listed to play" includes AFL emergencies;
post 10 - Len answers that AFL emergencies cannot be used, except for Monday, Tuesday teams etc;
post 12 - I comment that I think AFL emergencies should be allowed to be used;
post 13 - Len reiterates post 10;
post 14 - Graeme comments, presuming one would be allowed to use an AFL emergency, as long as no other playing players from same line in squad;
post 19 - Len responds to post 14, stating it would not be allowable due to being too cumbersome to administer;
post 21 - I ask Len if he is suggesting AFL emergencies shouldnt even be able to be named onfield in regular rounds too;
post 22 - Len replies that he is only referring to loopholes and it would be allowable at other times;
post 24 - Snoz comments that he also thinks AFL emergencies should be allowed to be used onfield in a loophole situation;
post 25 - Fitzy comments that he thinks loopholing should be allowed, and also that he thinks AFL emergencies should be allowed to be named onfield in these situations;
post 27 - A reasonable suggestion to resolve this issue Bandit makes the suggestion: "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.";
post 28 - Len replies to Fitzy to advise naming emergencies onfield in other situations is still allowable;
post 29 - Fitzy responds to say thanks for clearing it up, and sounds good;
post 30 - I respond to Bandit's suggestion from post 27 to say that I agree with it;
post 31 - Where the confusion began! I comment that I had thought of a couple of potential issues with Bandit's suggestion from post 27 (to avoid confusion, from now on, Im mostly not going to include comments related to what I raised in this post 31, because they are not really relevant to the main issue);
post 38 - I comment to say that the issues I raised in post 31 are no big deal, and that I agree with Bandit's suggestion made in post 27;
post 39 - I respond to one of Len's comments, asking for bandit's suggestion to be included in the rule change proposal;
post 40 - Len responds to say it is too cumbersome to administer, inline with advice at earlier post 19;
post 43 - I suggest to Len that he is overcomplicating it and it shouldnt be that difficult to administer due to us all being responsible etc;
post 45 - Len suggests that there are many inocent mistakes etc;
post 49 - Bandit suggests/asks that there might not need to be anything done from a rules/coding/administrative perspective to facilitate his suggestion;
post 51 - Len is going down the track of the issues I raised at post 31 again, even though they are not relevant to the main issue of the suggestion in post 27;
post 52 - Bandit comments that Len and he were saying same thing. This is correct, I think everyone was saying the same thing about the issues I raised at post 31, Bandit, Len, I all saying same thing, and others. I really wish I hadn't ever brought up those issues at post 31!;
post 54 - Len presumes no modifications required because Bandit and he agree on the issues I raised at post 31. This is correct that no modification is required re issues raised at post 31, but the main suggestion made at post 27 has been overlooked in these few posts. Clearly to apply suggestion at post 27 requires modification, perhaps in line with wording in TTHs question at post 8;
post 58 - I try to explain the two issues and where I see that the confusion occurred. and I ask if Bandits proposal from post 27 has been approved or not;
post 60 - Len refers to the comments at posts 51 & 52, however the problem with that is those two posts were more about a scenario I raised at post 31, rather than Bandit's suggestion at post 27;
post 61 - I ask for clarity again;
post 62 - Len provides a response again referring to the issues I raised in post 31, rather than the main issue of Bandit's suggestion from post 27.


I cannot believe how difficult that all became.

I think Bandit came up with a really good idea that would have appeased the few who stated they would prefer to be able to name AFL emergencies, but also not negatively affect the premise of removing the loophole. It was a clear win-win.

Len, I get that you were suggesting it would be too difficult to administer. I personally don't buy that. I think we are all responsible enough to keep on top of it. I would be happy to be the one to arbitrate any complaints in this regard myself, because I don't think there would be many, if any, and they'd be fairly easy to resolve if there was one.

Anyway, its too late now. As I suggested at post 39, it was important to sort this out before the poll was put up for vote, because it would be unlikely to affect the vote either way.

 

I presume you’re joking lol

 

At 2am too! Lol

But I do think it’s a big deal. I thought that was obvious. I wouldn’t keep pushing for it if I didn’t.

It was the scenarios that I put forward in post 31 that I said were no big deal, but it was those scenarios that everyone kept focusing on. You’ve just done it again, which is why I thought you must’ve been joking.

 

This is key, I didn't state Graeme was incorrect at all in that scenario, in fact I stated it as the exception that would be allowed

"For that very reason I have proposed that AFL emergencies can only be named on field if there is no other option other than OOP."
Read more at http://tooserious.net/forum/threads/orffa-rules-and-practices-discussion.90259/#7fqJTQldb6cfCoz3.99

 

Ok I remember that now. I was paraphrasing last night. It doesn’t cover the whole issue anyway, but it’s good to know and remember. Thanks for pointing it out again.

I believe the key posts were: 8, 10, 12, 24, 25, & 27. Then it kinda went awry after that.

Anyway, as I said last night (or this morning actually), we probably need to leave it now. Would’ve been good to sort out before the poll went up.

 

I think the poll has 12 votes on one side now.

Whilst I'm ok to see loopholing scrapped, I'm disappointed we have a rule that restricts us from picking players in our squad who have been named as AFL emergencies. Especially when a solution had been proposed that would allow it but still stop loopholing with them.