Maybe I'm hanging onto this too much, but for CR to then lose out on Polkinghorne - the two matched up. <blockquote>Quote from Xenomorph on May 18, 2012, 10:03 ... You don't get half points for an OOP emergency...</blockquote>
Ok, sorry for doubleup. Just want to move this to new page: <blockquote>Quote from anthak on May 22, 2012, 10:02 So what is the deal then? Can you have an emergency come on to fill a position that is not their SC position, if you have them assigned to the position that the non playing starter holds? And if so, do you score half or full points for such a player? (chels - you raise some good points re trading, but I think we should get to the bottom of this emergency ruling first, before discussing trades)</blockquote> Then this... <blockquote>Quote from anthak on May 22, 2012, 10:07 <blockquote>Quote from Xenomorph on May 22, 2012, 08:36 OK CR - not trying to dud you points mate - this how I understood the rule to work and this is how it was explained to me. I have a bit of time to spend on this and the round review etc today so will get this worked out. If anyone has been left short of half a Polkinghorne, it will be be returned! Let's just get this sorted so everyone knows the score...</blockquote> Does this mean the answers to my questions are Yes and Half? And that Polkinghorns half points were left out by mistake? </blockquote>
Then this from Jimbi Although, I am tempted to remove Deledio's name. He is on fire and I don't want to jinx him <blockquote>Quote from jimbowan on May 22, 2012, 10:26 Surely thats right Ant? thats how I also read it. Xeno maybe just give an example? lol For instance this is what we all believe is the case - 1) Deledio (D) pulls out pregame. scores a (0) 2) Polkinghorne is a mid, but has been named as a D emergency. He scores (40) 3) As he was named as an OOP correct line emergency, he scores (20) or half points. Can you confirm this is the case?</blockquote>
X has already stated earlier that he'll be getting this sorted, so I don't think anyone else needs to ask. Perhaps we should just wait for his clarification?
I disagree jimbo and bandit. My argument is that you had the opportunity to put an emergency defender in for the remote possibility that Lids or another defender would not play. However, you chose to opt for emergency cover for your mids and forwards thereby leaving no emergency cover for a defender. Therefore you score zero points. Hence, the 50% points only applies if you had chosen to put Polkinghorne as an OOP midfielder on your defender line in your original onfield team. Hope my position is clear and my reason for continuing the debate is apparent. Jimbo - no problem delaying trading as I agree this issue is oneh that needs sorting out / agreement.
Thats exactly what I said in my post Chels, not disagreeing at all if you dont name someone in the correct line as EMG that their score should count. But in this case CR named Polks as an OOP mid as a DEF emg so his score should count half.
That is diff Jim. Chels is reading the rules as polk should not count at all, because he is emergency on a line that he is not assigned that position in SC.
apologies if I misrepresented you Jimbo - you know I would not do that intentionally! I am confused by this comment of yours though: "if you dont name someone in the correct line as EMG that their score should count." Do you in fact mean the opposite - i.e., "if you dont name someone in the correct line as EMG then their score should not count?
Yes I do mean that If Polks was named as an EMG mid his score should NOT count towards a 0 in DEF If Polks is named as an OOP DEF EMG his score should count half if there is a 0 in DEF. Isnt that what we are all saying? lol CR said higher up that he had Polks named as an EMG DEF (even though he is a mid) and thus his score should count half.
That's what we are trying to clarify Jim. And that is not how chels is reading the rule. There are obvious contradictions in the way this rule has been worded, and that is why there is still so much confusion. I do not mind which way it is, but it needs to be clear so we all know what we are doing. I've taken the day off work today, but it feels like I'm at work still haha Most of my usual work day is taken up reading over rules and looking for contradictions/loopholes and working out which rule has greatest standing/power. Boring. Would be great if this could be cleared up.
think so Ant. Expressed another way, I do not see how a team with only midfielders can expect to put emergencies in for players they do not have. Imagine 17 mids in their 26 person squad filled in as 4*defenders, 4 mids, 1 ruck, 4 forwards and 2*interchange. Then with 3 emergencies called def, ruck and forward and expect to get full points for them.
<blockquote>Quote from jimbowan on May 22, 2012, 14:14 Yes I do mean that If Polks was named as an EMG mid his score should NOT count towards a 0 in DEF If Polks is named as an OOP DEF EMG his score should count half if there is a 0 in DEF. Isnt that what we are all saying? lol CR said higher up that he had Polks named as an EMG DEF (even though he is a mid) and thus his score should count half.</blockquote> Also, I know what you're trying to convey here, Jim, and that is the way I've always thought our emergency sitch would work, and also how I personally think it would work best going forward, but the way the rule has been explained in this thread has muddied the water - so to speak. We just need a ruling from the commish and then we can move on. Which he is planning to do today So, surely that's more than enough from me.
<blockquote>Quote from chels on May 22, 2012, 14:43 think so Ant. Expressed another way, I do not see how a team with only midfielders can expect to put emergencies in for players they do not have. Imagine 17 mids in their 26 person squad filled in as 4*defenders, 4 mids, 1 ruck, 4 forwards and 2*interchange. Then with 3 emergencies called def, ruck and forward and expect to get full points for them.</blockquote> If it is half points, as Jim and others are suggesting, it would be alright. But explanations of the rule in this thread suggest that it could be no points or full points. Hence the confusion. Couldn't resist. But I'm going now
<blockquote> Couldn't resist. But I'm going now </blockquote> . <img src="http://tooserious.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/o4s2f-Avatar10.jpg" />
Yes please! We've been screaming out to be told what the go is. When will we find out, oh Comishioney one?
Should we remember what happened the last time people wanted to move things along in a hurry? Perhaps we could try a modicum of patience and see if that works better? Just a thought.
Don't think anyone is seeking speed, just clarity, it helps with planning, something that also should be done at a leisurely pace