Theoretically it could be abused? If it's allowed in the rules, no doubt players will do it! The commish might have to threaten with the scepter.
I don't mind having the highest scorer as cover as long as you submit 15 players that are named in their starting lineups as at Friday 5pm or something? Having the lowest scorer is a pretty big disadvantage, although if everyone agrees to it then it's technically "even".
Gotta be the lowest who qualifies for the position doesn't it? Adding in the manual process of ensuring that everyone's team is named and above board is gunna turn into a pain in the ass for the unlucky sod (hi commish!) who has to oversee such a ruling. Mean you want to start your guaranteed starters on the bench to limit to potential fallout from an out.
FWIW, I agree with Hornsy, Jason and Lucas on the picking of the 15 players. For the interchange and energency scenarion, could we all just pick one interchange player and one emergency for each line. Then if there is a withdrawal in any line,, the intercgange player comes onto the field, 2 withdrawals, both interchange player and emergency come onto the field. If there are any further withdrawals, too bad IMO. As Hornsy says, part of the game for the coaches is dealing with/limiting bad luck - I would have thought most ORFFL coaches selected with both an eye on the future and one on the present, and drafting durable players and players that will in all likelihood get selected most weeks should have been part and parcel of most people draft strategy i suspect. For example, The Hammerheads have a number of ageing stars (Goodes, Judd), but they are durable and can be expected to play between 19-22 games each year - but I am sure Lucas also considered the fact that these players are not getting any younger and may start to miss games (or in the case of Kerr, lose the plot and get suspended) (admittedly, Lucas top few were automatic selections, but the point is still valid). The way we drafted needs to impact on the season proper, otherwise we all could have just gone on automatic draft and taken the next highest scorer, and where's the fun in that? I want to back my team in to win over the others because of my superior drafting and selection table decisions, and conversely your inferior drafting and selection decisions - eliminating the natural order of good and bad luck reduces the opportunity for this to occur. The Snakes are not too concerned with their pretty average preseason, we are in a heavy fitness building phase at the moment with lots of team bonding at the local sports club, hence the absence of a number of players and low scores for the ORFFL Challenge so far.
<blockquote>Quote from Hornsy on December 21, 2011, 07:40 Teams should be named after a remote Australian town/place. For consistency's sake. Squads of 26 players during competition. Cut down to 20 before 2013 Rookie Draft (date TBC). Playing sides will consist of 15 players. 4 Defenders, 4 Midfielders, 1 Ruck, 4 Forwards and 2 Interchange. The Interchange players can be of any position. They score points too. 3 Emergencies can be selected. Emergencies must be selected in ONE line only.They come in if a player is a late withdrawal. You can play someone in the wrong position, ie. Cloke in Defence, but they only get half the points. SC points and player positions. </blockquote> After re-reading the Commish's OP I would like to know why, in the event one of the on-field 13 is a late withdrawal, why would one of the Interchange players have to replace that player? Should it not be a direct change with one of the Emergencies? The OP clearly states that the 2 Interchange players score points, so therefore there is no need for one of them to replace the on-field player & then have the Emergency replace the Interchange - a direct replacement of Emergency for late withdrawal makes more sense & less stuffing around & confusion!!!
I think the idea behind the interchange player covering is if you don't have an emergency on that line. I'm not sure exactly how often it would come up, but for example you play your 2nd Ruck player on your interchange and your Ruck on field is a late withdrawal, you should be able to cover him. It could happen on any line with a few injuries, I know I've only got 7 players on one of my lines which could be a bit iffy. I also just thought of another scenario, what did we decide with DPP players? All I can remember is what SKT is saying, but if you have a M/F in your team and a MID is a late withdrawal, can you switch your M/F into there and cover it with a FWD emergency?
On the issue of interchange emergencies and what-not, I say we just go with the rules in the OP: 3 Emergencies, each with a nominated line. Interchange is a line too. If you cop a late out in a line you don't have an emergency for, tough boosies.
<blockquote>Quote from Hornsy on March 11, 2012, 11:29 Nah, we voted on that kash and it didn't get up. Nominated emergencies.</blockquote> That vote was totally rigged...... :x
Seriously interested in joining up to this concept, will be watching this year with interest. Hopefully next year there is enough interest to split the experienced guys into a couple of leagues and fill them up with new blood... Good luck guys!
One of the profound joys of living in a liberal democracy is that you can make it up as you go along.
<blockquote>Quote from Hornsy on March 26, 2012, 18:21 Experienced? We've only been at this caper since January.</blockquote> :0 My bad, I thought it was a concept from last year, regardless, the interest stays
If you're happy to go on an American-Health-System sort of waiting list Lenh in case a coach drops out then I think you'd be second in line after the Mark Williams of Sarah Island.