ORRFU Rules Discussion Thread

1. I actually disagree with this, and like it how it is. The difference is only one place in the PSD, and reflects a teams' performance in the semis, as does the results in the grand final. Otherwise, why don't we extend the idea to the grand final, as it also better reflects the whole season and not just one game (meaning that this year, with Ararat in 1st and Korumburra in 7th, if Korumburra won the GF, they would have still gotten PSD 12 as per their end of season position, not PSD 2 or PSD 1 for being good enough to make the grand final).

2. I agree that they are over the top. Maybe we can water them down a little, but I still believe we need something in the rules to "ensure" activity remains and control is not lost.

 

Yeah, that's an interesting conundrum... If you've got an idea for how they should be worded, let me know, and we'll look to update them both.

 

Starting to agree with this.
I can't remember who it was, but someone mentioned in the mid-season, something along the lines of: vetos should only be used for the absolute obvious collusion trades, not the "why didn't I think of that" trade where someone just gets very lucky.

 

I agree and disagree.
Its best if we all have 15 scoring players each week, and no-one has any donuts. But surely with 28-player lists, and a little bit of management in the two player exchange periods each year, every team has ample opportunity to give themselves all the cover they need.
There's plenty of players in the FA list who play a lot of games, but don't score many points. List management strategy is all about having the best 15 possible, but also adequate coverage for each line to prevent donuts.

If we were to go down this path, and based on the fact that players are versatile and play multiple positions these days, I'd actually suggest that we only ever name two emergencies each, and one of them (don't know if it should be highest or lowest scoring) is taken at half-points for whatever position they need to cover.

 

Losers Finals are just for fun. 11-14 is the first group kicked out in the finals (ie 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th placed teams).

 

We have a 4-4-1-4 starting team, so 13 players who "have" to be in position - meaning that with a 28 man squad, you have 15 reserves. The best two of these 15 reserves are your two interchange players. The remaining 13 can be 4 defenders, 4 mids, 1 ruck, and 4 forwards (assuming no-one is DPP), which means you have a whole team of reserves just waiting to play.
I'm not going to tell anyone how to manage their own team, but I believe that everyone should be able to have atleast 50% of their squad available to play at any given time, and if not, we all have two player exchange periods per year to make changes.
As for the FA's, there were more than 20 players not on any of our lists who played more than 15 games this year. Yeah, some of them averaged less than 50ppg, but they're available. This is where team management comes into play - do you select a speculative player who might get a game and score well, or might miss because he's a hot-head and gets suspended, or do you select a steady best-22 player who is coverage for when your three first-choice players go down? (look at Michael Rischitelli - played 21 games, but only averaged 48ppg. Still better than a donut or a 50% OPP player in the mids, and only takes up 1 spot on your list. Or Mark Hutchings - 17 games at 66ppg, and a M/F, so can cover two lines, played nearly every game, so was handy cover above what an OPP would offer for most of the season, and still only took up one spot on your list).

 

Alright gentlemen, now that the AFL draft is complete, and to help coaches begin to properly manage their teams, we won't be entertaining any other rule changes, unless something urgent appears.

So, all rules will stand as they currently do, with the only change being to the delistment rule. Hopefully now everyone can focus on Christmas, New Year, Family, and ORFFU.

We can still discuss rule changes, but we won't be implementing anything else for season 2019. Hopefully this gives everyone the stability that is wanted, and the ability for us to monitor the effects of previous rule changes (equalisation policies like the mandatory 4 PSD picks) before making any further potential changes.

Thanks all, and happy draft preparations.

 

I personally don't agree with the idea. We now have 28 players on our list, and we only need to field 15 each week. There's 13 spare players, so thats enough for 4 spare defenders, 4 spare mids, 1 spare ruck, and 4 spare forwards (or nearly a whole second team). Plus we have a mid-season draft and trades to cover poor or non performers and pick up new players. I don't think we need any more coverage.

But as commissioner, I will be impartial, and if there's enough support, we can vote on how to implement something like this.