Rules discussion: TEAMS

Discussion in 'ORFFF' started by anthak, Feb 21, 2016.

  1. anthak

    anthak Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    9,563
    Likes Received:
    4,325
    1. TEAMS
    1(a) ORFFF teams shall be named after a remote or regional Australian town/place or offshore territory.
    1(b) Weekly ORFFF sides selected from playing lists of 30 players will consist of 15 players. 4 Defenders, 4 Midfielders, 1 Ruck, 4 Forwards and 2 Interchange. In addition, 4 Emergencies can be selected, maximum 1 emergency per line. They come into the side if a selected player on that line does not play.
    1(c) SC points and player position eligibility - including dpp - will apply, with “out of position” players receiving half their SC score.
    1(d) Interchange players can be of any SC position and will score full points.
    1(f) Submission of a Round 1 ORFFF team each season via TS leagues or other method prescribed by the ORFFF Commissioner and/or Board is essential. In order to avoid last minute system access issues coaches should post/lodge a Round 1 team at least 1 week prior, then update the team throughout the week.
    1(g) Submission of ORFFF playing sides for subsequent rounds is highly desirable. Non updating of an ORFFF side for an extended period of time to the extent that avoidable donuts are fielded in one or more weeks will be viewed unfavorably due to the impact that this has on the competition overall.

    Read more at http://tooserious.net/forum/threads...-discussion.88813/page-12#uHvyVSkxvM2wYgh3.99
     
  2. Len

    Len Cockburn Knightrider Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    10,116
    Likes Received:
    5,441
    All good with this, apart from this line
    In order to avoid last minute system access issues coaches should post/lodge a Round 1 team at least 1 week prior, then update the team throughout the week.
     
  3. anthak

    anthak Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    9,563
    Likes Received:
    4,325
    I don't think this should be in there too.

    I also don't think 1(g) is necessary. Its just stating the obvious, yeah?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. That KI Guy

    That KI Guy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,399
    Likes Received:
    3,718
    +1

    I would keep 1(g), looking to future so its clear for any newcomers who might inherit a franchise.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Bearfly

    Bearfly Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,351
    Likes Received:
    789
    My view too
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. anthak

    anthak Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    9,563
    Likes Received:
    4,325
    Ive thought of something else for this section.

    Emergency players' scores should only count if there are players named in all positions on the line they are emergency for (and if one of them doesnt play of course).

    This is to avoid people leaving positions blank to enact the emergency loophole in rounds where there are split lockouts.

    I dont have issues with people using loopholes, but the aim should be to fill the 1st 15 with players before filling emergency spots. Its more realistic that way.

    We had a situation a few years ago in ORFFA where someone had an emergency who scored a hundred before the final lockout, but all their remaining players were either already locked out or named to play AFL, so they had no way of ensuring that particular emergency's score counted, unless they left a position blank in the first 15... I dont think it should be allowed. If one has players, they should play them.

    I have no problem with people using non-playing players to enact the loophole, but not blank spots.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. walesy

    walesy Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,851
    Likes Received:
    2,496
    Just quietly, it took a bit of coding wizardry to allow that particular loophole when I noticed the new site wasn't allowing it. :D
     
  8. anthak

    anthak Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    9,563
    Likes Received:
    4,325
    ahhh... what do you mean exactly? Which part of the loophole wasn't it allowing?
     
  9. walesy

    walesy Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,851
    Likes Received:
    2,496
    Leaving say, D4 blank.

    Originally it didn't have the E buttons, so it moved the 5th guy onto the field when you took the forth out. :)
     
  10. anthak

    anthak Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    9,563
    Likes Received:
    4,325
    ahhh, nice, thanks for fixing it.
     
  11. anthak

    anthak Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    9,563
    Likes Received:
    4,325
    ...still, this.
    If anyone objects, let us know.
     
  12. TheTassieHawk

    TheTassieHawk SC fanatic Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    6,869
    Likes Received:
    5,628
    +1 for no "blanks" as you cant do it in real life footy or in other fantasy comps

    personally i'd prefer not to use loopholes at all, ie ORFFF teams can't leave out players named in their AFL sides 22 while having a non-named player in the ORFFF teams first 15 - but if we do allow it everyone is in the same boat so it is fair for all
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. port_leschenault

    port_leschenault Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,709
    Likes Received:
    1,696
    Think we have the no blanks rules in our loop-holing of split rounds in ORFFL. Didn't realise it was more wizardry involved from the Chief to make it happen. /wearenotworthy

    Agree about 1g being redundant, I think that comes under the Boards rule of whether or not a franchise needs replacing?

    If a coach isn't posting and hasn't changed their team all season it's not like it's going to go unnoticed. That, it can happen is one of the drawbacks of allowing rollover of teams on a weekly basis.
     
  14. walesy

    walesy Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,851
    Likes Received:
    2,496
    Just on the Blanks.

    Currently the site doesn't allow you to field any of the suspended Bombers players- however, given they hold a place on lists, surely they could be used as loophole fodder?
     
  15. anthak

    anthak Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    9,563
    Likes Received:
    4,325
    yes, my opinion is that they should be allowed if on the list
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. walesy

    walesy Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,851
    Likes Received:
    2,496
    Oh wait a minute, they are on the list. :D good job walesy.
     
  17. TheTassieHawk

    TheTassieHawk SC fanatic Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    6,869
    Likes Received:
    5,628
    +1 here, provided loophole's are allowed in the first place then in my mind it's no different to naming a player with any other suspension from the AFL tribunal, an injured player or a player who is picked in the 2s

    I would also assume there is no restriction on naming players out of position in order to activate the loophole?
     
  18. anthak

    anthak Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    9,563
    Likes Received:
    4,325
    Nah it shouldn't matter what position they are
     
  19. anthak

    anthak Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    9,563
    Likes Received:
    4,325
    I have just realised that the current draft rules already apply this way...
    "In addition, 4 Emergencies can be selected, maximum 1 emergency per line. They come into the side if a selected player on that line does not play."
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page