Rules Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'ORFFU' started by JPK, Jul 27, 2018.

  1. eagle_eyed

    eagle_eyed Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    723
    I can see both sides to this discussion and think that MartyG makes a good point. Coaches wouldn’t draft the highest scoring replacement they’d likely take the most promising instead. I drafted an injury prone player in Bennell and think it would be unfair to have a second dip after making such a choice. Hell, I didn’t even take any top up players for Hurley, Ryder & Myers when I had the chance so if it went to a vote I’d likely vote against. Having the right mix of experience and youth is one of the balancing acts we all need to perform.
     
  2. insider

    insider Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    828
    +1. No from me too
     
  3. bryzza

    bryzza Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,386
    Likes Received:
    715
    So far I have only seen the age be an issue when drafting a supplemental player which I have addressed in an earlier post. We have made changes to help the bottom teams now lets make a change that can benefit all, if we are TooSerious about this comp should it not emulate the AFL as close as possible?
     
  4. DamoH

    DamoH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    993
    Likes Received:
    791
    I'm leaning towards no as well.

    There's always going to be bad luck in this game, and while it sucks at the time (like Kreuzer being a late withdrawal last year for the Smugglers in a final) in a bizarre way it actually makes the game more enjoyable (imho). The more we try to cover for every eventuality the more we lose the unpredictability, which is where most of the fun is.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. ddsaints

    ddsaints Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    242
    No for me.
     
  6. choppers

    choppers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,437
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    I'm also in the NO camp.
    Although Banchang suffered a bit with injuries this season, in 3 defenders, Doedee, Vickers-Willis and Wigg all going down with season ending ACL's early on, I'm hoping I've got it covered and if not, there are 27 defenders on the FA list that are best 22-25 at their respective clubs that I can check out in the Mid-season Draft if I need to.....
    We already have 28 players on our list and only 15 take the field at any one time, giving us all 4 extra players in each of the 3 major positions (def mid fwd) and another 1 for Ruck.
    So if we all research, draft/trade well pre-season, then another player should not be required. And of course if injuries occur, that's just the luck of the draw, especially if you get 3-4 on the one line...
    May the last team standing, win.....:D
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. YAD69

    YAD69 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,623
    Likes Received:
    860
    No for me
     
  8. HOLKY

    HOLKY Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,330
    Likes Received:
    701
    No, 28 a side is already a lot.
     
  9. Batfink

    Batfink Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    490
    Likes Received:
    340
    I'm a no for all the reasons stated already.
     
  10. fresh

    fresh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,023
    Likes Received:
    1,032
    A no from Cow Bay
     
  11. bryzza

    bryzza Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,386
    Likes Received:
    715
    So if we voted to go back to 26 man squad's no mandatory delistings would coaches feel differently?
     
  12. fresh

    fresh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,023
    Likes Received:
    1,032
    I personally prefer mandatory delistings.
    If there were changes made, I'd consider an idea like increasing squads to 30 and having 6 mandatory delistments over the year (not just PSD) over going back to what we had before....not that I'm suggesting it, just using an example.
     
  13. choppers

    choppers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,437
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    I wouldn't feel differently. I prefer it as it is now, the 28 man squads with 4 mandatory de-listings.
     
  14. JPK

    JPK Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,752
    Likes Received:
    1,915
    @bryzza personally mate, I'm not keen on creating any more "coverage", as I already think we have enough (and this coming from a bloke who might need to field a couple of OOP's this week!)

    @fresh if you're not going to suggest it, I'll continue to beat the same dead horse - 6 list changes per year, spread over trades and draft selections in both the PS and MS.
     
  15. fresh

    fresh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,023
    Likes Received:
    1,032
    Those vegan protesters might have something to say about that dead horse in Coolgardie.

    I'd personally prefer to see how we go with 26 & 4 for a couple more seasons. It's a fairly new rule and I think it needs time to do it's thing. I do like the idea of the drafting / delistments covering both PSD and MSD, not a fan of list changes being the definition. I'm assuming if I trade 6 players to one coach and get 6 back then I meet the criteria and don't have to take any picks. I like the idea of everyone having to hit the draft. That way there are still a few goodies amongst the later picks that might not be there if my assumption is in line with what you mean.
     
  16. JPK

    JPK Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,752
    Likes Received:
    1,915
    Yeah, your assumption is in line with what I'm saying.
    I just feel that we're now forcing coaches to draft, when maybe the best thing for their team is to trade. That way, as long as there's six new faces each year, should it really matter if they were drafted in or traded in? Plus if one or two teams only trade, then there's more FA's available for the other coaches to draft in.

    ...and screw those protesters!
    [​IMG]
     
  17. eagle_eyed

    eagle_eyed Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    723
    What do you think the famous Coolgardie sausage roll is made of :eek:
     
    • Like Like x 2
  18. Tylo

    Tylo Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    697
    Likes Received:
    287
    My thought on the whole matter fwiw;

    I thought mandatory delisting/drafting/list changes was brought in to help even the comp, ie to assist the lower sides. As it is now it doesn't achieve that because coaches can trade players for draft picks and then draft other players of equivalent worth. So no damage is done to the higher sides as they simply trade their decent players for high draft picks and then plunder the next batch of quality young players. For the rule to work it needs to be mandatory delisting and nothing else. So coaches cannot horde players, they are forced to put some back into the FA pool where the lower teams can use their high draft picks to catch up to a degree.

    As for list sizes, I was against the increase. As choppers pointed out, there are plenty of players in the FA pool who are best 22. More often than not the reason coaches were unable to field full teams in the past was because they chose players with potential who weren't getting regular games. It's each coach's choice as to how much risk to take with the make-up of their list, that's the balancing act we we all face. By increasing list sizes we just reduce the talent in the FA pool, making the later rounds a wasteland and making it harder for the lower sides to catch up.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  19. eagle_eyed

    eagle_eyed Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    723
    @JPK I’d like to bring this one up again. I feel coaches should be able to build their list however they wish; whether that’s by hitting the draft or trading. I believe we should mirror the AFL and have to take a minimum of three draft selections over the course of the year (so between the PSD & MSD). The 4th list change could then be either via the draft or trade. In reality I think all 4 changes should be this way with freedom to do as a coach likes but I understand there are those that believe we should have to take draft selections. In reality if I trade 4 players for picks or players then they should count as list changes. How I build my list should be my decision.
     
  20. eagle_eyed

    eagle_eyed Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    723
    @JPK Another I’d like to raise is uneven trading during drafts. As a league we’ve made a call that we cannot trade dead picks; I think it should logically follow that we cannot activate dead picks at the back end of the draft to compensate for uneven trades. Coaches should only be able to take the number of selections they have available at the start of the draft. So either a coach trades a player/PSD/MSD pick for a player during said draft or the trade does not go ahead. I should not be able to enter the draft with 4 picks and then trade out a player and activate a 5th pick at the back end. It’s quite simple really, if I want player A from a coach then my deal must involve one of my picks from the same draft; if this can’t be accommodated then the trade does not go ahead.
     

Share This Page