Not sure how to read it, 22 games over 25 weeks. Maybe should wait for the AFL fixture to come out, check it then
It is 25 weeks but 2 rounds are split and there are the 3 bye rounds when we wont be playing. So it's still 20 rounds, 17 home & away and 3 finals, same as this year.
Tylo wrote: It is 25 weeks but 2 rounds are split and there are the 3 bye rounds when we wont be playing. So it's still 20 rounds, 17 home & away and 3 finals, same as this year. Ok cool thanks, all sorted then. No need for a worry
So the finals week 1 will be first place, first pick, week 2 seeded:Highest winner W1 vs Lowest winner W1, 2nd vs 3rdand GF is self-explainatory. In the insanelyunlikely event of a finals draw, the higher place will get through. This seems the most logical system, rewards 1st with greater choice and keeps it to 3 weeks. Of course maybe 1st choice should go to highest score, a la NAB Cup except this yearbut the mighty Lions showed those thieves, anyway I reckon if other people have ideas we should consider them. We should call our premiership the FU' Cup, colloquially fucup
Tomster, I reckon that the home team does the scoring for the game and also does a summary of the game and then you can collate for the leader board. What do you think?
Tomster, you might need to make a call as the Commissioner on rule 3 and 9 so things can be bedded down. A line needs to be drawn in the sand.
How about I change my vote for topic 3 from B to C? That way it gets that rule over the line. Personally was a line ball decision for me between the 2 when I voted so don't mind changing it for the benefit of getting the rules finalised.
YAD69 wrote: Tomster, I reckon that the home team does the scoring for the game and also does a summary of the game and then you can collate for the leader board. What do you think? An official score keeper would be more appropriate in my opinion. I smell the makings of another poll!!
insider wrote: YAD69 wrote: Tomster, I reckon that the home team does the scoring for the game and also does a summary of the game and then you can collate for the leader board. What do you think? An official score keeper would be more appropriate in my opinion. I smell the makings of another poll!! Good idea, I can't really do weekends because I've got things to do. An official scorekeep is a good idea.
If the majority of people selected in question 11 that interchange players score normal points, then wouldn't it make sense that if we have players playing out of position (question 9) they should also score full points? I did vote against unusual positions, and I stand by this, because I believe that the two interchange players will be our 'unusual position' players, while the other 13 should only score points when named in the position(s) that correspond to their Champion Data / SuperCoach descriptions.
Hi JPK My thoughts are that 2 interchange players at full pointsgives us a degree of flexibility in selecting our teams which is a good thing for maintaining interest. However, if we have out of position players scoring full points then positions become redundant, which devalues the draft and the game overall imho. The reason I voted for out of position players scoring 50% is primarily for ruck injuries.Given the big men can drop like flies it's not unreasonable to think that someone may not have a playing ruck for a round or two. Without an ability to pick up a free agent for LTIsthis means that you'd be stuck with zeros, which with only 15 players per team would almost guarantee a win to your opponent. Scoring at 50% goes some way to resolving this issue but also recognises that, like in the real world, putting a tall forward (for example)into the ruck isn't going to give you the same result as a specialist. I don't think it would come up often outside of a teambeing ravaged with injuries. While I'm typing this I'm becoming more convinced on a rule to pick-up free agents for LTIs, but this would obviously have to be pretty carefully drafted, as we don't want people being able to rotate their squads too much outside of draft/trade periods.
DamoH wrote: Hi JPK My thoughts are that 2 interchange players at full pointsgives us a degree of flexibility in selecting our teams which is a good thing for maintaining interest. However, if we have out of position players scoring full points then positions become redundant, which devalues the draft and the game overall imho. The reason I voted for out of position players scoring 50% is primarily for ruck injuries.Given the big men can drop like flies it's not unreasonable to think that someone may not have a playing ruck for a round or two. Without an ability to pick up a free agent for LTIsthis means that you'd be stuck with zeros, which with only 15 players per team would almost guarantee a win to your opponent. Scoring at 50% goes some way to resolving this issue but also recognises that, like in the real world, putting a tall forward (for example)into the ruck isn't going to give you the same result as a specialist. I don't think it would come up often outside of a teambeing ravaged with injuries. While I'm typing this I'm becoming more convinced on a rule to pick-up free agents for LTIs, but this would obviously have to be pretty carefully drafted, as we don't want people being able to rotate their squads too much outside of draft/trade periods. ^ This is spot on <div class='Quote' style='margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; color: #444444;]<em style='font-size: inherit;]YAD69 wrote: Tomster, you might need to make a call as the Commissioner on rule 3 and 9 so things can be bedded down. A line needs to be drawn in the sand. <p style='margin-bottom: 18px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; color: #444444;] <p style='margin-bottom: 18px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; color: #444444;]We have time (3 months actually). Let's try to get as many opinions as possible <p style='margin-bottom: 18px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; color: #444444;] <div class='Quote' style='margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; color: #444444;]<em style='font-size: inherit;]JPK wrote: Conversely, if you don't do well, you can always say that you FUc(ed)up <p style='margin-bottom: 18px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; color: #444444;] Well, you could say that, but I won't be saying anything of the sort, since I will be winning <div class='Quote' style='margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; color: #444444;]<em style='font-size: inherit;]insider wrote: <div class='Quote' style='margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;]<em style='font-size: inherit;]YAD69 wrote: Tomster, I reckon that the home team does the scoring for the game and also does a summary of the game and then you can collate for the leader board. What do you think? <p style='margin-bottom: 18px; font-size: inherit;] <p style='margin-bottom: 18px; font-size: inherit;]An official score keeper would be more appropriate in my opinion. I smell the makings of another poll!! <p style='margin-bottom: 18px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; color: #444444;] <p style='margin-bottom: 18px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; color: #444444;]Sure, I'll set up the poll. Nominations please <p style='margin-bottom: 18px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; color: #444444;] <p style='margin-bottom: 18px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; color: #444444;] <p style='margin-bottom: 18px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; color: #444444;] <p style='margin-bottom: 18px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 18px; color: #444444;]Finally, any other rules that need to be decided on? <div> <div>
I'll give my opinion again on rules 3 and 9. These rules are designed to help teams that are struggling. As Damo said, using players out of position gives teams hit hard by injury some hope of being competitive. I can't see how this rule could be rorted, with these players scoring 50%. Without the rule, we could have teams playing short, which to me would be a negative. Mandatory delisting is another rule to help struggling teams but on a longer scale. By forcing stronger teams to drop off a few players it gives hope to the teams who's lists have gone wrong through either bad luck or bad management. Much like the AFL, it's about keeping the competition healthy - a lop-sided competition is bad for all of us as a whole. Without an independent commission like the AFL, I think it's important when looking at these things that we consider the best interests of the competition in the long-term. Personally I'm not fussed if these rules are abolished as I'm happy to back myself to not be near the bottom. But fact is some of us will be. A healthy competition where everyone has hope for the not-too-distant future is a good thing for everyone because it maintains interest.
I guess im not as nice as you two blokes, because I say if you get an injury and havent drafted a squad with enough depth then its your own fault. On the the 'interest factor', if it happens and you fall by the wayside or lose interest then id question why you signed up in the first place. Some seasons are ruined in real life for teams, WCE most recently comes to mind, so if getting a decent draft pick for next season doesnt help retain your motivation then like i said, id question why you put your hand up in the first place. As an aside just to throw another monkey wrench in the works and contradict myself for the sake of playing devils advocate, we could re-vote on the trading window and allow injury-based trading... or do the long term injury thing. I still reckon it should be tough shit and get ready for next season, but bring on orffu democracy!
insider wrote: I guess im not as nice as you two blokes, because I say if you get an injury and havent drafted a squad with enough depth then its your own fault. On the the 'interest factor', if it happens and you fall by the wayside or lose interest then id question why you signed up in the first place. Some seasons are ruined in real life for teams, WCE most recently comes to mind, so if getting a decent draft pick for next season doesnt help retain your motivation then like i said, id question why you put your hand up in the first place. I agree mate - we're a keeper league, so people have to take responsibility for their decisions in drafting, trading, etc. It would go against the idea of a keeper league if the rules allowed you to fix a mistake straight away. However, I think we having differing ideas on what is an appropriate 'punishment' if you get hit by injuries. Even though the Weagles had a terrible season, at no point did they run onto the field as 18 versus 17. That's why I think 50% reduction in scores is sufficient punishment, and reflects the reality that you can't always play your best side, but you shouldn't start a man down simply because of the SC definition of positions. Anyways, I doubt it would be used that often anyways. On the bigger question of equalisation, I think this is an issue that could affect the league's success in a year or two. I can't agree enough with Tylo's comment: 'Mandatory delisting is another rule to help struggling teams but on a longer scale. By forcing stronger teams to drop off a few players it gives hope to the teams who's lists have gone wrong through either bad luck or bad management. Much like the AFL, it's about keeping the competition healthy - a lop-sided competition is bad for all of us as a whole. ' Of course we'd all like to think we'll be keen in a year or two, but it's only human nature that if you're not going so well, with no end in sight, that you'd be tempted to pack it in. A coach or two dropping out affects the entire league, so anything that 'keeps the competition healthy' in Tylo's words gets my approval. It's why I'm a big fan of compulsory delistments. To take a 'veil of ignorance' approach, imagine you've won the wooden spoon in 2014, are you going to stay enthusiastic if you know you won't be competitive for 4-5 years? The above is obviously only my opinion, hopefully I'll be proved wrong by the depth of the drafts without delistments. It's also encouraging that before the draft we've got plenty of posts and discussion, so it seems as if all coaches are committed to the cause.
I voted against the 50% for players out of position because I'd thought it was a loop hole that could possibly be exploited by purposely playing guys out of position. I also thought that if people didn't draft properly than that was their own fault. However after considering the above posts it would be a tough penalty to lose a match because all of your rucks were injured, the only other solution would be to have a set config for the 26, maybe 7 def, 8 mid, 4 ruck & 7 fwd. By doing this it would also minimise teams stockpiling certain positions then trading them off. But probably easiest to just go with the 50%. I also voted against the mandatory delisting as I felt why should I have to move 4 players on when I've done all the research and want to keep them. I'm backing myself to make the finals from season 1 but it will be with a good blend of experience and youth, so why would I want to cough up some guys that I'm backing to be guns in a couple of seasons. However, if for some bizarre reason I finished bottom 4, I would probably appreciate the ability to pick up some better players. A question with the delistments, if we have a mandatory 4, could we then voluntarily throw in some more? Like I said it's not in my plan to be in this position but for some teams 6 changes may be necessary to rebuild and become competitive.
I think mandatory delistments was to make sure the league stayed fairish, yet I have no clue where you getting the 4 mandatory delistments rule Eagle_Eyed. If the rule was voted in, you would have to delist at least one player, with the possibility of delisting more. Personally, I don't like mandatory delistments, because you could trade the player instead of delisting him. Maybe the rule should be that your squad should have some movement in and out, so as the lists don't stay the same for seasons on end. Just to contradict everything I have said, how can we be discussing equalisation issues when we haven't even started?! Noone has any players, noone has played a match, noone has lost to the Grenades yet! I think the equalisation discussion should be for seasons to come, not before we have even started. Players out of position should be 50%, for reasons everyone else has mentioned. Period. Ah, I do love a good ORFFU rules discussion.
Not sure where I got the 4 from either. If it is minimum 1 I'm cool with that, would give me a chance to get rid of the player my fans love to hate!