There's a good point made that I really like....the idea of player movement in your team as opposed to mandatory delistings. If one coach happens to draft a squad full of youngsters who are all on an upward curve that everyone else wants, why should he/she have to delist and receive no compensation (I know, I'm contradicting one of my earlier posts). Being able to trade them out for a pick is a great idea.Perhaps we need another option in the poll that adds squad sizes of 1-3 less players than full squad size needed before the draft?
mandatory is a moot point anyway isnt it? even though theres only 15 votes been cast, surely the remaining three wouldnt be silly enough to vote for it? Unusual positions suck, but i feel the people may have spoken on that one... pricks. anyway, whats the magic number for interchange and why? 1 per line if unusual positions doesnt get up, or a fixed number of whatever position if unusual does? Or it doesnt rely on unusual positions rule so its a certain number and thats it?
Squad sizes are 15 playing players. 4 def, 4 mid, 1 ruck, 4 forwards, and 2 interchange players who can be of any position and score normal points
I'm starting to be convinced of the logic of 50% score for unusual positions, especially for the case of an injured ruck division, as this may be more a case of severly bad luck than bad management. The bad luck long-term-injury thing was my reason for suggesting LTI trading in the first place, similar to clubs promoting a rookie (no, I'm not advocating a 'speculative' rookie list - 23 players is enough!) but then maybe you just have to live with it for the rest of the season. There are DPP players running around for a reason... I don't like the idea of dictating overall numbers for each position - if someone wants to stockpile mid rookies and trade them all out in 2-3 years time, then good luck to them! As long as you can fill your 4-4-1-4 then no-one should have the right to tell you what the reserves are filled with (in my opinion). As for delisitng players - I'm of the school that if you have a killer list, you shouldn't be forced to drop anyone if you don't want to. Everyone should be able to drop as many players as they want (anywhere between 0 and 23) as long as they have enough draft picks to then fill their team back up to have 23 players by the start of the next round after the trade / draft period. If you don't want to participate in the draft then you shouldn't have to, you'll only be hurting yourself in the longer term. Ablett won't be Ablett forever - just look at Judd. I'm not keen on guys being able to hoard more than 23 players and then being forced to drop down to 23, as I think this may rob other coaches of the opportunity to pick up a player they may want. Once your team has 23 players you're done - if you want to participate in drafts then you should drop players, but only if you have the picks to draft new ones in their place. Remember that we're offering trading for players and picks, so there's always the chance of unevenness in numbers (for example 20 players and 4 picks at the end of the trade period), but you guys are smart and knew that already! Anyways, thats my thoughts on those topics.
Guys, if there is no 50% rule then I could play midfielders across the ground in all positions as the rules are currently. You either need a rule that states players must be played in their designated positions and therefore miss out on points for the variety of reasons which have been stated before or you have the rule of 50% out of position rule so if you try and field a team of midfielders you will be penalised because that's not the spirit of the game.
JPK, Squad size is 26. 15 on the field, 4Def, 4Mid, 1Ruck, 4Fwd & 2Int 4 Emergencies, one for each line (Def, Mid, Ruck & Fwd) 7 Reserves as a pool of players to call upon for your (i.e. injuries)
YAD69 wrote: JPK, Squad size is 26. 15 on the field, 4Def, 4Mid, 1Ruck, 4Fwd & 2Int 4 Emergencies, one for each line (Def, Mid, Ruck & Fwd) 7 Reserves as a pool of players to call upon for your (i.e. injuries) Oops! (I voted for 23...) Just change all my 23's to 26's and my argument still stands.
Good Luck in getting someone to be the Official Scorekeeper! 19 players (15 on field & 4 emergencies) x 18 teams = 342 players scores summed up to 18 teams, that's a shit load of work each week for 17 rounds. If you're not a computer geek and you think you can do it manually we'll be waiting of month of Sundays to get the results. If you're a computer geek it will still set you back some time, one to convert the team postings from the thread, rip the scores from SC to either an access data base or excel. In access write a report to find and sum the player scores or in excel use a macro or vlookups and pivot tables. Still a shit load of work. Ladies you're trying to make thing to complex/difficult, spread the love. Many hands make light work. If you go down to your local footy club and watch a game the home team does the scoring. If your opponent thinks you've got it wrong it goes to the commissioner to resolve.
Got to agree with you YAD, home team should do the scoring. Only 1 of us needs to come up with an excel template that we could all use on game day, I'm decent with excel so could have a crack and if anyone else wanted to try we could just choose the best/easiest version. Apart from the scoring the home team should also write a paragraph match review, this could then be sent with the scores for someone to collate a round review to be posted. There'll be 17 rounds plus finals so maybe each team (bar the commissioner) takes a turn at collating the round review then we could sort out something for the finals series. With playing guys out of position, it should only be allowed if you are unable to field a correct position player.
We can do the home team scores, but then each week they either give the score to me or to the person who is writing the report for that week. I'll just have to fix the FIXture so that I am never the home team With regards to team sizes, it is 4-4-1-4 but then there are 4 other players who YAD has said are emergencies. We could make the ruling that they are interchange players, so they score no matter what, or we could make it that they are emergencies and only score if someone doesn't play. If we took the latter option, I think we should change the structure to 3-4-1-3 with 2 interchange players. ( still make 15 players who score but adds the flexibility of interchange)
I feel like some are looking to make changes just for the sake of it. Not sure what's wrong with the current model that's been running successfully for 2 years. If people don't want to score their own games I would be happy to do it. Pretty sure everyone's squads could be entered into TS. It would be a matter of going thru each team and recording scores of who was named to play. Reckon it would take a couple of hours each week.
Tylo wrote: I feel like some are looking to make changes just for the sake of it. Not sure what's wrong with the current model that's been running successfully for 2 years. If people don't want to score their own games I would be happy to do it. Pretty sure everyone's squads could be entered into TS. It would be a matter of going thru each team and recording scores of who was named to play. Reckon it would take a couple of hours each week. I agree and disagree. It isnt 'the same comp that has been running for 2 years' so why be shackled by something irrelevant? A blank canvas is a wonderful thing. HOWEVER. You cant ignore the past; especially its successes and failures, as they should teach you more than speculating ever could. the essence of what im saying is ..... drum roll.... nothing really useful!all this chat is good and occasionally humorous so keep it up. I do actually want to disagree with whomever wrote a few posts ago saying 'who would want to score' etc etc... Because I would definitely do it and now Tylo has also put his hand up, so theres 11% of participants at least that are willing to be FUscoreKing (patent pending)
<a name='_GoBack][/url]Gold Star to Insider and Tylo for putting theirhand up. Fight it out amongst yourselves for the honour & let the commissioner know. I still say good luck to the official FUscoreKing whom ever it might be.
While we are on the subject of positions within the league, is everybody happy with what I am doing? Happy to step down if that is what the public wants, however that may mean that I will be called Rudd and the new commissioner is Gillard If anyone has anything else they want discussed that doesn't fit into any of the other topic threads, feel free to start a new thread. Now that I think about it, we should probably start a new thread for positions of power
Maybe I'm alone but I like the idea of being able to compare my team with those in the ORRFL/A. I don't see them as irrelevant to us.I think they're even looking at having some sort of champions trophy between their 2 comps. I think it would be a shame to isolate ourselves from the rest of the community here just for the sake of being different. If changes are gonna be made, let's be sure that they are gonna be an improvement. The existing rules serve a purpose, even if it's not immediately obvious. Suggested changes should be backed up by logical reasoning. If people feel there is no need for equalisation measures, I'm happy to go with the majority. But I think it's short-sighted and a decision we will be regretting in a few years time.
strange positions at 50% sounds good, also dropping should be optional. Players have a limited career span so coaches will end up delisting even if they're against the idea.Time makes delisting inevitibly mandatory.
JPK wrote: YAD69 wrote: Tomster you've got my vote of confidence, keep up the great work. I second this motion. Thirded. Long live Commissioner Tomster And now to make my final (let it go Damo, let it go) pitch for equalisation (delistments): Tomster wrote: 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. I think this is the time to agree any equalisation methods, as the discussion will only get more divided once teams start taking shape and the first year's results are in. fresh wrote: There's a good point made that I really like....the idea of player movement in your team as opposed to mandatory delistings. If one coach happens to draft a squad full of youngsters who are all on an upward curve that everyone else wants, why should he/she have to delist and receive no compensation (I know, I'm contradicting one of my earlier posts). Being able to trade them out for a pick is a great idea. Perhaps we need another option in the poll that adds squad sizes of 1-3 less players than full squad size needed before the draft? That's how I think the rule is drafted currently, ie. come pre-season draft squads have to less than full squad size, so if you've traded players for draft picks then that satisfies the delistment requirement. Tylo wrote: If changes are gonna be made, let's be sure that they are gonna be an improvement. The existing rules serve a purpose, even if it's not immediately obvious. Suggested changes should be backed up by logical reasoning. Agreed. I can understand the 'I've got an unbeatable list, so why should I have to cut it' argument, butimho the importance for an even comp overrides this. Happy to be corrected if I'm missing something in regards to why no delistments is a good thing. In any case, I understand this is the view of the minority, so more than happy to embrace the decisions of the FU community.
DamoH wrote: Tylo wrote: If changes are gonna be made, let's be sure that they are gonna be an improvement. The existing rules serve a purpose, even if it's not immediately obvious. Suggested changes should be backed up by logical reasoning. Agreed. I can understand the 'I've got an unbeatable list, so why should I have to cut it' argument, butimho the importance for an even comp overrides this. Happy to be corrected if I'm missing something in regards to why no delistments is a good thing. In any case, I understand this is the view of the minority, so more than happy to embrace the decisions of the FU community. I still think that if you feel you have an unbeatable list then you shouldn't be forced to make any changes. In the end you'll only be hurting yourself, as that unbeatable list might be a little more beatable the next year, and will certainly be beatable in 2 years time. I agree in having guidelines and limits and the like so that we all have an even playing field, but surely we should allow each coach to manage their own team how they want to. If that means no trades, no delistments, and no drafting one year, then so be it. On the flip side, if someone chooses to turn over all 26 of their players (please note that I got the number right this time!), then also, so be it!