@Ant - yes I am allegedly 2IC, so in Terry's possible absence I'll offer up a decision. However, it is Terry's right to overrule if he makes it on before tonight's lock out and disagrees with my position. Firstly, I'm 99.99% sure that we didn't have interchange emergencies last year. Perhaps the infrastructure listed them (though I'm not sure about that either) but in my recollection emergencies weren't able to be used in the event that an IC player did not play. I'm certain I ended up with a 0 because of that exact scenario. As far as this season goes, the decision was taken during the offseason that ORFFA would adopt the same interchange rule & format as the ORFFL. As much as anything, this was to make sure that Walesy didn't need to stuff about with two different set ups for emergencies for ORFFL & ORFFA. Terry also posted the following in the pre-season thread (where we posted teams) last week before anyone posted their teams: <p style='line-height: 13.5pt;]TerryinBangkok1 <p style='line-height: 13.5pt;]ROUND 1 TEAMS Here we are. Ant has tested it, so we are ready to go. For those that found something else to do over Summer, we need: 4 DEF, 4 MID, 1 RUC, 4 FWD, 2 I/C all scoring + 4 EMG, 1 on each line, not scoring unless activated as on-field replacement. [span style='font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px;]So, as I see it, there is no such thing as an IC emergency and never has been. As such, my views are as follows:[span style='text-indent: -18pt;][span style='text-indent: -18pt;] [span style='text-indent: -18pt; font-size: 13px;]1. There should not be not be an IC emergency for this round or any subsequent round [span style='text-indent: -18pt; font-size: 13px;]2. You should not be able to place players who have already played and are locked out in any position you like and this is for a couple of reasons: [span style='text-indent: -18pt; font-size: 13px;]- If I permit you to do it, then I have to afford the same opportunity to everybody who may wish to alter the position of a now locked out player [span style='text-indent: -18pt;]- You chose to nominate Masten as an emergency, knowing full well that you would not be guaranteed that his score would count or because you were seeking to exploit the lock out loopholes to maximum effect. In either scenario there was always the risk that, if all of your remaining players were selected this week, Masten's score would not have been available to you as an emergency [span style='text-indent: -18pt;] It is not fair to your opponent that you should get to move an emergency score to a guaranteed scorer just because they scored ok last weekend. Because really Ant, if Masten scored 7sc instead of 87, would you be as keen to make sure his score counted? However, while there is no such thing as IC emergency, both coaches have indicated their intention to use the respective players as cover by selecting them as emergencies. Because neither coach has nominated an emergency in each player's respective position they can, if they choose to, nominate the players as an emergency in their respective lines, eg Masten as a Mid emergency, Kennedy as a Fwd emergency (or in another line if you need them to cover as a potential OOP emergency). That way, depending on team selection, you aren't guaranteed their scores will count, which is line with your original selection of them as an emergency, but it still provides the option (if opportunity permits) for you to exploit team selections and qualify the player's score.
Hi all, have just arrived home from a week at school camp so have obviously missed the latest controversy. I will try to be succinct, if only because I have had next to no sleep the last week and because I only have about 10 mins on the computer before I have to duck out until later this evening. Will just number my points with this being said. 1. Like Ant, I'm pretty sure that choosing an Int emergency was doable in the system last year. Perhaps Walesy or H could confirm? 2. My understanding, even from wordings posted above, was that I/C is a position or 'line' like any other. You can't move players from there in the case of late outs so it is a separate position. 3. With point 2 in mind, it makes complete sense to me that you should be able to have an emergency in that line to cover late outs from your I/C bench. Why should an I/C late out penalise you any more than an out from another position? 4. In my head, naming an I/C emg makes more sense than naming a ruck emergency, particularly as though I don't have in my teams case a ruck emergency to name. I'm going to name an emergency where possible that can net me full points should I be unlucky with a late out over one that will only net me half points. Unless I know that someone is a doubtful starter. 5. Agree that we should continue to follow what the ORFFL does regardless what that is for ease of coding, particularly as we are sort of piggybacking off their product. Would love the ORFFL to weigh in with clarification. I know some around ORFFA circles are keen to distance themselves from the rules of ORFFL from time to time, but they do have a pretty successful, well run comp going. Whatever the outcome, I will post two teams tonight, one the team that I intended to post with interchange emergencies and the other with JC's ruling because I won't have time to trawl through anymore responses and get my team in before lockout. Chat to you all later!
I preface this reply with my usual preface; y'all are free to do what you want in the ORFFA. However... ...in the ORFFL the I/C is one of 5 lines (D,M,F,R,I/C). You can cover 4 of these with emergencies. You can cover the I/C with an emergency. That is all.
Now that it has been confirmed what ORFFL are doing, and because it has always been consensus that we follow ORFFL in terms of this - to make it easier on Walesy when creating infrastructure - I think we need to continue with status quo and allow emergencies to cover Interchange line. <br/> <br/>JC (or TiB), if you are around, can you confirm how you want to proceed, in light of this information Hornsy has provided. <br/>
JC wrote:<br/>@Ant - I'm certain I ended up with a 0 because of that exact scenario.   That would prob have been because you didn't have an emergency covering your interchange. Which would be understandable considering it seems you didn't even realise you could have one.
Hornsy wrote: I preface this reply with my usual preface; y'all are free to do what you want in the ORFFA. However... ...in the ORFFL the I/C is one of 5 lines (D,M,F,R,I/C). You can cover 4 of these with emergencies. You can cover the I/C with an emergency. That is all. I've been married long enough now to know how to happily stand corrected. As I stated above, the decision was made to go with the ORFFL model for simplicity so, since H has kindly provided clarification on that point above and that the infrastructure will cater for it, then I'm certainly happy to go with that. I was clearly mistaken about how their's worked and that's been cleared up now. No harm, no foul as they say. And sorry for the delay in responding. Commute was a nightmare. Best of luck to all your teams this weekend!
I posed a question to Walesy earlier when I thought I may have been going mad, making up memories! <br/> <br/>He has confirmed to me that, as far as the code was concerned, last season, interchange could be just as covered as the other lines. <br/> <br/>Happy to know I wasn't making it up. <br/>I remember having one of my emergencies covering the interchange several times last season. I don't see why we shouldn't be able to this season as well, and I don't believe there has been a rule change on it. <br/> <br/>It would be good to here from JC or TiB on it though. <br/> <br/>
anthak wrote: It would be good to here from JC or TiB on it though. In that case, you should probably refer to the post one above yours!
JC wrote:<br/>Hornsy wrote: I preface this reply with my usual preface; y'all are free to do what you want in the ORFFA. However... ...in the ORFFL the I/C is one of 5 lines (D,M,F,R,I/C). You can cover 4 of these with emergencies. You can cover the I/C with an emergency.  That is all.   I've been married long enough now to know how to happily stand corrected.   As I stated above, the decision was made to go with the ORFFL model for simplicity so, since H has kindly provided clarification on that point above and that the infrastructure will cater for it, then I'm certainly happy to go with that. I was clearly mistaken about how their's worked and that's been cleared up now.   No harm, no foul as they say.   And sorry for the delay in responding. Commute was a nightmare. Best of luck to all your teams this weekend!   Cool, thanks JC! I hadn't seen this comment before posting my last either. Sorry about that. Now, looks like Tippett is inline for a game this weekend on our interchange bench, but something tells me he's not gonna be happy about it and go AWOL again, meaning Masten may get a game afterall!
TerryinBangkok wrote: Hope y'all are having fun. <img class='ForumImage' src='http://ingridsnotes.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/thumbs-up.jpg[/img]
Now back in the usual chair and have had time to read. I can see that the doubts and confusion were caused by not having the usual team entry facility (because if it is a no no, the facility won't accept). However, because we are manually posting our teams this round, we are nominating which emergencies are covering which line. You would need to say Relton is covering I/C (instead of, say, Ruck in Chief's case). Under normal circumstances (if anything is normal around here), using the facility, from memory, don't think you need to nominate which line is being covered. If you have a MID out and a MID EMG, he covers. If you don't the half score (of the lowest scoring EMG?????) out of position counts. Glad to see JC took the bull by the horns and it was all sorted in an amicable fashion, eventually. Some might snigger and say we don't know what we are doing, but I for one can live with that. Easily. Spiny Norman is always in reserve. Now excuse me while I go and hunt down the latest controversy.
ChiefRussell wrote: Hi all, have just arrived home from a week at school camp so have obviously missed the latest controversy. I will try to be succinct, if only because I have had next to no sleep the last week and because I only have about 10 mins on the computer before I have to duck out until later this evening. Will just number my points with this being said. 1. Like Ant, I'm pretty sure that choosing an Int emergency was doable in the system last year. Perhaps Walesy or H could confirm? 2. My understanding, even from wordings posted above, was that I/C is a position or 'line' like any other. You can't move players from there in the case of late outs so it is a separate position. 3. With point 2 in mind, it makes complete sense to me that you should be able to have an emergency in that line to cover late outs from your I/C bench. Why should an I/C late out penalise you any more than an out from another position? 4. In my head, naming an I/C emg makes more sense than naming a ruck emergency, particularly as though I don't have in my teams case a ruck emergency to name. I'm going to name an emergency where possible that can net me full points should I be unlucky with a late out over one that will only net me half points. Unless I know that someone is a doubtful starter. 5. Agree that we should continue to follow what the ORFFL does regardless what that is for ease of coding, particularly as we are sort of piggybacking off their product. Would love the ORFFL to weigh in with clarification. I know some around ORFFA circles are keen to distance themselves from the rules of ORFFL from time to time, but they do have a pretty successful, well run comp going. Whatever the outcome, I will post two teams tonight, one the team that I intended to post with interchange emergencies and the other with JC's ruling because I won't have time to trawl through anymore responses and get my team in before lockout. Chat to you all later! If its not too much trouble Chickenmeister, could you let us know the deal with JPK on the bench. There is something there that should perhaps be obvious, but it is not. Actually, I just glanced at it 'cause I was busy chasing other rats. But somebody will eventually tally up the scores manually and I presume you would not like JPK to miss out? Gia paying off already.
I somehow missed CR's post until Terry C&P it. Not sure I am 100% behind point 5. Sure, we and the ORFFL have to step together where limited by code, if we are to introduce playoffs these also require us to have virtual mirror setups. HoweverI don't feel we should be accepting without our own debate and input their calls/rules for rest of the trip (however many years that is) as though we are a subsidiary, as opposed to a sister comp, which is what I thought we were. In future there will need to be agreement on rule changes or we go down our own paths, to accept anything less would be belittling our own competition, and we have enough people happy to that.
TerryinBangkok wrote: ChiefRussell wrote: Hi all, have just arrived home from a week at school camp so have obviously missed the latest controversy. I will try to be succinct, if only because I have had next to no sleep the last week and because I only have about 10 mins on the computer before I have to duck out until later this evening. Will just number my points with this being said. 1. Like Ant, I'm pretty sure that choosing an Int emergency was doable in the system last year. Perhaps Walesy or H could confirm? 2. My understanding, even from wordings posted above, was that I/C is a position or 'line' like any other. You can't move players from there in the case of late outs so it is a separate position. 3. With point 2 in mind, it makes complete sense to me that you should be able to have an emergency in that line to cover late outs from your I/C bench. Why should an I/C late out penalise you any more than an out from another position? 4. In my head, naming an I/C emg makes more sense than naming a ruck emergency, particularly as though I don't have in my teams case a ruck emergency to name. I'm going to name an emergency where possible that can net me full points should I be unlucky with a late out over one that will only net me half points. Unless I know that someone is a doubtful starter. 5. Agree that we should continue to follow what the ORFFL does regardless what that is for ease of coding, particularly as we are sort of piggybacking off their product. Would love the ORFFL to weigh in with clarification. I know some around ORFFA circles are keen to distance themselves from the rules of ORFFL from time to time, but they do have a pretty successful, well run comp going. Whatever the outcome, I will post two teams tonight, one the team that I intended to post with interchange emergencies and the other with JC's ruling because I won't have time to trawl through anymore responses and get my team in before lockout. Chat to you all later! If its not too much trouble Chickenmeister, could you let us know the deal with JPK on the bench. There is something there that should perhaps be obvious, but it is not. Actually, I just glanced at it 'cause I was busy chasing other rats. But somebody will eventually tally up the scores manually and I presume you would not like JPK to miss out? Gia paying off already. Not sure I understand the request Terry.... I have posted two teams in the blog thread, because I was unsure as to what the ruling would be regarding JJ Kennedy and if I was still allowed to have him as an Interchange emergency or not as I had initially posted. In any event, I have selected my team so that he is replacing a donut on the field so that his score will count. Unfortunately, the Gia decision, while great to have him in the squad, I didn't have him on the field. TBH, didn't see that sort of performance from the Bulldogs coming. Good on them. In any event, Iron Knob has been too good for me this week and I have tasted defeat for the first time in ORFFA history. Can't really compete with a master class from GAJ. Just got to admire it and move on to next week and hope that I'll get a chance to catch up with him again on an off day!
TerryinBangkok wrote:<br/> ... Under normal circumstances (if anything is normal around here), using the facility, from memory, don't think you need to nominate which line is being covered. If you have a MID out and a MID EMG, he covers. If you don't the half score (of the lowest scoring EMG?????) out of position counts.   ...   TiB, last year, we did have to select which line each emergency was covering, and all 5 lines (def, mid, ruck, fwd, int) were available options for each of the 3 emergencies. Although only 1 player for each line covered. Now that we have 4 emergencies, they will cover 4 of the 5 lines. This had already been cleared up I thought