Hey all :D
For the newbies, we have this annual pre-vote to determine whether we're willing to approach rule discussions with an open mind, or not. Because if we're not, then I have no interest in generating the discussion.
The majority has revealed itself with a resounding 'yes' for rule discussion, so lets get stuck into it :o
ANYONE can nominate a rule change, and it will be voted on. However, be sure there is adequate explanation to validate your proposed change.
Every now and then throughout the year, someone has brought up something they'd like Worlds to do differently. Now is the time to bring that up, and it WILL be voted on. We only have 3 weeks of the year to discuss rules and change them, so use this time wisely. Once the rules have been voted on, THAT IS IT for the next 12 months! (except for the review on the trade voting process that is held after the trade period).
We need all rule changes approved/rejected by Monday the 26th of August, which probably means I'll leave the final PM no later than the 23rd.
As always...
THERE WILL BE A SALARY CAP! It is the only thing that I will enforce, even if against the majority. The only thing I'll entertain is what kind of cap system we implement. It will not go away whilst I'm admin, so suggestions to get rid of it entirely are fruitless.
So with the above in mind, I'll leave the floor open for rule suggestions :)
Leadership groups out pls.
To elaborate, they inhibit me too much.
Anything allowed during the regular season should be allowed during finals. i.e. Flood/Attack, Resting bonus.
Quote from: Nige on August 05, 2019, 06:47:22 PM
Leadership groups out pls.
To elaborate, they inhibit me too much.
Yes thanks
Quote from: GoLions on August 05, 2019, 07:22:31 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 05, 2019, 06:47:22 PM
Leadership groups out pls.
To elaborate, they inhibit me too much.
Yes thanks
Yeah I don't see the point of leadership groups, just seems an unnecessary restriction.
Yep I'm on board with that one too - LG is a pointless restriction that provides no benefit imo. The idea of it was nice and made sense, but practically it's just no benefit at all
I bring this up every year, so I'll give it another go - OOP ruck is too much of a penalty and I'd still like to see something changed
It drives me crazy that we have hundreds of defenders, mids and fwds and if you can't even field 4 one week you get to Flood/Attack to make up for your poor list depth, yet rucks who are the rarest and most limited player position get no wiggle room whatsoever and you just cop a massive 50% loss
Last year I suggested OOP ruck being added to Flood/Attack so that you can use that tactic on all 4 lines and clearly explained why it made sense to me but it didn't get through, so I'll try that again now but in addition to that I will also float the idea of reducing the OOP penatly from 50% to 20%
If you get a 20% bonus for Resting, then a 20% penalty for OOP seems logical
Either way, something needs to be done - the penalty for OOP ruck is insane - that hardest position to fill, literally only 20ish players in the entire comp can play the position and we penalise people big time when they can't field a ruck, but when someone can't even field something as easy as a 4th def/fwd we give them FIVE passes a year?? Absolute crazy
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 05, 2019, 07:09:48 PM
Anything allowed during the regular season should be allowed during finals. i.e. Flood/Attack, Resting bonus.
Agree with this
Also like leadership groups, maybe add in a 2nd period to change them? Rd 7-8 and Rd 16-17 perhaps?
I assume rule changes are voted on before trade period opens. A change to rucks would significantly alter trade value of rucks so it’s vital that is decided on before trade period.
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 05, 2019, 11:49:10 PM
Yep I'm on board with that one too - LG is a pointless restriction that provides no benefit imo. The idea of it was nice and made sense, but practically it's just no benefit at all
I bring this up every year, so I'll give it another go - OOP ruck is too much of a penalty and I'd still like to see something changed
It drives me crazy that we have hundreds of defenders, mids and fwds and if you can't even field 4 one week you get to Flood/Attack to make up for your poor list depth, yet rucks who are the rarest and most limited player position get no wiggle room whatsoever and you just cop a massive 50% loss
Last year I suggested OOP ruck being added to Flood/Attack so that you can use that tactic on all 4 lines and clearly explained why it made sense to me but it didn't get through, so I'll try that again now but in addition to that I will also float the idea of reducing the OOP penatly from 50% to 20%
If you get a 20% bonus for Resting, then a 20% penalty for OOP seems logical
Either way, something needs to be done - the penalty for OOP ruck is insane - that hardest position to fill, literally only 20ish players in the entire comp can play the position and we penalise people big time when they can't field a ruck, but when someone can't even field something as easy as a 4th def/fwd we give them FIVE passes a year?? Absolute crazy
yeah agreed with this
in the past i have actually not voted for some of the OOP ruck ideas (did vote to add it to flood/attack though)
reason i mention not voting for all of them as at the time i did think like we always say try to get depth etc etc, but with the flood/attack rule (which PNL used 0 times this season)
i feel RD is right at PNL our only big issue is ruck, as RD stated it is harder to get playing depth in rucks
why should other teams be able to bolster other lines when there is so many more playing
If we are not going to use something like flood/attack to help in all areas then i feel flood/attack should be abolished altogether and then it will see more OOP in teams rather then just the unlucky select few
Quote from: PowerBug on August 06, 2019, 02:06:54 AM
I assume rule changes are voted on before trade period opens. A change to rucks would significantly alter trade value of rucks so it’s vital that is decided on before trade period.
Correct
The value of the rucks are established their are 18 teams in the afl and some teams play 2 rucks.
Make sure you have a ruck and a back up ruck. Id say its the easiest position to fill most of the time. You know who the rucks are and if you get all from the same club then you have a player everyweek.
Look at zander with javobs rob. Getting that pairing gave him 22 games of rucks.
I agree though that flood and attack is unfair so get rid of it.
The oop has been im the comp since inception if you want a ruck set get it like everyone else did.
I don't really agree with changing the ruck rules or OOP penalty for not having a ruck, however there's one potential circumstance regarding rucks that really concerns me.
Let's say I own the Brisbane ruck set for example. I have Stefan Martin and Oscar McInerney. Now it's pretty clear to most that Oacar is the apprentice at Brisbane, set to take over the #1 ruck role from an ageing Stefan at some stage. However, CD list him as a forward only. If Stefan Martin was to go down with injury, say a 4 week hamstring, Oscar is more than likely going to take over #1 ruck responsibilities. That means there's gonna be 4 weeks where, despite having the next in line ruckman from the same team, I cop 4 OOP scores because CD don't list my backup as a ruckman. That seems very rough to me.
What can we do about it? I'm not really sure, but I thought I'd raise it in case anyone else had a potential solution.
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 06, 2019, 09:59:25 AM
I don't really agree with changing the ruck rules or OOP penalty for not having a ruck, however there's one potential circumstance regarding rucks that really concerns me.
Let's say I own the Brisbane ruck set for example. I have Stefan Martin and Oscar McInerney. Now it's pretty clear to most that Oacar is the apprentice at Brisbane, set to take over the #1 ruck role from an ageing Stefan at some stage. However, CD list him as a forward only. If Stefan Martin was to go down with injury, say a 4 week hamstring, Oscar is more than likely going to take over #1 ruck responsibilities. That means there's gonna be 4 weeks where, despite having the next in line ruckman from the same team, I cop 4 OOP scores because CD don't list my backup as a ruckman. That seems very rough to me.
What can we do about it? I'm not really sure, but I thought I'd raise it in case anyone else had a potential solution.
yeah i agree with this, thats abit rubbish.
The solution that works is if a player gets 20+ HO that week then they dont get OOP that means they are clearly the head ruck. I picked a highish number so its not like Westhoff who played abit in the ruck last week, 20+ would be what Oscar would get if Stef Martin was out.
I’m pretty firmly against the idea of changing OOP rules at all. They’ve always been a thing, everybody knows about them and part of being a good coach is list management and catering for situations like it. If you have only one or two rucks on your list, that’s on you. Injuries are part of the (bad) luck of the game. We shouldn’t be lowering or scrapping the penalty because a few coaches can’t effectively manage their ruck stocks.
With that said, if we were to come up with some solution, as in the example of a guy like the Big O. The best solution is to establish a set number that the “OOP†ruck has to achieve for their score to no longer be considered OOP. Say that number is 20 as Holz suggested, if Big O (fwd only this season) was named as OOP ruck and had 18 HOs, his score would remain OOP (the usual 0.5 penalty). If he actually reached the threshold and got say 28 HOs, he can and will be awarded the full score that week.
As someone who has dealt with OOP ruck for nearly a full season, it sucks and can be annoying if CD flowers you (see: Lobb 2017 iirc) but I still think the best option is to leave as is.
Regarding OOP Ruck and throwing my view in.
Agree that a 50% peanlty is too much when you gain or lose only lose 20% for flood or attack.
So floating this suggestion again as has been done previous if you name an OOP over say 198cm as ruck then you should get 75% score rather than the 50%.
Funny how the coaches who think there's nothing wrong with OOP ruck are the ones who have full team sets already
Pretty ridiculous to suggest teams that don't have sets need to get better at list development too - the value put on rucks is ridiculous and it's near impossible to attain a good ruck set right now - you guys lucked out years ago and I guarantee you wouldn't be able to acquire one now unless you gutted your side
Bottom line, if anyone thinks being able to use flood attack for lines that have hundreds of available players every week is fine, but not having any compensation for ruck line is ok, then you're mad
If you won't lessen the oop ruck penalty then I vote to scrap flood attack - can't have your pie and eat it
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 06, 2019, 12:34:08 PM
Funny how the coaches who think there's nothing wrong with OOP ruck are the ones who have full team sets already
you mean the coaches who have paid up to secure a ruck line to play within the rules that have been established for 7 years now arent happy about changing the rules for teams that haven't done this.
the 20+ HO thing however im happy to implement for obvious cases like Lobb Marshall etc.. who are clearly number 1 rucks.
I agree get rid of the flood and attack though, go back to the original rules of the comp. And if you want a ruck go ask FTC he has Marshall and the Carlton ruck set.
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 06, 2019, 09:59:25 AM
I don't really agree with changing the ruck rules or OOP penalty for not having a ruck, however there's one potential circumstance regarding rucks that really concerns me.
Let's say I own the Brisbane ruck set for example. I have Stefan Martin and Oscar McInerney. Now it's pretty clear to most that Oacar is the apprentice at Brisbane, set to take over the #1 ruck role from an ageing Stefan at some stage. However, CD list him as a forward only. If Stefan Martin was to go down with injury, say a 4 week hamstring, Oscar is more than likely going to take over #1 ruck responsibilities. That means there's gonna be 4 weeks where, despite having the next in line ruckman from the same team, I cop 4 OOP scores because CD don't list my backup as a ruckman. That seems very rough to me.
What can we do about it? I'm not really sure, but I thought I'd raise it in case anyone else had a potential solution.
Nice of you to reference the Lions duo but we all know Marshall is the reason you raise this :P
Sorry Ringo, I hate the idea of using height, just seems ridiculous to me and not a true reflection of who rucks at all
Holz suggestion is more so what we'd need to look at - number of hit outs per match
The other suggestion I would put forward is that we as a league come up with our own determined ruck list at the end of every season
Eg/ We compile a list of all 18 AFL clubs rucks, put it to a vote, then use that list the following year. We all watch footy and know who actually rucks so I think this could work
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 06, 2019, 12:39:31 PM
Holz suggestion is more so what we'd need to look at - number of hit outs per match
The other suggestion I would put forward is that we as a league come up with our own determined ruck list at the end of every season
Eg/ We compile a list of all 18 AFL clubs rucks, put it to a vote, then use that list the following year. We all watch footy and know who actually rucks so I think this could work
I think thats a little messy and also players change throughout the year so the 20+ thing works, i think you should only avoid the OOP if you have an obvious #1 ruck option like a Rowan Marshall or a Rory Lobb or as FTC said Oscar Mcinereny without Stef Martin.
in the case of Oscar he is a Fwd realistically if he is named with Stef but if Stef is out then he will go 20+ HO and fair enough to be a ruck.
It creates an incentive to get the backup rucks for your main ruck. There will likely be 20-25 rucks playing every week so this works if you have the 20+
most teams dont play an OOP ruck anyway.
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 06, 2019, 12:39:31 PM
Nice of you to reference the Lions duo but we all know Marshall is the reason you raise this :P
Why am I not surprised you would stoop to this assumption.
I have the Carlton ruck set, Marshall having R status this year would mean nothing to me.
Adding the rule for 2020 is of no benefit to me as Marshall will have ruck status then.
So no, Marshall is not the reason why I raised this.
More than happy to scrap the flood/attack rule too tbh.
As for the flood and attack, I wouldn't be devastated to lose it, but I don't mind it as a bit of a unique feature of WXV compared to other competitions, perhaps there's room for 1 flood and 1 attack per team over the H&A season?
On second thoughts, I see no reason to go against what CD sets each year
If you have someone like Oscar, Marshall etc, then bad luck for that year (FWIW I've got Esava without ruck)
This could just open up a can of worms all too big
If we're going to make changes like this for ruck, then what about every other line? Guys like Boak, TK, Dunkley etc playing as forwards when they are really just mid only, and so forth
It all just becomes too much, so I think we just stick with the positions CD assign
That said, I'm OK with all the ruck OOP stuff staying as is as long as flood/attack is scrapped
My whole argument has always been that it's just straight up wrong to have one and not the other
If you're going to get heavily penalised because you don't have a 2nd playing ruck on your list (something that is actually impossible for every side to have) then it's insane that you are not punished for not having enough defenders/forwards.
The value of rucks are high, because they actually make a difference to how your team scores more than other positions. So yes PNL (example) possibly end up with a similar output for the year if they had Tim English instead of Zac Merrett. Sounds ridiculous, but that's just market value. So what if you have to pay more? What even is more?
It's a tough position to fill and filling it properly gives you a big points boost across the season, of course there's going to be a premium put on these players.
If you change the ruck OOP rule you might lower the value of them, but you just raise the value of something else.
I definitely will be voting in favour of keeping the ruck rule as it is
Last year Rio bought Sinclair(Sydneys #1 Ruck). Every draft year coaches don't draft rucks until late, why?
Buy a Ruck, draft a Ruck, don't expect to just get one handed to you.
I'm also happy to lose the Flood/Attack, let's test clubs depth.
Again I agree with RD
Happy to keep ruck rules as is if flood/attack is scrapped in general
Yes may add a bit of difference to the mix
But yeah plenty of def/fwds to be had so should not be a work around either in equalisation
I am happy to drop the OOP penalty to 25%. I think RD's argument has merit where it wouldn't in 12 or even 16-team comps. One other potential remedy is what Holz suggested. That an OOP penalty is only applied to those that don't meet a HO requirement. I think 15 would be a reasonable number in this case, but it also raises the problem of even more increased club set hoarding.
PB raises an interesting point about supply and demand and whatnot, and I also kind of agree with him to an extent.
In short, I have no idea. :P
Although what I will say is I think Flood/Attack needs to stay. I quite like it and I think in a competition where teams on average only have 22 playing members of their squad from week to week, it is needed for some teams to put up more competitive numbers (compared to 25 in a 16 or 33 in a 12 team comp). Not to mention SSP and midseason players diluting this number even further. It's not so much about giving teams with poor depth a way out as it is a a slight equalisation measure for injuries. It is essential for competition balance.
I don't however think it needs to come in for finals. Finals should be about finding the best team on an even playing field.
Quote from: Koop on August 06, 2019, 03:07:38 PM
Although what I will say is I think Flood/Attack needs to stay. I quite like it and I think in a competition where teams on average only have 22 playing members of their squad from week to week, it is needed for some teams to put up more competitive numbers (compared to 25 in a 16 or 33 in a 12 team comp). Not to mention SSP and midseason players diluting this number even further. It's not so much about giving teams with poor depth a way out as it is a a slight equalisation measure for injuries. It is essential for competition balance.
I don't however think it needs to come in for finals. Finals should be about finding the best team on an even playing field.
But the issue is it equals for most teams on def/fwd but rest with ruck get no equalisation
Ok next option if people are using it then can we trade it in for a points bonus?
Since we don’t need it except for ruck how can we use it as a tactic
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2019, 02:50:18 PM
Last year Rio bought Sinclair(Sydneys #1 Ruck). Every draft year coaches don't draft rucks until late, why?
Buy a Ruck, draft a Ruck, don't expect to just get one handed to you.
I'm also happy to lose the Flood/Attack, let's test clubs depth.
For pick 6 as well. And I thought Naismith would play so I was in essence getting a guy who’d sit forward and score 60s all year.
Quote from: PowerBug on August 06, 2019, 03:13:16 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2019, 02:50:18 PM
Last year Rio bought Sinclair(Sydneys #1 Ruck). Every draft year coaches don't draft rucks until late, why?
Buy a Ruck, draft a Ruck, don't expect to just get one handed to you.
I'm also happy to lose the Flood/Attack, let's test clubs depth.
For pick 6 as well. And I thought Naismith would play so I was in essence getting a guy who’d sit forward and score 60s all year.
Yep it cost #6, but you were still able to get him. Point being it's still possible to get Rucks.
Coaches don't plan ahead and get young rucks, then expect to buy them for nothing once they start getting games.
Agree Flood Attack should not be used in finals.
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2019, 03:29:18 PM
Quote from: PowerBug on August 06, 2019, 03:13:16 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2019, 02:50:18 PM
Last year Rio bought Sinclair(Sydneys #1 Ruck). Every draft year coaches don't draft rucks until late, why?
Buy a Ruck, draft a Ruck, don't expect to just get one handed to you.
I'm also happy to lose the Flood/Attack, let's test clubs depth.
For pick 6 as well. And I thought Naismith would play so I was in essence getting a guy who’d sit forward and score 60s all year.
Yep it cost #6, but you were still able to get him. Point being it's still possible to get Rucks.
Coaches don't plan ahead and get young rucks, then expect to buy them for nothing once they start getting games.
And traded in Ivan Soldo who's played a bunch of games, also got lucky with Zac Clarke returning to the AFL.
It's certainly possible to go out and get a ruckman.
I'll backtrack a little on a previous comment however. I like Flood/Attack being available in finals, however I don't think we should be able to rest in finals because no team does that (Should be allowed to rest in the final round though).
Quote from: Ringo on August 06, 2019, 04:05:27 PM
Agree Flood Attack should not be used in finals.
Why? If you can do something in the regular season, why suddenly change just because of finals?
The AFL don't change the 50m penalty to 70m, or the 666 rule to something else once finals start.
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2019, 04:23:54 PM
Quote from: Ringo on August 06, 2019, 04:05:27 PM
Agree Flood Attack should not be used in finals.
Why? If you can do something in the regular season, why suddenly change just because of finals?
The AFL don't change the 50m penalty to 70m, or the 666 rule to something else once finals start.
Technically with the 6-6-6 rule it negates flossing/attacking in general
Quote from: DazBurg on August 06, 2019, 04:46:50 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2019, 04:23:54 PM
Quote from: Ringo on August 06, 2019, 04:05:27 PM
Agree Flood Attack should not be used in finals.
Why? If you can do something in the regular season, why suddenly change just because of finals?
The AFL don't change the 50m penalty to 70m, or the 666 rule to something else once finals start.
Technically with the 6-6-6 rule it negates flossing/attacking in general
Dentists hate the 6-6-6 rule
Quote from: DazBurg on August 06, 2019, 04:46:50 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2019, 04:23:54 PM
Quote from: Ringo on August 06, 2019, 04:05:27 PM
Agree Flood Attack should not be used in finals.
Why? If you can do something in the regular season, why suddenly change just because of finals?
The AFL don't change the 50m penalty to 70m, or the 666 rule to something else once finals start.
Technically with the 6-6-6 rule it negates flossing/attacking in general
It's always good to floss, but if you get bleeding from the gums it's best to see a specialist.
Haha I love phone typo posting ;D ;D
Quote from: DazBurg on August 06, 2019, 05:02:33 PM
Haha I love phone typo posting ;D ;D
it's ducking hilarious
Seems like the majority commenting so far are happy to scrap flood attack
For those that aren't, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning why you think flood attack is fair (which although might be seen as a tactic of the game also covers people who don't draft enough depth) yet the ruck position which has a much lesser active player pool should continue to be heavily penalised when OOP?
I'm genuinely interested in the reasoning behind your thoughts on it. I've given my reasoning why I believe it's unfair and should be scrapped so would be good to hear a productive counter
Scrap - Rd, Daz, Nig, Holz
In favour - Koop, utm, PB
Indifferent/leave as is/minor tweak - ftc, Ringo
That's not the majority commenting in favour of scrapping at this stage.
It's tactical, different unique. Allows you to target certain areas (E.g. imagine owning guys like Maynard, Rich, Luke Brown who all take kick ins thinking they'd get a points boost the next season through a rule change) and try to play the fixtures more. I like it, I'd like to see it allowed in finals as well.
Perhaps you could add in a "small man" mode which lets you play a fwd (Can't go mid or util, too much advantage there) over a ruck? 4-4-0-5-2? And make that one of the ways you can use your 5 team lineup modifiers?
An AFL team without a ruck will have a significant disadvantage, so it is intuitive that a WXV team without a ruck is also significantly disadvantaged with a 0.5 penalty.
PB I don't want it, but if we do keep it then it should be allowed during finals.
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 06, 2019, 06:03:42 PM
An AFL team without a ruck will have a significant disadvantage, so it is intuitive that a WXV team without a ruck is also significantly disadvantaged with a 0.5 penalty.
I echo Koop RE: Flood/attack.
It's a long year. 22 players available per week on average, it's common to have fluctuating availability to fill 4 positions.
There is just 1 ruck spot to fill. Certainly recognise the ongoing difficulty to fill it, though, but it is just 1 spot. Often repeat OOP ruck offenders either had their main guy go down with a LTI, or simply strategically copped it for 1 year in the hope one of their current crop will develop into a starter.
FTC recent post nails it.
In saying this, I like the idea of nominating your ONE pinch hitter at the start of the year, and they'd be penalised by only 25%.
Could just go without a ruck altogether then. Do the clubs that got Rucks under the past rule get any compensation?
… Would much prefer to see a Ruck option added to the Flood/Attack/Ruckless.
Can play another player instead of a ruckman with no penalty, but still only use those options 5 times a year(including finals).
just some food for thought on the rucks vs flood/attack rule
for the argument of get depth for rucks well then for rest of positions
just some stats
21 rucks played 10 games or more this year averaging from 53.2 or more
so that is an average of 1.16 rucks per team that played 10 or more games
122 defenders that averaged 53.4 or more played 10 or more games
so that is an average of 6.7 defenders per team that play 10 or more games
134 forwards played that averaged 53.2 or more
so that is 7.44 per team that played 10 or more games
as most say get depth or get oop
Let's just remove Flossing/Attack altogether. Solves all the issues, cop the OOP it's not the end of the world.
It adds a little more value to depth players and that's a good thing.
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2019, 08:04:03 PM
Let's just remove Flossing/Attack altogether. Solves all the issues, cop the OOP it's not the end of the world.
It adds a little more value to depth players and that's a good thing.
this ^
haha love you put the floss in :D
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 06, 2019, 06:55:49 PM
I echo Koop RE: Flood/attack.
It's a long year. 22 players available per week on average, it's common to have fluctuating availability to fill 4 positions.
There is just 1 ruck spot to fill. Certainly recognise the ongoing difficulty to fill it, though, but it is just 1 spot. Often repeat OOP ruck offenders either had their main guy go down with a LTI, or simply strategically copped it for 1 year in the hope one of their current crop will develop into a starter.
FTC recent post nails it.
In saying this, I like the idea of nominating your ONE pinch hitter at the start of the year, and they'd be penalised by only 25%.
I think this is a happy medium. Flood & attack to stay, maybe a potential vote on dropping frequency. With 1 or 2 players (voted on) at the start of the year nominated by each club to pinch it and only get a 20-25% penalty.
Quote from: Koop on August 06, 2019, 08:18:11 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 06, 2019, 06:55:49 PM
I echo Koop RE: Flood/attack.
It's a long year. 22 players available per week on average, it's common to have fluctuating availability to fill 4 positions.
There is just 1 ruck spot to fill. Certainly recognise the ongoing difficulty to fill it, though, but it is just 1 spot. Often repeat OOP ruck offenders either had their main guy go down with a LTI, or simply strategically copped it for 1 year in the hope one of their current crop will develop into a starter.
FTC recent post nails it.
In saying this, I like the idea of nominating your ONE pinch hitter at the start of the year, and they'd be penalised by only 25%.
I think this is a happy medium. Flood & attack to stay, maybe a potential vote on dropping frequency. With 1 or 2 players (voted on) at the start of the year nominated by each club to pinch it and only get a 20-25% penalty.
probably is the appease all angles approach, haha
How about a Flood/Attack/Ruckless can be used X amount of times, BUT only if it's too avoid OOP.
Quote from: PowerBug on August 06, 2019, 05:52:34 PM
Perhaps you could add in a "small man" mode which lets you play a fwd (Can't go mid or util, too much advantage there) over a ruck? 4-4-0-5-2? And make that one of the ways you can use your 5 team lineup modifiers?
OP updated (http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,113439.0.html)
Excellent discussion so far, long may it continue :)
As long as something is done to narrow the gap I'm fine with it
Nominate a specific player, cop 25% loss, add ruckless option X amount of times a year, whatever, just as long as something is introduced because all my gripes are with the current arrangement which I think is flawed
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2019, 08:34:56 PM
How about a Flood/Attack/Ruckless can be used X amount of times, BUT only if it's too avoid OOP.
Flood/attack should be able to be used as a strategy just like the AFL
Just wanted to make sure the other thing I floated isn't forgotten in this and is also put up for debate/vote
To recap;
Currently all movement for WXV closes the weekend before the draft. With list lodgement occurring after the actual drafts and before the WXV draft.
Assuming the AFL holds the draft in the same format and on the same weekend (can't find confirmation just yet), this would be our dates this year before a change.
WXV Trade Period 1: Post WXV Grand Final - 17th November
AFL National Draft: 21st-22nd November
AFL Rookie Draft: 22nd November
List Lodgement Deadline: 2pm 26th November
WXV Draft: Commencing post List Lodgement Deadline
The proposed change sees the deadlines/dates altered to
WXV Trade Period 1 (Players): 17th November
AFL National Draft: 21st-22nd November
AFL Rookie Draft: 22nd November
WXV Trade Period 1 (Picks): 1pm 26th November
List Lodgement Deadline: 2pm 26th November
WXV Draft: Commencing post List Lodgement Deadline:
Essentially just allowing coaches to shuffle up and down the pick order as they please up until the deadline. No live trading, no funny business, just the ability to react to decisions made by clubs on draft night for a few days. No changes to admin times, the draft would start no later than normal.
The limitations on this are up to mainly admin digression and some public discussion. If Purp needs it to be 1 for 1 to assist in admin work I'm fine with this, but I see no issues with a scenario like the following.
Say for example the player I want at 19 falls to 45 and I feel I can take the gamble to snap him up later, I could trade pick 19 to Cape Town for Picks 26 and 32, who saw their target taken earlier than they expected on draft night and would like to come up the order. This would mean that Christchurch have to either delist a player (likely to be a 100k dud) or pass a ND pick, while Cape Town would have to take a supplementary pick somewhere (rookie? idk how the worlds system works), or if they had a later pick to prepare for this that they were just going to forfeit, they would now take that pick.
Something else to discuss I guess :P
Approve
Approve but open to extending the list lodgement deadline to say 3:00pm if need be especially is some late pick changes close to the 2pm deadline.
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/4a/4a59d2a4bd56b9ff206629c7368bd9843f9100e996a2b58ce121a6a3016fd8cd.jpg)
Sounds good to me Koop!
Haven't seen any discussion about this, what's happening with players that have been picked up during the year like Gibbons and Stack? Are they just going into the ND with all the other new draftees?
But going forward are we going to be brining in some sort of midseason draft/trade period?
Quote from: Jroo on August 07, 2019, 03:42:12 PM
Sounds good to me Koop!
Haven't seen any discussion about this, what's happening with players that have been picked up during the year like Gibbons and Stack? Are they just going into the ND with all the other new draftees?
But going forward are we going to be brining in some sort of midseason draft/trade period?
Ah yes, I should put this in an official channel eventually.
But today is not that day.
Yes, Stack & Gibbons and co will be in the nat draft.
Interested to hear discussion about midseason draft/trade period though!
Midseason draft definitely has a lot of merit to it. I take it the draft pool would consist of the AFL midseason draft selections (your Snelling & Delucas), delisted players from WXV lists (to make room for midseason draft picks) and anyone who has joined an AFL list since the end of the WXV drafts (SSP). A good chance for struggling teams to grab a Stack, Gibbons for an instant boost, or grab a guy like Hayden McLean if you had the Swans ruck set. Yes from me.
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 08, 2019, 11:32:21 AM
Midseason draft definitely has a lot of merit to it. I take it the draft pool would consist of the AFL midseason draft selections (your Snelling & Delucas), delisted players from WXV lists (to make room for midseason draft picks) and anyone who has joined an AFL list since the end of the WXV drafts (SSP). A good chance for struggling teams to grab a Stack, Gibbons for an instant boost, or grab a guy like Hayden McLean if you had the Swans ruck set. Yes from me.
If a midseason draft is introduced, this is what it should be.
Really against the midseason trade period though, I just think it's fraught with danger.
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 08, 2019, 11:32:21 AM
Midseason draft definitely has a lot of merit to it. I take it the draft pool would consist of the AFL midseason draft selections (your Snelling & Delucas), delisted players from WXV lists (to make room for midseason draft picks) and anyone who has joined an AFL list since the end of the WXV drafts (SSP). A good chance for struggling teams to grab a Stack, Gibbons for an instant boost, or grab a guy like Hayden McLean if you had the Swans ruck set. Yes from me.
I like it
I assume draft order is based off ladder positions at the time?
Or is there something else that can be done so that not just the bottom teams benefit the most? Perhaps some sort of lottery?
Shall send a list of proposed rule changes later today :)
A reminder that I'll entertain rule proposals until next saturday morning, then it's locked until next year
hey purps just to clarify this here with the rule
12. Introduce mid-season draft
The pool would include all those players added to AFL lists via the SPP or mid-season AFL draft
that could affect the former player rule so if it passes may need to work out what we will do there
Quote from: DazBurg on August 18, 2019, 01:33:54 PM
hey purps just to clarify this here with the rule
12. Introduce mid-season draft
The pool would include all those players added to AFL lists via the SPP or mid-season AFL draft
that could affect the former player rule so if it passes may need to work out what we will do there
Former players would go onto the lists of their former club. This simply presents the opportunity for those former players to do so.
Salary cap would have no bearing either, that comes into play EOS
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 18, 2019, 01:40:14 PM
Quote from: DazBurg on August 18, 2019, 01:33:54 PM
hey purps just to clarify this here with the rule
12. Introduce mid-season draft
The pool would include all those players added to AFL lists via the SPP or mid-season AFL draft
that could affect the former player rule so if it passes may need to work out what we will do there
Former players would go onto the lists of their former club. This simply presents the opportunity for those former players to do so.
Salary cap would have no bearing either, that comes into play EOS
ahh so can take them in the mid season draft
does that mean that is simply your teams pick or you get that person plus a live pick?
(i know seems two bites of cherry but more point being so if a former player picked up in nat draft they walk onto a teams list but if picked up as spp need to use your mid season pick to grab him)
either way it is fine just easier to get set in stone now
Quote from: DazBurg on August 18, 2019, 01:50:23 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 18, 2019, 01:40:14 PM
Quote from: DazBurg on August 18, 2019, 01:33:54 PM
hey purps just to clarify this here with the rule
12. Introduce mid-season draft
The pool would include all those players added to AFL lists via the SPP or mid-season AFL draft
that could affect the former player rule so if it passes may need to work out what we will do there
Former players would go onto the lists of their former club. This simply presents the opportunity for those former players to do so.
Salary cap would have no bearing either, that comes into play EOS
ahh so can take them in the mid season draft
does that mean that is simply your teams pick or you get that person plus a live pick?
(i know seems two bites of cherry but more point being so if a former player picked up in nat draft they walk onto a teams list but if picked up as spp need to use your mid season pick to grab him)
either way it is fine just easier to get set in stone now
I'd say it would be your teams pick. But that's a detail we can iron out later. It's the concept that I want to get up and running first :)
ill throw future 1st being traded.
would be fun and add some spice essentially punting on a team being worse then they think they would go. Imagine if Dublin traded its 1st rounder last year assuming pick 15-18 value. Would have got a steal.
Only 7 votes in BTW
If Flood/Attack gets scrapped as expected I'm going to laugh when it's brought up again when the teams up the top sink to the bottom.
Again, it's needed in an 18 team competition when teams have on average 22 playing players a week. Think about it logically.
Quote from: Koop on August 19, 2019, 11:57:19 PM
If Flood/Attack gets scrapped as expected I'm going to laugh when it's brought up again when the teams up the top sink to the bottom.
Again, it's needed in an 18 team competition when teams have on average 22 playing players a week. Think about it logically.
The teams up the top can get more depth then
There's teams who don't use it at all, or just once or twice a year so if you don't have the depth then you shouldn't have this cop out luxury, especially when the ruck penalty is so heavy and the amount of available rucks vs def/fwd is so much lower
Anyway, it's been discussed in depth, so now we wait on the results
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 20, 2019, 12:16:21 AM
Quote from: Koop on August 19, 2019, 11:57:19 PM
If Flood/Attack gets scrapped as expected I'm going to laugh when it's brought up again when the teams up the top sink to the bottom.
Again, it's needed in an 18 team competition when teams have on average 22 playing players a week. Think about it logically.
The teams up the top can get more depth then
There's teams who don't use it at all, or just once or twice a year so if you don't have the depth then you shouldn't have this cop out luxury, especially when the ruck penalty is so heavy and the amount of available rucks vs def/fwd is so much lower
Anyway, it's been discussed in depth, so now we wait on the results
It should be treated irrespective of a ruck change (which I've voted in favour of, FYI.)
Quote from: Koop on August 20, 2019, 12:49:17 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 20, 2019, 12:16:21 AM
Quote from: Koop on August 19, 2019, 11:57:19 PM
If Flood/Attack gets scrapped as expected I'm going to laugh when it's brought up again when the teams up the top sink to the bottom.
Again, it's needed in an 18 team competition when teams have on average 22 playing players a week. Think about it logically.
The teams up the top can get more depth then
There's teams who don't use it at all, or just once or twice a year so if you don't have the depth then you shouldn't have this cop out luxury, especially when the ruck penalty is so heavy and the amount of available rucks vs def/fwd is so much lower
Anyway, it's been discussed in depth, so now we wait on the results
It should be treated irrespective of a ruck change (which I've voted in favour of, FYI.)
if it is irrespective then
if used as a strategy fine
if used to stop having a OOP should be same penalty as having no ruck
as i put stats wise a bit back there is way more defenders and forwards for teams to use then ruck (around 7 per team compared to 1.3)
Quote from: DazBurg on August 20, 2019, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: Koop on August 20, 2019, 12:49:17 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 20, 2019, 12:16:21 AM
Quote from: Koop on August 19, 2019, 11:57:19 PM
If Flood/Attack gets scrapped as expected I'm going to laugh when it's brought up again when the teams up the top sink to the bottom.
Again, it's needed in an 18 team competition when teams have on average 22 playing players a week. Think about it logically.
The teams up the top can get more depth then
There's teams who don't use it at all, or just once or twice a year so if you don't have the depth then you shouldn't have this cop out luxury, especially when the ruck penalty is so heavy and the amount of available rucks vs def/fwd is so much lower
Anyway, it's been discussed in depth, so now we wait on the results
It should be treated irrespective of a ruck change (which I've voted in favour of, FYI.)
if it is irrespective then
if used as a strategy fine
if used to stop having a OOP should be same penalty as having no ruck
as i put stats wise a bit back there is way more defenders and forwards for teams to use then ruck (around 7 per team compared to 1.3)
rucks are way more certain then defenders though, as defenders are competing with a whole lot more players.
If i have Gawn then pretty much 95%+ chance if he goes down its Preuss (if healthy) who is the back up
If i have McVeigh and he goes down then there could be 4-5 players who could cover him.
in saying that im against flood/attack and ruck changes. We drafted and traded for 7 years now fine, there is no need to cheapen the game by making it easier.
speaking from experience injuries are apart of the game so just deal with it (with maybe a little complaining :P)
15 votes in, the following has been decided in bold:
1. Leadership Groups
A) Retain
B) Remove
2. Regular season allowances to also be afforded in the finals series
This is referring to player restings and floods/attacks.
A) Keep contained to Home & Away season
B) Allow in finals series
5. Ruck OOP penalty
A) Retain current 50% penalty
B) Limit penalty to 20% (i.e. 80% of the OOP score will be allowed)
7. Introduce Height threshold (198cm) that limits OOP ruck penalty to 25%
A. No - do not introduce height threshold
B. Yes - introduce height threshold
8. Award ruck status to players via a community vote at the beginning of the season, rather than by strictly abiding by Champion data classifications
A. No - abide by CD classifications
B. Yes - allow community to identify the AFL rucks
9. Add "Small" in addition to flood/attack, which requires an extra forward or defender in place of a ruck
A. No - do not add "Small" as a modifier option
B. Yes - add "Small" as a modifier option
10. Nominate ONE player at the beginning of the year as your 'pinch-hitter', who will only be penalised 25% instead of 50% if used as an OOP ruck
A. No - don't allow
B. Yes - allow
11. Extend trade window of draft picks only
See here for details
A. No
B. Yes
TBC
3. Introduce 2nd Leadership Group amendment period on or around the eve of finals
A) No
B) Yes
4. Remove Flood/Attack Allowances?
A. No - keep these allowances
B. Yes - remove these allowances
6. Introduce Hit-out threshold (20 hit-outs) that removes OOP ruck penalty if exceeded
For example, if Zac Dawson is played as an OOP ruck, and achieves 19 hit outs, he still receives the full OOP penalty. But if he gets 20 or more, he does not receive the OOP ruck penalty.
A. No - do not introduce hit-out threshold
B. Yes - introduce the hit-out threshold
12. Introduce mid-season draft
The pool would include all those players added to AFL lists via the SPP or mid-season AFL draft
A. No
B. Yes
Leadership groups noooooooo :'(
Quote from: PowerBug on August 20, 2019, 10:27:52 PM
Leadership groups noooooooo :'(
i know right, now the teams that dont just rely on one player can use the skill of picking the best match up.
It will never happen so no need to vote on it. Percentage should be replaced with overall points for the ladder positions.
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 22, 2019, 02:38:58 PM
It will never happen so no need to vote on it. Percentage should be replaced with overall points for the ladder positions.
it could happen,
its the rule in other XV comps.
im for it, we cant control our opisition so win and loss is already enough random aspect.
Gets my vote
Percentage is a moot point here
I like it, unlike AFL where you can win games by shutting down your opponent, the only thing you control in WXV is scoring as much as possible, so it makes sense to use total score as the 'secondary' form of ranking IMO.
looking like a good call except the "it will never happen" but.
I do not mind it either so maybe a vote is warranted - using this years ladder as an example if points scored was the decider rather than % Seoul would have finished 5th and Cairo 6th.
Quote from: Ringo on August 22, 2019, 05:23:18 PM
I do not mind it either so maybe a vote is warranted - using this years ladder as an example if points scored was the decider rather than % Seoul would have finished 5th and Cairo 6th.
So Cairo would have won its first round match and im pretty sure would have beat Berlin's 123.
would be interested to see how Cairo has gone the last few weeks.
Compo
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 22, 2019, 05:15:09 PM
I like it, unlike AFL where you can win games by shutting down your opponent, the only thing you control in WXV is scoring as much as possible, so it makes sense to use total score as the 'secondary' form of ranking IMO.
Yeah exactly, we can't control points against.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 22, 2019, 05:43:15 PM
Compo
good point.
Seoul would have lost either way but yeah lets give Cairo the earlier pick of Seoul.
Will take the pick upgrade personally
... But you can't control how much points you score either? You draft a list based on probability of players scoring highly. You don't control how much they score, just the probability of them scoring highly.
It's all luck. And how much your opposition scores is just amplifying that luck.
Makes for a boring game if you ask me.
No different to copping a loss with a better list every single week either. Otherwise we could just say whoever scores the most points wins the premiership, regardless if they win or not.
Apologies for bluntness, but I kinda feel strongly about that. Control is an illusion. Everything in this game is luck.
Yeah I say keep win and loss
If other comps do it differently more reason to stay unique
That is what sets worlds apart
Quote from: DazBurg on August 22, 2019, 06:57:09 PM
Yeah I say keep win and loss
If other comps do it differently more reason to stay unique
That is what sets worlds apart
The intent is to keep win loss but when teams are tied on win loss the debate is whether to use % or points scored as the tiebreaker.
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 22, 2019, 06:45:41 PM
... But you can't control how much points you score either? You draft a list based on probability of players scoring highly. You don't control how much they score, just the probability of them scoring highly.
It's all luck. And how much your opposition scores is just amplifying that luck.
Makes for a boring game if you ask me.
The win and losses are the random part of the game, Id say its not luck its probability. Having both the percentage and the loss amplifies the scenario.
if you dont like it im not too fussed but i reckon we have enough luck in it already, its only going to separate teams on equal points. If a team has 10 wins but 100 more points scored then another team on 10 wins then you would likely say that team is better and has just got unlucky with big scores from their oppostions and as such should be ranked higher.
Definitely keep as is
All votes in!
(NDT did not vote for obvious reasons)
1. Leadership Groups
A) Retain 6
B) Remove 11
2. Regular season allowances to also be afforded in the finals series
This is referring to player restings and floods/attacks.
A) Keep contained to Home & Away season 13
B) Allow in finals series 4
3. Introduce 2nd Leadership Group amendment period on or around the eve of finals
A) No 10
B) Yes 7
4. Remove Flood/Attack Allowances?
A. No - keep these allowances 11
B. Yes - remove these allowances 6
5. Ruck OOP penalty
A) Retain current 50% penalty 14
B) Limit penalty to 20% (i.e. 80% of the OOP score will be allowed) 3
6. Introduce Hit-out threshold (20 hit-outs) that removes OOP ruck penalty if exceeded
For example, if Zac Dawson is played as an OOP ruck, and achieves 19 hit outs, he still receives the full OOP penalty. But if he gets 20 or more, he does not receive the OOP ruck penalty.
A. No - do not introduce hit-out threshold 9
B. Yes - introduce the hit-out threshold 8
7. Introduce Height threshold (198cm) that limits OOP ruck penalty to 25%
A. No - do not introduce height threshold 16
B. Yes - introduce height threshold 1
8. Award ruck status to players via a community vote at the beginning of the season, rather than by strictly abiding by Champion data classifications
A. No - abide by CD classifications 16
B. Yes - allow community to identify the AFL rucks 1
9. Add "Small" in addition to flood/attack, which requires an extra forward or defender in place of a ruck
A. No - do not add "Small" as a modifier option 15
B. Yes - add "Small" as a modifier option 2
10. Nominate ONE player at the beginning of the year as your 'pinch-hitter', who will only be penalised 25% instead of 50% if used as an OOP ruck
A. No - don't allow 12
B. Yes - allow 5
11. Extend trade window of draft picks only
See here (http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,113439.msg1996835.html#msg1996835) for details
A. No 1
B. Yes 16
12. Introduce mid-season draft
The pool would include all those players added to AFL lists via the SPP or mid-season AFL draft
A. No 8
B. Yes 9
with the rules decided, still think with flood/attack i get it is a strategy
but think if it is used in case of a genuine oop that oop should have to count
should not be able to avoid a oop every where but ruck
people say we should trade for a ruck then you should trade for depth
Quote from: DazBurg on August 23, 2019, 09:37:13 PM
with the rules decided, still think with flood/attack i get it is a strategy
but think if it is used in case of a genuine oop that oop should have to count
should not be able to avoid a oop every where but ruck
people say we should trade for a ruck then you should trade for depth
Can't avoid oop in the mids either :
Quote from: GoLions on August 23, 2019, 10:35:38 PM
Quote from: DazBurg on August 23, 2019, 09:37:13 PM
with the rules decided, still think with flood/attack i get it is a strategy
but think if it is used in case of a genuine oop that oop should have to count
should not be able to avoid a oop every where but ruck
people say we should trade for a ruck then you should trade for depth
Can't avoid oop in the mids either :
ture, though there usually is enough M/F etc to make up for that
any oop should cop the same penalty regardless of position is the point
without using a loophole to avoid it
Ugh...
12 votes down, 5 to go.
This one has been decided:
2. Use overall points scored rather than percentage to separate teams on equal wins on the ladder
A. No - keep using percentage as the tiebreaker
B. Yes - use overall points scored as the tiebreaker
A - 10
B - 2
Teams still to vote:
- Dublin Destroyers
- London Royals
- Moscow Spetsnaz
- Seoul Magpies
- Tokyo Samurai
14 votes down, 3 to go, but all rules have now been decided.
1. Trading of future 1st round draft picks
A. Don't allow 9
B. Allow 5
2. Use overall points scored rather than percentage to separate teams on equal wins on the ladder
A. No - keep using percentage as the tiebreaker 12
B. Yes - use overall points scored as the tiebreaker 2
3. Allow Flood/Attack for strategy only i.e. it cannot be used to avoid an OOP
A. Retain current functionality 9
B. Enforce OOP penalty to 5th defender (forward) if only 3 forwards (defenders) were available. 5
All rules for the 2020 season have now been decided.
Go team!
Hey all! Hope everyone is having a restful break, I know I did!
So it's about now where we look at the trade period that was (Trade Period 1), and decide if there are any changes we'd like to make to it.
These can be with regards to how trade outcomes are decided (i.e. democracy v dictatorship), or if we want the ability to put extra weighting on a vote we feel strongly about, or anything really about the trade period.
This rules discussion is for the trade period only, no other aspect of Worlds will be entertained.
In the past, we've typically talked about whether we keep the current way, or to give some ONE all trade decision power meow?
I'll send votes out probably next Sunday or something, perhaps later.
So yeah, discuss
QuoteA) Democracy - keep as is - where all coaches have a vote
B) Partial democracy - where I lead a panel of coaches whom decide the outcome of each trade
C) Partial dictatorship - I decide which trades I want the community to vote on (which will be most of them - designed to avoid obviously (and I mean obviously) fair trades from clogging the system).
D) Dictatorship - I decide every trade outcome.
A resounding vote for (A) wins, with only 3 opposing.
Another vote shall follow about keeping/changing the 'neg' thresholds, so if you had any thoughts about that, now is the time!
...andddddd it's an overwhelming majority for keeping as is :)
And that's it for rules in 2020!