FanFooty Forum

Hey all :D

The majority has revealed itself with a 'yes' (12-4) 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 28th of August, which probably means I'll leave the final PM no later than August 26th.

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 :)

I would like to propose we get rid of Small, Flood AND Attacks.

Whenever I see a 'Small' implemented, it looks so artificial that it irks me that there is no penalty. It's use in the latter rounds especially - with playing rucks available - flys in the face of the intent of the rule, which was to provide ruck relief (which I also don't think should be awarded without penalty, but that's another matter).

Reflecting on the above, I also think if we don't have Small, we should also do away with Flood and Attacks, at least in its current implementation where there is no score penalty/incentive to do it, otherwise it really is just a depth relief instrument. I think, after 13 seasons, we're now beyond granting these types of free passes and thus put more onus on getting the trade period right, in order to set up your list.

I have other suggestions I'll bring up later on Flood/Attack, but my official proposal is that we scrap Small, Flood and Attack.

Alright, I see it too.

Green vests should no longer count as a legitimate rest.

I propose that if you rest a player that is green or red vested, that their rest bonus the following week should be void.

I like both of those suggestions Purps

Definitely need to get rid of "Small". We gave it a year, and it sucks

As for Flood/Attack, I don't mind if we get rid of them all together, although I'd also be open to keeping them, but tweaking the rules around them - perhaps they can only be used when there is no other player (so forced), and not tactically, or a % of the players score is deducted for using it? I think there's a few options there to look at.

I also think the "Tag" rule needs to be revisited, but I'll leave that to others to raise - it was barely used at all so clearly needs to be expanded/worked on, or scrapped

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 10, 2023, 07:06:04 AM
I would like to propose we get rid of Small, Flood AND Attacks.

Whenever I see a 'Small' implemented, it looks so artificial that it irks me that there is no penalty. It's use in the latter rounds especially - with playing rucks available - flys in the face of the intent of the rule, which was to provide ruck relief (which I also don't think should be awarded without penalty, but that's another matter).

Reflecting on the above, I also think if we don't have Small, we should also do away with Flood and Attacks, at least in its current implementation where there is no score penalty/incentive to do it, otherwise it really is just a depth relief instrument. I think, after 13 seasons, we're now beyond granting these types of free passes and thus put more onus on getting the trade period right, in order to set up your list.

I have other suggestions I'll bring up later on Flood/Attack, but my official proposal is that we scrap Small, Flood and Attack.

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 10, 2023, 07:08:07 AM
Alright, I see it too.

Green vests should no longer count as a legitimate rest.

I propose that if you rest a player that is green or red vested, that their rest bonus the following week should be void.

+1

Lower the max salary cap.

Delistings after the National draft not before it.

This means the National Draft can start right away (not wait 4 days like this year).

The PSD draft gets delayed but people arent waiting for it like they are the Nat.

Also puts the pressure of teams to delist and pressure of Purp to get the national draft up with people wanting it earlier.

Also as a result delisted players do to the PSD draft, making it slightly more relevant.

Remove tag

Actual Tactical Flood/Attack.

Rule: if you have a extra man in attack/defence your line gets a 50% increase to the average of the line and vice versa. If you have 2 extra men in attack/defence your line gets a 100% increrase to the average of the line.

For example if you Flood v Traditional then you have 5 defenders to their 4 fwds. So you add up the average of your 5 defenders and they get 50% of that score added. The team with only 4 forwards adds up their average and gets the score reduced by 50% of the average. The opposite happens on the other side.

That way you look at your matchup and you can choose to Attack to weaken a Strong defence even if you personally have a stronger defence then a fwd line. So, it's not just down to making your team better you need to look at the opponent. If you Flood against a team with a strong backline, then you can actually make your matchup worse.

It reflects the AFL as when you have a extra man in defence your defence overall is stronger, but your forward line is weaker.

My 2 suggestions for rule changes and happy to be over ruled as raising them for discussion

1.  Do away with Co-Captains and have a VC who score 1.5, Captain still scores double.
2.  Do away with the TOG rule and have a designated medi sub who is only used for injury at any time and the higher of the designated sub or player replaced is taken. Note does not include tactical subs only those replaced as a result of injury.  may need further tweaking but using my lowly Royals as and example twice during the season have had players injured in 3rd quarter.  using this rule i would either get their score or the score of my nominated medical sub whichever is higher.

waiting to see the proposal on small/flood/attack as I also would like some tweaking of it to make it more tactical.

Remove small/flood/attack and tag.

   

Coaches must make a minimum of 3-5 trades per season. To count as a trade each trade must contain a player who has played more than 10 AFL games in the season or first round draft picks.

Failure to reach minimum trades results in your next first round pick sliding by 5 places per the number of trades you failed to make. Only make 2 of the required 5 trades? Pick 1 is now pick 16.

This forum is flowering shower

Loopholing tightening. You can no longer name tactical donuts resulting in free coverage like some teams do with Ruck Forwards. Players in your starting 15 must be named in the 26 man afl squad of their respective team. If you name before teams and don't correct, at lockout your first available emergency slides into the hole and you play with 3 emergencies only

Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 11, 2023, 08:48:30 PM
This forum is flowering shower

The absolute flowering worst.

m0nty - as the only thing that generates traffic on the entire site - for the love of god, let us post all forms of punctuation again, 24/7

To treat AFL starting the subs in a very similar way to how we treat AFL subbed out players.

At the moment if a starting 22 player is red vested at or before half time then they are considered to be subbed out for WXV purposes. I propose that whenever the rest vest player is considered a 'sub out', the green vest player is considered live. So this means that if the sub is made on or before half time then the AFL green vest player will have their score counted the same way that any other named player would.

This does a few things:
- Teams can't 'rest' a green vest player most of the time, it won't trigger unless that player subs on to the field early.
- Teams will be more cautious about naming emergencies on the field hoping for a late in, knowing that they get a free pass if that player is a starting sub. That player could now hit the park and score 30 in a half.

I know there was a comment in discord about how we treat the subs that occur bang on half time. I proposed it in this way because it is very simply: When the red vest counts, the green vest won't. And when the red vest doesn't count, the green vest will. Every match, exactly one of the two players involved in the AFL sub will have their WXV score considered. There's no overlap where both count and there's no gap where neither count.

As I foreshadowed in my first post - and similar to what Holz suggested earlier - I propose that (after we scrap Small/Flood/Attack), we re-introduce a modified Flood/Attack.

Flood

In its current implementation, Flood allows you to name 1 extra defender and 1 less forward, and that's that beginning and end of it. However, if an AFL team did that, there is certainly larger implications:
- Defenders (statistically) perform better; and
- Forwards (statistically) perform worse.

The impact of this is not isolated to 1 or 2 players, but the entire lines. Thus, I propose that in a Flood, each defender's score is boosted by 9%, and each forward is reduced by 15%. If all players scored exactly the same, this means there is NO OVERALL DIFFERENCE in scoring, at all.

But, if you had a stronger defence than your forward line... you'd get some extra points.

Let's apply this to a game.

Round 1 - London v Tokyo

This was the scorecard for the game, with both teams electing to do a traditional team submission.

	London Royals					Tokyo Samurai
POS	Traditional	SCO	PEN	ADJ	POS	Traditional	SCO	PEN	ADJ
D1	John Noble	105		105	D1	Jordan Ridley	107		107
D2	Keidean Coleman	69		69	D2	Daniel Rioli	126		126
D3	Sam Darcy	28		28	D3	Ben Long	57		57
D4	Adam Saad	115		115	D4	Oliver Florent	85		85
M1	Touk Miller	113		113	M1	Tom Liberatore	118		118
M2	Taylor Adams	68		68	M2	Will Ashcroft	55		55
M3	Willem Drew	80		80	M3	Lachie Whitfield	40		40
M4	Justin McInerney	71		71	M4	Jacob Hopper	67		67
R1	Timothy English	134		134	R1	Peter Ladhams	72		72
F1	Jack Higgins	44		44	F1	Josh Dunkley	108		108
F2	Jamie Cripps	55		55	F2	Charlie Cameron	23		23
F3	Rory Lobb	34		34	F3	Liam Ryan	91		91
F4	Charlie Spargo	81		81	F4	Alwyn Davey Jr	58		58
U1 (MID FWD)	Liam Shiels	56		56	U1 (DEF MID)	Ethan Hughes	65		65
U2 (MID)	Jack Bytel	71		71	U2 (DEF)	Harry Cunningham	65		65
E1 (DEF)	Darcy Wilmot	51	DNP	0	E1 (FWD)	Bobby Hill	77	DNP	0
E2 (MID)	Marlion Pickett	43	DNP	0	E2 (DEF)	Jarman Impey	86	DNP	0
E3 (FWD)	Luke Pedlar	83	DNP	0	E3 (MID)	Jarrod Berry	43	DNP	0
E4 (DEF)	Lachie Young	0	DNP	0	E4 (DEF)	Brandon Zerk-Thatcher	100	DNP	0
C	Touk Miller	113		113	C	Josh Dunkley	108		108
VC	Taylor Adams	68		0	VC	Tom Liberatore	118		0
NR		0			NR		0
HA	Sam Darcy	28		28
		Total:	1265	15			Total:	1245	15

What if Tokyo opted to FLOOD instead? Then the scorecard would adjust to:

	London Royals					Tokyo Samurai
POS	Traditional	SCO	PEN	ADJ	POS	Flood	SCO	PEN	ADJ
D1	John Noble	105		105	D1	Jordan Ridley	107	1.09	117
D2	Keidean Coleman	69		69	D2	Daniel Rioli	126	1.09	138
D3	Sam Darcy	28		28	D3	Ben Long	57	1.09	63
D4	Adam Saad	115		115	D4	Oliver Florent	85	1.09	93
M1	Touk Miller	113		113	D5	Ethan Hughes	65	1.09	71
M2	Taylor Adams	68		68	M1	Tom Liberatore	118		118
M3	Willem Drew	80		80	M2	Will Ashcroft	55		55
M4	Justin McInerney	71		71	M3	Lachie Whitfield	40		40
R1	Timothy English	134		134	M4	Jacob Hopper	67		67
F1	Jack Higgins	44		44	R1	Peter Ladhams	72		72
F2	Jamie Cripps	55		55	F1	Josh Dunkley	108	0.85	92
F3	Rory Lobb	34		34	F2	Charlie Cameron	23	0.85	20
F4	Charlie Spargo	81		81	F3	Liam Ryan	91	0.85	78
U1 (MID FWD)	Liam Shiels	56		56	U1 (MID FWD)	Alwyn Davey Jr	58		58
U2 (MID)	Jack Bytel	71		71	U2 (DEF)	Harry Cunningham	65		65
E1 (DEF)	Darcy Wilmot	51	DNP	0	E1 (FWD)	Bobby Hill	77	DNP	0
E2 (MID)	Marlion Pickett	43	DNP	0	E2 (DEF)	Jarman Impey	86	DNP	0
E3 (FWD)	Luke Pedlar	83	DNP	0	E3 (MID)	Jarrod Berry	43	DNP	0
E4 (DEF)	Lachie Young	0	DNP	0	E4 (DEF)	Brandon Zerk-Thatcher	100	DNP	0
C	Touk Miller	113		113	C	Josh Dunkley	108		108
VC	Taylor Adams	68		0	VC	Tom Liberatore	118		0
NR		0			NR		0
HA	Sam Darcy	28		28
		Total:	1265	15			Total:	1255	15

... Tokyo gain an EXTRA 10 points. They still lose! But those extra points could be the difference either in the game itself, or be the extra points needed to boost its % and make finals. More importantly, it adds a tactical element to the WXVs beyond what is really just a depth relief instrument (which, you could still use this for if you wanted).

Attacks would work EXACTLY the same, but forwards are boosted, and defenders reduced.

However, teams can CANCEL these boosts if they name opposing strategies. For example, London could opt to Attack, and all players' boosts/penalties would be negated.

For the niche scenarios:
- OOP players can be named, with the 50% penalty CAPTURING the boosted amount i.e. 1.09 multiplier reduces to 0.545. Similarly, 0.85 reduces to 0.425. This will be the only time a score modifier COMPOUNDS rather than adds.
- All other score modifiers e.g. RESTED bonus still only applies to the raw score i.e. boosted amount will be 1.29, and not 1.09 * 1.20

You can only Flood or Attack 5 times per year.

---

WXVs is ready for this - and adds an interesting tactical element to the game without fundamentally changing it. Lets do it!

May I ask how to came to 9% and 15% as the amounts?

Modified Tagging

This year saw the first mechanism to impact upon another teams score via Tagging. I think the idea is AWESOME - but as we all quickly realised, the risk of getting it wrong offset the potential gain of getting it right.

It was used a total of 10 times, and I think successfully used about half of the time.

I casually noticed that teams' worst mid (and tagger candidate) would have an average of around 70. The trouble with 70 is that those mids can pull out a good score every now and then, and the tagee could easily just produce a meek ton or worse.

Well, that's the thing you often see in the AFL, isn't it? Some taggers can actually be quite offensive, and when they are, they tend to be more of a 'run-with' players who pick up the scraps of their target. The taggers who don't impact with the ball tend to do a better job of shutting down their target.

And 50% is a big penalty. Same as OOP - which in the AFL, a tagger certainly isn't OOP. They're playing a role.

I thus propose the following amendment to the rule
- A tagger penalty is 30%;
- A tagger can only be a mid, and can only tag a mid
- The taggee raw score is limited to the taggers raw (unadjusted) score (unless broken - see below)
- You can only tag 5 times per year
- A taggee can BREAK the tag if they score equal to or more than DOUBLE than tagger score
      - If the tag is broken, the taggers penalty is increased from 30% to 50%

Now, before you think that is too OP, please consider the following:
   - given the tagger still has their score REDUCED the only candidates for this are mids who typically average no more than mid 70s.
   - Other bonuses that may be applicable to the taggee are UNAFFECTED (e.g. captaincy)

Lets use an example, show casing both ends of the extreme.

1) Where it goes bad

I unsuccessfully used Daniel Howe (88 down to 44) as a tagger on Tim Kelly (90 to 67) earlier this year, for a net impact of -19 points to Berlin.

Under this amendment, Daniel Howe score is reduced from 88 down to 62, and Kelly is reduced from 90 to 88. A net impact of -24 points (so even worse!)


2) Where it goes well

NDT used Langdon (66 down to 33) to tag Sam Walsh (117 down to 82), for a net impact of +2 points to NDT (see, even when nailed, it was minimal benefit)

Under this amendment, Langdon score is reduced from 66 down to 47, and Walsh is CAPPED to 66! A net impact of +32 points - absolutely nailed, and thus maximum benefit should be achieved.

But if Walsh scored 132 (66 x 2), then the tag is broken (but still counts as 1 in your allowance of 5).

---

I'm bias, but I think this nails EVERYTHING we want to see in a tag rule - risk, pay-off, the ability to break it! Can you imagine it being late on a Sunday night, and your player needs to score 20 more points to break the tag and win you the game? We're so ready for this!

Quote from: PowerBug on August 13, 2023, 01:19:33 PM
May I ask how to came to 9% and 15% as the amounts?

5 lots of 9% = 45%

3 lots of 15% = 45%

I'm open to other figures - but IMO these were the cleanest combinations.

Training in another position

This suggestion comes with rucks front of mind, and the years-debate on how we offer ruck relief to teams where your main ruck has gone down with injury... or is unavailable.

Hearing the communities points about Flood/Attack offers relief to shortages of defenders and forwards, but nothing in the way of rucks, I propose the following:
- AFTER the drafts and 1st trade period and once all positions are known for the next year, you can nominate up to 2 players BEFORE CHRISTMAS to 'train' in another position
- This makes those 2 players eligible to play in that position with a 25% penalty instead of a 50% penalty.
- The players can train in any position, but if they train with the rucks, they must have averaged 1 hit-out per game or more in the year just passed (currently 85 players - see here (https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_rankings?year=2023&rt=LA&pt=&st=HO&mg=1) for the current list)
- It must be done BEFORE Christmas in keeping with finalising lists prior to the season start
- You cannot trade these players in the 2nd trade period
- This provision only applies for 1 season only, where players are required to again 'train' in that position again

Tactical Flood/Attack and Tagging should be unlimited, not just the five times.

Quote from: Pkbaldy on August 10, 2023, 08:02:03 AM
Lower the max salary cap.

FYI - more detail would need to be provided to give this legs.

Currently the max cap is +5% of the average cap value, and the min cap is -15%.

Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 11, 2023, 08:26:19 PM
Coaches must make a minimum of 3-5 trades per season. To count as a trade each trade must contain a player who has played more than 10 AFL games in the season or first round draft picks.

Failure to reach minimum trades results in your next first round pick sliding by 5 places per the number of trades you failed to make. Only make 2 of the required 5 trades? Pick 1 is now pick 16.

Please clarify JB in terms of a fixed #of trades to be suggested, and if trading an eligible player IN or OUT counts.

... I swear someone suggested to merge the drafts. Whoever did, please do so here!

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 13, 2023, 08:28:21 PM
... I swear someone suggested to merge the drafts. Whoever did, please do so here!

Me. FF is a cow.

With everyone jabbering away about loopholing and ruck cover etc, I thought I'd make a suggestion - which may have already been thrown out in years past, but we ball.

Players having dual position status is a bonus for their coach, why not lean into that bonus more, rather than simply naming a midfielder in the forward line (which is boring)? In a proper AFL game a player capable of playing two positions (be it a ruck/forward or any other combination), is often moved into that second position as cover if the substitute is not a suitable replacement - makes sense right? Why not avoid this loopholing debate altogether by allowing DPP's to cover their second position regardless of where the coach has named them, to avoid an OOP emergency being forced to come in?

i.e. If Max Gawn gets injured and subsequently WXV subbed for Berlin, Luke Jackson would move from F1 to R1 to cover him (as he would have done when they were both at the Dees!), and then the necessary emergencies come on to cover the gap in the forward line etc.

Or alternatively, if Ned Reeves goes down for PNL and they have Darcy Cameron at F1 BUT Todd Goldstein at E4 for instance, Goldy comes in instead (probably for a trash score no less)

I think this plays into real life quote-on-quote "tactics" and rewards coaches with list flexibility (which is usually lucky dip by CD admittedly, but can also be the result of shrewd recruitment)

WXV has always been 4 defenders, 4 mids, 1 ruck, 4 fwds and 2 utilities, and as such we should be building a list to accommodate that

I actually think Flood/Attack is just a get out of jail card for lack of depth

Get rid of Flood/Attack completely. Don't see any point having it in place for 5 times a year, and getting a % boost or reduction for doing so, when we can just stick to traditional format and like always if you can't field a D4/F4 etc then you cop 50% OOP

With the addition of the new "Train In" feature, this allows you to name 2 extra players to cover lines at a 25% loss instead of the normal 50% loss, so this feature as a fallback for lack of depth is more than enough, don't need flood attack too

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 13, 2023, 08:26:32 PM

Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 11, 2023, 08:26:19 PM
Coaches must make a minimum of 3-5 trades per season. To count as a trade each trade must contain a player who has played more than 10 AFL games in the season or first round draft picks.

Failure to reach minimum trades results in your next first round pick sliding by 5 places per the number of trades you failed to make. Only make 2 of the required 5 trades? Pick 1 is now pick 16.

Please clarify JB in terms of a fixed #of trades to be suggested, and if trading an eligible player IN or OUT counts.

Ok lets go

Minimum 4 trades per off season
An eligible player or draft pick needs to be included in the trade  can be in or out  doesnt need to be both.
Eligible players has had a season of 10 games 60 average or better in any of the previous 3 seasons or was taken as a WXV first round pick over those 3 seasons.
Eligible draft picks  1st rounder and Future first rounders.

Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 15, 2023, 11:49:17 AM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 13, 2023, 08:26:32 PM

Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 11, 2023, 08:26:19 PM
Coaches must make a minimum of 3-5 trades per season. To count as a trade each trade must contain a player who has played more than 10 AFL games in the season or first round draft picks.

Failure to reach minimum trades results in your next first round pick sliding by 5 places per the number of trades you failed to make. Only make 2 of the required 5 trades? Pick 1 is now pick 16.

Please clarify JB in terms of a fixed #of trades to be suggested, and if trading an eligible player IN or OUT counts.

Ok lets go

Minimum 4 trades per off season
An eligible player or draft pick needs to be included in the trade  can be in or out  doesnt need to be both.
Eligible players has had a season of 10 games 60 average or better in any of the previous 3 seasons or was taken as a WXV first round pick over those 3 seasons.
Eligible draft picks  1st rounder and Future first rounders.

Ok lets just make it 4 trades to be made with no restrictions or requirements

17 votes in, results as follows:

1. Amendment to sub rule - see link
If an AFL sub is made on or before half time, then the AFL green vest player will have their score counted in WXVs

A) Yes (green vest is only eligible to be subbed if activated after half time) 10
B) No - Keep as is (green vested player is ALWAYS eligible to be subbed) 7


2. Subbed players can't be rested
Currently, if a player is eligible to be subbed but happens to be RESTED that week, their rest bonus still applies if they play the next week.

Under this circumstance, should the rest bonus be removed for the following week?

A) Yes 10
B) No - keep as is 7


3. Implement Medi-Sub, Remove Existing Sub rules - see here
Should we remove existing sub eligibility rules, and replace it by allowing a 'medi-sub' to be named which takes effect if a player (in the same position) in the XV receives an injury at any point in the match, and the higher score of the injured player and the medi-sub is taken?

A) Yes 2
B) No - keep as is 15


4. Change Timing of List Lodgement - see here
Should the list lodgement be moved to after the international draft?

A) Yes 3
B) No - keep as is 14


5. Remove co-captain option, and enforce C/VC/EVC model, where Captains still score x2, and VCs score x1.5

A) Yes 3
B) No - keep as is 14


6. Loophole Tightening
You can no longer name tactical donuts resulting in free coverage like some teams do with Ruck Forwards. Players in your starting 15 must be named in the 26 man afl squad of their respective team. If you submit your team before AFL teams are published and don't correct your submission, players not named in the 26 are removed at lockout, and your first available emergency slides into the hole and you play with 3 emergencies only.

A) Yes 10
B) No - keep as is 7


7. Modified Tagging - please read this post

A) Yes 12
B) No - keep as is 5
(I'll offer to remove tagging in the next rule vote)


8. Flood/Attack Approach

There is a bit to wade through here. First of all, I want people to vote which method is preferred... I'm not asking you to indicate whether you want either implemented yet, just which method is preferred.

A) As suggested by Holz here 3
B) As suggested by me here (noting my recent edit) 14


9. Training in another position - see here

A) Yes 11
B) No 6

Amendment to tagging rule

If a tag is broken, then the tagger penalty is increased from 30% to 50%

Quote from: Koop on August 13, 2023, 08:41:31 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 13, 2023, 08:28:21 PM
... I swear someone suggested to merge the drafts. Whoever did, please do so here!

Me. FF is a cow.

I propose we merge the international draft and pre season draft.

This removes all confusion about which players are available in which draft, and just makes it simpler.

Would come into effect next year, not this year. It would also make Future 5th and 6th round draft picks available to trade.

What does this mean for when we begin to draft? Will we have to wait until after the AFL PSD is done? When does that usually happen?

Quote from: PowerBug on August 17, 2023, 08:20:34 PM
What does this mean for when we begin to draft? Will we have to wait until after the AFL PSD is done? When does that usually happen?

Nat Draft is Nov 20-21 and then PSD/Rookie is Nov 22, so it's all done in 3 days

Quote from: PowerBug on August 17, 2023, 08:20:34 PM
What does this mean for when we begin to draft? Will we have to wait until after the AFL PSD is done? When does that usually happen?

Timing will be completely unchanged i.e. we commence only after the FINAL AFL list lodgement which normally occurs a couple of days after the AFL rookie draft.

Propose - Tag can only be used apon a player 5 times per year.

Propose - Any tagging/flood/attack/small that gets through can be used in finals if you have allocation remaining.

New rule proposal:
If you name your squad using only last name, your opponent is allowed to substitute in the score of any player who shares that exact last name (exact same spelling, regardless of if they are in your WXV side or not, regardless of if they played AFL or not). They may apply this change at any point and as many times as they wish, from full lockout up until the final WXV scores are posted after the round ends.

Zeroes in this rule would be considered as playing zeroes, even if the player did not play.

16 votes in - all votes decided

10. Amend Flood/Attack
A) Yes: add +9%/-15% modifiers as I've suggested in this link (https://www.fanfooty.com.au/forum/index.php?topic=114712.msg2030211#msg2030211) 10
B) No - keep as is  6
(I'll offer the ability to remove in the next vote)

11. Scrap 'Small'
A) Yes - remove the ability to name the 'Small' team format (i.e. a U3 in place of a R1) 10
B) No - keep it 6

12. Amend Tagging (again)
A) Increase tagger penalty from 30% to 50% if a tag is broken 10
B) No - keep as is (30% penalty) 6
(I'll offer ability to remove in the next vote)

13. Amend flexibility of dual position players - see link (https://www.fanfooty.com.au/forum/index.php?topic=114712.msg2030238#msg2030238)
A) Allow players named in positions other than the utilities to 'cover' subbed/withdrawn players from other lines 3
B) Keep as is - said flexibility only to players named on the utilities 13

14. Minimum trade requirement - see link (https://www.fanfooty.com.au/forum/index.php?topic=114712.msg2030247#msg2030247)
A) Enforce a 4 trade minimum over the 1st trade period (i.e. a simple count of successful trades completed with no other requirements) 4
B) Keep as is - no minimum trade requirement 12

15. Merge International and Preseason Drafts - see link (https://www.fanfooty.com.au/forum/index.php?topic=114712.msg2030257#msg2030257)
A) Yes 14
B) No - Keep as is 2

Tagging Chat

Claim: I don't want to vote in this new form of tagging because it disadvantages premo mids. My opponents can just use their dud mids to tag.
This is false.

My TL;DR as requested on Discord:
- any quality of player can be tagged.
- the better the player you want to tag, the more you could gain, but the more you will lose out by if you are wrong
- Even the most optimal type of player (based off season averages) to tag Bont with was marginally successful, this rule does not disadvantage guys with premo mids.

If you care to know why, feel free to keep reading...

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Just to clarify, the proposed rule which we will finally vote on contains:
The Tagger - A midfield eligible player named in a position where they are considered mid eligible (i.e. Named in the midfield 4 or in either utility spots)
The Target - A midfield eligible player named in a position where they are considered mid eligible (i.e. Named in the midfield 4 or in either utility spots)

Two scenarios are possible based off the raw scores of the two players:
1. The Tagger scores more than half of what the Target scores
2. The Tagger scores equal to or less than half of what the Target scores.

Which gives two outcomes:
1. The Tagger has their score reduced by 30% (Raw * 0.7). The Target will have their raw score reduced to that of the Tagger's raw score.
2. The Tagger has their score reduced by 50% (Roaw * 0.5). The Target's score is unchanged.

With that also out the way, the fun experiment. What if Marcus Bontempelli was tagged every week this season, by the oppositions worst mid? Well...
(https://scontent.fadl8-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/366759656_1364808114102958_7426466814078658198_n.png?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=prl8p981wX8AX-sWYC-&_nc_ht=scontent.fadl8-1.fna&oh=03_AdSVOU6bbQmEW0AAYWf6Bz5xYkZebic-Oftm4xoepE93gA&oe=65079904)

It worked three times in total, each of those with a mid 20s gain. So this should be enough to say that this rule proposal is very different to what occurred in 2023.

How will it realistically work, and more importantly can I (the reader) use it to my advantage? The answer is yes, we can ALL use it, and we can ALL use it on mids of ANY kind. Firstly, some 'what if' tables
(https://scontent.fadl8-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/366755900_661017205963773_7516609471766620014_n.png?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=jGRcw7sxR5YAX842nbl&_nc_ht=scontent.fadl8-1.fna&oh=03_AdTL5-qYmE4G23mITHEAtYhVP1psQEJCYNkj4Zq1zEywUQ&oe=6506A5AD)

(https://scontent.fadl8-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/366753716_1316990639247907_283052391390544266_n.png?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=9nMB1R2xMHoAX93Rtv0&_nc_ht=scontent.fadl8-1.fna&oh=03_AdS_WEXswy6IFb3Idmke_KwD0u2BRxVPlmAzjJdJ46lnDg&oe=65069EF3)

(https://scontent.fadl8-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/366753466_1281743556037257_6615243813178484_n.png?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=vGgP-a1XAL8AX8YDhLz&_nc_ht=scontent.fadl8-1.fna&oh=03_AdQsGds6F8up2pNQHyY6t42eKY7lDP0I9RIeGxA6FhQCNg&oe=6506A9F7)

(https://scontent.fadl8-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/366368728_1479360346208880_2737856131232014774_n.png?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=6iidrXJxlrcAX9fR8sI&_nc_ht=scontent.fadl8-1.fna&oh=03_AdRa59bF1mndDb9WVlqS21W87Y02Ju-FojSrCWUQLgfCew&oe=6506C1B9)

So what does this show? Any player, who isn't literally the worst mid going around, has the ability to be tagged. And ANY mid can tag, they just need the right opponent to tag. And the better the player the target is, the higher the stakes are.

So you could go with a low risk tag, send Phillipou (51avg) to Miles Bergman (65avg) and see if you can get a 10-15 swing in your favour. But you could also send Brad Crouch (97avg) to Marcus Bontempelli (127avg) and see if you can get a huge 30-40 point gain.

But (now for the attempt at AFL realism part) if you send Crouch to Bont and he breaks the tag, you've just used a great asset in Brad Crouch and made him tag, he's gonna be punished for not performing at his optimum output. If you are unsuccessful at sending Phillipou to Bergman though, your loss is smaller because Phillipou isn't that important to your WXV side anyway.

So, before you vote, just realise that you have the opportunity to use it, and if you have a gun mid, well the people who choose to tag them are risking a lot, there's a window of success where, whilst great if you hit it, is very easy to miss.

One more example for good measure.

Hunter averages roughly 70% of what Bont does makes him a prime tagging option as he falls nicely in that sweet spot to make a nice gain each week
(https://scontent.fadl8-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/366358735_1590420554817502_5285292672078042305_n.png?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=JJohhQ4xIzoAX_kNcTP&_nc_ht=scontent.fadl8-1.fna&oh=03_AdRsRPh4jRoMt00rergOaIIzFhKrPkdvsmualDXNo0QZ7w&oe=6506C2FC)

Here's what happens if he tagged Bont every week of the WXV season (Note that rep round is excluded here as well):
(https://scontent.fadl8-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/369022769_573520418134552_5371825778709021304_n.png?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=k_TIbXfP1rgAX95gOmJ&_nc_ht=scontent.fadl8-1.fna&oh=03_AdS0MwA4nPNiWHzo-77I0zZLJubMGucUeqXv_bPIHkd-gA&oe=65077117)
Yep, there's a good run of successes, but there's also a huge risk if it goes wrong, whether it's from Hunter underperforming or Bont overperforming, both contribute. And overall it averages out to 2.75, in favour of the tagger. Not massive over the course of a season, but an element which can be a tactical gain in parts.

Happy to answer any further questions or bring in more examples if people want more.



-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

My TL;DR as requested on Discord:
- any quality of player can be tagged.
- the better the player you want to tag, the more you could gain, but the more you will lose out by if you are wrong
- Even the most optimal type of player (based off season averages) to tag Bont with was marginally successful, this rule does not disadvantage guys with premo mids.

Just so its here when people are looking over the rules.

In the example of Bont v Hunter or a 127 Target score.

A score of 63 for the tagger results in a 32-point loss.
A score of 64 for the tagger results in 44 points gain.

This results in a 76-point swing based off a 1-point SC difference.

This is a game changing impact based off something as meaningless as a late game handball. No other rule has such a impact off a few SC points.

The captain rule you lose if one captain massively outscores the other. a 1 point difference in scoring leads to a 0.5 to 1 point difference in scoring. The HGA rule leads to a 1 point difference per 1 SC points.

This tag rule can be a 40-80 point difference per 1 SC point.

If you say then that's just luck and what about injuries. First up there is a difference in a player getting injured and a player getting 1 more handball and also we have a sub off rule.

Also lastly the targets score going up the more the taggers score makes little sense.

If Bont drops a 127 essentially, I'm hoping my guy scores exactly 65 but then once they start scoring more then that I want my player to score less. As the target score increases by 1 SC point every point the Tagger scores but the tagger only scores 0.7 more.

Why should the other team benefit from the other teams scorer.

For example.

Bont Scores 127

If the tagger goes 65 then Bont goes 65 but the tagger scaled down to 46.
If the tagger goes 75 then Bont goes 75 but the tagger scaled down to 53

So Bont gains 10 points by the tagger scoring 10 more and the tagger gets only 7 more points.

If the tagger goes 120 then bont gains 55 points but the tagger only gains 39 points.

So really at a certain point your cheering on your player to score less.

Proposal: No rule discussion until WXVs finals are done. I don't care that people have to wait, or that a bunch of teams are out of the running, teams going deep deserve the spotlight. Especially given the desire to make WXVs more complex than ever, just park it for a few weeks, there's so much offseason to have these inane and robust discussions. Spend four weeks crafting your thesis on what a tagging rule looks like and then you can share it once we've celebrated our premier.

Agree to a certain extent with this proposal but is it beneficial to have a rules discussion going with trade period or do we just put trade period back a week or two,

Hi Holz,

I hear your concerns on the way that there's this tipping point, and the tipping point has the potential to be extreme when tagging a big dog. So to that, I suggest that you re-read my above post and I have shown that you would be able to tag many different types of midfielders with this, you could go for someone who typically averages around the 70 mark, and if you do that your tipping point is a lot smaller, as you were wishing for. The better the player that you wish to tag, the bigger the loss is going to be if it goes wrong.

As for the "I want my player to score less" part, something like this is necessary under the current structure of the proposal. If it keeps getting higher and higher as the Tagger's score increases, then there's no downside to using Bont as a tagger, sending them to Mason Wood, and just pocketing a small gain/neutral result. The idea needs to be that a player "punches up" to tag someone better than them, and if they are within a certain score range (looks to be 51% to 70-75%) there's a benefit to the tag.

This rule in its current form provides:
- A wide range where there's a successful tag applied. Tagging a 110 score has a range 30 SC wide where there's been a successful tag. [There was a drawback of the 2023 tag not being enticing enough to use, we now have this]
- Jeopardy if your tagger wildly underperforms or the target goes off. [It's not an auto-win feature which was a major drawback to previous designs of tagging]
- Diminishing returns if your tagger overperforms (and thus using such a player as a tagger was wasting their potential) or the target has an off day (and sending someone to that player was a waste of resources) [Ensures that the fundamental worse player tags better player idea applies]

I do understand your concerns around the tipping point, and perhaps there's scope for that gap to decrease in volatility in the future, but I hope you can see that this proposal provides way more positives than negatives and will get use in 2024 because it does provide an opportunity for reward whilst still containing risk of it going wrong.

"and if you do that your tipping point is a lot smaller, as you were wishing for. The better the player that you wish to tag, the bigger the loss is going to be if it goes wrong."

The other team can ratchet up the gamble (which this is) by Tagging a top player. Plus, the handball swing causing a 40-80SC difference is only one team. Both teams can tag so if both are at the tipping point then a few handballs can make the difference of a 80-160 SC swing.

"As for the "I want my player to score less" part, something like this is necessary under the current structure of the proposal."

Thats because as it stands the tagged player goes down to the taggers score rather then a % decrease to the score which made much more sense. That is why the Tagged players score goes up as the Tagger "plays better" which goes against the whole premise of a tag.

Top 10 draft picks should be worth 200k cap. Will help lower teams rebuild through the draft and not worry about cap as much.

Quote from: GoLions on August 21, 2023, 04:48:20 PM
Top 10 draft picks should be worth 200k cap. Will help lower teams rebuild through the draft and not worry about cap as much.

To add a bit more detail to this, during their first 3 years (as the current cap is worked out over a 3 year period), a player drafted in the Top 10 in WXVs will be worth whichever of the following is higher:
- 200k
- the cap calculated as per the current formula

Vote to Scrap rules in the first and last rule voting.

For example, the Tag rule. If a majority of teams dont like it outright then we might as well have it out of discussion from the get go rather than voting on iterations of a rule that could easily be scrapped. If it is kept in for the first Vote then should be voted on at the end also if there has been any changes to the rule.

That's not a rule - that's my process. I won't be changing it.

It's also needlessly prohibitive. Please just be patient, and get through the mild inconvenience.

Quote from: Holz on August 23, 2023, 09:55:53 AM
Vote to Scrap rules in the first and last rule voting.

For example, the Tag rule. If a majority of teams dont like it outright then we might as well have it out of discussion from the get go rather than voting on iterations of a rule that could easily be scrapped. If it is kept in for the first Vote then should be voted on at the end also if there has been any changes to the rule.

My last comment, which I thought i made clear in my last PM.

If I offered to scrap tagging outright from the start, that option does not consider any of the permutations or amendments that people would have otherwise liked to have seen in the rule.

Conversely, said amendments could make the rule worse in someone's eyes, and sway them to scrap it.

To offer to scrap it from the get go is needlessly premature, and by doing it the way I have, allows a totally informed view of what the preferred format of rule is, before we decide to scrap it.

With the passing of value for first 10 draft picks can we amend to a sliding scale starting at 200k reducing 10k per pick. Think 200k for pick 1 and pick 10 screwed a little.
rest of rule remains the same.

Quote from: Ringo on August 23, 2023, 05:44:13 PM
With the passing of value for first 10 draft picks can we amend to a sliding scale starting at 200k reducing 10k per pick. Think 200k for pick 1 and pick 10 screwed a little.
rest of rule remains the same.

KISS

Quote from: Holz on August 23, 2023, 09:55:53 AM
Vote to Scrap rules in the first and last rule voting.

For example, the Tag rule. If a majority of teams dont like it outright then we might as well have it out of discussion from the get go rather than voting on iterations of a rule that could easily be scrapped. If it is kept in for the first Vote then should be voted on at the end also if there has been any changes to the rule.

If you voted in a rule and then it got adjusted into a version you would've voted against I'm sure you would be arguing to do the rules process the current way.

Quote from: PowerBug on August 23, 2023, 08:59:30 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 23, 2023, 09:55:53 AM
Vote to Scrap rules in the first and last rule voting.

For example, the Tag rule. If a majority of teams dont like it outright then we might as well have it out of discussion from the get go rather than voting on iterations of a rule that could easily be scrapped. If it is kept in for the first Vote then should be voted on at the end also if there has been any changes to the rule.

If you voted in a rule and then it got adjusted into a version you would've voted against I'm sure you would be arguing to do the rules process the current way.

No that's why I said a scrap it rule at the start and the end.

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 23, 2023, 05:39:12 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 23, 2023, 09:55:53 AM
Vote to Scrap rules in the first and last rule voting.

For example, the Tag rule. If a majority of teams dont like it outright then we might as well have it out of discussion from the get go rather than voting on iterations of a rule that could easily be scrapped. If it is kept in for the first Vote then should be voted on at the end also if there has been any changes to the rule.

My last comment, which I thought i made clear in my last PM.

If I offered to scrap tagging outright from the start, that option does not consider any of the permutations or amendments that people would have otherwise liked to have seen in the rule.

Conversely, said amendments could make the rule worse in someone's eyes, and sway them to scrap it.

To offer to scrap it from the get go is needlessly premature, and by doing it the way I have, allows a totally informed view of what the preferred format of rule is, before we decide to scrap it.

I guess the flipside of this is now the tagging rule has become incredibly volatile and the rule could be scrapped now. We wont know if people didnt like tagging as a rule or if they just don't like this extreme version of it.

Rule discussion now closed.

Final PM will be sent shortly

Results from last vote

---

16. Unlimited Floods/Attacks
A) Remove cap of 5 times per H&A season (can't be used in finals) 5
B) Keep it to a limit of 5 times per H&A season (can't be used in finals) 13

17. Unlimited Tagging
A) Remove cap of 5 times per H&A season (can't be used in finals) 8
B) Keep it to a limit of 5 times per H&A season (can't be used in finals) 10

18. Player Tagging Limit (this vote is essentially the same as Rule 17, but a limitation on players)
A) Change the tagging limit from '5 times per year' to unlimited, but an AFL player can be tagged no more than 5 times per H&A season (can't be used in finals) 2
B) Keep as is 16

19. Utilisation of Tagging/Flood/Attack in Finals
A) Have the ability to Tag/Flood/Attack in finals if you have not exceeded any limits (if any existing) 10
B) Keep as is - do not allow in finals 8

20. Team submission inaccuracy interpretation - see link (https://www.fanfooty.com.au/forum/index.php?topic=114712.msg2030281#msg2030281)
A) Implement opposition discretion on ambiguously named players as PB prescribes 9
B) Keep as is - (i.e. Admin's best guess) 9.5 (my tiebreaker vote)

21. Move Rule Discussion After WXV Grand Final - see link (https://www.fanfooty.com.au/forum/index.php?topic=114712.msg2030287#msg2030287) (FYI, this will delay trade period 2-3 weeks)
A) Yes - Move it 4
B) No - Keep as is 14

22. Top 10 Draft Picks to be Valued as $200k each - see link (https://www.fanfooty.com.au/forum/index.php?topic=114712.msg2030305#msg2030305)
A) Yes 11
B) No - keep as is 7

With the "train-on" players, is that unlimited use? and available in finals?
 

Quote from: upthemaidens on August 25, 2023, 08:58:08 AM
With the "train-on" players, is that unlimited use? and available in finals?

Yes and yes

All 18 votes have been received.

23. Remove Flood and Attacks
A) Scrap it 7
B) Keep as is (i.e. the 9%/-15% modified version) 11

24. Reinstate 'Small' IF Flood/Attack is kept
A) Reinstate it if Flood/Attack is kept 5
B) Keep it scrapped if Flood/Attack is kept 13

25. Remove Tagging
A) Remove it 8
B) Keep as is (i.e. the modified version currently in place) - see link (https://www.fanfooty.com.au/forum/index.php?topic=114712.msg2030213#msg2030213) 10

26. Implement sliding salary cap scale on top 10 draft picks - i.e. top 10 draft picks are now worth $200k each. Suggestion is to have Pick 1 - 200k, Pick 2 = 190k.... to Pick 9 - 120k, Pick 10 = 110k
A) Implement sliding scale 12
B) Keep as is 6

Very important that the rules topic is updated at some point during this off-season, could even argue that we should do it before opening trade period

By 'we' you mean, me?  :P

I'm aware it needs updating. It's just normally hasn't taken priority over whatever else needs doing at WXVs, which is a lot.

I would gladly accept help from whoever to draft up the rulebook. Especially if wanting done before trade period.

I'm happy to help with it, depending on how much punctuation I can get away with in my posts

I think the rule book can be structured as follows:

Quote
A.   Part A - Game Day
   1.   Team Submissions
      ->   Submission Format overview
      ->   Submission Description
      ->   Team Submission Chips (i.e. Flood, Attack)
      ->   Captains
      ->   Out Of Position players
         -->   Train-on players
      ->   Tagging
      ->   Non-submissions
         -->   Preferences
         -->   Penalties
      ->   The Practice of Loopholing
   2.   Emergencies
      ->   (All the different scenarios)
   3.   Home Ground Advantage
   4.   Resting
B.   Part B - Off-season
   1.   The Draft
      ->   Draft Order
      ->   International Draft
      ->   Rookie Draft
   2.   Voting on Rules
   3.   Trade Season
      ->   Voting on Trades
      ->   Trading of retired players
   4.   Salary Cap
   5.   List Lodgements
C.   Part C - General
   1.   Tanking
   2.   Scoring
      ->   Ladder
      ->   Rounding
   3.   Sacking

Most of the rules are already correctly written so can just be transferred inside this format. Just need to write up the new ones to fit inside this

Like the structure well done.

Maybe start a new permanent topic World xvs PB with this structure - Nige and Pyrple as administrators can also edit as well as yourself.

Just a suggestion,

If Purps wants I can start a new topic for it, saves him from having to edit the current one.

---- ----

Tagging
The intention behind a tag is to sacrifice part of your own players score (The Tagger) with the intention of lowering an opposition's player's score (The Victim) by more, to provide a net benefit to your matchup.
When a tag is applied, the raw scores of the two players are compared, which will result in one of two scenarios:

Scenario 1: A Successful Tag
The Tagger scores more than half the Victim's score. This results in:
   ->   The Tagger having their score reduced by 30%
   ->   The Victim having their score reduced to the Raw score of the Tagger
      -->   If the Tagger's raw score is higher, the Victim's score is unchanged.
Note: Within a successful tag there's a sub-category where the result is a net loss to the team applying the tag. In this case you can consider it a "wasted" tag.

Scenario 2: A Broken Tag
The Victim scores equal to or more than double the Tagger's score. This results in:
   ->   The Tagger having the score reduced by 50%
   ->   The Victim's score being unchanged.

Tagging is also subject to the following conditions:
   ->   The Tagger and the Victim must both be midfield eligible players named in midfield eligible positions (Mid line or Utility line).
   ->   Only 1 tag may be applied in a round
   ->   A maximum of 5 tags may be used across your entire season.
   ->   Captaincy and Resting bonuses are unaffected by tagging, they are still calculated separately.

Train-on players
Each coach will have the ability to choose up to 2 players to have a train-on position added for the upcoming season. These players when played in this position are only given a 25% OOP penalty instead of the usual 50%.
- Coaches have from the end of the WXV Intl. Draft until Christmas to nominate any players they wish to use as a train-on player
- That player will not be able to be traded in Trade Period 2.
- For a player to be considered eligible for a ruck train-on spot, they need to have averaged at least 1 hitout per game the previous year. A full list will be provided but here (https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_rankings?year=2023&rt=LA&pt=&st=HO&mg=1) is the link to the source.
- There are no restrictions on who can be added as a def, mid, or fwd train-on.
- A train-on position may be added to a player who is already DPP.
- The train-on player may be named in their added position as many times as necessary across your entire season.

Team Submission Adjustment Chip
(I'm renaming this from "Flood/Attack")
Moving forward, Flood and attack options will contain a score adjustment element to them. The basics still remain, Flooding is a 5-4-1-3-2 submission and Attacking is a 3-4-1-5-2 submission, however:
- When you Flood, each of your 5 defenders will have a 9% score increase, whilst each of your 3 forwards will have a 15% score decrease.
- When you Attack, each of your 3 defenders will have a 15% score decrease, whilst each of your 5 forwards will have a 9% score increase.

Other important notes:
- OOP players can be named. The 50% penalty is captured by the adjustment amount. For example an OOP forward when flooding is 42.5% of the raw score (1 * 0.85 * 0.5).
- Other bonuses (captaincy, resting) are applied to the raw score separately.
- Your opponent can't cancel out your choice to flood or attack.
- You can only use this feature 5 times across your entire season.
- You can't use it multiple times in one week (I.e. no 8-4-1-0-2 formation is allowed)