I had to find out

[upthemaidens]

I hope this helps..
        Hi John,

Thank you for your email.

All players are awarded points based on their individual
performances and any player scoring 0 is regarded as not
having made any positive or negative contribution or
impact on their match or their personal performance. As
such, they are automatically replaced by an emergency when
one is selected and available. This rule has been in place
and remained consistent since the start of the competition
several years ago.

All captain points are doubled, including negative scores.
Therefore if a player had a negative score, they will be
deducted double negative points if they are the selected
captain.

[upthemaidens]

that was the reply to this e-mail
    hello,,just a feedback comment on what is a flaw
> in the scoring system,with the use of emergencies.. this
> relates to hille and harvey in this round where both
> played but scored zero(if they score 1 point or -1 point
> the emergency would not be used to replace them) but
> because they scored zero the emergency is used.  If a
> player has started the game then whatever they score
> should count whether that be -4,zero or 30 points.
> emergencies should only count if a player doesnt take to
> the field thanks for your time i hope this e-mail makes
> sense.  maybe thats something that can be fixed for next
> year,,thankyou     P.S. just one more question,if a captain
> scores a minus score i.e. -4 what would he get? -4 times
> by 2 is -8

[evawes1]

I see thats their official policy - and fair enough, I suppose - I can see where they're coming from in terms of emergencies.

But their pricing system is illogical and inconsistent because the pricing of these players included the zero scores. If they had no positive or negative contribution to the game or their personal performance, then why include it in their price.

Their price which reflects their PERSONAL PERFORMANCE.

Its totally illogical - and rubbish. Both (emergencies and price) are directly linked to the player's performance, and so both should be consistent in the approach.

[evawes1]

I'll also show you why its rubbish:

A player can have a positive contribution, score some points - but then give away some free kicks, and their points can drop to zero. Vice-versa, start out negative but then bring it up again.

Even though they scored zero overall, they still played and had positive and negative contributions. You could argue that their overall contribution evened out - but considering that they actually played, and I don't think you can make that call.

What if the free kick resulted in a goal by the opposition? But you made up for that negative by a couple of handballs in the backline? They don't really seem equal. Just an example.

[Bo]

You guys complaining about it is as bad as collingwood supporters complaining about the umpiring. Get over it, get better benches.

[evawes1]

Bo - do you even read posts when you reply like a moron?

It has nothing to do with whose on the bench.

[Prospector_1]

Agreed,

but the rest of the post is spot on!