4 emergencies or 3 to cover all positions (Kruezer's late omission)

[ScottieD]

For those who had Matthew Kruezer on the weekend - you'll appreciate this proposition:

SC/DT should either allow us to select 4 emergencies (1 per position) or the 3 existing emergencies should be able to cover all positions on the ground.

I presume the existing 3 emergency setup is intended to match the AFL's 3 emergency arragement.  But in the AFL, all 3 emergencies can cover any member of the team who pulls out.  As was the case on the weekend when Watson filled in for Kruezer.

I went into last round with every one of my 30 players named on the park.  I named my 3 emergencies, 1 each to the backline, midfield and forward line because the more players, the more likely one might pull out.  I tune in on Saturday night to find Kruezer is a late omission and I have 2 good ruck emergencies sitting on my bench completely wasted.  I cop a zero - completely unwarranted and unnecessary.

I'm calling for a rule change next year.  4 emergencies would be best - as 3 emergencies covering all positions would be very easy and deem 6-7 bench players on your side meaningless towards the end of the year.

[HappyDEZ]

one EMG for each sector would be the logical & popular choice.

[jaffa35]

I had exactly the same issue on Sat night with Kreuzer   - I've missed on Reddens score of 69 or whatever it was and lost 2 league games in SC by 20 odd points.....meanwhile my other 3 emergs were not required anywhere else.... your point about using any other Emerg player is exactly what I would have proposed.... as you say - a real coach can sub a backman for a forward or a ruckman etc etc..... c'mon ...... give us some latitude with this SC and DT administrators!

[Red Dirtie]

geez, with all the help we get these days -lets make it full proof were everyone must play??

This just sounds way to easy, what this does is not give any surprises were you might be losing and then with some luck like on the weekend gives somebody a fighting chance!

This is the worst idea now with all these new rules, reverse trading, 3 trades for bye rounds  etc etc .......just too easy.

You take it as it comes one week it will cost you the next week you'll be loving that the guy your playing has a late withdrawal!

I had McCarthy from Port and Kreuzer go and the guy i was playing had Kreuzer. When i first heard Kreuzer was out i was laughing because i had Redden as backup! but no one in mids to cover McCarthy and i still won because he had no cover for Ruck!

[jaffa35]

Yeah - way too easy if allowances like that were made, it's already so easy huh?.... it's become a game of luck rather than good strategy and management I believe.... you may as well be playing Pokies - sometimes you win and sometimes you just get flowered hard.

[ScottieD]

Sounds to me Red Dirtie like you just got lucky, and your opponent unlucky - yet you don't realise.  Your opponent would have had ruck cover, but not named them as emergency because they used emergencies in back line, forward line and midfield because it's the logical way to go.  You used an emergency tag in your rucks because you had no cover on your mdifield bench.  So your opponent has gone into the game with a more solid team, well planned and paid the price for the late withdrawal which is totally out of his control.  This is my point exactly.  We need to at least be given the chance to perform.  As I said I had 30 players named, yet still cop a 0 for no reason, totally out of my control.  4 emergencies - 1 for each sector is the only logical way to go and I'd be very very surprised if they have not fixed this by next year.

[Red Dirtie]

Sounds to me Red Dirtie like you just got lucky, and your opponent unlucky - yet you don't realise.  Your opponent would have had ruck cover, but not named them as emergency because they used emergencies in back line, forward line and midfield because it's the logical way to go.  You used an emergency tag in your rucks because you had no cover on your mdifield bench.  So your opponent has gone into the game with a more solid team, well planned and paid the price for the late withdrawal which is totally out of his control.  This is my point exactly.  We need to at least be given the chance to perform.  As I said I had 30 players named, yet still cop a 0 for no reason, totally out of my control.  4 emergencies - 1 for each sector is the only logical way to go and I'd be very very surprised if they have not fixed this by next year.

Dude your not getting it! i had cover in the mids but i thought since i had a stong midfeild i didnt need cover there "Who would've thought McCarthy was going to be a late out he has been in great form" so with the Rucks being shakey this year ie.. Sandi and MCIntosh i decided to put an emergency in the ruck division, which worked due to better coaching decision... and paid off. Thats why im a winner and not lucky

So if your not willing to make some big executive decisions you will never win anything by sooking for more emergency spots, more trades, easier system. Your probably one of those guys that just started playing DT and havent gone through the days when you couldn't even see the other guys team and had to do your own calculations.

Leave it the way it is, they've already stuffed around with it way too much making it NOOB friendly.

[ScottieD]

Gezuz. Say u have 5% chance a given player will be a late omission. U have 6 midfielders, 2 ruckman. 30% chance of a late omission in the midfield, 10% chance in rucks. And u choose to put your emergency in rucks, to cover 2 blokes instead of 6, genius. It's my 10th year btw