WXV Round 14: Seoul face unlikely bogey team

[Nige]

I agree Os, it sucks that we have to get penalised because our ruck is injured. With 18 teams there isn't exactly an abundance of rucks, and when teams only have one ruck we're eventually going to get penalised like now. Getting ruck depth is very difficult due to the amount of teams in WXV vs AFL teams and available rucks, so I agree the penalty needs to be reduced

Its not that hard. You need to look at trading in the real life back up rucks for your starter

I don't mind the rule but I reckon ppl just need to trade better

Kinda easy to say when you basically got like 7 of them, and like all but one have played this year.  :P

[RaisyDaisy]

New York traded out Blicavs, Nicholls, Mckernan and Lycett...

Hard to argue against that,  but we needed to because our other lines were so stuffed. All part of the rebuilding process, and we'll get a ruck next draft. Mckernan was delisted and Lycett doesn't get games anyway. Blicavs and Nicholls allowed us to improve our team,  so I have no regrets witj trading them all

Either way I think OOP at 0.5 is still too harsh a penalty and is too much of a disadvantage. Throw in HGA too and it's very hard to win for most clubs besides the top teams when in this situation

[Ricochet]

I agree Os, it sucks that we have to get penalised because our ruck is injured. With 18 teams there isn't exactly an abundance of rucks, and when teams only have one ruck we're eventually going to get penalised like now. Getting ruck depth is very difficult due to the amount of teams in WXV vs AFL teams and available rucks, so I agree the penalty needs to be reduced

Its not that hard. You need to look at trading in the real life back up rucks for your starter

I don't mind the rule but I reckon ppl just need to trade better

Kinda easy to say when you basically got like 7 of them, and like all but one have played this year.  :P

No easy at all. We traded for them because we knew they were valuable (and its not like they're superstars either).
Some haven't traded particularly smart and its hurting them because of it. I don't feel like its fair to change the rules because of that


Out of interest, how many times has OOP ruck been used this year Oss/Purps?

[meow meow]

[Vinny]

Buenoes Aires Dillos:

D: E.Wood, S.Atley, T.Chaplin, C.Newman.
M: M.Wallis (C), B.Hill (VC), A.Brayshaw, M.Crouch.
R: J.Clarke (OOP)
F: J.Melksham), J.Schulz, L.Thomas, J.Tutt.
U: J.DeGoey, T.Membrey.

E: R.Bewick, S.Biggs, M.Close.

[meow meow]

I say all players 196cms or taller should have a 0.9 ruck multiplier if SC doesn't list them as ruckmen. If you can't find one of those then you deserve to cop the full 0.5.

[Holz]

I agree Os, it sucks that we have to get penalised because our ruck is injured. With 18 teams there isn't exactly an abundance of rucks, and when teams only have one ruck we're eventually going to get penalised like now. Getting ruck depth is very difficult due to the amount of teams in WXV vs AFL teams and available rucks, so I agree the penalty needs to be reduced

Its not that hard. You need to look at trading in the real life back up rucks for your starter

I don't mind the rule but I reckon ppl just need to trade better

Kinda easy to say when you basically got like 7 of them, and like all but one have played this year.  :P

No easy at all. We traded for them because we knew they were valuable (and its not like they're superstars either).
Some haven't traded particularly smart and its hurting them because of it. I don't feel like its fair to change the rules because of that


Out of interest, how many times has OOP ruck been used this year Oss/Purps?

got to agree with Ric here. Some teams have  paid up big to secure a ruck. I used my first pick in the draft to get one when everyone else was picking mids.

[RaisyDaisy]

I say all players 196cms or taller should have a 0.9 ruck multiplier if SC doesn't list them as ruckmen. If you can't find one of those then you deserve to cop the full 0.5.

Sounds fair, even 0.75 would be fair. We could easily play Tippett in the ruck otherwise. As for the Mckernan pic lol he's still a spud lol

Rucks have huge value and I agree with that, just think that because there isn't an abundance of them, like every other line, that the OOP penalty should be a little higher, say 0.75 for rucks and 0.5 for all other lines. The height in cm rule creates too much hassle I think. Either make ruck OOP 0.75 or add a 3rd option to flood, attack and something for no ruck

[Purple 77]

I agree Os, it sucks that we have to get penalised because our ruck is injured. With 18 teams there isn't exactly an abundance of rucks, and when teams only have one ruck we're eventually going to get penalised like now. Getting ruck depth is very difficult due to the amount of teams in WXV vs AFL teams and available rucks, so I agree the penalty needs to be reduced

Its not that hard. You need to look at trading in the real life back up rucks for your starter

I don't mind the rule but I reckon ppl just need to trade better

Kinda easy to say when you basically got like 7 of them, and like all but one have played this year.  :P

No easy at all. We traded for them because we knew they were valuable (and its not like they're superstars either).
Some haven't traded particularly smart and its hurting them because of it. I don't feel like its fair to change the rules because of that


Out of interest, how many times has OOP ruck been used this year Oss/Purps?

Buenos Aires gets one every game, Tokyo has done it most of the year, otherwise it happens quite rarely.

Would take a bit of an effort to get you the exact number. I could find all the times someone has deliberately named an OOP player, but often an OOP player comes on as an emergency and that's hard to keep a track of in ma-books.

Also should point out that the OOP score doesn't affect your HGA. HGA comes out of un-affected scores.

[ossie85]

got to agree with Ric here. Some teams have  paid up big to secure a ruck. I used my first pick in the draft to get one when everyone else was picking mids.

That is a legitimate point.

Maybe you nominate a tall player as an extra ruck, but they score at 0.75 no matter what position they play at for the entire year.

So Buenos Aires, knowing they have ruck issues, choose Jay Schulz as a ruck who can play forward or ruck - but no matter which position he plays (forward or ruck) his score will be 0.75

[Holz]

got to agree with Ric here. Some teams have  paid up big to secure a ruck. I used my first pick in the draft to get one when everyone else was picking mids.

That is a legitimate point.

Maybe you nominate a tall player as an extra ruck, but they score at 0.75 no matter what position they play at for the entire year.

So Buenos Aires, knowing they have ruck issues, choose Jay Schulz as a ruck who can play forward or ruck - but no matter which position he plays (forward or ruck) his score will be 0.75

Shouldnt there be an incentive to trade hard to secure a ruck though. Its kind of how teams traded hard for forward and backs so they didnt have to play OOP there.

I just think its tough as people traded with the rules in mind and as its a never ending comp people laid plans years in advance to secure ruck stocks. i think chagning the rules of the games unfairly hurts some and helps others.

[ossie85]

got to agree with Ric here. Some teams have  paid up big to secure a ruck. I used my first pick in the draft to get one when everyone else was picking mids.

That is a legitimate point.

Maybe you nominate a tall player as an extra ruck, but they score at 0.75 no matter what position they play at for the entire year.

So Buenos Aires, knowing they have ruck issues, choose Jay Schulz as a ruck who can play forward or ruck - but no matter which position he plays (forward or ruck) his score will be 0.75

Shouldnt there be an incentive to trade hard to secure a ruck though. Its kind of how teams traded hard for forward and backs so they didnt have to play OOP there.

I just think its tough as people traded with the rules in mind and as its a never ending comp people laid plans years in advance to secure ruck stocks. i think chagning the rules of the games unfairly hurts some and helps others.

Well, the incentive to get a ruck is still there - you won't be penalised as much. The way I suggest at least means you'll be penalised every week if you don't have enough ruck depth.

[Holz]

got to agree with Ric here. Some teams have  paid up big to secure a ruck. I used my first pick in the draft to get one when everyone else was picking mids.

That is a legitimate point.

Maybe you nominate a tall player as an extra ruck, but they score at 0.75 no matter what position they play at for the entire year.

So Buenos Aires, knowing they have ruck issues, choose Jay Schulz as a ruck who can play forward or ruck - but no matter which position he plays (forward or ruck) his score will be 0.75

Shouldnt there be an incentive to trade hard to secure a ruck though. Its kind of how teams traded hard for forward and backs so they didnt have to play OOP there.

I just think its tough as people traded with the rules in mind and as its a never ending comp people laid plans years in advance to secure ruck stocks. i think chagning the rules of the games unfairly hurts some and helps others.

Well, the incentive to get a ruck is still there - you won't be penalised as much. The way I suggest at least means you'll be penalised every week if you don't have enough ruck depth.

incentive but less incentive and it hurts those who paid up to get their rucks. Some weak teams have paid up for rucks big timeand rightly soo as thats the strategy of the game we signed up for. Im ok with this being a rule when we started but I dont like fundamental changes once we have already planned for the current strategy.

[meow meow]

How about if a player gets ruck status in SC they keep it for life in WXV (@ 0.9 if they lose it in SC)? Is anyone really going to feel hard done by that Vickery gets career long DPP? There's nothing stopping him from stepping back into the ruck in the AFL so WXV having the option isn't that unreasonable.

[JBs-Hawks]

Agree with Rico and Holz. I had to overpay to get Ceglar so everyone else can over pay and get their main rucks backup.