Rule Change Discussion for 2015/16

[Pkbaldy]

thanks voted 1

2 looks to complicated

The good thing about option 2 is that there is a stats centre on the Stadium website. No one would need to work out who scored what.

Stadium is gonna help a lot of defenders.

To me Stadium makes Rucks and Defenders more relevant. As 1st place is a ruck and 2nd place is a defender. (In the overall scores).

Just we have to follow SC and DT for positions. Stadium is out of whack for that haha... ( Stephen Hill and Lachie Neale were forward this week? WTF??) 

[Nige]

Yep, exactly. KB only recently complained about his back line, it should be improved next season.

[Rids]

Yeah agreed. CP will have more involvement hopefully for 2016 in Stadium but think we definitely need to follow the CD allocation positions for DT and SC

[Ringo]

Another rule I am considering and am open either way so you will not offend me if you shoot it down.

Quite a few times this year franchises have had to play OOP players in the ruck. Mainly due to the fact that injury intervenes.  I am thinking of this going forward,
1) Each team names 2 players over 190cms at the start of the season who will pinch hit in the ruck.  If required to pinch hit in the ruck they will score 75% of their score as opposed to the 50% for OOP.

[Spite]

thanks voted 1

2 looks to complicated

The good thing about option 2 is that there is a stats centre on the Stadium website. No one would need to work out who scored what.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but cant the UF also have a stats centre? We could even have a 16 person league, max like 30 players each and just make the BXV teams on there and copy the final scores here for our fixtures, so basically no work needed for anyone?

[Spite]

Another rule I am considering and am open either way so you will not offend me if you shoot it down.

Quite a few times this year franchises have had to play OOP players in the ruck. Mainly due to the fact that injury intervenes.  I am thinking of this going forward,
1) Each team names 2 players over 190cms at the start of the season who will pinch hit in the ruck.  If required to pinch hit in the ruck they will score 75% of their score as opposed to the 50% for OOP.

Like the idea Ringo. Don't think the nomination is required though, can't we just name anyone above 193cm though at 75%? I am against 190 cm because tall mids like pendles are taller than that (there are many of them) and they really shouldn't be playing ruck...not many tall mids over 193cm though

[Rids]

thanks voted 1

2 looks to complicated

The good thing about option 2 is that there is a stats centre on the Stadium website. No one would need to work out who scored what.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but cant the UF also have a stats centre? We could even have a 16 person league, max like 30 players each and just make the BXV teams on there and copy the final scores here for our fixtures, so basically no work needed for anyone?

Spot on Spite. Was more making the point that extra stats didnt mean more work as we could use the stats centre.

[Ringo]

Will there be harsher penalties on people who dont name their team?

I hope so.

Please feel free to discuss what penalties should be involved:
My thoughts are:
1st offence No HGA or 50 points deduction whichever is the greater
2nd offence; No Captains bonus or 100 points deduction whichever is the greater
3rd offence 25% deduction of total points.

[Pkbaldy]

Will there be harsher penalties on people who dont name their team?

I hope so.

Please feel free to discuss what penalties should be involved:
My thoughts are:
1st offence No HGA or 50 points deduction whichever is the greater
2nd offence; No Captains bonus or 100 points deduction whichever is the greater
3rd offence 25% deduction of total points.

Yeah what I had in mind wasn't too far off that

1st Offense: Lowest Scorer Deducted
2nd Offense: Captains Bonus Deducted
3rd Offense: Highest Scorer Deducted
4th Offense:  25% Deduction of Total Points or Possible Firing.

[Memphistopheles]

thanks voted 1

2 looks to complicated

The good thing about option 2 is that there is a stats centre on the Stadium website. No one would need to work out who scored what.

Stadium is gonna help a lot of defenders.

To me Stadium makes Rucks and Defenders more relevant. As 1st place is a ruck and 2nd place is a defender. (In the overall scores).

Just we have to follow SC and DT for positions. Stadium is out of whack for that haha... ( Stephen Hill and Lachie Neale were forward this week? WTF??)

This is one of the reasons I'm against it. Defenders and rucks were the least relevant in the Sportal system and teams were drafted initially, and ever since, with this in mind.

So this would change things completely which isn't fair on the coaches who have drafted/traded towards the Sportal system. I know the last two years we did this before we knew the Sportal system wouldn't be used this year.

[Pkbaldy]

Well I have the worst rucks in the competition and I'm fine with Stadium haha. 

[Spite]

thanks voted 1

2 looks to complicated

The good thing about option 2 is that there is a stats centre on the Stadium website. No one would need to work out who scored what.

Stadium is gonna help a lot of defenders.

To me Stadium makes Rucks and Defenders more relevant. As 1st place is a ruck and 2nd place is a defender. (In the overall scores).

Just we have to follow SC and DT for positions. Stadium is out of whack for that haha... ( Stephen Hill and Lachie Neale were forward this week? WTF??)

This is one of the reasons I'm against it. Defenders and rucks were the least relevant in the Sportal system and teams were drafted initially, and ever since, with this in mind.

So this would change things completely which isn't fair on the coaches who have drafted/traded towards the Sportal system. I know the last two years we did this before we knew the Sportal system wouldn't be used this year.

I agree with you Memph.

Well I have the worst rucks in the competition and I'm fine with Stadium haha. 

Cool, glad your bias didn't affect your voting.

Will there be harsher penalties on people who dont name their team?

I hope so.

Please feel free to discuss what penalties should be involved:
My thoughts are:
1st offence No HGA or 50 points deduction whichever is the greater
2nd offence; No Captains bonus or 100 points deduction whichever is the greater
3rd offence 25% deduction of total points.

Can't we just strip the captain score? No 1st, 2nd, 3rd offence stuff, just a standard rule that if you forgot to name your team, you don't get a captain?

[Memphistopheles]

Will there be harsher penalties on people who dont name their team?

I hope so.

Please feel free to discuss what penalties should be involved:
My thoughts are:
1st offence No HGA or 50 points deduction whichever is the greater
2nd offence; No Captains bonus or 100 points deduction whichever is the greater
3rd offence 25% deduction of total points.

Surely at the third offence we need to look at if the coach needs to be replaced?

I prefer a warning the first time with no points penalty then harsher penalties once it happened again. A committed coach might make one mistake and we should be lenient on that but not two or three times...

[Ringo]

To me it looks like some of you have not really analysed both scoring systems. The points value is the major difference between the 2 as UF will also reward defenders and rucks. 

Do not want to influence the vote one way or the other but just asking to make sure you understand both systems before voting.

[Nige]

Has to be three strikes and you're out.

First a warning.
Second a penalty on some form.
Third and you're sacked.

It's really that simple.



As for the scoring, I still believe Stadium will be better for the competition as a whole honestly.