Rule Change Discussion for 2015/16

[Ringo]

Kick Ineffective:

All Behinds
high-risk kicks as well as the amount of off-target kicks that aren't necessarily turnovers or clangers. Doesn't matter about pressure on the situation.

Kick Clanger:

All out on the full besides kicks off the ground
The outcome of a kick clanger is that the opposition ends up with possession eg: direct turnover to opposition player, out on the full.

Is Kick Clanger available as a stat in UF not on the list at the moment but if it is between Frees against and Clanger Kick we can cover.

@Nige that is one of my reasoning for suggesting marks and spoils added to make defenders and forwards a little more relevant as I said in post.

[Rids]

Kick Ineffective:

All Behinds
high-risk kicks as well as the amount of off-target kicks that aren't necessarily turnovers or clangers. Doesn't matter about pressure on the situation.

Kick Clanger:

All out on the full besides kicks off the ground
The outcome of a kick clanger is that the opposition ends up with possession eg: direct turnover to opposition player, out on the full.

Is Kick Clanger available as a stat in UF not on the list at the moment but if it is between Frees against and Clanger Kick we can cover.

@Nige that is one of my reasoning for suggesting marks and spoils added to make defenders and forwards a little more relevant as I said in post.

I spoke to UF a week ago and they have advised me they are planning on Clangers and Uncontested Possessions to be available for 2016. They will let me know in Jan. I will probably be having a meeting with them about the same time (fingers crossed).

[Nige]

People are up in arms about remaining loyal to Sportal, but we could have done this UF thing last year but instead everybody decided the DT+SC/2 thing was the best way to go, the sudden change of heart confuses me.

Personal interest aside, I maintain that are scoring system fair to all players *cough*Stadium*cough* would have been better for the competition as a whole, it would give the lower sides (like the Giants) more a of a fighting chance during their rebuild. I wouldn't be surprised if the competition isn't as balanced as it was this season with the radical change to the scoring system.

TL;DR - Straying away from Sportal scoring this season was beneficial to BXVs as a whole, reverting to a Sportal-esque scoring system would undo the measures taken to even out the comp, which I believe is one the appeals and assets of BXVs.

[Rids]

To be honest, I think both sportal and stadium will actually help us and our rebuild.

Either will be better than what we had (DT + SC/2) this year for the Giants. I am very much looking forward to the scoring change myself and know Nostra is the same. We both knew what we were getting ourselves into when we started this. It is a challenge that we are both really enjoying (as most would now be aware of through all our early messages in regards to trades etc haha).

I think it is important that sportal be considered as a priority it still wouldn't hurt to adapt with a mark stat etc to help make more players relevant which would increase trading and interest in BXV.

I have had plenty of down time today at work so have been able to chat a little more than usual. As you all could prob tell, I am pretty keen to turn around the Giants fortunes quickly!

[Pkbaldy]

I don't mind this. Helps out all areas without going over the top (Except Rucks).

Kick    3 Points
Handball    1 Point
Contested Possession    4 Points
Tackle    3 Points
Hitout    1 Point
Clanger   -5 Points
Goal    6 Points
Behind    1 Point
Mark          3 Points
Rebound 50s 3 Points

p.s; Just wondering if you can use the values can be done in .5? If so we could make Hitouts 1.5 to make them more relevant, as they're horrendous in Sportal compared to every other line.

[Spite]

I'd still like to see defenders and forwards rewarded a little more or something, so what Marlon (Pk) said with the marking stuff would be fair imo, otherwise it's basically just a game for mids and whoever has the best midfield wins.

Did you even read Ringo's post? There isn't a contested marking option in UF so it would have to be all marks.

People are up in arms about remaining loyal to Sportal, but we could have done this UF thing last year but instead everybody decided the DT+SC/2 thing was the best way to go, the sudden change of heart confuses me.

Personal interest aside, I maintain that are scoring system fair to all players *cough*Stadium*cough* would have been better for the competition as a whole, it would give the lower sides (like the Giants) more a of a fighting chance during their rebuild. I wouldn't be surprised if the competition isn't as balanced as it was this season with the radical change to the scoring system.

TL;DR - Straying away from Sportal scoring this season was beneficial to BXVs as a whole, reverting to a Sportal-esque scoring system would undo the measures taken to even out the comp, which I believe is one the appeals and assets of BXVs.

The DT+SC/2 system was not our preferred option, it was a worst case scenario if I was not able to obtain the Sportal scoring system by myself. Ironically I can do it now but it will be a lot of manual work for me and more than I had expected, and would only be updated on like Thursdays.

You argue that the sportal system was good for midfielders and that is a bad thing and want to change it. We drafted our whole team based on this system and tried to get midfielders in every position, because we wanted to get the best players possible FOR THE SPORTAL SCORING SYSTEM. You play the system you're given. You don't draft tall key forwards and complain when they don't score well, which is effectively what you're doing now.

UF has been selected and no amount of whining about stadium sports is going to change that so just drop it, it doesn't help us going forward whatsoever.

Regarding what Ringo said, if we cannot reproduce the exact same scoring system for sportal because UF doesn't do uncontested possessions or clangers, then as my next preference, it would seem spoils should be worth about 2 points and marks 2 or 3 points. If you would like to see the effect of these two changes on the current sportal scoring system, PM me your email address Ringo and I will send you the excel document with this all done already.

[Ringo]

We have an opportunity after vote to make changes if need be and that is what I am floating.  We obviusly can not get exact score for score but we have 90% atm and how we treat or adjust the other 10% is the debate we have to have now. As I said I have my ideas which I have presented and we need to let everyone have a say and then resolve the issue without getting personal. 

[Spite]

Regarding what Ringo said, if we cannot reproduce the exact same scoring system for sportal because UF doesn't do uncontested possessions or clangers, then as my next preference, it would seem spoils should be worth about 2 points and marks 2 or 3 points. If you would like to see the effect of these two changes on the current sportal scoring system, PM me your email address Ringo and I will send you the excel document with this all done already.

[Pkbaldy]

No Clangers?? Dangerfield numero uno.

Spoils or Rebound 50s?

[Spite]

No Clangers?? Dangerfield numero uno.

Spoils or Rebound 50s?

We will only find out if we can get clangers in Jan 2016. It has been said so many times, are you guys even reading this through this thread?

And spoils over R50s, as spoils helps out the struggling backmen while R50s help out the midfielder style backmen

[Pkbaldy]

It was a joke little fella

What does everyone think of this?

Kick    3 Points
Handball    1 Point
Contested Possession *    4 Points
Tackle    3 Points
Hitout    1 Point
Goal    6 Points
Behind    1 Point
Marks     3 Points
Rebound 50s 2 Points
Spoils    2 points
Ineffective Disposals  -2 Points

[Spite]

Kick Ineffective:

All Behinds
high-risk kicks as well as the amount of off-target kicks that aren't necessarily turnovers or clangers. Doesn't matter about pressure on the situation.

Kick Clanger:

All out on the full besides kicks off the ground
The outcome of a kick clanger is that the opposition ends up with possession eg: direct turnover to opposition player, out on the full.

PK see above. It is surely too harsh to penalise players for behinds and would rather wait for clangers or not have minus for ineffective kicks for sure.

R50s is a very bad idea. I have looked how included that will affect the scoring of ALL players in the AFL and it is detrimental to what you're trying to achieve and does not make big defenders more relevant. All it does is make the Heath Shaws, Hodges and mids like Ebert much more overpowered.

[Rids]

I keep looking for the like button  ::) ::) ::)

Damn you facebook!  ;)

[Pkbaldy]

Kick Ineffective:

All Behinds
high-risk kicks as well as the amount of off-target kicks that aren't necessarily turnovers or clangers. Doesn't matter about pressure on the situation.

Kick Clanger:

All out on the full besides kicks off the ground
The outcome of a kick clanger is that the opposition ends up with possession eg: direct turnover to opposition player, out on the full.

PK see above. It is surely too harsh to penalise players for behinds and would rather wait for clangers or not have minus for ineffective kicks for sure.

R50s is a very bad idea. I have looked how included that will affect the scoring of ALL players in the AFL and it is detrimental to what you're trying to achieve and does not make big defenders more relevant. All it does is make the Heath Shaws, Hodges and mids like Ebert much more overpowered.

Do you know who the top 10 for spoils are?? Just wondering.

[Spite]

Kick Ineffective:

All Behinds
high-risk kicks as well as the amount of off-target kicks that aren't necessarily turnovers or clangers. Doesn't matter about pressure on the situation.

Kick Clanger:

All out on the full besides kicks off the ground
The outcome of a kick clanger is that the opposition ends up with possession eg: direct turnover to opposition player, out on the full.

PK see above. It is surely too harsh to penalise players for behinds and would rather wait for clangers or not have minus for ineffective kicks for sure.

R50s is a very bad idea. I have looked how included that will affect the scoring of ALL players in the AFL and it is detrimental to what you're trying to achieve and does not make big defenders more relevant. All it does is make the Heath Shaws, Hodges and mids like Ebert much more overpowered.

Do you know who the top 10 for spoils are?? Just wondering.

Yes. I have all stats of all players in the AFL.

You can also find it yourself if you search AFL tables in google and find the spoils column little fella