2015 WXV Awards and 2015 Rules Discussion

[DazBurg]

I paid a premium for that low cap.

Nobody has paid anything yet.

Fine I will pay a premium.

Point stands

And that would be your choice, knowing the rules.

exactly
your only 770 points over the cap
but your trading out 4000+ to get in a 0 which with delistings and retirements you most likely would of been under in the first place

which is what your saying your only paying overs because of the cap etc etc but i'm just saying your not really that much over to "need" to pay overs just for the sake of cap imo

[Holz]

I paid a premium for that low cap.

Nobody has paid anything yet.

Fine I will pay a premium.

Point stands

And that would be your choice, knowing the rules.

exactly
your only 770 points over the cap
but your trading out 4000+ to get in a 0 which with delistings and retirements you most likely would of been under in the first place

which is what your saying your only paying overs because of the cap etc etc but i'm just saying your not really that much over to "need" to pay overs just for the sake of cap imo

Well I have lots of plans. I plan for months

Its not that its a small benefit to guys hit by injury like Cairo new York etc..

[Purple 77]

In the process of writing up the votes for rule proposals...

Speak now if you want your voice heard in this thread!

[Holz]

In the process of writing up the votes for rule proposals...

Speak now if you want your voice heard in this thread!

3. Salary Cap Change - Vote A, B or C

Cap stays the same (30,000 max, 22,000 min - points scored over 17 rounds)

BUT, instead of taking just a players 2015 score (rule would count from 2016):

A) you take the highest score between 2015 and 2014. I.e. Tom Liberatore would be worth his 2014 value, not his 2015 value of 0.

B) you take the highest score out of 90% of 2014 value & the 2015 value.



question on this. This is for every player right?

So Rockcliff counts for 2374 not 1333 correct? If A gets up.


I want to show how this hits out of form players aswell as injured guys. i realise its only worlds games that count but this is just a rough estiamte.

Scott Thompson +240
Rockliff + 1000
Johnson + 600
Sidey + 700
Wells + 400
Hampson +600
Bartel +1300
Harvey +300
Nroo +600


they are now more than 6,000 over the cap and in real trouble.

Its completely unfair to take the highest of both years. As guys like boomer, nroo have monster caps even though they have clearly slowed down and sucomming to injury. This even futher devalues older guys.

Whereas teams with young guys who are improving get unaffected except major injury.

[Nige]

How come there wasn't a 'keep as is' option for the flood/attack rule just out of curiosity?

[Purple 77]

How come there wasn't a 'keep as is' option for the flood/attack rule just out of curiosity?

Ahhhhhhhhh flower!

flowerin, flower!

*sigh*

I knew I would have missed something.  :-[

[Nige]

How come there wasn't a 'keep as is' option for the flood/attack rule just out of curiosity?

Ahhhhhhhhh flower!

flowerin, flower!

*sigh*

I knew I would have missed something.  :-[

I still love you.

[Purple 77]

How come there wasn't a 'keep as is' option for the flood/attack rule just out of curiosity?

Ahhhhhhhhh flower!

flowerin, flower!

*sigh*

I knew I would have missed something.  :-[

I still love you.

:-*

[meow meow]

I don't think you understood what I meant about the 75% ruck rule Purps.

I meant that the 50% OOP ruck rule stays, but if you have a player who was formerly listed as a ruck (like Vickery) but has lost ruck status they score 75% as an OOP ruck, not 50%. Caleb Daniel would still score 50%.

[Purple 77]

I don't think you understood what I meant about the 75% ruck rule Purps.

I meant that the 50% OOP ruck rule stays, but if you have a player who was formerly listed as a ruck (like Vickery) but has lost ruck status they score 75% as an OOP ruck, not 50%. Caleb Daniel would still score 50%.

I understood at the time, but I must have missed that suggestion when I was reading the thread this morning  :-\

My apologies.

[Purple 77]

I don't think you understood what I meant about the 75% ruck rule Purps.

I meant that the 50% OOP ruck rule stays, but if you have a player who was formerly listed as a ruck (like Vickery) but has lost ruck status they score 75% as an OOP ruck, not 50%. Caleb Daniel would still score 50%.

Will remember this  when all the votes come back btw, will see what I can do.

[meow meow]

All good Purple, I appreciate the mountain of work you're doing.

[RaisyDaisy]

I first bought the ruck discussion to attention I believe

Just felt that if teams are light down back or forward they get to flood or attack, but light on rucks get punished

Whether it's 75%, or ex rucks etc is to be determined, but ultimately I just think there needs to be something in place because forwards and def get an option

[Holz]

I first bought the ruck discussion to attention I believe

Just felt that if teams are light down back or forward they get to flood or attack, but light on rucks get punished

Whether it's 75%, or ex rucks etc is to be determined, but ultimately I just think there needs to be something in place because forwards and def get an option

you only need 1 ruckman though. You should ensure that you have backups who should be cheap enough.

For example I paid up to get Goldy Currie.

If Goldy misses i know I have currie there to play.

[Holz]

on that a rule i think should be added is four emergencies.

for example if Goldy was a late out i would have to play an OOP guy even though I have currie (as i would never play him on the bench)

if we had 4 spots then i would stick Currie at E4 every week.