2015 WXV Awards and 2015 Rules Discussion

[Memphistopheles]

I still prefer my OOP Ruck rule from the end of last season.

Also RE: Holz's point about the cap. This is a direct quote from the PM I just sent Purple with my votes on it.

3. C. But, only because I don't agree with either A or B. I don't think the player should be worth his whole 2014 value or 90% of both years. Also if we are going to give injured players cap points the overall cap needs increasing in my opinion.

[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

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.

The issue I raised was that even if all teams have ruck depth, it's not like there is 36 rucks playing AFL every week.

[Holz]

I still prefer my OOP Ruck rule from the end of last season.

Also RE: Holz's point about the cap. This is a direct quote from the PM I just sent Purple with my votes on it.

3. C. But, only because I don't agree with either A or B. I don't think the player should be worth his whole 2014 value or 90% of both years. Also if we are going to give injured players cap points the overall cap needs increasing in my opinion.

Interesting enough I basically sent the same PM

[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.

The issue I raised was that even if all teams have ruck depth, it's not like there is 36 rucks playing AFL every week.

Thats is correct only 24 played this week. But people need to think about Handcuffing.

the issue is more some teams have alot of rucks playing.

there is lots of merit in having all the rucks from one team.

[Memphistopheles]

I still prefer my OOP Ruck rule from the end of last season.

Also RE: Holz's point about the cap. This is a direct quote from the PM I just sent Purple with my votes on it.

3. C. But, only because I don't agree with either A or B. I don't think the player should be worth his whole 2014 value or 90% of both years. Also if we are going to give injured players cap points the overall cap needs increasing in my opinion.

Interesting enough I basically sent the same PM

What I didn't actually say, which I meant to, was that I'm not against making some changes to the cap (I am very much in favour of the home-grown talent rule and voted for that) but, the rule that was sent out on this one I didn't think would work.

That reminds me. I have another question actually Purple i wanted to ask about how you will interpret the results of these votes.

In a lot of the votes there was one option of no and two, or more, options for how the new rule would work.

I'm thinking that in some cases 5 people might vote for option A in favour of a new rule and and 5 for B also in favour of a new rule but a different interpretation, but then if 8 others vote against it it would not get through.

However, in reality 10 WXV coaches want the new rule and 8 don't so the majority are in favour of it - they just don't know what interpretation they want. So this needs to be taken in to consideration in the final results surely?

[Purple 77]

I still prefer my OOP Ruck rule from the end of last season.

Also RE: Holz's point about the cap. This is a direct quote from the PM I just sent Purple with my votes on it.

3. C. But, only because I don't agree with either A or B. I don't think the player should be worth his whole 2014 value or 90% of both years. Also if we are going to give injured players cap points the overall cap needs increasing in my opinion.

Interesting enough I basically sent the same PM

What I didn't actually say, which I meant to, was that I'm not against making some changes to the cap (I am very much in favour of the home-grown talent rule and voted for that) but, the rule that was sent out on this one I didn't think would work.

That reminds me. I have another question actually Purple i wanted to ask about how you will interpret the results of these votes.

In a lot of the votes there was one option of no and two, or more, options for how the new rule would work.

I'm thinking that in some cases 5 people might vote for option A in favour of a new rule and and 5 for B also in favour of a new rule but a different interpretation, but then if 8 others vote against it it would not get through.

However, in reality 10 WXV coaches want the new rule and 8 don't so the majority are in favour of it - they just don't know what interpretation they want. So this needs to be taken in to consideration in the final results surely?

^^ That's exactly what I'm looking for, seeing those type of trends so a re-vote was definitely a thing I thought might happen.



There are a lot ruck ideas, I knew that when I gave the options. These options will give me a basic idea of where people were at, so if a re-vote was to happen on some rules, then I'll mention the ones I left out.

[Purple 77]

11 votes in, 5 to go.

Can confirm a few decisions:

1) Pre-season training is an overwhelming no, 100% of votes in the negative.

2) Getting up for a match is also an overwhelming no.

5) Another no to the tag  :(

Others still in dispute.

[ossie85]

I will get the tag up one day!

Really think having an ability to impact an opponents score is something we should have

[RaisyDaisy]

Can only speak for myself, but I think the overload in new rules is why people are negging these ideas

As cool as a lot of them are, it's just too much to keep on top off

[meow meow]

The cap would definitely have to be raised if we're including the higher points across two seasons. Would need to see the before and afters of the proposed changes before the correct figure could be decided.

[Purple 77]

The cap would definitely have to be raised if we're including the higher points across two seasons. Would need to see the before and afters of the proposed changes before the correct figure could be decided.

Most certainly.

[Toga]

I like the idea of the tagging rule :(

[DazBurg]

for the higher points across 2 seasons though
is that for every single player or for players who missed a certain amount (i.e like how SC discount for 10 or less)??

[Holz]

for the higher points across 2 seasons though
is that for every single player or for players who missed a certain amount (i.e like how SC discount for 10 or less)??

I was confused by this but it has to be everyone surely. If you miss 5 games and are cheap this year its completely unfair for you to be worth less points then a guy who missed the whole year.

e.g.

Player A     100 points per game from 17 games in 2014
                85 points per game from 10 games in 2014 (average dropped as a red vest killed their average)

Player B     100 points per game from 17 games in 2014
                0 games in 2014


completely unfair if player A is 850 points and player B is 1700.

               

[meow meow]

for the higher points across 2 seasons though
is that for every single player or for players who missed a certain amount (i.e like how SC discount for 10 or less)??

Every player.

Gibbs for example would be worth 824 points under the current system. = an average of 48 across 17 games
Would be worth 1805 under the best of 2 years system (his 2014 score) = an average of 106
Would be worth 1625 with the 10% discount since his best year was not the one just gone = a 95 average