2015 WXV Awards and 2015 Rules Discussion

[ossie85]

Really hate the reserves final rule btw, not that many players actually play 9 reserves games and it heavily favours teams whose seniors aren't playing finals. Now we have two rules - one for regular season one for finals

[meow meow]

So Holz and NY, under this system you'd still be able to swap McDonald for Liberatore. This way you won't be swapping McDonald for Liberatore and 1600 points worth of cap space. Libba has a fair point value assigned to him now but it's not going to affect your ability to trade him if the trade itself is fair.

thats fine but it was never really about libba. He was just the easiest example. By the way im under the cap with the old system or your new system. I know people think i only care about Dublin but I have always been thinking about the fairness of the comp. I wanted to reward guys with mass injuries in their team.

the biggest issue with the system though i have realised is not only older players but actually up and coming players. Beijing have climbed there way off the bottom of the ladder and now have much more points then the two teams in the grandfinal.

the flaw in the system is this

503    James Aish
562    Sam Mayes
738    Matt Jones
773    Matthew Jaensch
777    Danny Stanley
815    Aaron Black
845    Jared Polec

jaensch yes has been in jured but most of the other guys are fringe players and are down on their form. After climbing off the bottom they will have to trade or drop these kind of guys. The issue is nobody wants to trade them in and i can see that being incredibly annoying for Toga.

It's not a flaw in the system because the higher points for these players has been taken into account when lifting the cap by 4000 points. If we left it at 30000 and still counted the higher value it would be outrageous but I have accounted for that when working out the rise in the cap. My system is flawless, and just like William Wallace when he's about to cop it, I shall never give up. FREEDOM!

[Purple 77]

Really hate the reserves final rule btw, not that many players actually play 9 reserves games and it heavily favours teams whose seniors aren't playing finals. Now we have two rules - one for regular season one for finals

How so?

If your team was playing in finals, and you had to play Zac Dawson who played 10 games in the reserves up until that point, he would also play in the reserves... same advantage for all teams.

[Holz]

Really hate the reserves final rule btw, not that many players actually play 9 reserves games and it heavily favours teams whose seniors aren't playing finals. Now we have two rules - one for regular season one for finals

How so?

If your team was playing in finals, and you had to play Zac Dawson who played 10 games in the reserves up until that point, he would also play in the reserves... same advantage for all teams.

just clarification lets say Ryan Schoenamkers has played 10 games in the reserves and as im hit with restings this week Im forced to play him in my senior team. Does that mean he would play for my Reserves as well?

[Purple 77]

Really hate the reserves final rule btw, not that many players actually play 9 reserves games and it heavily favours teams whose seniors aren't playing finals. Now we have two rules - one for regular season one for finals

How so?

If your team was playing in finals, and you had to play Zac Dawson who played 10 games in the reserves up until that point, he would also play in the reserves... same advantage for all teams.

just clarification lets say Ryan Schoenamkers has played 10 games in the reserves and as im hit with restings this week Im forced to play him in my senior team. Does that mean he would play for my Reserves as well?

This isn't a good sign.

I hope that was what everyone was thinking when they were voting?

But yes.

[Holz]

Really hate the reserves final rule btw, not that many players actually play 9 reserves games and it heavily favours teams whose seniors aren't playing finals. Now we have two rules - one for regular season one for finals

How so?

If your team was playing in finals, and you had to play Zac Dawson who played 10 games in the reserves up until that point, he would also play in the reserves... same advantage for all teams.

just clarification lets say Ryan Schoenamkers has played 10 games in the reserves and as im hit with restings this week Im forced to play him in my senior team. Does that mean he would play for my Reserves as well?

This isn't a good sign.

I hope that was what everyone was thinking when they were voting?

But yes.

If anything it would make more coaches vote yes, wouldnt it?

[ossie85]

Really hate the reserves final rule btw, not that many players actually play 9 reserves games and it heavily favours teams whose seniors aren't playing finals. Now we have two rules - one for regular season one for finals

How so?

If your team was playing in finals, and you had to play Zac Dawson who played 10 games in the reserves up until that point, he would also play in the reserves... same advantage for all teams.

just clarification lets say Ryan Schoenamkers has played 10 games in the reserves and as im hit with restings this week Im forced to play him in my senior team. Does that mean he would play for my Reserves as well?

This isn't a good sign.

I hope that was what everyone was thinking when they were voting?

But yes.

Hate it even more now! I don't think that's how it reads sorry bro

[Purple 77]

And that's everyone.

1. Preseason Training (Rejected)
2. Getting up for a match (Rejected)
3. Salary Cap Change (No change)
4. Flood/Attack Changes No Change
5. Tag (Rejected)
6. Sub Rule (In dispute)
7. Ruck OOP (In dispute)
8. Leadership Group (Accepted)
9. Trading Future Draft Picks (Rejected)
10. Form Confidence (Rejected)
11. Loyalty Cap Bonus Rejected
12. Reserve Finals Eligibility (Accepted)



So the Sub Rule, we had:

6. Sub Rule Vote A, B, C or D

A) Remove the sub rule and go back to the days of bad luck (3)
B) Retain the sub rule for players injured in first half (6)
C) Players that play less than or equal to 50% game time (FF stats) are subbed out (5)
D) (2)

IF you have a player who is injured and doesn't return after half time, an emergency is activiated and comes in at HALF points and you keep the score that player has already scored.

I.e. if Chad Wingard is injured 5 minutes into the 2nd quarter and gets a score of 33, Zac O'Brien comes in as a sub from the emergency list at half points (so if he scores 60 only 30 counts). So you basically get Wingard's 33 + O'Brien's 60/2 = 63

I see this as 13 people wanting a sub rule, and 3 didn't. So there will be a sub rule next year.

Also, seeing as that option D was unpopular, I will be removing that option as well. Even if those 3 people changed their vote to it, it still wouldn't get the majority.



Ruck OOP

7. Ruck OOP

A) If you name a player OOP in the ruck you still lose 50% of the score (as has always been the case). BUT, if that player is less than 190cm, not only do you lose 50% of your score, the opposition ruck gains 25%. (4)
B) Keep as is. (8 )
C) Receive 75% of a Ruck OOP instead of 50% (4)

So half wanted a change, the other half didn't.

But, there were options omitted the first time, so will give it another go with those options included. This kinda wasn't the indication I was hoping for FWIW (i.e. a balanced opinion).



I'll send another vote out tonight, and will also include the 3 new coaches. I'll also include the clarification on the reserves finals eligibility.

[meow meow]

Pretty sure that coaches didn't understand the cap rule either. Must have been why it didn't pass.

[Holz]

Pretty sure that coaches didn't understand the cap rule either. Must have been why it didn't pass.

it was clear, i think people just want the cap to have the least amount of say as possible. I would guess that if there was a vote on the cap removing it would probably win. But i accept that its staying and not up to vote.

[Memphistopheles]

Roberton has the coaches award in the bag, surely!

Sorry meow but, surely Blicavs has to get the gig.

In terms of a SC improvement he beat all comers...

[Holz]

Ruck OOP

7. Ruck OOP

A) If you name a player OOP in the ruck you still lose 50% of the score (as has always been the case). BUT, if that player is less than 190cm, not only do you lose 50% of your score, the opposition ruck gains 25%. (4)
B) Keep as is. (8 )
C) Receive 75% of a Ruck OOP instead of 50% (4)

So half wanted a change, the other half didn't.

But, there were options omitted the first time, so will give it another go with those options included. This kinda wasn't the indication I was hoping for FWIW (i.e. a balanced opinion).

I think that voting gives a clear indication on what should happen.

A. basically means rucks should be more valuable
B. is no change
C. basically means rucks become less valuable.

so given its an even split the it should be B no change. with half wanting no change, a quarter wanting stronger rucks and a quarter wanting weaker rucks then it should be keep the rucks as valuable.

[meow meow]

Pretty sure that coaches didn't understand the cap rule either. Must have been why it didn't pass.

it was clear, i think people just want the cap to have the least amount of say as possible. I would guess that if there was a vote on the cap removing it would probably win. But i accept that its staying and not up to vote.

Wasn't that clear. Didn't say anything about raising the max cap or nothin'

[Memphistopheles]

Really hate the reserves final rule btw, not that many players actually play 9 reserves games and it heavily favours teams whose seniors aren't playing finals. Now we have two rules - one for regular season one for finals

How so?

If your team was playing in finals, and you had to play Zac Dawson who played 10 games in the reserves up until that point, he would also play in the reserves... same advantage for all teams.

just clarification lets say Ryan Schoenamkers has played 10 games in the reserves and as im hit with restings this week Im forced to play him in my senior team. Does that mean he would play for my Reserves as well?

This isn't a good sign.

I hope that was what everyone was thinking when they were voting?

But yes.

Hate it even more now! I don't think that's how it reads sorry bro

Schoenmakers played almost every game in the reserves this year for Dublin though. I don't think he got a senior game did he?

He should play in the reserves finals in this case - it doesn't make sense for him to not line up in the reserves finals because of shock restings in the last round.

I probably might have lifted the criteria from 10 games to 15 games to be honest. So they literally do have to have play most of the season in the reserves.

But, otherwise the reserve finals are pretty much pointless. It's just whoever has the most players playing who will win most of the time.

[Purple 77]

Really hate the reserves final rule btw, not that many players actually play 9 reserves games and it heavily favours teams whose seniors aren't playing finals. Now we have two rules - one for regular season one for finals

How so?

If your team was playing in finals, and you had to play Zac Dawson who played 10 games in the reserves up until that point, he would also play in the reserves... same advantage for all teams.

just clarification lets say Ryan Schoenamkers has played 10 games in the reserves and as im hit with restings this week Im forced to play him in my senior team. Does that mean he would play for my Reserves as well?

This isn't a good sign.

I hope that was what everyone was thinking when they were voting?

But yes.

Hate it even more now! I don't think that's how it reads sorry bro

Schoenmakers played almost every game in the reserves this year for Dublin though. I don't think he got a senior game did he?

He should play in the reserves finals in this case - it doesn't make sense for him to not line up in the reserves finals because of shock restings in the last round.

I probably might have lifted the criteria from 10 games to 15 games to be honest. So they literally do have to have play most of the season in the reserves.

But, otherwise the reserve finals are pretty much pointless. It's just whoever has the most players playing who will win most of the time.

You misunderstand.

If you had to play Schoenmakers in your seniors this week, that means he can't play for the reserves can he; the comp where he has played all of his games in.

The rule allows him to play in reserves as well as seniors.