2015 WXV Awards and 2015 Rules Discussion

[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.

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.

No I understand perfectly and this is why I voted for the rule.

I think it makes the reserve finals more competitive and I am all for this.

Even if some players essentially play two games/scores count twice. But, unlike the AFL we don't have actual reserve players we can count on in the WAFL/VFL etc so this is a good solution.

[meow meow]

Tony Armstrong is the only player who should be allowed to do that.

[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

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.

The reserves competition has always been about who had the most depth (doesn't matter whether it is the regular season or the finals, it is the same, you have more players, you have a greater advantage). So I don't agree with the 'otherwise' sorry Memph, the current rules mean the scoring system is the same for both the regular season and the finals. The method you are suggesting means that scoring system suddenly changes.

The resting issue is a different topic IMO.



Memph - it doesn't make it more competitive in the finals at all. I don't understand that logic one bit.

[ossie85]

Just another point...

Memph you raise the fact that restings impacts the reserves score. BUT if there is a resting it basically means that another player who wouldn't normally be playing is playing, shouldn't those players be excluded because of the same logic? If so, how do you determine which players are the players that normally wouldn't be playing?

[ossie85]

Well said Holz, I didn't realise you felt that way about the cap, thanks for adding that to a completely different topic.

If anyone else said it, it would make them look petty and whiny, but when you say it, it really rings true.

[meow meow]

The point of the cap is to try to get players like Libba, Daisy and JOM so in reality you have a 34000 cap vs everyone else's 30000. Obviously.

[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.

No I understand perfectly and this is why I voted for the rule.

I think it makes the reserve finals more competitive and I am all for this.

Even if some players essentially play two games/scores count twice. But, unlike the AFL we don't have actual reserve players we can count on in the WAFL/VFL etc so this is a good solution.

Ah ooops, totally misread. My apologies.

[RaisyDaisy]

I feel like a bit of an a$$hole after reading a lot of this discussion, because personally I couldn't give two showers about Reserves  :-X

[RaisyDaisy]

Just looking at the PM Purps sent about the 3 rules left

In regards to the Ruck OOP rule - I'm sure it goes without saying but because it wasn't specifically said I want to check

Teams who have a playing ruck cannot use it can they? Say you have Ayce Cordy as your only ruck and he is named for the Dogs, but you decide you would rather field another player and get 75% of their score, or field a 190cm+ player and get their adjusted score

You cant do that can you? Ruck OOP can only be used if you physically don't have a ruck playing right?

[meow meow]

If I play Yao Ming would I get 50% + 117%?

[Memphistopheles]

If I play Yao Ming would I get 50% + 117%?

Haha sure thing.

But, the tallest player in the AFL who isn't a ruck and was on a list in 2015 was Lachie Keeffe I believe who was 211cm. So the best you could get was an 86% OOP ruck.

Roughead and Daniher at 200cm are genuine options then who would score 83% as your OOP ruck.

[Memphistopheles]

Just looking at the PM Purps sent about the 3 rules left

In regards to the Ruck OOP rule - I'm sure it goes without saying but because it wasn't specifically said I want to check

Teams who have a playing ruck cannot use it can they? Say you have Ayce Cordy as your only ruck and he is named for the Dogs, but you decide you would rather field another player and get 75% of their score, or field a 190cm+ player and get their adjusted score

You cant do that can you? Ruck OOP can only be used if you physically don't have a ruck playing right?

Correct.

Applies to other positions as well as I'm fairly sure there is a rule that you cannot play a guy out of position if you have a guy playing who is that position.

[meow meow]

If I play Yao Ming would I get 50% + 117%?

Haha sure thing.

But, the tallest player in the AFL who isn't a ruck and was on a list in 2015 was Lachie Keeffe I believe who was 211cm. So the best you could get was an 86% OOP ruck.

Roughead and Daniher at 200cm are genuine options then who would score 83% as your OOP ruck.

Keefe is a mere 204. Only big Sandi and Mason Cox have breached the 211 barrier.

Also, I think you need to have a word to your maths teacher.

[Purple 77]

Just looking at the PM Purps sent about the 3 rules left

In regards to the Ruck OOP rule - I'm sure it goes without saying but because it wasn't specifically said I want to check

Teams who have a playing ruck cannot use it can they? Say you have Ayce Cordy as your only ruck and he is named for the Dogs, but you decide you would rather field another player and get 75% of their score, or field a 190cm+ player and get their adjusted score

You cant do that can you? Ruck OOP can only be used if you physically don't have a ruck playing right?

Correct.

Applies to other positions as well as I'm fairly sure there is a rule that you cannot play a guy out of position if you have a guy playing who is that position.

[Nige]

I'm lost.