2016 WXV Awards and 2016 Rules Discussion

[meow meow]

NDT are greedy flowers who rort the system, make everyone think they're shower so they get away with unfair trades like WTB and Wallis for one spud ruckman. They need to be stopped immediately.

[ossie85]

Pretty quick with the votes - 12 in so far.

These are the teams that haven't voted: Cape Town, London, New York, PNL, Rio de Janeiro, Seoul

I've listed them not to 'shame' them, but to make sure I haven't made a mistake :P If you're on that list, and have voted let me know!

Some really close results so far..... And honestly, some quite surprising ones.

No votes are official... but a couple are only 1 vote away from being decided for sure.

Unless there's a dramatic change in voting, I'm pretty confident on the outcome of 5 of the rules. The other 3 are too close to call IMO.

[Ringo]

Just a question on the Ruck OOP Question 5 option c is it definitely less than 190cm for the 25% discount - thought the concensus was if picking a player above 190cm only 25% would apply.  Makes no sense to give a 25%  discount to a player in ruck less than 190cm.

[ossie85]

Just a question on the Ruck OOP Question 5 option c is it definitely less than 190cm for the 25% discount - thought the concensus was if picking a player above 190cm only 25% would apply.  Makes no sense to give a 25%  discount to a player in ruck less than 190cm.

My bad. That should be more than 190cm.

If anyone would like to change the vote because of that error, let me know

[upthemaidens]

Not knowing what rules you're voting on, but if there is a height rule on OOP Ruck  where are you getting the official heights from?
   Also Players grow, do AFL Clubs update heights every year?
   

[ossie85]

Not knowing what rules you're voting on, but if there is a height rule on OOP Ruck  where are you getting the official heights from?
   Also Players grow, do AFL Clubs update heights every year?
   

AFL Clubs do update heights and weights every year, but as far as official source goes, I don't know

[ossie85]

We have our first result....

Rule #8 'delisting for picks'.... has been rejected.

My view: I didn't really care about this one either way. I don't think it would have made a significant difference either way, but if pushed, may have voted for it.

[RaisyDaisy]

We have our first result....

Rule #8 'delisting for picks'.... has been rejected.

My view: I didn't really care about this one either way. I don't think it would have made a significant difference either way, but if pushed, may have voted for it.

Just sent our votes and this was one we said yes for lol, although didn't really care

Sorry for the slight delay as I'm on holiday atm

I'll just say now we voted to keep the ruck OOP rule as is. I like the idea of there being a rule to reduce the penalty from 50% to 25% but I just don't like the proposed suggestion regarding height. Would prefer if it was actually a player who pinch hit in ruck but didn't get RUC status from CD.

Ah well, maybe next year lol

[upthemaidens]

I realise it's too late, but if you are going to go with a reduction for OOP Ruck.  Maybe it should be based on actual hit-out stats from the previous year rather than height.
  For example a player has to of had a minimum of 20 hit-outs in 2016(or an average of 1 per game) etc. to qualify.  Something along those lines.

[meow meow]

How about they qualify based on surnames. Biggs cops only a 10% penalty but Jayden Short is flowered. Wood = trees = tall.

[Ricochet]

How about they qualify based on surnames. Biggs cops only a 10% penalty but Jayden Short is flowered. Wood = trees = tall.

And if Cox was at NDT he'd get a 50% bonus
Unfortunately he's at Christchurch....

[meow meow]

How about they qualify based on surnames. Biggs cops only a 10% penalty but Jayden Short is flowered. Wood = trees = tall.

And if Cox was at NDT he'd get a 50% bonus
Unfortunately he's at Christchurch....

TBH I'd be better off playing a regular OOP.

[ossie85]

3 votes left! (Cape Town, PNL, Rio de Janeiro)

Results we know so far

Rule 1 (Cap Change): Not decided yet
Rule 2 (How we count the Points Cap): Not decided yet
Rule 3 (Flood/Attack): Not decided yet
Rule 4 (Tag): Decided - No Tag
Rule 5 (Ruck OOP): Decided - Leave as is
Rule 6 (Form Confidence): Decided Rejected
Rule 7 (Cap Concessions): Not decided yet
Rule 8 (Delisting for picks): Decided Rejected

[iZander]

Rule 7 (Cap Concessions): Not decided yet

soo, do team pendles and toronto have a disadvantage here because of the redraft? or?

[Purple 77]

Rule 7 (Cap Concessions): Not decided yet

soo, do team pendles and toronto have a disadvantage here because of the redraft? or?

Yes, they would be. But if the consensus wants it, we gotta start sometime  :-\