WXV Rules Discussion 2017

[Purple 77]

Hey all :D

The majority has revealed itself with 10-2 voting in favour of a rules discussion, so lets get stuck into it  :o

ANYONE can nominate a rule change, and it will be voted on. However, be sure there is adequate explanation to validate your proposed change.

Every now and then throughout the year, someone has brought up something they'd like Worlds to do differently. Now is the time to bring that up, and it WILL be voted on. We only have 3 weeks of the year to discuss rules and change them, so use this time wisely. Once the rules have been voted on, THAT IS IT for the next 12 months! (except for the review on the trade voting process that is held after the trade period)

Personally, my main focus this year is to 'fix' a couple of technicalities with a couple of rules, and *gulp* review and improve the salary cap. Which reminds me...

The only thing that I'm enforcing, even if against the majority, is a cap (of at least some kind) for Worlds. It will not go away whilst I'm admin, so suggestions to get rid of it entirely are fruitless.

This year, instead of suggesting completely new ideas straight off the bat, I'll just start with changes to existing rules I'd like to see for next year, and introduce new ideas as we progress through the thread.

1. Rested Player Late Call-Up

Currently, if you have nominated someone to be rested in a given week and, for example, he is a forward, and someone in your forward line is a late withdrawal and you have no other forwards in your starting 18, the current interpretation of the rule is that rested player comes in at quarter points because:
    - you can't rest someone if you have to field an OOP in his place; and
    - if there is no one in your starting 18 that can replace a player for full points, the next available player comes in at quarter points.

I'd like to change this.

If this scenario happens again, I still don't want the rested player to be available to replace the player (because that'd be like a 4th emergency), instead I'd like him to be ignored for selection and someone has to come in OOP like normal. The rested player would keep his rested bonus for next week. However, this is only permissible if:
   - the players selected in the 18 are named in AFL best 22s at start of the week

Sound fair?

2. Sub rule for named OOP players

Currently, if you are forced to name a player OOP and he is available to be subbed out, he can't be subbed out because the rule states that a player can only be subbed out if his replacement can come on for full points.

I propose that the OOP player can be subbed out for another OOP player, ONLY if the original OOP was named a result of having no available players to fill that position. Of course, the replacement will still have a 50% penalty for being OOP.

Sound fair?

3. Ruck OOP

Breaking my rule of not yet introducing new ideas :P I propose we get rid of the 50% penalty for naming a ruck OOP. Instead, in the efforts to be realistic, I propose that the opposition ruck (if not OOP) gains a 25% bonus if the OOP ruck is equal to or over 190cm, and a 50% bonus if he is shorter than that. Or maybe even a blanket % bonus no matter who it is.

Thoughts?

4. Leadership Group

Keep? Expand? Restrict?

[Nige]

I'm okay with the first two, hate the third one and reckon the leadership group should either be scrapped entirely or kept as is.

Right, so I meant to elaborate but hit send too quick and forgot, heh.

Anyway...

I just think the third one basically excuses not having a ruck or ruck depth. Got a consistent scoring player is over 190cm? Why not just play him and load up on other lines. I wouldn't wanna see bad list management rewarded. In the event that your ruck is injured, that's obviously bad luck but having depth to deal with it is all part of the game (as is the luck side of it). I like the idea that the opponent gets a bonus, but I rather a team is penalised because there's scope for the over 190cm player to still outscore the ruck with a bonus.

If people really want the rule, maybe make it a bit like the flood/attack rule where a coach can nominate to have a "pinch-hitter" or something to play as their ruck but have a restriction of how often it can be used.

[Toga]

I like the three suggestions Purps, and the leadership group is fine by me with how it is at the moment!

Regarding the OOP ruck rule I think imposing a boost on the opposition ruck is more reflective of AFL - take Melbourne for example, putting Tom McDonald in the ruck. It's not as if he gets absolutely towelled up playing OOP, but if he was to come up against an Aaron Sandilands, then obviously Sandi's extra height will hold him well in the contest and he would receive a "boost" of sorts.

Interesting to see discussion over it though!!

[GoLions]

Hey all :D

Hi Purple 77

Personally, my main focus this year is to 'fix' a couple of technicalities with a couple of rules, and *gulp* review and improve the salary cap. Which reminds me...

The only thing that I'm enforcing, even if against the majority, is a cap (of at least some kind) for Worlds. It will not go away whilst I'm admin, so suggestions to get rid of it entirely are fruitless.

#scrapthecap

1. Rested Player Late Call-Up

Currently, if you have nominated someone to be rested in a given week and, for example, he is a forward, and someone in your forward line is a late withdrawal and you have no other forwards in your starting 18, the current interpretation of the rule is that rested player comes in at quarter points because:
    - you can't rest someone if you have to field an OOP in his place; and
    - if there is no one in your starting 18 that can replace a player for full points, the next available player comes in at quarter points.

I'd like to change this.

If this scenario happens again, I still don't want the rested player to be available to replace the player (because that'd be like a 4th emergency), instead I'd like him to be ignored for selection and someone has to come in OOP like normal. The rested player would keep his rested bonus for next week. However, this is only permissible if:
   - the players selected in the 18 are named in AFL best 22s at start of the week

Sound fair?

I would almost be tempted to argue that, if you choose to rest someone and cop a late out and have no cover due to the fact you rested, you should cop a donut. But maybe only if your rested play would have covered that position normally.

2. Sub rule for named OOP players

Currently, if you are forced to name a player OOP and he is available to be subbed out, he can't be subbed out because the rule states that a player can only be subbed out if his replacement can come on for full points.

I propose that the OOP player can be subbed out for another OOP player, ONLY if the original OOP was named a result of having no available players to fill that position. Of course, the replacement will still have a 50% penalty for being OOP.

Sound fair?

Sounds good.

3. Ruck OOP

Breaking my rule of not yet introducing new ideas :P I propose we get rid of the 50% penalty for naming a ruck OOP. Instead, in the efforts to be realistic, I propose that the opposition ruck (if not OOP) gains a 25% bonus if the OOP ruck is equal to or over 190cm, and a 50% bonus if he is shorter than that. Or maybe even a blanket % bonus no matter who it is.

Thoughts?

I would be ok with either a 40-50% boost, or keep as is.

4. Leadership Group

Keep? Expand? Restrict?

I like the leadership group when it comes to loopholing, even if I did totally forget about it 1 week ;D

But I also disliked it when I always had someone outside it killing it during the season (Nank in first half of the year, Blicavs and Hunter in 2nd half). So I'm kinda torn atm.



With regards to flooding and attacking, I would like to suggest a slight change. At the moment, we can flood 3 times a year, and attack 3 times a year. Possibly this could be changed so that, in total, you can flood/attack 5 times during the year?

[meow meow]

If the ruck OOP rule is changed I demand compo. I didn't load my list with rucks for no reason. Teams that didn't invest in rucks get an advantage while I will lose the advantage that I earned via investing in the big men. I wouldn't have paid so much for them if the advantage wasn't worth it.

Or how about we reward my depth by taking the best scorers from their positions and having them make up the XV, like the team of the week does. Worst idea ever. Punishes teams who chose to have no depth. Can't bring in a rule that undermines the integrity of list builds to this point. The defense rests, your honor.

The leadership group is a waste of time. Half of my players captained the team this year anyway. Is Toby McLean a realistic captain choice? No. The leadership group was implemented to make the captain scenarios more realistic.

#scrapthecap

[kilbluff1985]

#scrapthecap

[Hellopplz]

Agree with others on #3.

Means investing in rucks isn't that required, so rucks become less valuable. So a 70 average ruck is still handy, yet may be outscored if somebody plays a tall forward like Taylor Walker in the ruck. So could just load up on tall forwards and defenders who score and not even bother with rucks at all.

I know it's a struggle for some to get rucks but I'm not opposed to a pinch hitter idea like the flood/attack but limited to maybe 1-2 times a year when instead of being penalised you boost the other ruck instead (less disadvantaged if chosen wisely). However, only in place if you don't have a playing ruck!

[Purple 77]

Fair calls on the ruck rule.

To address meow's concerns, would it be better to have a blanket +50% bonus, and you cannot play an OOP ruck by choice?

Would mean you can't shuffle your team to make the taller players go into the ruck spot, and say a 70 average ruck becomes a 105 scoring ruck?

The rule ain't broke, just curious to see what reversing it would look like.

[Holz]

Changes to the cap are very important.

The 3 round rolling average causes huge issues.

Young upcoming players are massively undervalued and older declining players are massively overvalued.

add on to to that the "premium factor" makes this even worse.

some big examples of this.

last year Zach Merrett was coming off a 111 season in his 3rd year in the game after improving both previous years with 64 68.

Priced at 439k

Priddis had gone 113 113 109 so was maintaining but in a slight decline.

Priced at 771k

That shows the huge flaw in the system that a young gun 111 mid was considerably cheaper then a old slightly declining 109 mid.

This year Priddis 93 average, Merrett 112 average.


Solution:

1. The 3 year rolling average was to stop situations where Libba was priced at 0 after missing the previous season. This was fixed but now there are more widespread errors.

If a player plays 18+ games then to me that is a clear indication of their form. Zerrett played 22 for his 111 last year. That is a far better indicator of what he would do next year opposed to his 88 3 year rolling average.

Like wise priddis should have been valued at 109 rather then the 112, 3 year rolling average.

There are even bigger examples of this for next year.

Docherty v Shaw.

Docherty 88 109 119 clearly the best defender in the game by a mile.
Shaw 112 106 85

now with the 3 year rolling average its 106 for Docherty and 101 for shaw. Are you telling me Docherty coming off a 119 should be only marginally more expensive off a guy coming off a 85 average, thats a monster 34 average. Jimmy Toumpas is closer to Shaws average then Docehrty, let that sink in.

So what should happen is

18+ games: 100% of the current season is their average
11-17 games: 50% of the current average 30% of last years and 20% of the year before
6-10 games: 35% of the current average 40% of last years and 25% of the year before
5 or under: 20% of the current average 50% of last years and 30% of the year before.
0 games: 60% of last year and 40% of the year before.

that why the true value of the player is closer. Outliers will always be affected but far less then the old Libba is 0 rule.

under my rule Libba after his knee injury was priced at 108.8 average.

an example of an injured player is say Max Gawn doesnt play the rest of the year.

I would have him priced at 92.2*0.35 + 118*0.4 + 102*0.25 so thats a 105 average. Seems pretty decent to me.

2. Their should be an age discount, this helps both with the fact older players often Decline. Think Shaw, Priddis, JPK etc..

my suggestion is a very small discount. 3% discount for each year when they are 28 years old. This is a maximum discount of 24% which is a 35 year old player.

typically players 27 or under are on an upwards trend and players 28 or over are typically on a downwards trend. This discount doesn't make older players cheaper but it fixed up the uptrend and downtrend.

If i was going to reflect trade values the discount would be much higher to actually make older players cheaper as they are worth less on the trade value, but i am told this is not the point of the cap.

3. Premium factor should be dropped.

a. first up it hurts players who fluctuate in scoring.  130 60 70 115 45 101 = 86 average is 50% premium factor where as i guy going 87 80 95 86 93 81 = 87 average  is a 0% premium factor.

b. it again makes upcoming players cheaper and declining players more expensive.

c. it makes mids more expensive and forwards and defenders cheaper by comparison. Whats better a 105 mid or a 95 defender.

4. Durability factor i dont love but can keep it.

[Toga]

I don't think that it does make having rucks less valuable though. In fact, if you use NDT vs New York this week as an example (this is assuming it would be a blanket +50% bonus):

Current ruck rules (0.5 for OPP ruck): Stefan Martin 96 vs James Harmes 40
=56 point win to NDT

Suggested ruck rules (1.5 for ruck playing against OOP): Stefan Martin 144 vs James Harmes 80
=64 point win to NDT

Essentially it is rewarding teams that have a strong ruck department rather than punishing teams with a weak ruck line as the current rule does. The end result is not a huge change.

Not sure if I've missed something here but that's how I'm reading it :P

[Holz]

I think the ruck OOP rule should be kept as it is.

now on to hopefully more important rule discussion.

[Purple 77]

On that, I'll be working with ossie this week to produce some current salary cap values, on the proviso that they will change in the final 4 weeks of the season.

IIRC, I think the most recent year is counted twice. So like, 2015 is considered, 2016 is considered, then 2017 is counted twice, so it is weighted more. Effectively 4 years.

[Ringo]

Happy with 1 and 2 and Leadership Group.

Regarding OOP Ruck - Admin to decide on legitimacy of OOP Ruck. ie When final team selections are made is the Ruck coverage legitimate where Rucks should be in best 22.  If not maybe impose an additional penalty but if legit like the opposing ruck benefit.

If Cap is maintained - one additional rule change I would like to see is that with trading you can go below cap so long as at start of season you are above minimum cap. You are allowed to go over at upper end so why not below at lower end.

[Purple 77]

If Cap is maintained - one additional rule change I would like to see is that with trading you can go below cap so long as at start of season you are above minimum cap. You are allowed to go over at upper end so why not below at lower end.

Interested to hear on what others think on this.

I'm not a huge fan, but will happily relent if others are OK with it. I'd be more inclined to let draft picks count as a $100k though.

Thing is, if the team doesn't get back over the minimum cap... how do I punish? They're kinda the last team that needs punishing.

[JBs-Hawks]

If Cap is maintained - one additional rule change I would like to see is that with trading you can go below cap so long as at start of season you are above minimum cap. You are allowed to go over at upper end so why not below at lower end.

Interested to hear on what others think on this.

I'm not a huge fan, but will happily relent if others are OK with it. I'd be more inclined to let draft picks count as a $100k though.

Thing is, if the team doesn't get back over the minimum cap... how do I punish? They're kinda the last team that needs punishing.

Nah needs to stay as is, how are they meant to get back over the cap. Easy to get under through delistings, not so easy to magically find players with big salaries.