WXV Rules Discussion 2017

[Ringo]

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.

Diisagree strongly here - I could go below the cap with a trade and if the trade includes a pick it can be rejected as happened last trade period. Say I trade Hanners for 2 first round picks trade would be rejected.

[GoLions]

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.

This^

That way if you have like 10 draft picks, you can go, say, 800k below and you're still fine, providing that you have the list space to use those draft picks. Basically, every free spot on your list is 100k :P

[Ringo]

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.

This^

That way if you have like 10 draft picks, you can go, say, 800k below and you're still fine, providing that you have the list space to use those draft picks. Basically, every free spot on your list is 100k :P

Maybe as a compromise as part of trade justification coach has to specify how they will exceed minimum cap eg have 5 picks at 100k which will take above minumum cap.

[GoLions]

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.

This^

That way if you have like 10 draft picks, you can go, say, 800k below and you're still fine, providing that you have the list space to use those draft picks. Basically, every free spot on your list is 100k :P

Maybe as a compromise as part of trade justification coach has to specify how they will exceed minimum cap eg have 5 picks at 100k which will take above minumum cap.

It doesn't really matter how many picks you have though, just how many list spaces available. If I have 10 picks and 5 free spaces, I'd have to delist 5 anyway which would put me down another 500k at the very least. All Purps has to do is see how many spots are available on your list if you go under the cap, and allocate 100k for each spot.

[Purple 77]

Happy to make "free list spots" worth a 100k each, instead of draft picks. I think I like that better, because it's objectively measured and not subjectively.

I know the Hanners thing was an example, but FTR, that's the exact opposite trade I want teams struggling with the cap to make :P

But yeah, free list spots could be worth 100k, and you can assume up to 45 spots?

[Purple 77]

Ah GL, beat me to it

#onsamepage

[GoLions]

Ah GL, beat me to it

#onsamepage

<3

[RaisyDaisy]

Happy with the first 2 points raised in the OP

Leadership Group is good in the sense of reflecting AFL, but being a game based of SC which has no such thing makes it kind of pointless. I couldn't care whatever is decided about it. Keep it or scrap it

Holz raises very good points regarding the cap, so it does need to be looked at thoroughly

As for the OOP ruck rule, I think I am more than qualified to comment on it lol

Numerous coaches have already said that teams should be essentially punished for not having enough ruck depth, and that the teams who do have rucks shouldn't be penalised for doing so because of their value and what they paid to get them. Both fair points

I think it's completely fair for teams with a ruck to get an advantage over teams without a ruck, but at the same time there needs to be a middle ground because for teams like us, we get severely handicapped every week because all of our rucks are injured. That's not our fault, and there is nothing we can do about it throughout the season. Unless you're going to introduce a mid season trade period so we can rectify that, something needs to change.

Tippett has played 5 games this year, and our back up Zach Clarke has played none. Fitzpatrick and Cameron have also not played

Do you realise how difficult it is to be penalised every week for not having a ruck? And it's not like we haven't tried to get more rucks. There is a limited stock of rucks, and teams don't trade them unless they get ridiculous overs. And the penalty is pretty huge, and can often be the difference between winning and losing because most weeks an OOP ruck scores 20-40, which is putrid

There are 18 teams, and in this year alone only 20 rucks have played 10 or more games

It's a really difficult task to try and come up with a solution that is fair for everyone. Teams that have great rucks and never have to play OOP don't want the value of their rucks watered down, and rightly so, but teams who struggle in the rucks need some sort of help otherwise it just doesn't make them competitive because the penalty is so high

The whole 190cm+ thing I do not like at all.

If a team is down on defenders or forwards, they get to flood or attack which means they don't get penalised at all, but if a team is down in the rucks they do get penalised, so that's not fair and that needs to change

But what is the solution?

I like the idea of the team who has a ruck vs an OOP ruck, they get an advantage, because they have a starting ruck that they have acquired and should get some sort of benefit if that ruck is up against an OOP ruck.

I think OOP ruck needs to be treated equally to flooding and attacking

Flood, Attack and Ruck. Each team gets X amount for the year. GL mentioned 5, and I think that's a good number, but you can use the 5 any way you like. 2 Flood, 2 Attack, 1 Ruck or just use all 5 on Ruck, or Flood for example

However, you are using these tactics because you're list isn't deep enough to cover unexpected outs/injuries so when these tactics are used there should be a penalty for you, and an advantage to your opponent

To keep this as simple as possible, the team who is using one of these tactics simply gets each players score, but the team they are up against gets a bonus. Let's say their lowest scoring player for the round gets a 30% boost *That number can be changed, but I think 50% is too high)

So, we go in with an OOP ruck, lets say we field James Harmes in the ruck. We get his score, but our opponent gets an advantage which is a 30% boost to their lowest scoring players score

The same applies for flood/attack

Part of being a coach is developing a deep enough list to cover injuries and the like. It makes no sense at all that you can flood and attack (because you don't have enough depth) and not get penalised, but you do get penalised for not having a ruck

There are 10 times the amount of defenders and forwards than there are rucks. It's crazy that not having a ruck from such a small player pool incurs such a costly price, but not having enough defenders or forwards has an easy free work around in flood/attack

[RaisyDaisy]

I was going to raise that topic too

Teams like London need to be able to trade and dip below their cap, so using the 100k point or whatever is a good solution

[Purple 77]

I will be suggesting Flood/Attack bonuses too sometime in the future FWIW

I'm happy with Flooding/Attacking without penalty for lack of depth, because that happens at minimum 11 other times throughout the year + finals.

Interested with the pinch hit strat, and I like even more the 5 times using ANY strat

But personally feel no penalties are warranted, just IMO. They're more there to 'cover a bad run of luck' than anything else, so Pinch Hitting could be used in the same vein

[Ringo]

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.

This^

That way if you have like 10 draft picks, you can go, say, 800k below and you're still fine, providing that you have the list space to use those draft picks. Basically, every free spot on your list is 100k :P

Maybe as a compromise as part of trade justification coach has to specify how they will exceed minimum cap eg have 5 picks at 100k which will take above minumum cap.

It doesn't really matter how many picks you have though, just how many list spaces available. If I have 10 picks and 5 free spaces, I'd have to delist 5 anyway which would put me down another 500k at the very least. All Purps has to do is see how many spots are available on your list if you go under the cap, and allocate 100k for each spot.

Sorry meant to clarify that would be part of justification. eg I will be de-listing x players asv well giving me x spots at $100k which will now give me value x which is above cap.

[RaisyDaisy]

I will be suggesting Flood/Attack bonuses too sometime in the future FWIW

I'm happy with Flooding/Attacking without penalty for lack of depth, because that happens at minimum 11 other times throughout the year + finals.

Interested with the pinch hit strat, and I like even more the 5 times using ANY strat

But personally feel no penalties are warranted, just IMO. There more there to 'cover a bad run of luck' than anything else, so Pinch Hitting could be used in the same vein

I'm happy with penalty or no penalty, but I am requesting that OOP ruck be treated an grouped exactly the same as Flood and Attack, because all 3 are doing the exact same thing, but we penalise one and not the other two, and that needs to be fixed

[GoLions]

I will be suggesting Flood/Attack bonuses too sometime in the future FWIW

I'm happy with Flooding/Attacking without penalty for lack of depth, because that happens at minimum 11 other times throughout the year + finals.

Interested with the pinch hit strat, and I like even more the 5 times using ANY strat

But personally feel no penalties are warranted, just IMO. They're more there to 'cover a bad run of luck' than anything else, so Pinch Hitting could be used in the same vein

Yeah, that's what I meant earlier when I suggested it, not sure if that was clear though haha

I will be suggesting Flood/Attack bonuses too sometime in the future FWIW

I'm happy with Flooding/Attacking without penalty for lack of depth, because that happens at minimum 11 other times throughout the year + finals.

Interested with the pinch hit strat, and I like even more the 5 times using ANY strat

But personally feel no penalties are warranted, just IMO. There more there to 'cover a bad run of luck' than anything else, so Pinch Hitting could be used in the same vein

I'm happy with penalty or no penalty, but I am requesting that OOP ruck be treated an grouped exactly the same as Flood and Attack, because all 3 are doing the exact same thing, but we penalise one and not the other two, and that needs to be fixed

Tbf, I think every time I attacked I had an extra defender or two spare, I just chose to attack because my depth forwards were scoring better than whoever would have been my D4, particularly when Pittard was missing games.

[DazBurg]

ok will put my 2 cents worth in

1. i see the point your making here Purps so i'm fine either way but think it does make sense

2. sounds good either way

3. i like the idea of adding it as a strategy like attack/flood but ofc needs to be a certain amount of times a season like 5 has been suggested
the other times maybe it stays as is? duno tbh on how to fix it for all parties

4. leadership group is fine imo can stay but don't mind if it goes either

5. i like holz version of the cap it makes more sense and the beauty is it isn't that hard to work out
Ossie's one is mostly fine but his also very busy and doesn't seem to be around a lot anymore so think it is hard having a cap only ossie knows how to work out

 

[Torpedo10]

I will be suggesting Flood/Attack bonuses too sometime in the future FWIW

I'm happy with Flooding/Attacking without penalty for lack of depth, because that happens at minimum 11 other times throughout the year + finals.

Interested with the pinch hit strat, and I like even more the 5 times using ANY strat

But personally feel no penalties are warranted, just IMO. There more there to 'cover a bad run of luck' than anything else, so Pinch Hitting could be used in the same vein

I'm happy with penalty or no penalty, but I am requesting that OOP ruck be treated an grouped exactly the same as Flood and Attack, because all 3 are doing the exact same thing, but we penalise one and not the other two, and that needs to be fixed

I think the "Five times using any Strategy" makes sense, however surely the lack of a ruckman causes a more severe impact on your side than of a defender/forward?

I'd be fine with employment of the 5 times rule, including the idea of a "pinch hit" ruckman for no OOP penalty in that "Five Time Employment" rule. That said, having the pinch hit ruckman surely has to give a bonus to the opposing ruck in some manner? Whether it be 10 or 20%, it still won't be nearly as bad as the OOP penalty.