WXV Rules Discussion 2017

[meow meow]

9. Punish Moscow if Torp keeps naming 4 emergencies?

[Torpedo10]

9. Punish Moscow if Torp keeps naming 4 emergencies?

I get overexcited about having two playing ruckmen.  ;)

[Purple 77]

so in summary.

1. Ruck OOP - people dont like it wont get up

2. Cap Changes: make total sense and people seem to agree with the logic. Might fail as people dont like change despite it being hte obvious move.

Don't assume the opinions of those not speaking up :P it's only really about 4-5 doin all the talkin

[Holz]

so in summary.

1. Ruck OOP - people dont like it wont get up

2. Cap Changes: make total sense and people seem to agree with the logic. Might fail as people dont like change despite it being hte obvious move.

Don't assume the opinions of those not speaking up :P it's only really about 4-5 doin all the talkin

I know its the people who dont voice their opinion who normally vote no in force.

[Purple 77]

But again, really pleased with the discussion so far  :)

[Nige]

10. Penalise coaches that don't contribute to discussion.

[JBs-Hawks]

So we want to change the cap so it disadvantages people that have drafted good youngsters that have broken out

But we don't want to change the ruck rule because it disadvantages people who have drafted rucks?

[Holz]

So we want to change the cap so it disadvantages people that have drafted good youngsters that have broken out

But we don't want to change the ruck rule because it disadvantages people who have drafted rucks?

It doesnt disadvantage you it takes away your cap advantage. You already benefit from getting guns added to your team why then should you get an advantage by having 111 average players cheaper then 95 average players.

The ruck rule is silly as what about a back rule or a forward rule or a mid rule?

All i want is a cap that reflects a players true value. Everybody knows that Kelly is better then shaw.

[JBs-Hawks]

So we want to change the cap so it disadvantages people that have drafted good youngsters that have broken out

But we don't want to change the ruck rule because it disadvantages people who have drafted rucks?

It doesnt disadvantage you it takes away your cap advantage. You already benefit from getting guns added to your team why then should you get an advantage by having 111 average players cheaper then 95 average players.

The ruck rule is silly as what about a back rule or a forward rule or a mid rule?

All i want is a cap that reflects a players true value. Everybody knows that Kelly is better then shaw.

And how many players that have breakout year's have much slower years the following year?

[Holz]

So we want to change the cap so it disadvantages people that have drafted good youngsters that have broken out

But we don't want to change the ruck rule because it disadvantages people who have drafted rucks?

It doesnt disadvantage you it takes away your cap advantage. You already benefit from getting guns added to your team why then should you get an advantage by having 111 average players cheaper then 95 average players.

The ruck rule is silly as what about a back rule or a forward rule or a mid rule?

All i want is a cap that reflects a players true value. Everybody knows that Kelly is better then shaw.

And how many players that have breakout year's have much slower years the following year?

Id say less then players who decline after playing 18+ games and bounce back.

Honestly who do you think will average more next year Kelly or Shaw?

[JBs-Hawks]

So we want to change the cap so it disadvantages people that have drafted good youngsters that have broken out

But we don't want to change the ruck rule because it disadvantages people who have drafted rucks?

It doesnt disadvantage you it takes away your cap advantage. You already benefit from getting guns added to your team why then should you get an advantage by having 111 average players cheaper then 95 average players.

The ruck rule is silly as what about a back rule or a forward rule or a mid rule?

All i want is a cap that reflects a players true value. Everybody knows that Kelly is better then shaw.

And how many players that have breakout year's have much slower years the following year?

Id say less then players who decline after playing 18+ games and bounce back.

Honestly who do you think will average more next year Kelly or Shaw?

Who do we think averages more next year, the top 50 averaging 22 and unders from this year or the top 50 averaging 28yo and overs?

[Adamant]

Age discount shouldn't apply as early as 28. Simmo, Heath Shaw, Murphy, I'm sure there are many others too who have had their best year(s) after 28. Maybe 31 year olds should attract a little discount, but maybe they don't need them if the preceeding year is going to be given extra weight. Heath Shaw is no certainty to drop again next year.

Just a few more examples of players who have been on a decline for three or more seasons, only to bounce back late in their career.

Nick Riewoldt
30yo: 105.1 > 31: 91.8 > 32: 90.7 > 33: 100.4

Leigh Montagna
25: 121.5 > 26: 114.8 > 27: 100.7 > 28: 99.1 > 29: 114.7

Matthew Boyd
28: 115.5 > 29: 112.8 > 30: 104 > 31: 97.6 > 32: 103.3

Matthew Richardson
30: 99 > 31: 97.3 > 32: 82.3 > 33: 97.3

James Kelly
28: 103.5 > 29: 90.8 > 30: 88.8 > 31: 75.7 > 32: 95.8

Sam Mitchell
28: 113.4 > 29: 110.7 > 30: 104.2 > 31: 91.1 > 32: 108.7

Scott Thompson
28: 110.7 > 29: 110.1 > 30: 98.3 > 31: 93.6 > 32: 102.5

Corey Enright
28: 98.1 > 29: 96.4 > 30: 93.9 > 31: 93.9 > 32: 89 > 33: 95.3

Lenny Hayes
29: 118.5 > 30: 103.4 > 31: 86.5 > 32: 102.3

Dane Swan
28: 126.3 > 29: 117.5 > 30: 86.4 > 31: 105.8



There are plenty of others who have declined for two seasons before bouncing back too. My personal favourite is Shane Tuck who went a massive 115.1 (career best) in his second last season at the age of 31. Shaw could go back to a 100 average for all we know.

[meow meow]

McVeigh will average 120 next year based on his form lately. I don't want your stinkin' discount, I'll be happy to just own him.

[Adamant]

I'd like to see the sub rule scrapped. I like the luck/unpredictability factor when a player goes down early and feel like getting a replacement is a bit soft. I also think it's a bit flawed how in one scenario, you could have a player get injured 2 minutes before HT for a score of 40 and get a ton from your emergency, but if you get injured 2 minutes into the third quarter you've gotta cop it.

A total of 4 minutes of gametime could be a 60 point difference.

[Ricochet]

I'd like to see the sub rule scrapped. I like the luck/unpredictability factor when a player goes down early and feel like getting a replacement is a bit soft. I also think it's a bit flawed how in one scenario, you could have a player get injured 2 minutes before HT for a score of 40 and get a ton from your emergency, but if you get injured 2 minutes into the third quarter you've gotta cop it.

A total of 4 minutes of gametime could be a 60 point difference.

And that the sub rule no longer exists in AFL too

I reckon get rid of it too