WXV Rules Discussion 2017

[GoLions]

What about the flood/attack suggested change

[meow meow]

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.

A) Change to: If this scenario happens again, instead the rested player is 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
B) Keep as is

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.

A) Change to: 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.
B) Keep as is

3. Ruck OOP (haven't forgotten about the 'Pinch-Hit' suggestion. That will be in the next PM)
A) Instead of a 50% penalty to your OOP player, award a 50% bonus to the opposition ruck, to make it more realistic.
B) Keep as is

4. Allow Teams to 'Trade' below Minimum Salary Cap?
A) Yes
B) No

5. Assuming the current model of the salary cap is maintained (or a slight variant is implemented):
A) Allow draft picks to count as $100k for cap purposes?
B) Allow 'available list spots' to count as $100k each?
C) Neither of the above; don't count them in the cap.

6. Rolling/Partial Lockout VC Loopholing
A) Continue to Allow
B) Disallow - meaning that only 'reasonable' and AFL selected players can be chosen as a C

7. Rolling/Partial Lockout Emgerncy Loopholing
A) Continue to Allow
B) Disallow - meaning that only 'reasonable' and AFL selected players can be chosen in the starting XV

8. Past player comebacks (implemented from 2018 onwards)
A) Keep current bidding system
B) Previous players should automatically return to the list they were on without the bidding process

9. Trading of Officially Retired Players
A) Continue to allow for those struggling with minimum cap
B) Disallow

10. Home Ground Advantage
A) Keep - adds a fun element to the game
B) Scrap - decides too many games

11. Sub Rule
A) Keep - stops injured players from ruining your game
B) Scrap - I like the luck/unpredictability factor when a player goes down early and feel like getting a replacement is a bit soft

12. Priority Picks
A) Keep the current system of:
- Lose less than 4 games in one year, you get an end of first round priority pick
- Lose less than 4 games in two consecutive years, you get a start of first round priority pick

B) Change system to:
- Lose less than 4 games in one year, you get an end of first round priority pick
- Lose less than 4 games in two consecutive years, you get a mid first round priority pick (after all non-finalists)
- Lose less than 4 games in three consecutive years, you get a start of first round priority pick

13. Utilities
A) Continue being allowed to name whomever you like, regardless of their position
B) Limit the utilities to one midfielder, where the second spot has to be a player from another position (DPP mids are allowed), whilst also extending the bench to 4 players

14. WXV Draw
If the rounded scores are the same e.g. 1297 --> 130, and 1302 --> 130, should the game be a draw?

A) Yes, adds more drama to the game
B) No, the team that scores the most points should win

15. Rookie List Salaries - should they count?
A) Yes
B) No

1. A
2. B
3. B
4. B
5. B
6. B
7. B
8. B
9. B
10. B
11. A
12. B
13. B
14. A
15. A

[meow meow]

It's just a matter of time before the AFL does away with rookie lists. We should just take lists to 44 or 45 and have 2 drafts, with rookies and leftovers in the 2nd draft.

[Purple 77]

What about the flood/attack suggested change

Alright, these are the topics that I feel either A) need expanding or B) needs further discussion/acknowledgement or C) needs to articulate the options for me

I'd like it to be done by the author if at all possible, which I've included:

1. Alternate Team Formats (for everyone to discuss)

[Purple 77]

7. Closed. Just discussing it and giving it a bit of air time is enough for now

Ah yes, for the other authors,  I forgot to mention that you can do that too :)

[GoLions]

What about the flood/attack suggested change

Alright, these are the topics that I feel either A) need expanding or B) needs further discussion/acknowledgement or C) needs to articulate the options for me

I'd like it to be done by the author if at all possible, which I've included:

1. Alternate Team Formats (for everyone to discuss)

Ah so that's what that one meant haha

Well my suggestion was simply that, instead of 3 flood and 3 attack, we can change our formation 5 times in total. Could be 5 floods, 5 attacks, 4 floods and 1 attack, etc.

[Purple 77]

Oh right, yeah what I had in mind is that we hadn't explored 'penalties' or other modifiers for going this way.

In acknowledging that some wanted some sort of 'price' to pay from straying from the normal XV structure, I'd simply suggest this

(assuming your opponent has a normal setup)

If you flood, your lowest scoring defender gets a 10% bonus. The oppositions' best defender gets a 10% bonus.

If you attack, your lowest scoring forward gets a 10% bonus. The oppositions' best forward gets a 10% bonus.

If you pinch hit, the opposition ruck gets a 10% bonus.

You can do any team setup you like, at a combined max of 5 times in the year, but you cannot do so in finals.

IMO, this way, the bonus, or differences in, are small enough to provide a 'cost' from straying from the traditional set up, whilst not having a LIKELY bearing on the result?

[GoLions]

I would like to have my proposal separate to that one :p

[RaisyDaisy]

I'm a fan of getting 5 to use each year, and including Pinch hit, but I don't think you should get any bonus for any of them - only your opponent gets a bonus because you haven't been able to name a normal XV

- If you flood, your opponents lowest scoring forward gets a 10% bonus
- If you attack, your opponents lowest scoring defender gets a 10% bonus
- If you Pinch Hit, your opponents ruck gets a 10% bonus

Thoughts?

[Purple 77]

I would like to have my proposal separate to that one :p

It will be :P given my idea is an extension of yours.

[GoLions]

So with number 4, and this kinda ties in with number 5 depending on the result there.

If I'm 250k below the cap with 3 vacancies, and B is voted in for #5, am I then considered as being 250k below the min cap still, or 50k above?

[Nige]

I'm a fan of getting 5 to use each year, and including Pinch hit, but I don't think you should get any bonus for any of them - only your opponent gets a bonus because you haven't been able to name a normal XV

- If you flood, your opponents lowest scoring forward gets a 10% bonus
- If you attack, your opponents lowest scoring defender gets a 10% bonus
- If you Pinch Hit, your opponents ruck gets a 10% bonus

Thoughts?

[Torpedo10]

I'm a fan of getting 5 to use each year, and including Pinch hit, but I don't think you should get any bonus for any of them - only your opponent gets a bonus because you haven't been able to name a normal XV

- If you flood, your opponents lowest scoring forward gets a 10% bonus
- If you attack, your opponents lowest scoring defender gets a 10% bonus
- If you Pinch Hit, your opponents ruck gets a 10% bonus

Thoughts?

Full support for this idea, except I'd argue the ruck loss still needs to be slightly greater. Maybe 20%?

[Nige]

I mean, ideally I think that capping the other formats to 5 is best, but no bonuses at all is the best. If anything, teams should be penalised for not having the traditional format, but I don't think giving a bonus to the other team as well is entirely necessary.

[JBs-Hawks]

I'm a fan of getting 5 to use each year, and including Pinch hit, but I don't think you should get any bonus for any of them - only your opponent gets a bonus because you haven't been able to name a normal XV

- If you flood, your opponents lowest scoring forward gets a 10% bonus
- If you attack, your opponents lowest scoring defender gets a 10% bonus
- If you Pinch Hit, your opponents ruck gets a 10% bonus

Thoughts?

Full support for this idea, except I'd argue the ruck loss still needs to be slightly greater. Maybe 20%?

Yea I like it