WXV Rules Discussion 2017

[Purple 77]

And another vote in!

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



With 10 votes to 3, A wins, so that is our second change for 2018!



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

With 10 votes to 3, I'm personally disappointed to see 'A' win. But the people have spoken, so that's our third change.



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

With 10 votes to 3, B wins, so this practice is officially banned and will render the trade void.

[upthemaidens]

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

This would decrease the value of M5-M7 players, would there be any compensation for clubs who paid a pretty penny for starting mids Last season?
  It's a utility, the player plays any position.  Mids just happen to be the most abundant because that's where the points are and they're more available.

[JBs-Hawks]

How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

[Nige]

How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

I'm pretty disappointed that the rule changed. I feel like we should be encouraging teams to remain above the cap at all times and now we're excusing them dipping below. It's a bit fraught with danger, but the people have spoken apparently.

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

This would decrease the value of M5-M7 players, would there be any compensation for clubs who paid a pretty penny for starting mids Last season?
  It's a utility, the player plays any position.  Mids just happen to be the most abundant because that's where the points are and they're more available.

You're not gonna get compensated for having mid depth, don't be ridiculous.

[GoLions]

How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

Tbh don't think a 2nd round pick would be harsh enough. Very surprised this rule got changed. Also what if you traded all your picks haha. Perhaps a loss of premiership points, so you start the season at somewhere between -1 and -4.

[RaisyDaisy]

I think we jumped the gun with the cap rule, because it needs more clarity

We voted yes to being able to dip below, BUT that was under the assumption rookie picks of 100K each would now be added to the cap pre draft

You can't have teams dip below including their rookies already, because that does in fact cause a problem

If you're doing a trade that puts you say 200K under during the trade period that's fine as long as you have more than that worth of Nat pick 100K slots

Can't say the 100K now adds, AND you can dip below

Also, the ruck rule - I know you said there's still more to come but as of now I'm assuming OOP gets full score but opponent gets 50% + 10% for Pinch Hit. I'm sure that's not the case but a bit of clarity would be appreciated

[GoLions]

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

This would decrease the value of M5-M7 players, would there be any compensation for clubs who paid a pretty penny for starting mids Last season?
  It's a utility, the player plays any position.  Mids just happen to be the most abundant because that's where the points are and they're more available.

You're not gonna get compensated for having mid depth, don't be ridiculous.

Haha agreed

[Holz]

Has Purps not asked for at least 50 on multiple occasions?

Feel free to make a comment that add value in regards to comments of the given examples.

[Nige]

Has Purps not asked for at least 50 on multiple occasions?

Feel free to make a comment that add value in regards to comments of the given examples.

Don't lobby so hard for your proposed idea and then not be prepared to do the one thing requested of you.

[JBs-Hawks]

Has Purps not asked for at least 50 on multiple occasions?

Feel free to make a comment that add value in regards to comments of the given examples.

Your examples showed nothing new,  the random examples barely changed,  and you kept showing the extreme cases

[Purple 77]

How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

We most certainly will have penalties, I guarantee you that.

However, if draft picks/list spots are made to be worth 100k each, we'll know by the teams list lodgement whether they are on track to surpass the minimum or not.

The vast majority of coaches have voted in favour of it, so we'll be allowing it.

[meow meow]

Highest averaging player goes to me as my compo for teams that finish below the minimum cap. Vote it in.

[Holz]

Has Purps not asked for at least 50 on multiple occasions?

Feel free to make a comment that add value in regards to comments of the given examples.

Your examples showed nothing new,  the random examples barely changed,  and you kept showing the extreme cases

Most players dont change thats the point only the extreme cases show changes its called a tinker.

I went athabetical and captured most of the As

Name some players you want.

Sounds like you just dont like the rule as it correctly takes away your advantage from the flawed system. If yiu were unbias the rule makes sense.

[Nige]

So if it is in fact 'tinkering' then it's a very slight change.

And the fact that it's only making adjustments to 'extreme cases' and the vast majority of players are unaffected, then why bother changing it?

That's change for the sake of change.

[GoLions]

So didnt get through 50 but put up a sizable list. Did  players with A surnames excluding irrelevant ones then a few example.

So its Player, Ossie Average, Holz Average, Difference, Explination if needed

Ryan Abbott 0 0 0 players who haven't played dont change
Gary Ablett 114.5 114.5 0
Blake Acres 71 71 0
Marcus Adams 80 80 0
Taylor Adams 101 106 5 - small increase to reflect that Taylor has listed his average slightly this year
Callum Ah Chee 58.5 57.5 -1
Ben Ainsworth 62 62 0
James Aish 57 57 0
Alirr Alirr 65 64 -1
Karl Amon 59 59 0
Harris Andrews 67 70 3
David Astbury 69 74 5
Shuan Atley 66 68.5 2.5

Now no major differences in any of them a few have improved a few points to reflect their increased scoring this year.

Heath Shaw 102 84.5 -17.5 major dip to reflect the truth that Shaw is no longer a 100+ defender.
Josh Kelly 89 112 22.5 kelly has gone ul alot given is a star of this comp and one of the MVP in the league
Clayton Oliver 95 112 17 note he cost more then Kelly under ossie cap because he was a 2nd year player.
Todd Goldstein 112.5 107 -5.5 Goldy clearly dropped but Ossie has that 128 season lingering in his average.
Dustin Martin 110 118 8 Dustin been a star for years so hence still priced at 110 under ossie but he is a top 3 player and my system reflects this

Nic Nat 105 105 0 under both systems priced the same so no need to worry about the libba rule
Matthew Kreuzer 90 110 20 perhaps the only contentions one but Kreuz is the number 1 ruck in the comp and 90 is way too low. Note he costs 12 points less then heath shaw

If people have any requests pleas ask.

I don't think the younger guys should be, using Oliver and Kelly as an example, priced using just their performance from this year. It's the first time that they have hit these heights, who knows, they might not back it up. Think it should be somewhere in-between what you and Oss have.