WXV Rules Discussion 2018

[Holz]

I like how you used that particular pic Holz. Pitto got spanked so bad that game it got posted on PH.

Over a year and a half ago, they played recently and Preuss got him again.

Preuss 48 Hit outs 17 touches 5 marks (2 contested) 2 tackles
Pitto 30 Hitouts 12 touches 2 marks

Preuss is a pretty tough match up though, the man is a beast. He also beat Mcevoy last year while he was sharing the ruck duty with Goldy while Mcevoy was largely rucking Solo.

[RaisyDaisy]

Keep bragging about spuds who'll never play  consistent AFL

[GoLions]

How about we scrap the captains

[Holz]

Keep bragging about spuds who'll never play  consistent AFL

name the rucks who will be the future #1s at their team.

[RaisyDaisy]

Keep bragging about spuds who'll never play  consistent AFL

name the rucks who will be the future #1s at their team.

Definitely not Pietonet, and Preuss won't get games while Goldy is around

[GoLions]

Keep bragging about spuds who'll never play  consistent AFL

name the rucks who will be the future #1s at their team.

Definitely not Pietonet, and Preuss won't get games while Goldy is around

Debatable

[Holz]

Keep bragging about spuds who'll never play  consistent AFL

name the rucks who will be the future #1s at their team.

Definitely not Pietonet, and Preuss won't get games while Goldy is around

Debatable

So yours saying the 22 year old , clear number 1 ruck of Box Hill is no chance of taking over the Hawks long term?

I wonder who will then.

[GoLions]

Keep bragging about spuds who'll never play  consistent AFL

name the rucks who will be the future #1s at their team.

Definitely not Pietonet, and Preuss won't get games while Goldy is around

Debatable

So yours saying the 22 year old , clear number 1 ruck of Box Hill is no chance of taking over the Hawks long term?

I wonder who will then.

You responding to me or RD? :p

[Holz]

Keep bragging about spuds who'll never play  consistent AFL

name the rucks who will be the future #1s at their team.

Definitely not Pietonet, and Preuss won't get games while Goldy is around

Debatable

So yours saying the 22 year old , clear number 1 ruck of Box Hill is no chance of taking over the Hawks long term?

I wonder who will then.

You responding to me or RD? :p

RD i thought id keep the train going rather then break it. Have totally derailed the rules thread though so should probably stop.

[JBs-Hawks]

Keep bragging about spuds who'll never play  consistent AFL

name the rucks who will be the future #1s at their team.

Definitely not Pietonet, and Preuss won't get games while Goldy is around

Debatable

So yours saying the 22 year old , clear number 1 ruck of Box Hill is no chance of taking over the Hawks long term?

I wonder who will then.

Clarko will let someone else develop, then snag.

[DazBurg]

Just continuing on with what I mentioned

We've had this discussion in previous years, but I genuinely think this idea has merit

This year we've had 130 defenders play 10+ games and 154 forwards play 10+ games

Only 22 rucks have played 10+ games

The math says that works out to be 7.2 defenders per team, 8.5 forwards per team and only 1.2 rucks per team

We need to name 4 defenders and 4 forwards, when on average teams should have 7+ to choose from most weeks, but when they don't, we get a pass with the ability to flood or attack

On the other hand, with only 1 ruck per team on average, we get penalised to the extent of copping a 50% hit, which in most cases will result in a loss

There's two ways I would like to recommend

1. We scrap Flood/Attack
2. Instead of height/less% or any other suggestion we've previously had, we implement a third tactic to utilise alongside Flood and Attack. Perhaps we can call it "Pace" or "Speed" or anything else, but essentially we have the ability to name 5 mids and no ruck

Right now Flood/Attack can be used at any time - you don't need literally only have 3 players available, you can use freely. The same would also be available for this new option too

We currently have a cap of 5 times a year for Flood/Attack being used. We would need to keep a cap, but whether we stick at 5 or increase/reduce can be up for discussion

Once you've used up your 5 or however many for the year, then OOP at 50% applies as per normal

In years prior I have voted against a height ruling even to our own detriment
Not saying I am. convinced yet
But
I do agree most on RD’s list of this post that
If no ruling done though I don’t think attack or flood is fair if no ruck rule

[iZander]

Just continuing on with what I mentioned

We've had this discussion in previous years, but I genuinely think this idea has merit

This year we've had 130 defenders play 10+ games and 154 forwards play 10+ games

Only 22 rucks have played 10+ games

The math says that works out to be 7.2 defenders per team, 8.5 forwards per team and only 1.2 rucks per team

We need to name 4 defenders and 4 forwards, when on average teams should have 7+ to choose from most weeks, but when they don't, we get a pass with the ability to flood or attack

On the other hand, with only 1 ruck per team on average, we get penalised to the extent of copping a 50% hit, which in most cases will result in a loss

There's two ways I would like to recommend

1. We scrap Flood/Attack
2. Instead of height/less% or any other suggestion we've previously had, we implement a third tactic to utilise alongside Flood and Attack. Perhaps we can call it "Pace" or "Speed" or anything else, but essentially we have the ability to name 5 mids and no ruck

Right now Flood/Attack can be used at any time - you don't need literally only have 3 players available, you can use freely. The same would also be available for this new option too

We currently have a cap of 5 times a year for Flood/Attack being used. We would need to keep a cap, but whether we stick at 5 or increase/reduce can be up for discussion

Once you've used up your 5 or however many for the year, then OOP at 50% applies as per normal

In years prior I have voted against a height ruling even to our own detriment
Not saying I am. convinced yet
But
I do agree most on RD’s list of this post that
If no ruling done though I don’t think attack or flood is fair if no ruck rule

Some really good points made but im still not a fan of "flood/attack" for rucks or the height rule

[Ringo]

Simple solution if playing an oop ruck based on height then you can not use fllood or attack.

[GoLions]

Simple solution if playing an oop ruck based on height then you can not use fllood or attack.

What is this a solution to?

[Holz]

Simple solution if playing an oop ruck based on height then you can not use fllood or attack.

What is this a solution to?

teams who dont want to pay for coverage so they can have a way to get around  the rules that we have been working with since inception over 6 years ago.