WXV Rules Discussion 2018

[DazBurg]

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.

i actually am thinking the opposite
leave OOP ruck
but if we do that like RD said easier to have def or fwds

so why can we flood or attack, reckon we have used it maybe 2 times the whole time we have ever been able too (not sure if purps has those stats for all seasons kept etc)


so my point is maybe leave Ruck rule but if so it is unfair to be able to attack or flood when there are clearly more fwds and defs then rucks

or leave attack & flood and make another one for helping with ruck rulings etc

[RaisyDaisy]

Exactly what I've said Daz

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

[DazBurg]

Exactly what I've said Daz

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

yup never actually honestly thought of why we can attack or flood but no ruck till you brought it up

now after you pointed it out strongly agree is either all allowed or none

[upthemaidens]

How about (like with flood/Attack) we are able to not name a Ruck a few times a year.
  Or get a smaller penalty for an OOP Ruck, instead of half points maybe 10-20%.  Which can be used X amount of times per season.

Cough Cough

[Purple 77]

I still reckon it'd be better that if you played an OOP ruck, he doesn't get penalised, but the oppositon ruck gets a 50% bonus

.... Now pretend I didn't say that as the owner of Gawn :-X

[GoLions]

I still reckon it'd be better that if you played an OOP ruck, he doesn't get penalised, but the oppositon ruck gets a 50% bonus

.... Now pretend I didn't say that as the owner of Gawn :-X

What about both; 50% penalty for OOP and 50% bonus for oppo ruck. OOP ruck would get smashed against an actual ruck irl, hence the 50% penalty, and actual ruck would destroy, hence the 50% bonus.

[DazBurg]

That's an interesting thought actually. The 'top-up' picks to be allocated from players available after the natural order of the rookie draft.

Reckon this should be implemented

so to add further information on this

the loophole atm is you can trade all your picks as sweetners and half your team knowing you can get "free picks" at the end of the international draft to fill out your list

the list of these players are

2014
Tayte Pears
Daniel Nielson
Jacob Townsend
Ted Richards
James Podsiadly
Josh Cowan
Kyle Cheney
Dustin Fletcher

2015
Liam Hulett
Lincoln McCarthy
Tim O'Brien
Sam Skinner
Joel Patfull
Jordan Dawson
Daniel Butler
Matthew Allen

2016
Sam Rowe
Jake Long
Nathan Wright
Mitchell Lewis

2017
Cameron O'Shea (former player bidding) (still not a real pick)
Tyler Brown
Matt Guelfi
Jack Leslie
Matt Shaw
Paul Hunter
Nick Holman (former player bidding)(still not a real pick)
David Mackay
Tory Dickson
Sam Switkowski
Darren Minchington
Jeremy Finlayson
Jimmy Toumpas
Kane Farrell
Cory Gregson
Tristan Xerri
Dylan Buckley
Michael Apeness
Brandon Zerk-Thatcher
Rohan Bewick


so as you can see it is increasing
now most are what you'd class as spuds but using PNL as an example
if i could of drafted in the rookie draft a number of thee players we would of had more then 14 playing early in the season (hell 4 of them are what we were forced to delist)

also i believe it is unfair on those teams who legitimately trade in late picks to ensure they have enough to cover the spots they need (RD & AK both great at this and unfair to them for making the effort)

if you choose to trade all your picks and half your team without getting late picks in to ensure you can participate in the draft for all your spots,

you should instead get these free picks allocated at the end of the rookie draft
so you get what it really is meant to be free ones but the untaken ones


also not to mention when they are on traded afterwards to profit from when never having a legitimate pick fr them in the first place

[RaisyDaisy]

Good stuff Daz

We certainly always ensure we have 44 players/picks by the end of the trade period

To be honest I just always thought it was mandatory

[upthemaidens]

Remove Attack/Flood, test the Clubs depth and balance even more.

[Holz]

Remove Attack/Flood, test the Clubs depth and balance even more.

agree, just get cover

[RaisyDaisy]

Remove Attack/Flood, test the Clubs depth and balance even more.

I'm fine with that. As I've suggested, we either remove it, or bring in something for rucks in the same vein

Can't continue on as is though because it's flawed - a change is required

[Nige]

Yeah, I’d be more than happy to see it removed.

[Holz]

Remove Attack/Flood, test the Clubs depth and balance even more.

I'm fine with that. As I've suggested, we either remove it, or bring in something for rucks in the same vein

Can't continue on as is though because it's flawed - a change is required

yep scrap it all.

thats the fair thing to do

[RaisyDaisy]

Going back to the loophole discussion now, as much as emergency loophole is a tactic used by most SC coaches, I do think that it's probably a bit too messy for WXV

I do however like the simplicity of introducing VC loophole to World's

When we VC loop in SC we are required to use a non playing player to bank that score, and that results in a player on the benches score counting, but then that tips into the emergency loop side of things so to avoid that I would propose a simpler way

We scrap CC, and move to VC and C. Each week your VC is someone who plays before your C and if you want to bank the VC score you simply post in the thread advising Purps of so, however you must post advising so before your C plays otherwise you miss banking it and your C remains as captain

This means there is no need to field a non player, emergency loop etc so we avoid all of that and keep things nice and simple

Don't want to bank your VC? Great, nothing to do, just leave things as is and your C remains as chosen

Want to bank your VC? Simple, just make it known in the weeks match day thread prior to your C playing

[RaisyDaisy]

Sounds like we can put the flood attack ruck talks to bed

When the votes go out, it will be

A) Keep Flood Attack as is
B) Keep Flood Attack but add ruck rule
C) Scrap it all

Hopefully we don't get any if many votes for A, but because it's the current process it needs to be an option I guess