WXV Round 6: When will Seoul & Pacific lift?

[RaisyDaisy]

Feck, short lockout turnaround got me :'(

Given 3 of my Best XV played tonight (Ellis, Lambert, Caddy), I guess I'll probably cop the strike :-\

I'd like to bring this rule up for discussion at the end of year rules talk

The fact that you can take a "strike" that has no penalty attached (So how can it even be called a strike?) is unfair to the opposition who did name their side and follow protocol

I think you should be able to name your side, but from the remaining 16 teams (8 games) of the round. Being able to get players from a game that has already been played, without naming them, is not fair imo and because of that the "strike" actually means nothing. Missing out on 2 teams players should occur and be part of the strike

[JBs-Hawks]

Feck, short lockout turnaround got me :'(

Given 3 of my Best XV played tonight (Ellis, Lambert, Caddy), I guess I'll probably cop the strike :-\

I'd like to bring this rule up for discussion at the end of year rules talk

The fact that you can take a "strike" that has no penalty attached (So how can it even be called a strike?) is unfair to the opposition who did name their side and follow protocol

I think you should be able to name your side, but from the remaining 16 teams (8 games) of the round. Being able to get players from a game that has already been played, without naming them, is not fair imo and because of that the "strike" actually means nothing. Missing out on 2 teams players should occur and be part of the strike

He wouldnt need to take a strike at all if he named from remaining players.

Thats his choices to take a strike or name from remaining.

[Nige]

Feck, short lockout turnaround got me :'(

Given 3 of my Best XV played tonight (Ellis, Lambert, Caddy), I guess I'll probably cop the strike :-\

I'd like to bring this rule up for discussion at the end of year rules talk

The fact that you can take a "strike" that has no penalty attached (So how can it even be called a strike?) is unfair to the opposition who did name their side and follow protocol

I think you should be able to name your side, but from the remaining 16 teams (8 games) of the round. Being able to get players from a game that has already been played, without naming them, is not fair imo and because of that the "strike" actually means nothing. Missing out on 2 teams players should occur and be part of the strike

He wouldnt need to take a strike at all if he named from remaining players.

Thats his choices to take a strike or name from remaining.

This is exactly right.

The initial act was a mistake (not naming the team in time), but the following act (copping the strike) is a voluntary and conscious decision.

The real discussion should be about if what Jing is doing is fair and ethical if anything.

[Purple 77]

Feck, short lockout turnaround got me :'(

Given 3 of my Best XV played tonight (Ellis, Lambert, Caddy), I guess I'll probably cop the strike :-\

I'd like to bring this rule up for discussion at the end of year rules talk

The fact that you can take a "strike" that has no penalty attached (So how can it even be called a strike?) is unfair to the opposition who did name their side and follow protocol

I think you should be able to name your side, but from the remaining 16 teams (8 games) of the round. Being able to get players from a game that has already been played, without naming them, is not fair imo and because of that the "strike" actually means nothing. Missing out on 2 teams players should occur and be part of the strike

He wouldnt need to take a strike at all if he named from remaining players.

Thats his choices to take a strike or name from remaining.

This is exactly right.

The initial act was a mistake (not naming the team in time), but the following act (copping the strike) is a voluntary and conscious decision.

The real discussion should be about if what Jing is doing is fair and ethical if anything.

[Ringo]

Feck, short lockout turnaround got me :'(

Given 3 of my Best XV played tonight (Ellis, Lambert, Caddy), I guess I'll probably cop the strike :-\

I'd like to bring this rule up for discussion at the end of year rules talk

The fact that you can take a "strike" that has no penalty attached (So how can it even be called a strike?) is unfair to the opposition who did name their side and follow protocol

I think you should be able to name your side, but from the remaining 16 teams (8 games) of the round. Being able to get players from a game that has already been played, without naming them, is not fair imo and because of that the "strike" actually means nothing. Missing out on 2 teams players should occur and be part of the strike

He wouldnt need to take a strike at all if he named from remaining players.

Thats his choices to take a strike or name from remaining.

This is exactly right.

The initial act was a mistake (not naming the team in time), but the following act (copping the strike) is a voluntary and conscious decision.

The real discussion should be about if what Jing is doing is fair and ethical if anything.

Agree and this is something we have to look at - Is it fair an ethical when you know that 3 players who have played and scored 300 to then not name a team and take the strike knowing that there is no real penalty involved.
A further amendment to RDs suggestion if Team is still not lodged from remaining 16 teams then Admin will name the team in preference order from these 16 teams.

[RaisyDaisy]

Well that is all my point, and why this needs to be parked and discussed during the rules chat later in the year

If you don't name your side by the first lockout, then in my opinion you forfeit all your choices

You shouldn't be able to look at the scores, then decide if it's worth naming a team without the players or take a meaningless strike and get their scores. How on earth is that fair and even allowable now?

I will be suggesting a rule to vote, that if you don't name your side in time, admin will then name your side based on list preferences minus the players who have already played, and it still counts as a strike

To me, that is completely fair and how it should be, but I guess for now I'm the one on the losing end :(

[Toga]

Sorry guys, having a two day turnaround is pretty crazy and it caught me out.

I know what you're saying RD, but then on the other hand obviously I would have named Ellis, Caddy and Lambert as they are clearly Best XV players for me (it's not as if they were fringe players that rarely get games), and that is reflected in my list preferences. If I were to name a team without them now, I would not have 4 defenders to choose from.

Anyways, I can appreciate that you'd be better off with me naming a team RD, but it's in the rules at the moment and as I said not the first time it's happened in WXVs.

[RaisyDaisy]

Sorry guys, having a two day turnaround is pretty crazy and it caught me out.

I know what you're saying RD, but then on the other hand obviously I would have named Ellis, Caddy and Lambert as they are clearly Best XV players for me (it's not as if they were fringe players that rarely get games), and that is reflected in my list preferences. If I were to name a team without them now, I would not have 4 defenders to choose from.

Anyways, I can appreciate that you'd be better off with me naming a team RD, but it's in the rules at the moment and as I said not the first time it's happened in WXVs.

All good Toga, and certainly not having a go at you directly, just that you're the example now

The fact is, Lambert and Ellis could have scored horribly, and you'd be able to name as side without them so the fact that you have the choice which is a clear advantage is the problem with the current rule

Of course I'd expect all 3 of those guys to be named, but this occurrence has brought this issue to light now, and I think it's a rule that needs to be amended for next year and beyond for the reasons I outlined in my previous post

[Holz]

Ok so lets discuss it end of the year.

Its the rules now, so bad luck

[RaisyDaisy]

Ok so lets discuss it end of the year.

Its the rules now, so bad luck

Well that is all my point, and why this needs to be parked and discussed during the rules chat later in the year

[Holz]

RD just not used to having to verse teams not missing half their squad.

[RaisyDaisy]

RD just not used to having to verse teams not missing half their squad.

Awww, is someone a bit butthurt that they're losing so much?

I'm missing more players than you are pal

[Ringo]

LONDON ROYALS (Traditional)

D: Blake Hardwick, Marty Hore,Adam Saad ,Brad Shepphard
M: Luke Shuey,Dom Sheed,Jared Polec, Willem Drew
R: Jordan Roughead
F: Tim Membrey,Jack Higgins, Orazio Fantasia, Josh Bruce,Tom Lynch
U: Sam Gray, Lewis Jetta
E: Josh Bruce, Tory Dickson, Dylan Grimes, Timothy English

C: Luke Shuey
VC: Jared Polec

In: Gray, Jetta

Out: Matthieson, Jong

Just updating with Orazio out.

[Holz]

RD just not used to having to verse teams not missing half their squad.

Awww, is someone a bit butthurt that they're losing so much?

I'm missing more players than you are pal

Sorry i should have qualified. Scared of playing a team not missing good players.

Im happy your in the 8, it means there is a free spot up for grabs.

[RaisyDaisy]

RD just not used to having to verse teams not missing half their squad.

Awww, is someone a bit butthurt that they're losing so much?

I'm missing more players than you are pal

Sorry i should have qualified. Scared of playing a team not missing good players.

Im happy your in the 8, it means there is a free spot up for grabs.

Scared? Lol yeah I'm shaking in my boots over a fantasy football matchup

Is that meant to be a burn? It's no secret I'm rebuilding, and therefore won't make finals

There is a spot up for grabs, but your rabble of a team won't get it