WXV Rules Discussion 2019

[Purple 77]

Hey all :D

For the newbies, we have this annual pre-vote to determine whether we're willing to approach rule discussions with an open mind, or not. Because if we're not, then I have no interest in generating the discussion.

The majority has revealed itself with a resounding 'yes' for rule discussion, so lets get stuck into it  :o

ANYONE can nominate a rule change, and it will be voted on. However, be sure there is adequate explanation to validate your proposed change.

Every now and then throughout the year, someone has brought up something they'd like Worlds to do differently. Now is the time to bring that up, and it WILL be voted on. We only have 3 weeks of the year to discuss rules and change them, so use this time wisely. Once the rules have been voted on, THAT IS IT for the next 12 months! (except for the review on the trade voting process that is held after the trade period).

We need all rule changes approved/rejected by Monday the 26th of August, which probably means I'll leave the final PM no later than the 23rd.

As always...

THERE WILL BE A SALARY CAP! It is the only thing that I will enforce, even if against the majority. The only thing I'll entertain is what kind of cap system we implement.  It will not go away whilst I'm admin, so suggestions to get rid of it entirely are fruitless.

So with the above in mind, I'll leave the floor open for rule suggestions :)

[Nige]

Leadership groups out pls.

To elaborate, they inhibit me too much.

[upthemaidens]

Anything allowed during the regular season should be allowed during finals.  i.e. Flood/Attack, Resting bonus.

[GoLions]

Leadership groups out pls.

To elaborate, they inhibit me too much.

Yes thanks

[upthemaidens]

Leadership groups out pls.

To elaborate, they inhibit me too much.

Yes thanks

Yeah I don't see the point of leadership groups, just seems an unnecessary restriction.

[RaisyDaisy]

Yep I'm on board with that one too - LG is a pointless restriction that provides no benefit imo. The idea of it was nice and made sense, but practically it's just no benefit at all

I bring this up every year, so I'll give it another go - OOP ruck is too much of a penalty and I'd still like to see something changed

It drives me crazy that we have hundreds of defenders, mids and fwds and if you can't even field 4 one week you get to Flood/Attack to make up for your poor list depth, yet rucks who are the rarest and most limited player position get no wiggle room whatsoever and you just cop a massive 50% loss

Last year I suggested OOP ruck being added to Flood/Attack so that you can use that tactic on all 4 lines and clearly explained why it made sense to me but it didn't get through, so I'll try that again now but in addition to that I will also float the idea of reducing the OOP penatly from 50% to 20%

If you get a 20% bonus for Resting, then a 20% penalty for OOP seems logical

Either way, something needs to be done - the penalty for OOP ruck is insane - that hardest position to fill, literally only 20ish players in the entire comp can play the position and we penalise people big time when they can't field a ruck, but when someone can't even field something as easy as a 4th def/fwd we give them FIVE passes a year?? Absolute crazy

[PowerBug]

Anything allowed during the regular season should be allowed during finals.  i.e. Flood/Attack, Resting bonus.

Agree with this

Also like leadership groups, maybe add in a 2nd period to change them? Rd 7-8 and Rd 16-17 perhaps?

I assume rule changes are voted on before trade period opens. A change to rucks would significantly alter trade value of rucks so it’s vital that is decided on before trade period.

[DazBurg]

Yep I'm on board with that one too - LG is a pointless restriction that provides no benefit imo. The idea of it was nice and made sense, but practically it's just no benefit at all

I bring this up every year, so I'll give it another go - OOP ruck is too much of a penalty and I'd still like to see something changed

It drives me crazy that we have hundreds of defenders, mids and fwds and if you can't even field 4 one week you get to Flood/Attack to make up for your poor list depth, yet rucks who are the rarest and most limited player position get no wiggle room whatsoever and you just cop a massive 50% loss

Last year I suggested OOP ruck being added to Flood/Attack so that you can use that tactic on all 4 lines and clearly explained why it made sense to me but it didn't get through, so I'll try that again now but in addition to that I will also float the idea of reducing the OOP penatly from 50% to 20%

If you get a 20% bonus for Resting, then a 20% penalty for OOP seems logical

Either way, something needs to be done - the penalty for OOP ruck is insane - that hardest position to fill, literally only 20ish players in the entire comp can play the position and we penalise people big time when they can't field a ruck, but when someone can't even field something as easy as a 4th def/fwd we give them FIVE passes a year?? Absolute crazy

yeah agreed with this

in the past i have actually not voted for some of the OOP ruck ideas (did vote to add it to flood/attack though)

reason i mention not voting for all of them as at the time i did think like we always say try to get depth etc etc, but with the flood/attack rule (which PNL used 0 times this season)
i feel RD is right at PNL our only big issue is ruck, as RD stated it is harder to get playing depth in rucks

why should other teams be able to bolster other lines when there is so many more playing

If we are not going to use something like flood/attack to help in all areas then i feel flood/attack should be abolished altogether and then it will see more OOP in teams rather then just the unlucky select few

[Purple 77]

I assume rule changes are voted on before trade period opens. A change to rucks would significantly alter trade value of rucks so it’s vital that is decided on before trade period.

Correct

[Holz]

The value of the rucks are established their are 18 teams in the afl and some teams play 2 rucks.

Make sure you have a ruck and a back up ruck. Id say its the easiest position to fill most of the time. You know who the rucks are and if you get all from the same club then you have a player everyweek.

Look at zander with javobs rob. Getting that pairing gave him 22 games of rucks.

I agree though that flood and attack is unfair so get rid of it.

The oop has been im the comp since inception if you want a ruck set get it like everyone else did.

[fanTCfool]

I don't really agree with changing the ruck rules or OOP penalty for not having a ruck, however there's one potential circumstance regarding rucks that really concerns me.

Let's say I own the Brisbane ruck set for example. I have Stefan Martin and Oscar McInerney. Now it's pretty clear to most that Oacar is the apprentice at Brisbane, set to take over the #1 ruck role from an ageing Stefan at some stage. However, CD list him as a forward only. If Stefan Martin was to go down with injury, say a 4 week hamstring, Oscar is more than likely going to take over #1 ruck responsibilities. That means there's gonna be 4 weeks where, despite having the next in line ruckman from the same team, I cop 4 OOP scores because CD don't list my backup as a ruckman. That seems very rough to me.

What can we do about it? I'm not really sure, but I thought I'd raise it in case anyone else had a potential solution.

[Holz]

I don't really agree with changing the ruck rules or OOP penalty for not having a ruck, however there's one potential circumstance regarding rucks that really concerns me.

Let's say I own the Brisbane ruck set for example. I have Stefan Martin and Oscar McInerney. Now it's pretty clear to most that Oacar is the apprentice at Brisbane, set to take over the #1 ruck role from an ageing Stefan at some stage. However, CD list him as a forward only. If Stefan Martin was to go down with injury, say a 4 week hamstring, Oscar is more than likely going to take over #1 ruck responsibilities. That means there's gonna be 4 weeks where, despite having the next in line ruckman from the same team, I cop 4 OOP scores because CD don't list my backup as a ruckman. That seems very rough to me.

What can we do about it? I'm not really sure, but I thought I'd raise it in case anyone else had a potential solution.

yeah i agree with this, thats abit rubbish.

The solution that works is if a player gets 20+ HO that week then they dont get OOP that means they are clearly the head ruck. I picked a highish number so its not like Westhoff who played abit in the ruck last week, 20+ would be what Oscar would get if Stef Martin was out.

[Nige]

I’m pretty firmly against the idea of changing OOP rules at all. They’ve always been a thing, everybody knows about them and part of being a good coach is list management and catering for situations like it. If you have only one or two rucks on your list, that’s on you. Injuries are part of the (bad) luck of the game. We shouldn’t be lowering or scrapping the penalty because a few coaches can’t effectively manage their ruck stocks.

With that said, if we were to come up with some solution, as in the example of a guy like the Big O. The best solution is to establish a set number that the “OOP” ruck has to achieve for their score to no longer be considered OOP. Say that number is 20 as Holz suggested, if Big O (fwd only this season) was named as OOP ruck and had 18 HOs, his score would remain OOP (the usual 0.5 penalty). If he actually reached the threshold and got say 28 HOs, he can and will be awarded the full score that week.

As someone who has dealt with OOP ruck for nearly a full season, it sucks and can be annoying if CD flowers you (see: Lobb 2017 iirc) but I still think the best option is to leave as is.

[Ringo]

Regarding OOP Ruck and throwing my view in.

Agree that a 50% peanlty is too much when you gain or lose only lose 20% for flood or attack.

So floating this suggestion again as has been done previous if you name an OOP over say 198cm as ruck then you should get 75% score rather than the 50%.

[RaisyDaisy]

Funny how the coaches who think there's nothing wrong with OOP ruck are the ones who have full team sets already

Pretty ridiculous to suggest teams that don't have sets need to get better at list development too - the value put on rucks is ridiculous and it's near impossible to attain a good ruck set right now - you guys lucked out years ago and I guarantee you wouldn't be able to acquire one now unless you gutted your side

Bottom line, if anyone thinks being able to use flood attack for lines that have hundreds of available players every week is fine, but not having any compensation for ruck line is ok, then you're mad

If you won't lessen the oop ruck penalty then I vote to scrap flood attack - can't have your pie and eat it