WXV Rules Discussion 2019

[Holz]

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

you mean the coaches who have paid up to secure a ruck line to play within the rules that have been established for 7 years now arent happy about changing the rules for teams that haven't done this.

the 20+ HO thing however im happy to implement for obvious cases like Lobb Marshall etc.. who are clearly number 1 rucks.


I agree get rid of the flood and attack though, go back to the original rules of the comp. And if you want a ruck go ask FTC he has Marshall and the Carlton ruck set.

[RaisyDaisy]

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.

Nice of you to reference the Lions duo but we all know Marshall is the reason you raise this :P

Sorry Ringo, I hate the idea of using height, just seems ridiculous to me and not a true reflection of who rucks at all

Holz suggestion is more so what we'd need to look at - number of hit outs per match

The other suggestion I would put forward is that we as a league come up with our own determined ruck list at the end of every season

Eg/ We compile a list of all 18 AFL clubs rucks, put it to a vote, then use that list the following year. We all watch footy and know who actually rucks so I think this could work

[Holz]

Holz suggestion is more so what we'd need to look at - number of hit outs per match

The other suggestion I would put forward is that we as a league come up with our own determined ruck list at the end of every season

Eg/ We compile a list of all 18 AFL clubs rucks, put it to a vote, then use that list the following year. We all watch footy and know who actually rucks so I think this could work

I think thats a little messy and also players change throughout the year so the 20+ thing works, i think you should only avoid the OOP if you have an obvious #1 ruck option like a Rowan Marshall or a Rory Lobb or as FTC said Oscar Mcinereny without Stef Martin.

in the case of Oscar he is a Fwd realistically if he is named with Stef but if Stef is out then he will go 20+ HO and fair enough to be a ruck.

It creates an incentive to get the backup rucks for your main ruck. There will likely be 20-25 rucks playing every week so this works if you have the 20+

most teams dont play an OOP ruck anyway.

[fanTCfool]

Nice of you to reference the Lions duo but we all know Marshall is the reason you raise this :P

Why am I not surprised you would stoop to this assumption.
I have the Carlton ruck set, Marshall having R status this year would mean nothing to me.
Adding the rule for 2020 is of no benefit to me as Marshall will have ruck status then.

So no, Marshall is not the reason why I raised this.

[Nige]

More than happy to scrap the flood/attack rule too tbh.

[fanTCfool]

As for the flood and attack, I wouldn't be devastated to lose it, but I don't mind it as a bit of a unique feature of WXV compared to other competitions, perhaps there's room for 1 flood and 1 attack per team over the H&A season?

[RaisyDaisy]

On second thoughts, I see no reason to go against what CD sets each year

If you have someone like Oscar, Marshall etc, then bad luck for that year (FWIW I've got Esava without ruck)

This could just open up a can of worms all too big

If we're going to make changes like this for ruck, then what about every other line? Guys like Boak, TK, Dunkley etc playing as forwards when they are really just mid only, and so forth

It all just becomes too much, so I think we just stick with the positions CD assign

That said, I'm OK with all the ruck OOP stuff staying as is as long as flood/attack is scrapped

My whole argument has always been that it's just straight up wrong to have one and not the other

If you're going to get heavily penalised because you don't have a 2nd playing ruck on your list (something that is actually impossible for every side to have) then it's insane that you are not punished for not having enough defenders/forwards.

[PowerBug]

The value of rucks are high, because they actually make a difference to how your team scores more than other positions. So yes PNL (example) possibly end up with a similar output for the year if they had Tim English instead of Zac Merrett. Sounds ridiculous, but that's just market value. So what if you have to pay more? What even is more?

It's a tough position to fill and filling it properly gives you a big points boost across the season, of course there's going to be a premium put on these players.

If you change the ruck OOP rule you might lower the value of them, but you just raise the value of something else.

I definitely will be voting in favour of keeping the ruck rule as it is

[upthemaidens]

Last year Rio bought Sinclair(Sydneys #1 Ruck).  Every draft year coaches don't draft rucks until late, why? 
   Buy a Ruck, draft a Ruck, don't expect to just get one handed to you.

I'm also happy to lose the Flood/Attack, let's test clubs depth.
 

[DazBurg]

Again I agree with RD
Happy to keep ruck rules as is if flood/attack is scrapped in general
Yes may add a bit of difference to the mix
But yeah plenty of def/fwds to be had so should not be a work around either in equalisation

[Koop]

I am happy to drop the OOP penalty to 25%. I think RD's argument has merit where it wouldn't in 12 or even 16-team comps. One other potential remedy is what Holz suggested. That an OOP penalty is only applied to those that don't meet a HO requirement. I think 15 would be a reasonable number in this case, but it also raises the problem of even more increased club set hoarding.

PB raises an interesting point about supply and demand and whatnot, and I also kind of agree with him to an extent.

In short, I have no idea. :P

[Koop]

Although what I will say is I think Flood/Attack needs to stay. I quite like it and I think in a competition where teams on average only have 22 playing members of their squad from week to week, it is needed for some teams to put up more competitive numbers (compared to 25 in a 16 or 33 in a 12 team comp). Not to mention SSP and midseason players diluting this number even further. It's not so much about giving teams with poor depth a way out as it is a a slight equalisation measure for injuries. It is essential for competition balance.

I don't however think it needs to come in for finals. Finals should be about finding the best team on an even playing field.

[DazBurg]

Although what I will say is I think Flood/Attack needs to stay. I quite like it and I think in a competition where teams on average only have 22 playing members of their squad from week to week, it is needed for some teams to put up more competitive numbers (compared to 25 in a 16 or 33 in a 12 team comp). Not to mention SSP and midseason players diluting this number even further. It's not so much about giving teams with poor depth a way out as it is a a slight equalisation measure for injuries. It is essential for competition balance.

I don't however think it needs to come in for finals. Finals should be about finding the best team on an even playing field.

But the issue is it equals for most teams on def/fwd but rest with ruck get no equalisation

Ok next option if people are using it then can we trade it in for a points bonus?
Since we don’t need it except for ruck how can we use it as a tactic

[PowerBug]

Last year Rio bought Sinclair(Sydneys #1 Ruck).  Every draft year coaches don't draft rucks until late, why? 
   Buy a Ruck, draft a Ruck, don't expect to just get one handed to you.

I'm also happy to lose the Flood/Attack, let's test clubs depth.

For pick 6 as well. And I thought Naismith would play so I was in essence getting a guy who’d sit forward and score 60s all year.

[upthemaidens]

Last year Rio bought Sinclair(Sydneys #1 Ruck).  Every draft year coaches don't draft rucks until late, why? 
   Buy a Ruck, draft a Ruck, don't expect to just get one handed to you.

I'm also happy to lose the Flood/Attack, let's test clubs depth.

For pick 6 as well. And I thought Naismith would play so I was in essence getting a guy who’d sit forward and score 60s all year.

Yep it cost #6, but you were still able to get him.  Point being it's still possible to get Rucks.
   Coaches don't plan ahead and get young rucks, then expect to buy them for nothing once they start getting games.