WXV Rules Discussion 2019

[DazBurg]

If Flood/Attack gets scrapped as expected I'm going to laugh when it's brought up again when the teams up the top sink to the bottom.

Again, it's needed in an 18 team competition when teams have on average 22 playing players a week. Think about it logically.

The teams up the top can get more depth then

There's teams who don't use it at all, or just once or twice a year so if you don't have the depth then you shouldn't have this cop out luxury, especially when the ruck penalty is so heavy and the amount of available rucks vs def/fwd is so much lower

Anyway, it's been discussed in depth, so now we wait on the results

It should be treated irrespective of a ruck change (which I've voted in favour of, FYI.)

if it is irrespective then
if used as a strategy fine
if used to stop having a OOP should be same penalty as having no ruck

as i put stats wise a bit back there is way more defenders and forwards for teams to use then ruck (around 7 per team compared to 1.3)

[Holz]

If Flood/Attack gets scrapped as expected I'm going to laugh when it's brought up again when the teams up the top sink to the bottom.

Again, it's needed in an 18 team competition when teams have on average 22 playing players a week. Think about it logically.

The teams up the top can get more depth then

There's teams who don't use it at all, or just once or twice a year so if you don't have the depth then you shouldn't have this cop out luxury, especially when the ruck penalty is so heavy and the amount of available rucks vs def/fwd is so much lower

Anyway, it's been discussed in depth, so now we wait on the results

It should be treated irrespective of a ruck change (which I've voted in favour of, FYI.)

if it is irrespective then
if used as a strategy fine
if used to stop having a OOP should be same penalty as having no ruck

as i put stats wise a bit back there is way more defenders and forwards for teams to use then ruck (around 7 per team compared to 1.3)

rucks are way more certain then defenders though, as defenders are competing with a whole lot more players.

If i have Gawn then pretty much 95%+ chance if he goes down its Preuss (if healthy) who is the back up

If i have McVeigh and he goes down then there could be 4-5 players who could cover him.

in saying that im against flood/attack and ruck changes. We drafted and traded for 7 years now fine, there is no need to cheapen the game by making it easier.

speaking from experience injuries are apart of the game so just deal with it (with maybe a little complaining :P)

[Purple 77]

15 votes in, the following has been decided in bold:

1. Leadership Groups
A) Retain
B) Remove

2. Regular season allowances to also be afforded in the finals series
This is referring to player restings and floods/attacks.
A) Keep contained to Home & Away season
B) Allow in finals series

5. Ruck OOP penalty
A) Retain current 50% penalty
B) Limit penalty to 20% (i.e. 80% of the OOP score will be allowed)

7. Introduce Height threshold (198cm) that limits OOP ruck penalty to 25%
A. No - do not introduce height threshold
B. Yes - introduce height threshold

8. Award ruck status to players via a community vote at the beginning of the season, rather than by strictly abiding by Champion data classifications
A. No - abide by CD classifications
B. Yes - allow community to identify the AFL rucks

9. Add "Small" in addition to flood/attack, which requires an extra forward or defender in place of a ruck
A. No - do not add "Small" as a modifier option
B. Yes - add "Small" as a modifier option

10. Nominate ONE player at the beginning of the year as your 'pinch-hitter', who will only be penalised 25% instead of 50% if used as an OOP ruck
A. No - don't allow
B. Yes - allow

11. Extend trade window of draft picks only
See here for details
A. No
B. Yes



TBC

3. Introduce 2nd Leadership Group amendment period on or around the eve of finals
A) No
B) Yes

4. Remove Flood/Attack Allowances?
A. No - keep these allowances
B. Yes - remove these allowances

6. Introduce Hit-out threshold (20 hit-outs) that removes OOP ruck penalty if exceeded
For example, if Zac Dawson is played as an OOP ruck, and achieves 19 hit outs, he still receives the full OOP penalty. But if he gets 20 or more, he does not receive the OOP ruck penalty.

A. No - do not introduce hit-out threshold
B. Yes - introduce the hit-out threshold

12. Introduce mid-season draft
The pool would include all those players added to AFL lists via the SPP or mid-season AFL draft
A. No
B. Yes

[PowerBug]

Leadership groups noooooooo :'(

[Holz]

Leadership groups noooooooo :'(

i know right, now the teams that dont just rely on one player can use the skill of picking the best match up.

[upthemaidens]

It will never happen so no need to vote on it.  Percentage should be replaced with overall points for the ladder positions.

[Holz]

It will never happen so no need to vote on it.  Percentage should be replaced with overall points for the ladder positions.

it could happen,

its the rule in other XV comps.

im for it, we cant control our opisition so win and loss is already enough random aspect.

[RaisyDaisy]

Gets my vote

Percentage is a moot point here

[fanTCfool]

I like it, unlike AFL where you can win games by shutting down your opponent, the only thing you control in WXV is scoring as much as possible, so it makes sense to use total score as the 'secondary' form of ranking IMO.

[Holz]

looking like a good call except the "it will never happen" but.

[Ringo]

I do not mind it either so maybe a vote is warranted  - using this  years ladder as an example if points scored was the decider rather than % Seoul would have finished 5th and Cairo 6th.

[Holz]

I do not mind it either so maybe a vote is warranted  - using this  years ladder as an example if points scored was the decider rather than % Seoul would have finished 5th and Cairo 6th.

So Cairo would have won its first round match and im pretty sure would have beat Berlin's 123.

would be interested to see how Cairo has gone the last few weeks.

[JBs-Hawks]

Compo

[upthemaidens]

I like it, unlike AFL where you can win games by shutting down your opponent, the only thing you control in WXV is scoring as much as possible, so it makes sense to use total score as the 'secondary' form of ranking IMO.

Yeah exactly, we can't control points against. 

[Holz]

Compo

good point.

Seoul would have lost either way but yeah lets give Cairo the earlier pick of Seoul.