Rule changes for 2022

[Ringo]

Starting this for discussion and based on comments:

1) Do we revert back to a manual system for MVP or continue with UF?
Manual system to be used for MVP 12 votes

2) Rising Star do we do away with minimum 5 games required and vote on all 15 nominations one per round? 
Remove Minimum games requirement 12 votes

3) Do we need a mid season draft similar to AFL? Rules around this would need to be set as well.
No 12 votes

4) Teams to be submitted in this thread or via discord.
Teams to be lodged in discord or FF 9 votes

5) Players picked in mid season draft stay on rookie draft or National Draft.
Mid season drafted players to remain in rookie draft 13 votes.


Discussion welcomed and any rules you think that should be added.

[Nige]

Manual MVP

Do away with the min games requirement

No MSD

[SilverLion]

Manual MVP

Do away with the min games requirement

No MSD

+1 to the above.

Also, can we remove 'as UF' as a legitimate submission? Imo if we're in a keeper league, we should be obliged to submit a proper team each week.

[Rusty00]

Manual MVP

Do away with the min games requirement

No MSD

+1 to the above.

Also, can we remove 'as UF' as a legitimate submission? Imo if we're in a keeper league, we should be obliged to submit a proper team each week.

+1 to the 3 above, plus SL's additional request

[Nige]

I am also on board with SL's additional request

[Urbaninfinnity]

Manual MVP

Do away with the min games requirement

No MSD

+1 to the above.

Also, can we remove 'as UF' as a legitimate submission? Imo if we're in a keeper league, we should be obliged to submit a proper team each week.

+1 to the 3 above, plus SL's additional request

+1 to all of the above

[fanTCfool]

Manual MVP

Do away with the min games requirement

No MSD

+1 to the above.

Also, can we remove 'as UF' as a legitimate submission? Imo if we're in a keeper league, we should be obliged to submit a proper team each week.

+1 to the 3 above, plus SL's additional request

+1 to all of the above

+1 to all of the above

[ChuckStig]

As above

[Peter]

Are there are spare spots in any of these leagues?

[Ringo]

Another rule change regarding DPP Players and open for discussion.

This will require some admin work but I believe is workable:

If a player has a DPP and you want them to cover two positions in emergency need to specify in your team lodgement thread:

How I see it working when lodging teams in the thread and using Zorko as an example. You would list him in mids with DPP/F.  After emergencies you would add the clause Should a forward require replacing Zorko moves to forwards and player x replaces Zorko in mids, Obviously player x would come from your squad.

Any comments drawbacks as you see it.

[fanTCfool]

Another rule change regarding DPP Players and open for discussion.

This will require some admin work but I believe is workable:

If a player has a DPP and you want them to cover two positions in emergency need to specify in your team lodgement thread:

How I see it working when lodging teams in the thread and using Zorko as an example. You would list him in mids with DPP/F.  After emergencies you would add the clause Should a forward require replacing Zorko moves to forwards and player x replaces Zorko in mids, Obviously player x would come from your squad.

Any comments drawbacks as you see it.

Opposed to this suggestion. If you want your DPP players to cover another line you should name them as utilities. This will unnecessarily complicate submissions IMO.

[Nige]

Another rule change regarding DPP Players and open for discussion.

This will require some admin work but I believe is workable:

If a player has a DPP and you want them to cover two positions in emergency need to specify in your team lodgement thread:

How I see it working when lodging teams in the thread and using Zorko as an example. You would list him in mids with DPP/F.  After emergencies you would add the clause Should a forward require replacing Zorko moves to forwards and player x replaces Zorko in mids, Obviously player x would come from your squad.

Any comments drawbacks as you see it.

Opposed to this suggestion. If you want your DPP players to cover another line you should name them as utilities. This will unnecessarily complicate submissions IMO.

[SilverLion]

Another rule change regarding DPP Players and open for discussion.

This will require some admin work but I believe is workable:

If a player has a DPP and you want them to cover two positions in emergency need to specify in your team lodgement thread:

How I see it working when lodging teams in the thread and using Zorko as an example. You would list him in mids with DPP/F.  After emergencies you would add the clause Should a forward require replacing Zorko moves to forwards and player x replaces Zorko in mids, Obviously player x would come from your squad.

Any comments drawbacks as you see it.

Opposed to this suggestion. If you want your DPP players to cover another line you should name them as utilities. This will unnecessarily complicate submissions IMO.

Using my situation this year as an example, Ive had Slyce R1 and Ladhams as the only backup so have utilised a tactical donut to allow myself to have Ladhams play fwd but cover ruck.

Do we think it's better to have a legal tactical donut or a legal submission 'clause'?

[fanTCfool]

Another rule change regarding DPP Players and open for discussion.

This will require some admin work but I believe is workable:

If a player has a DPP and you want them to cover two positions in emergency need to specify in your team lodgement thread:

How I see it working when lodging teams in the thread and using Zorko as an example. You would list him in mids with DPP/F.  After emergencies you would add the clause Should a forward require replacing Zorko moves to forwards and player x replaces Zorko in mids, Obviously player x would come from your squad.

Any comments drawbacks as you see it.

Opposed to this suggestion. If you want your DPP players to cover another line you should name them as utilities. This will unnecessarily complicate submissions IMO.

Using my situation this year as an example, Ive had Slyce R1 and Ladhams as the only backup so have utilised a tactical donut to allow myself to have Ladhams play fwd but cover ruck.

Do we think it's better to have a legal tactical donut or a legal submission 'clause'?

Naming a tactical donut isn't 'illegal' so I don't think we need to bring any rules in place about it. Even if you left it blank in your submission or named a fictional person at F4 the effect is the same. I suppose you could 'endorse' naming P. Inn at F4 as a tactical donut but I really think that adding a 'clause' or anything requiring administrative interpretation is asking for trouble in a competition where coaches can't even type out their XV week to week.

[Nige]

Another rule change regarding DPP Players and open for discussion.

This will require some admin work but I believe is workable:

If a player has a DPP and you want them to cover two positions in emergency need to specify in your team lodgement thread:

How I see it working when lodging teams in the thread and using Zorko as an example. You would list him in mids with DPP/F.  After emergencies you would add the clause Should a forward require replacing Zorko moves to forwards and player x replaces Zorko in mids, Obviously player x would come from your squad.

Any comments drawbacks as you see it.

Opposed to this suggestion. If you want your DPP players to cover another line you should name them as utilities. This will unnecessarily complicate submissions IMO.

Using my situation this year as an example, Ive had Slyce R1 and Ladhams as the only backup so have utilised a tactical donut to allow myself to have Ladhams play fwd but cover ruck.

Do we think it's better to have a legal tactical donut or a legal submission 'clause'?

Naming a tactical donut isn't 'illegal' so I don't think we need to bring any rules in place about it. Even if you left it blank in your submission or named a fictional person at F4 the effect is the same. I suppose you could 'endorse' naming P. Inn at F4 as a tactical donut but I really think that adding a 'clause' or anything requiring administrative interpretation is asking for trouble in a competition where coaches can't even type out their XV week to week.

Hit the nail on the head, particularly with the last part.