WXV Rule Discussion 2022

[Purple 77]

Hey all :D

The majority has revealed itself with a resounding 'yes' (12-4) 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 22nd of August, which probably means I'll leave the final PM no later than August 20th.

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 :)

[Purple 77]

1. Move mid-season draftees and pre-season SSP players into the pre-season draft (2023 onwards)

One that has come up a lot, coaches have often described the PSD has a 'rubbish' draft, and felt that moving the mid-season draftees and SSP players (selected prior to the start of the season) into the pre-season draft would make it more valuable.



Secondary to this, if the above rule gets voted in, I propose we vote to introduce it to THIS upcoming pre-season draft, however, restrict the vote to the top 9 teams only (as they stand to benefit the least).

Thoughts?

[RaisyDaisy]

Align nomination of REST with FLOOD/ATTACK

For rounds with partial lock-out, we can nominate whether we are going Traditional, or Flooding/Attacking right up until FULL lockout, but when it comes to RESTING we can only do that up until PARTIAL lockout

I'd like to vote that we align these, and that they are either BOTH allowed up to Partial lockout, or BOTH allowed up to FULL lockout

Doesn't make sense that they have different time frames imo

[JBs-Hawks]

Scrap priority picks to be given for lack of wins, PP to be only given in extreme cases if voted on by majority of coaches.


Also surely no rule changes to effect this years drafts

[Koop]

1. Move mid-season draftees and pre-season SSP players into the pre-season draft (2023 onwards)

One that has come up a lot, coaches have often described the PSD has a 'rubbish' draft, and felt that moving the mid-season draftees and SSP players (selected prior to the start of the season) into the pre-season draft would make it more valuable.



Secondary to this, if the above rule gets voted in, I propose we vote to introduce it to THIS upcoming pre-season draft, however, restrict the vote to the top 9 teams only (as they stand to benefit the least).

Thoughts?

I am actually in favour of the opposite of this. All players in the one singular draft. Having MSD/SSP players in the ND is one of the few differentials we have from other comps, and it adds a little bit of strategy.

Someone who might be guaranteed to go Pick 1 in the PSD could go anywhere between 10-50 in the ND, and I think that's the beauty of it. See who bites.



I would also like to see future 1st trading discussed/voted, with the caveat of needing to take 1 first round pick every 'x' years (either 2 or 3).

[PowerBug]

Allow ONE Attack/Flood for finals teams
What the part in bold says. Each finals team is given exactly one attack/flood which they can use in any week of finals if they so desire. There is no carry over from the minor rounds.

[RaisyDaisy]

Rivalry Round

Just an idea I had - not fussed if it doesn't pass, but thought it might add some fun to the round

The only thing we need to do for this round is name VC and C/CC (To still leave an element of luck/skill in the round)

Being a rivalry, we want the best of both teams highlighted, so the entire list (44 or whatever) is at play for this round, and you get the highest scores for every line (must be traditional)

D: Top 4 def scores for the round on your list
M: Top 4 mid scores for the round on your list
R: Top ruck score for the round on your list
F: Top 4 fwd scores for the round on your list
U: Next top 2 scores

[RaisyDaisy]

And just to clarify, it seems the 3 options we have in regards to the drafts are

1) Move MSD/SSP picks to PSD (This means Nat is just for Nat picks only, and everything else goes into PSD)
2) Combine all picks (Nat/MSD/SSP/PSD/Delisted) into 1 overall draft
3) Keep as is (Nat has Nat and MSD/SSP players plus delisted players, while PSD has the rest - rookies, leftover delisted)

[Purple 77]

Alright, let's do this one more time.

Tagging

A simple implementation for now - I see great potential here - but baby steps.

In the efforts of increasing a coaches influence on games, I propose this:
- You can nominate ONE tagger per game
- The TAGGER sacrifices his game (-50%) to limit the score of the TAGGEE (-30% or the taggee is capped at 100 points maximum, whichever results in a lower score)
- The TAGGER must be in a corresponding position:
       - DEF can only tag FWD
       - FWD can only tag DEF
       - MID can only tag MID
       - RUC can only tag RUC
       - A player from the bench conforms to the above rules based on their inherit position
- If the TAGGER or TAGGEE is subbed out, or doesn't play, the tag is void
- A tag does not effect captain bonuses, or other score modifiers

For example...

Rio de Janeiro plays Berlin. Berlin only has one good player - Max Gawn. And... he plays Hawthorn, a team he normally dominates.

Rio's R1 is Tom De Koning - season average 75.

Rio opts to use TDK to TAG Max Gawn, who they expect to score say 130.

If players score to expectation... TDK goes from 75 down to 38 points (losing 37), whilst Gawn goes from 130 down to 91 (loss of 39 points).

Or maybe Gawn goes ballistic and scores 180? But wait - he's tagged - and score a max of 100 (-80 points).

But the stock example is pretty even isn't it? What's the point you may ask?

Well really, it's to get us used to the concept of being able to influence the opposition scores, as that is ultimately what I want this comp to get to. Points-boosting flood/attacks, more elaborate tags, mid-game moves... but we're not ready for that yet. We are however ready for this; a simple, easy to understand implementation which I think will add intrigue to games.

[JBs-Hawks]

Make it 25% and you might get my vote  :P

[iZander]

Not voting on the same rule for atleast 3 years
- Would cut down alot of the voting, which would be nice

[Holz]

Mid Season Trade Period.

Limited to a few moves, during the byes.

[Holz]

Also live pick trading during the draft.

Would need to be 1 for 1, 2 for 2 etc.. but you could include Future picks.

So Pick 14 for Pick 20 + Future 2nd as its still 1 for 1 with list sizes.

[Purple 77]

15 coaches have voted, and we have outcomes for the following trades:

1. Move mid-season draftees and pre-season SSP players into the pre-season draft (2023 onwards)
A) Keep as is (i.e. the aforementioned remain in the international draft) 10
B) Move the aforementioned players to the pre-season draft 5

2. Align nomination of REST with FLOOD/ATTACK
A) Keep as is - resting is LOCKED at 1st partial lockout; Flood/Attacks LOCKED at full lockout 4
B) Align - both restings and Flood/Attacks are LOCKED at full lockout 11

3. Revise priority pick allocation methodology
A) Keep as is (i.e. criteria is teams are awarded PPs if they win less than 4 games) 4
B) Priority picks can only be applied for and awarded via a majority-wins vote by the competition. 11

6. Adjust Rivalry Round
A) Keep as is 12
B) "Best XVs" 3

[Purple 77]

17 coaches have voted

5. Allow ONE Attack/Flood for finals teams
A) No 10
B) Yes 7