WXV Rule Discussion 2022

[PowerBug]

Alright, let's do this one more time.

Tagging

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

Okay, I am a big big fan of tagging, and very much on board with the proposal mentioned by Purps here and I want this in the competition from next year.

To anyone who has reservations with it and is currently thinking of voting no, can you please detail why so we can iron out your issues with it and if needed alter the suggestion in a way that can get it to pass :) As was said, we should look to improve this competition in a way that allows you to have a direct impact on your opponent, and this is a good way, an easy to introduce way, to start us off.

If it ends up not working after a year we can always vote it out straight away, but PLEASE let us know of your reservations before we vote on it.

Thanks <3

[Holz]

ill build of Daz idea.

I like it as it provides a real tactic of playing against your opposition, rather then it mainly being used when you have injuries on one line and lack of good cover.

it should be a 10% buff if you have a extra player and a 10% nerf if you have 1 less. 20% if 2 extra.

So if NDT names 4 defenders and 4 forwards and I name 5 forwards and 3 defenders t because I think NDT defences is really strong then it would be

5 Dublin fwds v 4 NDT defenders so 10% buff to my fwds and 10% nerf to NDT defenders and vice versa.

NDT could counter by naming 5 defenders themselves so then its 5 v 5.

Or it could go to a 20% if i was playing Rio and they named 5 fwd ands and I named 5fwds

So 5 Dublin fwds v 3 Rio Defenders so thats a 20% buff to my fwd and a 20% nerf to Rio defenders and vice versa.

[PowerBug]

Neither of those posts are directly related to tagging. We can discuss Flood/Attack and whether adjustments should/could be made to them separately.

Is there anything specifically wrong with the tagging rule implementation that will cause you to vote no?

[DazBurg]

Neither of those posts are directly related to tagging. We can discuss Flood/Attack and whether adjustments should/could be made to them separately.

Is there anything specifically wrong with the tagging rule implementation that will cause you to vote no?

My issues is why vote in a new rule
When current rule is flawed

I don’t really like all the +/- tbh
But dislike the flood/attack and rest rule
As no risk for flood/attack
If no good enough in finals shouldn’t be in regular season imo

[JBs-Hawks]

Allow all loopholing

[RaisyDaisy]

DPP Covering Late Outs

At the moment, we don't allow DPP players to cover late outs

Eg/ If you named a R/F in your fwd line, and your ruc was a late out, your R/F in the fwd line cannot cover the ruck, so a player from your bench comes on and is OOP ruck

Same applies for all positions - Your M1 could be a late out, and you might have a F1 with DPP who could cover, but that's not the case as is, and this could result in a different/lesser EMG coming on to replace them, as opposed to the order you have listed your E's

I simply propose that DPP players are now able to cover any late outs within the starting 15, and in turn EMG order is used

[DazBurg]

vote to remove flood/attack

atm it is 2 forms of get out of jail free card
1. to avoid a OOP penalty
2. a way ppl who have better def over fwds to flood or vice versa, surely the amount of times i see in the chat "get better depth" yet we allow this?

a few other reasons as well that make it flawed

if we all believe finals should be traditional then why can it be used in season? the other arguement usually is to align like the AFL, they don't swap it all up as soon as finals start.
for it to really be a proper tactic there should be more too it. you play a loose man in defence his going to rack up the intercept marks but in doing so you leave lance franklin as a free man? you better believe his kicking 10
so atm it is basically a get out of ja free card for poor lists

i don't have the stats but would love to see year on year usage of teams

[Purple 77]

4. Allow the trading of future first round picks
A) No (4 votes re-casted due to being in minority)
B) Yes (with caveats TBC) 13
C) Yes (no caveats) 5
(if the B+C votes form a majority, I will re-send this vote without option A)

[Purple 77]

DPP Covering Late Outs

At the moment, we don't allow DPP players to cover late outs

Eg/ If you named a R/F in your fwd line, and your ruc was a late out, your R/F in the fwd line cannot cover the ruck, so a player from your bench comes on and is OOP ruck

Same applies for all positions - Your M1 could be a late out, and you might have a F1 with DPP who could cover, but that's not the case as is, and this could result in a different/lesser EMG coming on to replace them, as opposed to the order you have listed your E's

I simply propose that DPP players are now able to cover any late outs within the starting 15, and in turn EMG order is used

I am in opposition to this.

The original intent of the XV was based on the premise of naming a side with 4 defenders, 4 mids, 4 forwards, 1 ruck, and they would in-substance PLAY those positions for the entire game.  If you have a M/F and you name them as a FWD, your nominating them to play FWD for the whole match - not swing between FWD and MID. SuperCoach, DT and all other fantasy comps are all played on this premise.

If you have a DPP player, and want the flexibility as outlined by RD, you name them specifically as a UTILITY, because as the name implies, they are able to play in a position of your choosing. This has been a structural feature of WXVs since day 1, and whilst I respect the suggestion, is something I would be disappointed to have altered.

[Pkbaldy]

Ruck OOP to be 25% penalty if using tall player.

I am proposing instead of chucking any player in as OOP ruck, you can put in a 'Tall' player to fill the role of OOP, but instead of a 50% hit
that player takes a 25% point penalty instead.

What i'd define as a tall player, as someone who either plays a key position role or just having it as someone over 195cm (Shortest player with R currently is 196cm)
I think this will stop the gross over paying for rucks each year during trade period, stop the huge gap where OOP is basically an instead
if playing someone with a healthy ruck, and actually boost the value of talls who aren't premium.

If you do not have a squad member playing that's over that height, you can still play a shorter player, but you get the full penalty.

[Purple 77]

After 15 votes, the following have been decided

10. Remove the option of proposing a rule change previously rejected in the past 3 years
A) Keep as is - propose any rule each year 13
B) Remove the ability to propose a previously rejected rule proposal from the past 3 years 2

11. Implement a mid-season trade period (during the representative bye round)
A) No 11
B) Yes 4

13. Allow all loopholing
A) No 11
B) Yes 4

15. Add score modifiers to FLOOD and ATTACKS
A) No - Keep as is 11
B) Yes 4

16. Enable DPPs to cover late outs if they are named in the starting 13 (i.e. not a utility or emergency)
A) No 11
B) Yes 4

[Purple 77]

All coaches have voted



7. Merge international draft and preseason drafts into one singular draft?
A) Keep as is (International draft has Nat and MSD/SSP players plus delisted players, while PSD has the rest - rookie drafted players, leftover delisted) 10
B) Merge into a singular draft 8

8. Caveats associated with the Trading of Future 1st Round Picks
A) Teams are permitted to trade their Future 1st Round Pick, provided they use at least one 1st round pick every 2 years 3 initially, moved onto 2nd preference
B) Teams are permitted to trade their Future 1st Round Pick, provided they use at least one 1st round pick every 3 years 9
C) Teams are permitted to trade their Future 1st Round Pick, provided they don't trade their FUTURE 1st round pick in consecutive years (i.e. this would allow teams to still trade their current 1st round pick in any given year) 9

We have a tie! Haven't had one in a while... which means the option I voted for is the one we do, because I'm the one that manages and administers it. Which means Option C wins

9. Implement the ability to Tag as explained below

A) No 10
B) Yes 8

12. Implement live pick trading during the draft
A) No 9
B) Yes 9

And another one! Again, my vote decides it... I voted Option B. Why not?

14. Remove the ability to FLOOD or ATTACK
A) No - keep as is 11
B) Yes - remove 7

[Holz]

Rule Suggestion:

You need to be Above min cap after the PSD draft not before the Nat.

[GoLions]

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.

Proposal for the tag again, but with the following modifications:
- As a trial for next year, the tag will be restricted to mids tagging mids (including any mid eligible player named as a utility)
- You can only tag up to 5 times over the course of the home and away season
- You cannot tag in finals

[JBs-Hawks]

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.

Proposal for the tag again, but with the following modifications:
- As a trial for next year, the tag will be restricted to mids tagging mids (including any mid eligible player named as a utility)
- You can only tag up to 5 times over the course of the home and away season
- You cannot tag in finals

I think it should be - a team can only have tag used against it 5 times rather than a team can tag 5 times. Prevents 17 teams tagging Tuok.