WXV Rule Discussion 2023

[PowerBug]

To treat AFL starting the subs in a very similar way to how we treat AFL subbed out players.

At the moment if a starting 22 player is red vested at or before half time then they are considered to be subbed out for WXV purposes. I propose that whenever the rest vest player is considered a 'sub out', the green vest player is considered live. So this means that if the sub is made on or before half time then the AFL green vest player will have their score counted the same way that any other named player would.

This does a few things:
- Teams can't 'rest' a green vest player most of the time, it won't trigger unless that player subs on to the field early.
- Teams will be more cautious about naming emergencies on the field hoping for a late in, knowing that they get a free pass if that player is a starting sub. That player could now hit the park and score 30 in a half.

I know there was a comment in discord about how we treat the subs that occur bang on half time. I proposed it in this way because it is very simply: When the red vest counts, the green vest won't. And when the red vest doesn't count, the green vest will. Every match, exactly one of the two players involved in the AFL sub will have their WXV score considered. There's no overlap where both count and there's no gap where neither count.

[Purple 77]

As I foreshadowed in my first post - and similar to what Holz suggested earlier - I propose that (after we scrap Small/Flood/Attack), we re-introduce a modified Flood/Attack.

Flood

In its current implementation, Flood allows you to name 1 extra defender and 1 less forward, and that's that beginning and end of it. However, if an AFL team did that, there is certainly larger implications:
- Defenders (statistically) perform better; and
- Forwards (statistically) perform worse.

The impact of this is not isolated to 1 or 2 players, but the entire lines. Thus, I propose that in a Flood, each defender's score is boosted by 9%, and each forward is reduced by 15%. If all players scored exactly the same, this means there is NO OVERALL DIFFERENCE in scoring, at all.

But, if you had a stronger defence than your forward line... you'd get some extra points.

Let's apply this to a game.

Round 1 - London v Tokyo

This was the scorecard for the game, with both teams electing to do a traditional team submission.

	London Royals					Tokyo Samurai
POS	Traditional	SCO	PEN	ADJ	POS	Traditional	SCO	PEN	ADJ
D1	John Noble	105		105	D1	Jordan Ridley	107		107
D2	Keidean Coleman	69		69	D2	Daniel Rioli	126		126
D3	Sam Darcy	28		28	D3	Ben Long	57		57
D4	Adam Saad	115		115	D4	Oliver Florent	85		85
M1	Touk Miller	113		113	M1	Tom Liberatore	118		118
M2	Taylor Adams	68		68	M2	Will Ashcroft	55		55
M3	Willem Drew	80		80	M3	Lachie Whitfield	40		40
M4	Justin McInerney	71		71	M4	Jacob Hopper	67		67
R1	Timothy English	134		134	R1	Peter Ladhams	72		72
F1	Jack Higgins	44		44	F1	Josh Dunkley	108		108
F2	Jamie Cripps	55		55	F2	Charlie Cameron	23		23
F3	Rory Lobb	34		34	F3	Liam Ryan	91		91
F4	Charlie Spargo	81		81	F4	Alwyn Davey Jr	58		58
U1 (MID FWD)	Liam Shiels	56		56	U1 (DEF MID)	Ethan Hughes	65		65
U2 (MID)	Jack Bytel	71		71	U2 (DEF)	Harry Cunningham	65		65
E1 (DEF)	Darcy Wilmot	51	DNP	0	E1 (FWD)	Bobby Hill	77	DNP	0
E2 (MID)	Marlion Pickett	43	DNP	0	E2 (DEF)	Jarman Impey	86	DNP	0
E3 (FWD)	Luke Pedlar	83	DNP	0	E3 (MID)	Jarrod Berry	43	DNP	0
E4 (DEF)	Lachie Young	0	DNP	0	E4 (DEF)	Brandon Zerk-Thatcher	100	DNP	0
C	Touk Miller	113		113	C	Josh Dunkley	108		108
VC	Taylor Adams	68		0	VC	Tom Liberatore	118		0
NR		0			NR		0
HA	Sam Darcy	28		28
		Total:	1265	15			Total:	1245	15

What if Tokyo opted to FLOOD instead? Then the scorecard would adjust to:

	London Royals					Tokyo Samurai
POS	Traditional	SCO	PEN	ADJ	POS	Flood	SCO	PEN	ADJ
D1	John Noble	105		105	D1	Jordan Ridley	107	1.09	117
D2	Keidean Coleman	69		69	D2	Daniel Rioli	126	1.09	138
D3	Sam Darcy	28		28	D3	Ben Long	57	1.09	63
D4	Adam Saad	115		115	D4	Oliver Florent	85	1.09	93
M1	Touk Miller	113		113	D5	Ethan Hughes	65	1.09	71
M2	Taylor Adams	68		68	M1	Tom Liberatore	118		118
M3	Willem Drew	80		80	M2	Will Ashcroft	55		55
M4	Justin McInerney	71		71	M3	Lachie Whitfield	40		40
R1	Timothy English	134		134	M4	Jacob Hopper	67		67
F1	Jack Higgins	44		44	R1	Peter Ladhams	72		72
F2	Jamie Cripps	55		55	F1	Josh Dunkley	108	0.85	92
F3	Rory Lobb	34		34	F2	Charlie Cameron	23	0.85	20
F4	Charlie Spargo	81		81	F3	Liam Ryan	91	0.85	78
U1 (MID FWD)	Liam Shiels	56		56	U1 (MID FWD)	Alwyn Davey Jr	58		58
U2 (MID)	Jack Bytel	71		71	U2 (DEF)	Harry Cunningham	65		65
E1 (DEF)	Darcy Wilmot	51	DNP	0	E1 (FWD)	Bobby Hill	77	DNP	0
E2 (MID)	Marlion Pickett	43	DNP	0	E2 (DEF)	Jarman Impey	86	DNP	0
E3 (FWD)	Luke Pedlar	83	DNP	0	E3 (MID)	Jarrod Berry	43	DNP	0
E4 (DEF)	Lachie Young	0	DNP	0	E4 (DEF)	Brandon Zerk-Thatcher	100	DNP	0
C	Touk Miller	113		113	C	Josh Dunkley	108		108
VC	Taylor Adams	68		0	VC	Tom Liberatore	118		0
NR		0			NR		0
HA	Sam Darcy	28		28
		Total:	1265	15			Total:	1255	15

... Tokyo gain an EXTRA 10 points. They still lose! But those extra points could be the difference either in the game itself, or be the extra points needed to boost its % and make finals. More importantly, it adds a tactical element to the WXVs beyond what is really just a depth relief instrument (which, you could still use this for if you wanted).

Attacks would work EXACTLY the same, but forwards are boosted, and defenders reduced.

However, teams can CANCEL these boosts if they name opposing strategies. For example, London could opt to Attack, and all players' boosts/penalties would be negated.

For the niche scenarios:
- OOP players can be named, with the 50% penalty CAPTURING the boosted amount i.e. 1.09 multiplier reduces to 0.545. Similarly, 0.85 reduces to 0.425. This will be the only time a score modifier COMPOUNDS rather than adds.
- All other score modifiers e.g. RESTED bonus still only applies to the raw score i.e. boosted amount will be 1.29, and not 1.09 * 1.20

You can only Flood or Attack 5 times per year.



WXVs is ready for this - and adds an interesting tactical element to the game without fundamentally changing it. Lets do it!

[PowerBug]

May I ask how to came to 9% and 15% as the amounts?

[Purple 77]

Modified Tagging

This year saw the first mechanism to impact upon another teams score via Tagging. I think the idea is AWESOME - but as we all quickly realised, the risk of getting it wrong offset the potential gain of getting it right.

It was used a total of 10 times, and I think successfully used about half of the time.

I casually noticed that teams' worst mid (and tagger candidate) would have an average of around 70. The trouble with 70 is that those mids can pull out a good score every now and then, and the tagee could easily just produce a meek ton or worse.

Well, that's the thing you often see in the AFL, isn't it? Some taggers can actually be quite offensive, and when they are, they tend to be more of a 'run-with' players who pick up the scraps of their target. The taggers who don't impact with the ball tend to do a better job of shutting down their target.

And 50% is a big penalty. Same as OOP - which in the AFL, a tagger certainly isn't OOP. They're playing a role.

I thus propose the following amendment to the rule
- A tagger penalty is 30%;
- A tagger can only be a mid, and can only tag a mid
- The taggee raw score is limited to the taggers raw (unadjusted) score (unless broken - see below)
- You can only tag 5 times per year
- A taggee can BREAK the tag if they score equal to or more than DOUBLE than tagger score
      - If the tag is broken, the taggers penalty is increased from 30% to 50%

Now, before you think that is too OP, please consider the following:
   - given the tagger still has their score REDUCED the only candidates for this are mids who typically average no more than mid 70s.
   - Other bonuses that may be applicable to the taggee are UNAFFECTED (e.g. captaincy)

Lets use an example, show casing both ends of the extreme.

1) Where it goes bad

I unsuccessfully used Daniel Howe (88 down to 44) as a tagger on Tim Kelly (90 to 67) earlier this year, for a net impact of -19 points to Berlin.

Under this amendment, Daniel Howe score is reduced from 88 down to 62, and Kelly is reduced from 90 to 88. A net impact of -24 points (so even worse!)


2) Where it goes well

NDT used Langdon (66 down to 33) to tag Sam Walsh (117 down to 82), for a net impact of +2 points to NDT (see, even when nailed, it was minimal benefit)

Under this amendment, Langdon score is reduced from 66 down to 47, and Walsh is CAPPED to 66! A net impact of +32 points - absolutely nailed, and thus maximum benefit should be achieved.

But if Walsh scored 132 (66 x 2), then the tag is broken (but still counts as 1 in your allowance of 5).



I'm bias, but I think this nails EVERYTHING we want to see in a tag rule - risk, pay-off, the ability to break it! Can you imagine it being late on a Sunday night, and your player needs to score 20 more points to break the tag and win you the game? We're so ready for this!

[Purple 77]

May I ask how to came to 9% and 15% as the amounts?

5 lots of 9% = 45%

3 lots of 15% = 45%

I'm open to other figures - but IMO these were the cleanest combinations.

[Purple 77]

Training in another position

This suggestion comes with rucks front of mind, and the years-debate on how we offer ruck relief to teams where your main ruck has gone down with injury... or is unavailable.

Hearing the communities points about Flood/Attack offers relief to shortages of defenders and forwards, but nothing in the way of rucks, I propose the following:
- AFTER the drafts and 1st trade period and once all positions are known for the next year, you can nominate up to 2 players BEFORE CHRISTMAS to 'train' in another position
- This makes those 2 players eligible to play in that position with a 25% penalty instead of a 50% penalty.
- The players can train in any position, but if they train with the rucks, they must have averaged 1 hit-out per game or more in the year just passed (currently 85 players - see here for the current list)
- It must be done BEFORE Christmas in keeping with finalising lists prior to the season start
- You cannot trade these players in the 2nd trade period
- This provision only applies for 1 season only, where players are required to again 'train' in that position again

[upthemaidens]

Tactical Flood/Attack and Tagging should be unlimited, not just the five times.

[Purple 77]

Lower the max salary cap.

FYI - more detail would need to be provided to give this legs.

Currently the max cap is +5% of the average cap value, and the min cap is -15%.

[Purple 77]

Coaches must make a minimum of 3-5 trades per season. To count as a trade each trade must contain a player who has played more than 10 AFL games in the season or first round draft picks.

Failure to reach minimum trades results in your next first round pick sliding by 5 places per the number of trades you failed to make. Only make 2 of the required 5 trades? Pick 1 is now pick 16.

Please clarify JB in terms of a fixed #of trades to be suggested, and if trading an eligible player IN or OUT counts.

[Purple 77]

... I swear someone suggested to merge the drafts. Whoever did, please do so here!

[Koop]

... I swear someone suggested to merge the drafts. Whoever did, please do so here!

Me. FF is a cow.

[Urbaninfinnity]

With everyone jabbering away about loopholing and ruck cover etc, I thought I'd make a suggestion - which may have already been thrown out in years past, but we ball.

Players having dual position status is a bonus for their coach, why not lean into that bonus more, rather than simply naming a midfielder in the forward line (which is boring)? In a proper AFL game a player capable of playing two positions (be it a ruck/forward or any other combination), is often moved into that second position as cover if the substitute is not a suitable replacement - makes sense right? Why not avoid this loopholing debate altogether by allowing DPP's to cover their second position regardless of where the coach has named them, to avoid an OOP emergency being forced to come in?

i.e. If Max Gawn gets injured and subsequently WXV subbed for Berlin, Luke Jackson would move from F1 to R1 to cover him (as he would have done when they were both at the Dees!), and then the necessary emergencies come on to cover the gap in the forward line etc.

Or alternatively, if Ned Reeves goes down for PNL and they have Darcy Cameron at F1 BUT Todd Goldstein at E4 for instance, Goldy comes in instead (probably for a trash score no less)

I think this plays into real life quote-on-quote "tactics" and rewards coaches with list flexibility (which is usually lucky dip by CD admittedly, but can also be the result of shrewd recruitment)

[RaisyDaisy]

WXV has always been 4 defenders, 4 mids, 1 ruck, 4 fwds and 2 utilities, and as such we should be building a list to accommodate that

I actually think Flood/Attack is just a get out of jail card for lack of depth

Get rid of Flood/Attack completely. Don't see any point having it in place for 5 times a year, and getting a % boost or reduction for doing so, when we can just stick to traditional format and like always if you can't field a D4/F4 etc then you cop 50% OOP

With the addition of the new "Train In" feature, this allows you to name 2 extra players to cover lines at a 25% loss instead of the normal 50% loss, so this feature as a fallback for lack of depth is more than enough, don't need flood attack too

[JBs-Hawks]

Coaches must make a minimum of 3-5 trades per season. To count as a trade each trade must contain a player who has played more than 10 AFL games in the season or first round draft picks.

Failure to reach minimum trades results in your next first round pick sliding by 5 places per the number of trades you failed to make. Only make 2 of the required 5 trades? Pick 1 is now pick 16.

Please clarify JB in terms of a fixed #of trades to be suggested, and if trading an eligible player IN or OUT counts.

Ok lets go

Minimum 4 trades per off season
An eligible player or draft pick needs to be included in the trade  can be in or out  doesnt need to be both.
Eligible players has had a season of 10 games 60 average or better in any of the previous 3 seasons or was taken as a WXV first round pick over those 3 seasons.
Eligible draft picks  1st rounder and Future first rounders.

[JBs-Hawks]

Coaches must make a minimum of 3-5 trades per season. To count as a trade each trade must contain a player who has played more than 10 AFL games in the season or first round draft picks.

Failure to reach minimum trades results in your next first round pick sliding by 5 places per the number of trades you failed to make. Only make 2 of the required 5 trades? Pick 1 is now pick 16.

Please clarify JB in terms of a fixed #of trades to be suggested, and if trading an eligible player IN or OUT counts.

Ok lets go

Minimum 4 trades per off season
An eligible player or draft pick needs to be included in the trade  can be in or out  doesnt need to be both.
Eligible players has had a season of 10 games 60 average or better in any of the previous 3 seasons or was taken as a WXV first round pick over those 3 seasons.
Eligible draft picks  1st rounder and Future first rounders.

Ok lets just make it 4 trades to be made with no restrictions or requirements