have your say.

[Holz]

With the 2012 euro experience almost over I wanted to get peoples opinions on how the comp is being run.

What rules need to be looked?

What needs to be done better?

As long as it constructive criticism you can be as harsh as you want especially in how I'm running the comp. The only way to improve is too identify the weaknesses.

So let me have it :)

[Justin Bieber]

Well what I want is rules made and not for them to be changed all the time...   :-X

[Scrads]

Well what I want is rules made and not for them to be changed all the time...   :-X

Knew this was coming but think it is pretty harsh.

What rule was made up/changed on the fly that had a serious impact on anyone's team ?

[Holz]

Well what I want is rules made and not for them to be changed all the time...   :-X

Good call I think this was my real weakness this year. I will be writing a whole set of rules that will be set in stone unless more than half the people in the comp want it changed.

Will include trading periods and trade caps etc...

I feel this will solve a lot of problems.

Its OK scrads I want it to be as harsh as possible

[The F.A.R.K.]

I shouldnt be complaining but we were allowed too many list movements

Our starting team from 2012 is nothing compared to 2013. Almost a completely new team

[Scrads]

Well what I want is rules made and not for them to be changed all the time...   :-X

Good call I think this was my real weakness this year. I will be writing a whole set of rules that will be set in stone unless more than half the people in the comp want it changed.

Will include trading periods and trade caps etc...

I feel this will solve a lot of problems.

Its OK scrads I want it to be as harsh as possible

I don't want to seem like I am brown-nosing or anything but I genuinely think the rules side of things was done really well. Some things needed experimenting/tinkering with and you had the balls to put your foot down and change things that you thought needed to be changed to suit the comp regardless of whether it was new or not and honestly sometimes there isn't much else of an option.

People can complain about 'rules not being said at the start' or 'things changing halfway through' but lets face it, the way to get this comp to the best it can be is through trial-and-error and eventually through some deliberation about certain things, rules were made or changed to suit what the majority wanted or thought was fair. Were teams really hurt/affected by any of the changed rules ? I would say not.

If you don't fix things to the best way possible when you can then it will continue not being as good as it could be IMO.

[Scrads]

I shouldnt be complaining but we were allowed too many list movements

Our starting team from 2012 is nothing compared to 2013. Almost a completely new team

Agree with this.

Was our trading movements this year 10-6-4 ? Next year I think 6-5-3 or something similar will be plenty enough.

[Ziplock]

yeah. I think we need 2-3 trading periods, but we should have a limited list movement of lets say, 10 players over those 3 period combined. And nat/ rookie drafted players should also count as movements.

I've mentioned before about having the higher score win, regardless of whether or not it rounds down to a tie (just make it like a golden goal rule), ties should only be for equal points, or at the very least, established point differences (like, less than 5 points difference is a tie).

Also, to separate teams on the ladder who have eqal home and away points should be done by total points scored, not %... if we want to keep % and score it by that, then make the % like total Points scored/ average points scored in the competition.

I'd love to see expansion teams as well- but the introduction needs to be very, very, very, careful.

I'd like a better system for trade vetoing as well... there were a couple of trades that went through this year that reaaaallly shouldnt have.

[Holz]

I shouldnt be complaining but we were allowed too many list movements

Our starting team from 2012 is nothing compared to 2013. Almost a completely new team

Agree with this.

Was our trading movements this year 10-6-4 ? Next year I think 6-5-3 or something similar will be plenty enough.

There will be likely only two. If there is a 3rd it will purely be for DPP changes like it is in the world's. The most important thing I will be scrapping is the on traded picks not counting and picks not counting in the cap.

I think I have less than 5 starters the same from last year. The trading cap will be much stricter and you will be able to recognise your 2014 team to your 2013.

[Scrads]

yeah. I think we need 2-3 trading periods, but we should have a limited list movement of lets say, 10 players over those 3 period combined. And nat/ rookie drafted players should also count as movements. Yes, but picks shouldn't count as list movements (but players picked with those picks i.e. post draft should)

I've mentioned before about having the higher score win, regardless of whether or not it rounds down to a tie (just make it like a golden goal rule), ties should only be for equal points, or at the very least, established point differences (like, less than 5 points difference is a tie). Yes, a no-brainer really

Also, to separate teams on the ladder who have eqal home and away points should be done by total points scored, not %... if we want to keep % and score it by that, then make the % like total Points scored/ average points scored in the competition. Big yes to the points for, it annoys me how this still hasn't changed in real DT

I'd love to see expansion teams as well- but the introduction needs to be very, very, very, careful. Tentative yes, honestly don't like the idea of expansion teams but can put up with it if it happens. My biggest thing is there will need to be a big debate over compensation if teams lose players to these teams.

I'd like a better system for trade vetoing as well... there were a couple of trades that went through this year that reaaaallly shouldnt have. Disagree. Don't think it needs to be rigorous (i.e. every trade being voted on). I like the system where someone nominates a trade and once it has been officially nominated everyone has a vote to decide.

[Holz]

yeah. I think we need 2-3 trading periods, but we should have a limited list movement of lets say, 10 players over those 3 period combined. And nat/ rookie drafted players should also count as movements.

I've mentioned before about having the higher score win, regardless of whether or not it rounds down to a tie (just make it like a golden goal rule), ties should only be for equal points, or at the very least, established point differences (like, less than 5 points difference is a tie).

Also, to separate teams on the ladder who have eqal home and away points should be done by total points scored, not %... if we want to keep % and score it by that, then make the % like total Points scored/ average points scored in the competition.

I'd love to see expansion teams as well- but the introduction needs to be very, very, very, careful.

I'd like a better system for trade vetoing as well... there were a couple of trades that went through this year that reaaaallly shouldnt have.

OK here are some controversial rule changes. I like having draws in the comp perhaps we could compromise for the under 5 points thing as I agree rounding was abit  unfair.

Will have to put that to a vote.

The ladder thing is interesting the way it is noe stays true to the afl and being unlucky and having opponents scoring big on you is all part of the game.

I will be sending out PMs though later for voting on the rules that I feel are needed yo be discussed like the ones above.

For the trade veto thing I'm probably going to have the same system but with a more formal voting method and rules. I might also turn down the requirements for a trade to get rejected

[Ziplock]

I like the way it is as well with draws, hence the point difference.

like, because atm you can have someone have a score of like 100.5 and their opponent 101.4, after the scores has been modified, and it counts as a draw... however, you can also have someone on 100.4 and 100.5, and that's not a draw :/

[Holz]

I like the way it is as well with draws, hence the point difference.

like, because atm you can have someone have a score of like 100.5 and their opponent 101.4, after the scores has been modified, and it counts as a draw... however, you can also have someone on 100.4 and 100.5, and that's not a draw :/

That's a very good point didn't think about that solution. Thanks for the idea, agreed rounding was a bad idea it will probably be under 5 points is a draw next year.

One rule that will be changed is if a player gets a negative score and your home you get 0 points from that player not double the negative. Considering not allowing vests to be counted as lowest player but that will go to vote.

[Ziplock]

wait, shouldnt you only get the negative score? unless all negative scores are discounted? definitely 2x the negative isn't fair though.

for vesting we could introduce a substitute rule? like if you have a green/ red vested player, you can sub them off for an emergency who hasn't played yet.... but if the E is played OOP, you only get like 75% of their points. ?

and you can only have one substitute per match, and it has to be a vested player.

[The F.A.R.K.]

Off topic but if any of youse get the chance, google jake lloyd

Averaged 28 touches in Tac cup, broke into seniors for 2 games, won the coaches award for the tac comp

Yeah he is a bit skinny but 2-3 years time it will be lloyd mitchell jack hannebry running the swans mids

We have just stolen him with one of the last picks in draft

BOOM