WXV Discussion

[JBs-Hawks]

If it’s in the middle of another round then round 4 gets completed and that round gets pushed back till those games are caught up too I’d of thought

[Ringo]

My understanding is it will be as normal as Dees and Bombers considered to have their bye in Rd 4.  So whenever they play would be a double round Pts for Rd 4 and Pts for Rd whatever.
Similar to suggestions that scores from next rd for bye players apply to their bye round.

[GoLions]

Just to be clear - every team will play 17 games. So, excluding our own double round weeks, no scores should have to count for more than 1 round.

Just gonna be a flowerin mess for a few weeks heh

[Purple 77]

If it’s in the middle of another round then round 4 gets completed and that round gets pushed back till those games are caught up too I’d of thought

JB gets me

[Purple 77]

Interrupted rounds will be fluid - when Essendon v Melbourne play, that completes Round 4.

Those AFL teams that have their bye first up in the upcoming rounds, the corresponding WXV round will be completed via their next AFL match.

Rolling lockouts will probably be allowed, but I'll likely allow floating positions. Say for example, if you chose a Melbourne player in Round 4, and they don't play, I'll use your list preferences to replace them. Same applies going forward.

All will be made clear in the coming days, promise.

[PowerBug]

All good, just wondering. Doesn't really bother my rubbish side but obviously others will need to know well in advance

[RaisyDaisy]

All good, just wondering. Doesn't really bother my rubbish side but obviously others will need to know well in advance

[upthemaidens]

By the way, you are doing a great job Purps in what is a very difficult season.   ..And year in general.

[Purple 77]

By the way, you are doing a great job Purps in what is a very difficult season.   ..And year in general.

Thanks UTM - much appreciated :)

Haven't thrown as much time into as previous years which I regret, but it just shows it's a credit to everyone that the season has travelled fairly smoothly despite the challenges.

[Purple 77]

Guidelines on 'Loopholing' interpretation

This season has been quite complex. The introduction of rolling lockouts - in simultaneous rounds too - has not made it easier.

I also appreciate the 'grey' in the loopholing interpretation, and that two sentences of guidelines in the rulebook may be not be offering the required support.

The Practice of Loopholing
19. Captain/Vice-Captain/Co-Captain or Emergency loopholing is forbidden. Only AFL selected players can be chosen in the starting XV and as Captain/Co-Captain. If this criteria has somehow been leveraged to benefit the coach that sough to exploit it, the admin may determine the entire team submission as they see fit.

I would like to take this moment to provide some further guidelines, as there is two contrasting examples in the active rounds submissions.



Guideline 1: Your team submissions are my primary reference point as the preferences of your players at a point in time, and they will be relied upon as the basis of interpreting the practice of loopholing.

In Rio's Round 16 submission, we can see that Jack Viney was named in the first team submission, prior to knowledge of his omission. In the same submission, Eric Hipwood was named at E1.

When PB was able to modify his team submission to cater for this - it was during the Brisbane game that Hipwood was playing. This meant that he was unable to legally put Hipwood into his starting XV, despite it being known prior to both the Brisbane and Melbourne games that he was the next most preferred player.

Decision: I allowed Viney to be named on-field so that Hipwood would come on as an emergency.

Did he have an opportunity to fix this prior to Brisbane game? Although he did know about it - he wasn't aware of the structure of his team at the time, due to being at an AFL match. Why do I allow this as an excuse? Because...

Guideline 2: If you're proactive about a potential issue and contact me for assistance, I'm likely to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you don't... then I tend to not.

I'm aware this is an exploitable advantage - you could just lie about it. PB could be lying too. But my approach is that if you feel the need to lie about that kind of stuff to get approval on an AFL Fantasy submission to get an advantage, then... I encourage some self-reflection.

What if Hipwood was garbage, and PB could modify his team to avoid his score?

A great question. Ultimately, consistent with the above, I'm trusting all of you to act with integrity. Failing that, because I'm assuming you are all acting with integrity, I'm not actively looking for this so if you see it, report it.

I also acknowledge that this could be the beginning of a bad culture in regards to trust. Which is why I'll be suggesting to re-allow the practice of emergency loopholing in rolling lockouts EOS, because I don't have time for that.



I'll contrast this with Toronto's submission. Before I go on, I'm not for a second saying FTC is dishonest. I think he is the victim of a lack of clear guidelines, and just a little bit of good ol temptation. I regret if this example puts you in a bad light - my intention here is just to educate.

In Round 15, with respect to defenders, Toronto's last submission before the first lockout was:

Connor Blakely, Alex Witherden, Kade Simpson, Tobe Watson, Lachlan Sholl (utility), Michael Hibberd (emergency)

Michael Hibberd plays in-between this submission and the next one - and scores a handy 78, which compared to averages of D3+ is a better score.

The next submission is

Connor Blakely, Alex Witherden, Lachlan Sholl, Tobe Watson, Michael Hibberd

Tobe Watson - despite would have only played last night if selected - was dropped for the WXV Round 14 equivalent game the night of that submission. As you can see, the preference of Sholl was moved ahead of Tobe, whilst Simpson (now 6th - out of team) was moved after Tobe,  despite Tobe's availability legitimately in doubt. These are red flags.

Decision: Toronto has illegally loopholed Hibberd's score by the act of selecting Tobe despite indications he would be unavailable, in combination with changing the preference of Simpson's selection below Tobe.

This will result in Kade Simpson coming in for Tobe Watson, consistent with the initial submission.



I hope this provides some guidance to this grey area.

[upthemaidens]

Purps would you have done this year different knowing what you know now? 

[Purple 77]

Purps would you have done this year different knowing what you know now?

A good question.

I still stand by simultaneous rounds... But I don't like how the lockouts operated. Our no loopholing rule isn't compatible with the required flexible nature that this season has brought upon us.

For ease, I would have rescheduled the last simultaneous round a week earlier (a non rolling lockout).

I also would take essendon and Melbourne next score for round 4.

Other than those points, I'm satisfied with how we've gone.

A good discussion point though... Would people have preferred a different kind of fixture in hindsight?

[PowerBug]

We should allow loopholing in season 2021

[Holz]

I love the bigger emergency bench. 4 should be a absolute min with 4 positions to cover. 5 would solve all looping except special rounds where we can go bigger.

On partial lockouts I think we should remove flood)attack being locked after the first game.

[upthemaidens]

The more on bench the better, an AFL team would never play undermanned and neither should we because of late outs.