2014 Review and Rule discussions for 2015.

[Spite]

So this is why I think fixed numbers rather than 10% is better.

10% loading on winning teams scores just gives more points to midfielders. Statistically a grand final winning mid will score about 150, so a bonus 15 points while a back or a forward will typically get about a 120-130 and a 12-13 point bonus. 10% just enhances the odds of a midfielder winning it.

However, a 15 point bonus to forward and backmen (not utilities) before the 10% loading will work too, that would be fine (since the 15 bonus points is meant to make it even out with the mids so the 10% after that makes sense)

Happy to increase the bonus points to as follows;

+15 for winning team - as I said, if a mid is going to get roughly 150 points, 15 is 10% of this and I think a fixed number system will be easier to calculate quickly from the eye (no need for spreadsheet data)

+20 for backmen and forwards (not utilities) - this number is increase by 5 as the other bonus is increased by 5. Also 20 points is probably easier to add on quickly than 15 for everyone involved.

[Memphistopheles]

So this is why I think fixed numbers rather than 10% is better.

10% loading on winning teams scores just gives more points to midfielders. Statistically a grand final winning mid will score about 150, so a bonus 15 points while a back or a forward will typically get about a 120-130 and a 12-13 point bonus. 10% just enhances the odds of a midfielder winning it.

However, a 15 point bonus to forward and backmen (not utilities) before the 10% loading will work too, that would be fine (since the 15 bonus points is meant to make it even out with the mids so the 10% after that makes sense)

Happy to increase the bonus points to as follows;

+15 for winning team - as I said, if a mid is going to get roughly 150 points, 15 is 10% of this and I think a fixed number system will be easier to calculate quickly from the eye (no need for spreadsheet data)

+20 for backmen and forwards (not utilities) - this number is increase by 5 as the other bonus is increased by 5. Also 20 points is probably easier to add on quickly than 15 for everyone involved.

Why not then do a 10% loading for mids and a 15% for a fwd/def and a 20% for a ruckman then?

[Spite]

So this is why I think fixed numbers rather than 10% is better.

10% loading on winning teams scores just gives more points to midfielders. Statistically a grand final winning mid will score about 150, so a bonus 15 points while a back or a forward will typically get about a 120-130 and a 12-13 point bonus. 10% just enhances the odds of a midfielder winning it.

However, a 15 point bonus to forward and backmen (not utilities) before the 10% loading will work too, that would be fine (since the 15 bonus points is meant to make it even out with the mids so the 10% after that makes sense)

Happy to increase the bonus points to as follows;

+15 for winning team - as I said, if a mid is going to get roughly 150 points, 15 is 10% of this and I think a fixed number system will be easier to calculate quickly from the eye (no need for spreadsheet data)

+20 for backmen and forwards (not utilities) - this number is increase by 5 as the other bonus is increased by 5. Also 20 points is probably easier to add on quickly than 15 for everyone involved.

Why not then do a 10% loading for mids and a 15% for a fwd/def and a 20% for a ruckman then?

....never thought of that but that's an amazing idea, much better than what I proposed!

Utilities must be classified as mids though I think

EDIT* wait that's for the winning team though, what do forward/backs/rucks get as a bonus on the losing team?

Edit edit* I guess it'll become too complicated and too much extra time to work out with all these %%% too, may as well stick to fixed numbers.

[Nige]

Yep, if it's going to happen, do it with fixed numbers and not percentages or it's going to be a fair bit of extra work and might get messy. A simple point bonus is fine.

[SydneyRox]

Yep, if it's going to happen, do it with fixed numbers and not percentages or it's going to be a fair bit of extra work and might get messy. A simple point bonus is fine.

this

[Memphistopheles]

Could we look at introducing my proposed OOP ruck rule (which I posted in the World's thread) in this competition?

[Nige]

Could we look at introducing my proposed OOP ruck rule (which I posted in the World's thread) in this competition?

No.

[JBs-Hawks]

Yes!

[Spite]

Could we look at introducing my proposed OOP ruck rule (which I posted in the World's thread) in this competition?

I can't find it, can you please post it here?

PS Since we just traded to avoid having to play an OOP ruck if NicNat goes down, I hope this won't affect us negatively :s

[Vinny]

I think it's unnecessary, trade/draft in a ruck like any other team would have too IMO.

[Memphistopheles]

This is the post I made in Worlds. Basically it means teams without a ruck who are forced to play someone OOP aren't penalised as much IF they play a taller guy in the ruck as AFL teams would do if they are short (Daniher/Carlisle/Dawson are recent examples I can think of).

Just a thought on the OOP ruck.

I don't mind getting 50% for OOP def/mid/fwd as there are lot of these players and in theory teams should have enough depth to avoid OOP.

However, given how limited the number of rucks who actually play are the 50% score rule for an OOP ruck is a bit harsh/could be improved in my opinion.

In real life if a team has lost their ruckman they use their next tallest guy/most agile and sometimes they are quite useful.

Could we adapt this for Worlds with a new rule?

I'd suggest that the OOP ruck score would be weighted something like this. They get a certain % of their score which is higher the taller the OOP listed player is.

How about the standard 50% weighting plus and extra 3% per cm the player is above 190?

Here's a practical example with a few players, using the Bombers as an example (ignore the actual players I've just picked guys who are different heights).

OOP Ruck

Joe Daniher - (201cm). As Daniher is 11cm above 190cm his OOP ruck weighting would be 50%+(11*3=33). Which = 83%

Cale Hooker - (197cm). As Hooker is 7cm above 190cm his OOP ruck weighting would be 50%+(7*3=21). Which = 71%

Patrick Ambrose - (191cm). Ambrose is 1cm above 190cm so his OOP ruck weighting would be 50% +(1*3). Which = 53%

So then say Daniher, Hooker and Ambrose all score an even 100 points in SC in real life then as an OOP ruck Daniher scores 83 points, Hooker scores 71 points and Ambrose scores 53 points.

I don't think the rule would be difficult to police/score as most likely teams wouldn't use an OOP ruck because there still is a penalty. Daniher is close to the tallest OOP ruck option you could have had this season (in fact I think he is).

[Nige]

I think it's unnecessary, trade/draft in a ruck like any other team would have too IMO.

Exactly.

Not to mention Memph has 6 rucks.

I don't get the point anyway, isn't it like a forward gets a slight score reduction but can play ruck if he's a certain height? Forwards and rucks score shower enough in Sportal as it is, we don't need this shower.

[Memphistopheles]

I think it's unnecessary, trade/draft in a ruck like any other team would have too IMO.

Exactly.

Not to mention Memph has 6 rucks.

I don't get the point anyway, isn't it like a forward gets a slight score reduction but can play ruck if he's a certain height? Forwards and rucks score shower enough in Sportal as it is, we don't need this shower.

It stops people playing short guys in the ruck position when they need someone OOP there which is more reflective of real life.

[Spite]

First thoughts;

Lachie Keefe is 204cm so Daniher isn't the tallest OOP ruck you could play :P

Second thoughts later

EDIT*

I'm not the biggest fan, all this % stuff makes it harder to calculate for yourself at the end of the week. Its a great idea but not for this game in SPORTAL SCORING (bolded for key point, not angry)

Just trade for a second ruck like most people if you have issues and if you haven't done that, you have to cop the 50% penalty.

Rucks dont score well in sportal so 50% from a 100 avg mid nets you 50 which is only about 30 off a ruck score you wouldn't be so unhappy with. Its not really that big of a deal, I think both the hedgehogs with nicnat and warewolves with cox played OOP ruck many many times throughout the season and they both made it to the grand final anyway.

Rucks score much better in SC so it would make more sense to do it in a comp with a SC scoring system I guess

[JBs-Hawks]

I think it's unnecessary, trade/draft in a ruck like any other team would have too IMO.

Exactly.

Not to mention Memph has 6 rucks.

I don't get the point anyway, isn't it like a forward gets a slight score reduction but can play ruck if he's a certain height? Forwards and rucks score shower enough in Sportal as it is, we don't need this shower.

So we are trying to mimic afl?

Lobbe is ports last ruck standing this year with injuries. If he goes down are they gonna chuck in Impey to ruck or are they gonna get a makeshift ruckman in westhoff in?

You can trade in all thr rucks you like but if they go down there should be some flexibility