2014 Review and Rule discussions for 2015.

[Ringo]

Fair point SR Have you got any suggestions as to how to improve so weaker teams not disadvantaged.  Same thing happened a number of times this year where some stronger teams had a sub scoring in excess of 100 really making opponents up against it.

Happy to look at anything that can be raised but thought this method may allow some better subs. Bear in mind it can be any line that is now used as sub as well.  Also takes away the majority of sub uses this year this year with a mid replacing dfenders, rucks or forwards.

Keep the suggestions coming.

[JBs-Hawks]

I think we should keep the subs the same or swap to the worlds version

[kilbluff1985]

personally i think it's good it will encourage teams to have good depth

[Nige]

personally i think it's good it will encourage teams to have good depth

Not every team can have good depth though, especially with 18 teams.

I think we should keep the subs the same or swap to the worlds version

I agree with this. Either keep it as is or use the version of the sub rule that Worlds uses.

[Ringo]

I think we should keep the subs the same or swap to the worlds version

I agree with this. Either keep it as is or use the version of the sub rule that Worlds uses.

Not a real fan of becoming a de-facto Worlds comp we need some uniqueness and these are ways to be different and keep it unique from other comps.  Personally dislike the worlds sub rule as well.

[SydneyRox]

Fair point SR Have you got any suggestions as to how to improve so weaker teams not disadvantaged.  Same thing happened a number of times this year where some stronger teams had a sub scoring in excess of 100 really making opponents up against it.

Happy to look at anything that can be raised but thought this method may allow some better subs. Bear in mind it can be any line that is now used as sub as well.  Also takes away the majority of sub uses this year this year with a mid replacing dfenders, rucks or forwards.

Keep the suggestions coming.

True a mid generally was the one to replace a lower defender or forward and not often another mid?

The teams with playing depth would still be at the advantage of getting a free shot at 'loop-holing' to a certain extent.

[Vinny]

Don't we just name an emergency for each position who will come on if someone is OUT and if you don't have one your emergency is OOP. Similar to the AFL.

Then your designated sub comes on for your lowest score. Similar to the AFL were whoever comes off is generally worst on the field.

How is that different to what we currently have?

[Ringo]

Just another idea throwing out there for consideration with sub rule:

If one of your players is subbed with either green or red vest and the emergency for the same line scores more than the vested player then the emergency score is taken.

[Rusty00]

Just another idea throwing out there for consideration with sub rule:

If one of your players is subbed with either green or red vest and the emergency for the same line scores more than the vested player then the emergency score is taken.

I think I like this idea the best so far. That way you are eliminating the mid replacing defender scenario as well.

[LF]

Just another idea throwing out there for consideration with sub rule:

If one of your players is subbed with either green or red vest and the emergency for the same line scores more than the vested player then the emergency score is taken.

I think I like this idea the best so far. That way you are eliminating the mid replacing defender scenario as well.

Yeah I don`t know why but I like this idea better.
Eliminates mids subbing for defenders not as harsh as the Worlds sub rule and keeps everyone on an even playing field I reckon

[Torp]

Don't we just name an emergency for each position who will come on if someone is OUT and if you don't have one your emergency is OOP. Similar to the AFL.

Then your designated sub comes on for your lowest score. Similar to the AFL were whoever comes off is generally worst on the field.

How is that different to what we currently have?

i think the sub rule needs to be changed, the sub normally only is on for a certain time, maybe ADD on half the subs score to the best 15?

[Vinny]

Don't we just name an emergency for each position who will come on if someone is OUT and if you don't have one your emergency is OOP. Similar to the AFL.

Then your designated sub comes on for your lowest score. Similar to the AFL were whoever comes off is generally worst on the field.

How is that different to what we currently have?

i think the sub rule needs to be changed, the sub normally only is on for a certain time, maybe ADD on half the subs score to the best 15?

We cannot replicate AFL to that degree. Think we are just trying to nail bringing on a sub rather than worrying about how long he is on for. Cause the sub is there as well as to add that part of the AFL to XVs also to cover for that one dodgy score most teams get. Cutting the sub score in half ruins the point of that.

[Justin Bieber]

Don't we just name an emergency for each position who will come on if someone is OUT and if you don't have one your emergency is OOP. Similar to the AFL.

Then your designated sub comes on for your lowest score. Similar to the AFL were whoever comes off is generally worst on the field.

How is that different to what we currently have?

i think the sub rule needs to be changed, the sub normally only is on for a certain time, maybe ADD on half the subs score to the best 15?

We cannot replicate AFL to that degree. Think we are just trying to nail bringing on a sub rather than worrying about how long he is on for. Cause the sub is there as well as to add that part of the AFL to XVs also to cover for that one dodgy score most teams get. Cutting the sub score in half ruins the point of that.

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but if we want to replicate the AFL, then we need to scrap the 20 point thing.

[Spite]

Ringo your first option regarding the sub rule was very close to what I proposed earlier in the year but just missed a little thing.

You name all 4 EMGs but you don't get to sub one player from each line, if your lowest scoring player is lets say a defender, then you get the EMG defender as your sub score (granted they score higher)

If it is a forward that is the lowest scoring player, you get the EMG forward as the sub score etc

This stops a midfielder replaces a defender for example.

So just one sub on and off like the AFL.

-----------------------------------------------------

That being said, I am also a fan of the replacing subbed players with an EMG if they score higher.

-----------------------------------------------------

Like the penalties for not naming teams, assuming the loss of points is from overall so as to effect %

[kilbluff1985]

Don't we just name an emergency for each position who will come on if someone is OUT and if you don't have one your emergency is OOP. Similar to the AFL.

Then your designated sub comes on for your lowest score. Similar to the AFL were whoever comes off is generally worst on the field.

How is that different to what we currently have?

i think the sub rule needs to be changed, the sub normally only is on for a certain time, maybe ADD on half the subs score to the best 15?

We cannot replicate AFL to that degree. Think we are just trying to nail bringing on a sub rather than worrying about how long he is on for. Cause the sub is there as well as to add that part of the AFL to XVs also to cover for that one dodgy score most teams get. Cutting the sub score in half ruins the point of that.

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but if we want to replicate the AFL, then we need to scrap the 20 point thing.

so does that mean we have to start paying Ringo for his time double and triple checking scores people that work for the AFL get paid

trying to replicate the AFL is bs