AXVS: RULES DISCUSSION THREAD

[BB67th]

Hmm, it's a decent idea, but I don't think we really need it. There weren't many instances throughout the year where teams were forced to play an OOP ruck.

Unless there is any major support for it, I don't think we will be looking to introduce this rule.

Thanks anyway though Memph :)

[JBs-Hawks]

Really like the idea but think its only needed for Worlds where theres 18 teams so harder to acquire a ruck,

[nostradamus]

I actually think its a great idea

[Nige]

I hate it.

If you can't field a ruck, you should be penalised for it the same way you get penalised if you can't field enough players on any other line (which again, doesn't happen often).

[Justin Bieber]

I hate it.

If you can't field a ruck, you should be penalised for it the same way you get penalised if you can't field enough players on any other line (which again, doesn't happen often).

Yeah it's not my fault that I have both Saint Kildas and North Melbkurnes ruckman.

[Nige]

I hate it.

If you can't field a ruck, you should be penalised for it the same way you get penalised if you can't field enough players on any other line (which again, doesn't happen often).

Yeah it's not my fault that I have both Saint Kildas and North Melbkurnes ruckman.

Give me one pls.  :-*

[BB67th]

Voting details have just been sent out in  relation to all votes.

[SydneyRox]

Never seen some of those suggestions... I need to pay more attention to this thread!!

[BB67th]

Never seen some of those suggestions... I need to pay more attention to this thread!!

Not all were from the thread. A few were sent to me by pm, and there were one or two of my own in there that I thought were worth a vote.

[Ricochet]

Reckon next year we look at the list movements and change them to 10 in Trade Period One and 5 in Trade Period Two.
Trade Period Two is really only for unexpected dpp changes and most ppl split trades into Period Two anyway.
More movements in Period One would mean less splitting (hopefully), which would make it simpler and easier for BB too.

[Nige]

Reckon next year we look at the list movements and change them to 10 in Trade Period One and 5 in Trade Period Two.
Trade Period Two is really only for unexpected dpp changes and most ppl split trades into Period Two anyway.
More movements in Period One would mean less splitting (hopefully), which would make it simpler and easier for BB too.

Yep, I think it's a good idea.

Would also help with people just trading for the sake of trading.

[Memphistopheles]

Reckon next year we look at the list movements and change them to 10 in Trade Period One and 5 in Trade Period Two.
Trade Period Two is really only for unexpected dpp changes and most ppl split trades into Period Two anyway.
More movements in Period One would mean less splitting (hopefully), which would make it simpler and easier for BB too.

I agree with this.

Trading before the draft is more interesting with the picks etc.

That's the main AFL trade period anyway.

[BB67th]

Reckon next year we look at the list movements and change them to 10 in Trade Period One and 5 in Trade Period Two.
Trade Period Two is really only for unexpected dpp changes and most ppl split trades into Period Two anyway.
More movements in Period One would mean less splitting (hopefully), which would make it simpler and easier for BB too.

This will already be happening, as it was decided when this rule was changed. It was structured the way it is for this year because the trade period had already started when the rule changed.

[Ricochet]

Reckon next year we look at the list movements and change them to 10 in Trade Period One and 5 in Trade Period Two.
Trade Period Two is really only for unexpected dpp changes and most ppl split trades into Period Two anyway.
More movements in Period One would mean less splitting (hopefully), which would make it simpler and easier for BB too.

This will already be happening, as it was decided when this rule was changed. It was structured the way it is for this year because the trade period had already started when the rule changed.

Ah ok, sweet cheers mate

[nrich102]

I think we should just have unlimited movements