Keeper Lg. BigFooty Dynasty (Ultimate Footy)

[Ironmonger]

So can we all at least agree that there's a problem now?

Even if we all manage our teams perfectly, there won't be many weeks when we can all field full squads. Injuries and random chance will see to that.

 

[Rockford]

So can we all at least agree that there's a problem now?

Even if we all manage our teams perfectly, there won't be many weeks when we can all field full squads. Injuries and random chance will see to that.

Can't agree sorry I've already explained I don't think it's a problem if some teams can't field a full side. That's the game. I've only got 1 playing ruck this round and I accept that's part of the game. Even then, there's enough rucks playing this round (even with injuries) for every team to field 2 rucks and for four of the teams to field 3 rucks. So even with injuries (Sandilands, Naitanui, McIntosh, Vardy and Clarke are all out with no R position players replacing them and Leuenberger potentially assuming Longer and Leuenberger are played together this season) there's plenty to go around. I like having a scarce resource like that in the game. Again, I don't think it's a problem (I agree it's an observed phenomenon) but given the arguments for changing it then the only way to really do it fairly is to have 22 utility positions.

 

[Rockford]

I think the best thing we can do is have a vote as to whether or not we want this rule change to go through. We can all argue our separate positions on it ad nauseam but we're just going to have to accept we have different view points on the issue. I'd suggest Unknown Caller email everyone directly then and inform them of the vote (as some people haven't been involved in the debate and may be unaware of the discussion). I would think we'd need at least 10 votes for the rule change for it to happen (~71%) but we can have a separate debate on what constitutes a passing vote I haven't changed my position that we shouldn't have any rule changes (including my proposal to drop FF and FA in place of other categories realistically) but if the league wants to vote on it then so be it.

 

[Drew23]

I couldnt field a full backline...does that mean we should change to 5 backs?

 

[Drew23]

Oh and to everyone who thought mzungu or some 2nd rate mid was worth Gibbs. .tonight you see why I laughed and gave you the bird. .... I love yiu bryce gibbs, the only man keeping ne in this contest

 

[Ironmonger]

I couldnt field a full backline...does that mean we should change to 5 backs?

A quick scan of the free agents list tells me there about a dozen backs selected this round who aren't on any list. And zero rucks.

 

[tenderwarrior]

I couldnt field a full backline...does that mean we should change to 5 backs?

there are heaps of backs available as free agents who are playing this weekend, so you could just select one (or two) from there.

one week isn't enough base a decision on, but I doubt there will ever be enough to realistically expect all teams to be able to field at least two rucks, which is different to them being rare- they are extinct! I think if there are only 30-32 rucks placing each week, the integrity of the competition is compromised too much to have two rucks per team mandatory.

For me this is a totally different issue to whether a trade should be vetoed or not, or what a ruck should be worth

 

[StAnselm]

A quick scan of the free agents list tells me there about a dozen backs selected this round who aren't on any list. And zero rucks.

And Gilham could be a good pick with his change of club. But looking at his stats, he has been remarkably consistent over the last three seasons with his average of 12 possessions and four marks.

 

[StAnselm]

I thought about picking Gilham in my footytips team, but ended up going with Bootsma instead.

 

[Unknown Caller]

Since no one else seems to want to vote on the trade, the trade has now been vetoed.

Richcogs: Veto
TomFC: Veto
Daysy_12: Approve
Tenderwarrior: Approve
Unknown Caller: Veto

3-2

 

[Rockford]

Since no one else seems to want to vote on the trade, the trade has now been vetoed.

Richcogs: Veto
TomFC: Veto
Daysy_12: Approve
Tenderwarrior: Approve
Unknown Caller: Veto

3-2

Ah, come again? We've always required a vote of 4 vetoes... There's been other votes that have ended without the full compliments of votes and those trades passed. Drew23 and flaps both said they didn't have an issue with the trade despite not voting. Ive never actually been angry as a result of this game, but I am now.

 

[Unknown Caller]

No, we've always needed a majority to pass a vote. Since, there doesn't look like being the 7 votes required, we use five.

 

[Rockford]

I don't particularly want to leave the league in the lurch but I'm not getting much satisfaction or enjoyment from the game anymore. There was no collusion on this trade. There were 6 players that either voted to approve the trade or opted not to veto it and only 3 that voted to veto (one of which has messaged me that he's already sent offers on the players that mrpez and I had agreed a trade for).

I just can't justify putting this much time and effort into the league when the rewards aren't there. I could go into my reasons in greater detail but there's just no point, the end result is the same. I'm out guys. I'll do my best to field a team for my match ups until a new manager is found.

 

[richcogs]

Only two players voted to approve. If they thought it was fair or wanted it to go through they would of voted to approve. As it is they all saw that it was 3-2 to veto and decided to refrain from voting. That is a veto.

 

[StAnselm]

I just want to say, I never really up my mind about this trade, that's why I didn't vote. It was neither approving for disapproving. I'm very sorry to hear what you say, Rockford.

 

[Rockford]

I just want to say, I never really up my mind about this trade, that's why I didn't vote. It was neither approving for disapproving. I'm very sorry to hear what you say, Rockford.

Cheers StAnselm. I hadn't counted you in the 6 approvers/non-voters that said they liked the trade. My memory might have failed me but I thought both Drew23 and flaps said they thought the trade was fine but opted not to vote. It's not just the veto at the end of the day and I'm not looking for the decision to be reversed.

 

[L_W_P]

My main point is that the player's position shouldn't be the most significant factor in the deal which is clearly the case with the Witts deal. IMO it's pretty clear that there is something wrong if the position of the player matters more than the actual quality and performance of the player.

Isn't positional balance the whole point of fantasy football?

If you really want to kill off the 'multiplier' issue then why not change it to a field of 22 UTL players and let people make their own call on who is valuable?

 

[Ironmonger]

Isn't positional balance the whole point of fantasy football?

If you really want to kill off the 'multiplier' issue then why not change it to a field of 22 UTL players and let people make their own call on who is valuable?

It's not about killing it off. It's about making sure the balance is reasonable.

Sad news about Rockford

 

[Daysy_12]

Since no one else seems to want to vote on the trade, the trade has now been vetoed.

Richcogs: Veto
TomFC: Veto
Daysy_12: Approve
Tenderwarrior: Approve
Unknown Caller: Veto

3-2

I think that's pretty unfair on Rockford and mrpez. While the normal veto process was followed, the discussion did get sidetracked on the whole Ruck value issue, meaning not everyone expressed an opinion. I would think it's only fair to give coaches not named a chance to submit a vote, at least to get the numbers up to 7.

Would hate to lose one any coach from this league because they were disgruntled. We have the chance to make it a really fun league long term.

 

[Ironmonger]

I think that's pretty unfair on Rockford and mrpez. While the normal veto process was followed, the discussion did get sidetracked on the whole Ruck value issue, meaning not everyone expressed an opinion. I would think it's only fair to give coaches not named a chance to submit a vote, at least to get the numbers up to 7.

I hope this isn't why Rockford left, but if the coaches feel the process was sidetracked by another discussion, they can just resubmit the same trade.

 

[Unknown Caller]

I hope this isn't why Rockford left, but if the coaches feel the process was sidetracked by another discussion, they can just resubmit the same trade.

I would allow it, but it had already been 2 and a half day since the trade was submitted. If anyone wanted to vote on the trade, they would have already.

 

[flaps]

Sad to hear about Rocky. I feel for his situation a lot as we're both in similar circumstances (though his list is better than mine). I'm hoping he changes his mins and still plays as I found his knowledge and insight as a good place to have a chat about footy (not just trading).

Something needs to be sorted out about this ruck debate though. Whether its a rule change, no rule change, end of the year poll, etc it just needs to be out to bed (whether we all like it or not).

 

[Daysy_12]

Is L_W_P tanking early? Is playing with 7 on his field that weren't selected who could all be covered by bench players. Must have had something come up with terrible timing considering guys aren't locked in until game time!

 

[Danny_Bhoy]

Wowee haven't been on for a few days and seems I've missed heaps. I had a read over the discussions about positional rule changes. In my opinion last year I basically played with just 1 ruck but it didn't affect me to much, you basically just lose the hit-out category unless you have a Natanui, Kreuzer, Cox type. I'm happy to just leave the 2 rucks spots until we see a drastic swing in teams in the AFL pushing for just 1 ruck which someone mentioned.

As for the Rockford trade; what was the trade that got vetoed?

 

[Drew23]

I lost by a kick or 3 hit outs or him scoring two points or 9 handballs or 20 points richcogs well played. Will be better when I have those 7 best 22 blokes I was missing