Potential Rule Changes

[sausageroll]

Planning on implementing a few new rules for next season. Happy for coaches to comment if they wish.

Automatic Dual KPP Status
A player that has permanent KPP status will automatically be granted dual KPP status if/when they have multiple eligible dual position classifications awarded to them in AFL Fantasy. This includes dual status being granted during the season. (e.g. if a KPP listed player has defender/forward status in AFL Fantasy then that player will have dual KPF/KPD status in AFLTM.)

Removal of Priority Picks
Previously a team that earns less than 20 points during the season gets a start of second round priority pick. This rule would be removed for next off-season (not this one) meaning no priority picks are granted for any team.

I reckon KPP/Ruck players should retain their eligibility for the following year as well as what Prospectus says. Eg. Anyone who was eligible (not including permanent or temporary hardship players) should automatically retain their status next season, along with all changes introduced by Prospectus next year.

That way when we know what we're getting for at least one season when we're trading or bidding for players. Any players who might potentially change would still be speculation until Prospectus is released, including anyone who was granted hardship eligibility.


Actually, regarding hardship kpp and rucks: I don't think w should allow hardship players. I reckon we go wit hny rights players at full price but you can just name any player in those positions if yo're short and they score half points (rounded down). Maybe even 1/3 points if they're under 190cm according to a designated source.
That way nobody needs to make a call on eligibility.

 

[fightingfury_88]

I reckon KPP/Ruck players should retain their eligibility for the following year as well as what Prospectus says. Eg. Anyone who was eligible (not including permanent or temporary hardship players) should automatically retain their status next season, along with all changes introduced by Prospectus next year.

That way when we know what we're getting for at least one season when we're trading or bidding for players. Any players who might potentially change would still be speculation until Prospectus is released, including anyone who was granted hardship eligibility.


Actually, regarding hardship kpp and rucks: I don't think w should allow hardship players. I reckon we go wit hny rights players at full price but you can just name any player in those positions if yo're short and they score half points (rounded down). Maybe even 1/3 points if they're under 190cm according to a designated source.
That way nobody needs to make a call on eligibility.

I'm comfortable with the new KPP eligibility rules for now and will see how it goes. Using the AFL Fantasy classifications for DPPs should mean we capture preyty much all players who spend significant time in multiple positions.
There are a couple of issues I can see with your proposal, one being that no one will ever really drop off the KPP list if you are using the previous year's list and the new Prospectus list, the second being that it would actually mean players like Noah Balta have permanent ruck status for 2021 despite not attending a single centre bounce.

The hardship one is interesting for sure. I'm certainly looking to tighten the rule up somehow in future seasons. Not sure I want to remove it entirely for just one position, but I have to admit I have considered removing the hardship rule entirely over all positions. I'm unlikely to change it for 2021 though.
Essentially you can name anyone in a KPP position as the rule currently stands and just take the 50% hit on their score; which I'm OK with.

 

[sausageroll]

I'm comfortable with the new KPP eligibility rules for now and will see how it goes. Using the AFL Fantasy classifications for DPPs should mean we capture preyty much all players who spend significant time in multiple positions.
There are a couple of issues I can see with your proposal, one being that no one will ever really drop off the KPP list if you are using the previous year's list and the new Prospectus list, the second being that it would actually mean players like Noah Balta have permanent ruck status for 2021 despite not attending a single centre bounce.

The hardship one is interesting for sure. I'm certainly looking to tighten the rule up somehow in future seasons. Not sure I want to remove it entirely for just one position, but I have to admit I have considered removing the hardship rule entirely over all positions. I'm unlikely to change it for 2021 though.
Essentially you can name anyone in a KPP position as the rule currently stands and just take the 50% hit on their score; which I'm OK with.

I'm not sure why you think no one would ever drop off the KPP list. Players will only maintain the status for one season after they lose it. Then it's gone if they don't get named there the next season in Prospectus. But for that one season coaches can be assured their status will remain and they're getting what they traded/bidded for. They only retain it in the season after that if they regain it through prospectus, in which case they would have been playing in the position during that season anyway (but the coach wouldn't have been able to play them there).

Maybe another possibility is for those players to become hardship players in that position instead without needing an application. If all other eligible players are available they can't be used, But in the situation where a coach would need a hardship player to fill a gap then they could just use a player who had been eligible the year before instead of applying for someone.

I really think we need to take opinion calls out of KPP/Ruck eligibility and make it black and white so we know exactly who can play in those positions. Why should someone ensure they have key defender depth averaging 40 when they can just go with 2 gun key defenders and then apply for a small defender averaging 70 as hardship anytime they're short without penalty? The current hardship rules just punish those who have made the effort to acquire kpp depth and gives other teams an unfair advantage.
We need to encourage people to make an effort to actually fill those positions and not make it too easy for them to ignore it completely. Anyone can be a hardship player, bt hardship players should score half points if they're above 190cm and 1/3 points it they're shorter.

 

[fightingfury_88]

I'm not sure why you think no one would ever drop off the KPP list. Players will only maintain the status for one season after they lose it. Then it's gone if they don't get named there the next season in Prospectus. But for that one season coaches can be assured their status will remain and they're getting what they traded/bidded for. They only retain it in the season after that if they regain it through prospectus, in which case they would have been playing in the position during that season anyway (but the coach wouldn't have been able to play them there).

Maybe another possibility is for those players to become hardship players in that position instead without needing an application. If all other eligible players are available they can't be used, But in the situation where a coach would need a hardship player to fill a gap then they could just use a player who had been eligible the year before instead of applying for someone.

I really think we need to take opinion calls out of KPP/Ruck eligibility and make it black and white so we know exactly who can play in those positions. Why should someone ensure they have key defender depth averaging 40 when they can just go with 2 gun key defenders and then apply for a small defender averaging 70 as hardship anytime they're short without penalty? The current hardship rules just punish those who have made the effort to acquire kpp depth and gives other teams an unfair advantage.
We need to encourage people to make an effort to actually fill those positions and not make it too easy for them to ignore it completely. Anyone can be a hardship player, bt hardship players should score half points if they're above 190cm and 1/3 points it they're shorter.

Ah I misinterpreted what you were suggesting. 100% agree with everything you are saying in this post and I actually really like that first idea now I understand what you are saying! I want to ensure that the importance of having KPP players in teams is maintained and IMO that means removing the hardship rule. To do this though coaches need to be able to plan for the KPP players on their list which having a two year rolling KPP list would allow. I was pretty lax on the hardship rule this year

The only thing I'm slightly concerned about is that players like Lukosius are unlikely to be KPP eligible at all (which is probably the reason he was drafted/traded for) and players like Luke Ryan who played KPP for most of the year wouldn't get KPP status until the 2021 season. It's not like the team selected is ineligible though, even with no KPP players. There will just be the 50% penalty applied for each KPP that isn't accounted for in the team. Having the 2 year rolling list also allows for coaches to trade in KPP players they need in advance with at least some confidence of KPP players for the upcoming season.

I still like the AFL Fantasy DPP automatic status so I think that gets introduced no matter what.

What are coaches thoughts on this rule? Potentially something like:

• KPP status is granted on a rolling 2 year list of AFL Prospectus KPP classification (i.e. for 2021 season all players from 2020 and 2021 AFL prospectus that have KPP classification will have KPP status for the 2021 season.
• Removal of hardship KPP classification.
• Dual status automatically granted for KPPs as per AFL Fantasy classification (including in season position/DPP changes).
• 50% penalty for each KPP that isn't accounted for in team selections. (Current rule)

 

[GeeCat]

Would the proposed removal of hardship KPP classification also mean the removal of in-season KPP re-classification? I'm in general agreement with sausageroll's thoughts on KPP's and the proposal you've highlighted above fightingfury_88 , but my only hesitation would be removing any flexibility or ability for coaches to take advantage of any role changes to their players that happen during the season. For example, someone like Noah Balta wasn't classified as a key defender at the beginning of the 2020 season but pretty clearly became one early on during. It wouldn't make sense for his team to not be able to lean on his pretty clear role change and instead have to wait until the following season when the Prospectus updates.

It's an interesting discussion overall though, as the hardship rule in its current form definitely has too many loopholes that need tightening.

 

[Marklar_33]

No. There were still the same number of H&A matches for this season compared to previous seasons.

Oh yeah of course

 

[fightingfury_88]

Would the proposed removal of hardship KPP classification also mean the removal of in-season KPP re-classification? I'm in general agreement with sausageroll's thoughts on KPP's and the proposal you've highlighted above fightingfury_88 , but my only hesitation would be removing any flexibility or ability for coaches to take advantage of any role changes to their players that happen during the season. For example, someone like Noah Balta wasn't classified as a key defender at the beginning of the 2020 season but pretty clearly became one early on during. It wouldn't make sense for his team to not be able to lean on his pretty clear role change and instead have to wait until the following season when the Prospectus updates.

It's an interesting discussion overall though, as the hardship rule in its current form definitely has too many loopholes that need tightening.

In season KPP classification will still happen for those players that already have KPP status through the position changes that occur during the season on AFL Fantasy. What it won't capture though is new KPP players. So essentially, Balta would have been captured as a KPD through AFL Fantasy DPP status but a player like Luke Ryan wouldn't as he wasn't classified as a KPP at the beginning of the season.

 

[sausageroll]

Would the proposed removal of hardship KPP classification also mean the removal of in-season KPP re-classification? I'm in general agreement with sausageroll's thoughts on KPP's and the proposal you've highlighted above fightingfury_88 , but my only hesitation would be removing any flexibility or ability for coaches to take advantage of any role changes to their players that happen during the season. For example, someone like Noah Balta wasn't classified as a key defender at the beginning of the 2020 season but pretty clearly became one early on during. It wouldn't make sense for his team to not be able to lean on his pretty clear role change and instead have to wait until the following season when the Prospectus updates.

It's an interesting discussion overall though, as the hardship rule in its current form definitely has too many loopholes that need tightening.

The only problem with that is it still requires a decision to be made based on opinions. In 2019 I had Jeremy Howe playing as a key defender and provided links with evidence to back it up but it was denied on multiple occasions. Then this year he was given KPP status in proslectus, backing up my claims.

I don't think we should leave it up to opinions. Keep things black and white. AFL Fantasy will make changes throughout the year. We can just follow them. It won't suddenly allow a small who's playing as a kpp to gain the status but it will allow an eligible kpp forward to play as a kpp defender if he gets dual positioning. If a player is playing as a KPP this season they'll get it in prospectus next season.

Just allow people to play whoever they want as kpp/ruck if they require hardship players, but with a percentage of their score. Encourage people to make an effort to ensure they have sufficient coverage on their lists.

 

[sausageroll]

Ah I misinterpreted what you were suggesting. 100% agree with everything you are saying in this post and I actually really like that first idea now I understand what you are saying! I want to ensure that the importance of having KPP players in teams is maintained and IMO that means removing the hardship rule. To do this though coaches need to be able to plan for the KPP players on their list which having a two year rolling KPP list would allow. I was pretty lax on the hardship rule this year

The only thing I'm slightly concerned about is that players like Lukosius are unlikely to be KPP eligible at all (which is probably the reason he was drafted/traded for) and players like Luke Ryan who played KPP for most of the year wouldn't get KPP status until the 2021 season. It's not like the team selected is ineligible though, even with no KPP players. There will just be the 50% penalty applied for each KPP that isn't accounted for in the team. Having the 2 year rolling list also allows for coaches to trade in KPP players they need in advance with at least some confidence of KPP players for the upcoming season.

I still like the AFL Fantasy DPP automatic status so I think that gets introduced no matter what.

What are coaches thoughts on this rule? Potentially something like:

• KPP status is granted on a rolling 2 year list of AFL Prospectus KPP classification (i.e. for 2021 season all players from 2020 and 2021 AFL prospectus that have KPP classification will have KPP status for the 2021 season.
• Removal of hardship KPP classification.
• Dual status automatically granted for KPPs as per AFL Fantasy classification (including in season position/DPP changes).
• 50% penalty for each KPP that isn't accounted for in team selections. (Current rule)

I like all of those suggestions. But I'd like 50% penalty if the player is over 190cm and to only score 33% if they're under 190cm. Could potentiall change the score to 66% for over 90cm instead of 50% as they're fairly legitimate options even if they're not actually kpp.
People aren't goint to want to name their star small defender as a kpp if they don't need to. They'll still want to get 100% of his score. The players who'll be filling in will still be the people who would usually be named in the emergencies, so not in the top 18 scorers. 66 (or 50)% of the score for their best emergency over 190cm or 33% of the best small player for hardship seems fair if someone is in the position where they don't have a single kpp/ruck available from their list.

 

[fightingfury_88]

I like all of those suggestions. But I'd like 50% penalty if the player is over 190cm and to only score 33% if they're under 190cm. Could potentiall change the score to 66% for over 90cm instead of 50% as they're fairly legitimate options even if they're not actually kpp.
People aren't goint to want to name their star small defender as a kpp if they don't need to. They'll still want to get 100% of his score. The players who'll be filling in will still be the people who would usually be named in the emergencies, so not in the top 18 scorers. 66 (or 50)% of the score for their best emergency over 190cm or 33% of the best small player for hardship seems fair if someone is in the position where they don't have a single kpp/ruck available from their list.

I certainly get what you're saying but I think it just needs to be as simple as possible for now and keep it as a blanket 50% rule. Who's to say 190cm means much these days anyway. The likes of Bayley Fritsch and Luke Ryan are sub 190cm but certainly have a better case for KPP than 190cm plus players like Jackson Macrae, Patrick Cripps and Will Setterfield. I know a coach would never put a player likes Cripps or Macrae in a position where they could get their score penalised, but they're the first 190cm+ players that came to mind.

 

[sausageroll]

I certainly get what you're saying but I think it just needs to be as simple as possible for now and keep it as a blanket 50% rule. Who's to say 190cm means much anyway these days. The likes of Bayley Fritsch and Luke Ryan are sub 190cm but certainly have a better case for KPP than 190cm plus players like Jackson Macrae, Patrick Cripps and Will Setterfield. I know a coach would never put a player likes Cripps or Macrae in a position where they could get their score penalised, but they're the first 190cm+ players that came to mind.

Good point. We had similar discussions years ago on another site and the same points were raised. We ended up going with prospectus rulings alone with no flexibility. If you didn't have coverage you scored 0.
But trading was allowed all year round in that game so you could trade to cover shortages, which we can't do here. 50% across the board for hardship kpp/ruck works well here. But only when the team has no eligible players available.

 

[GeeCat]

In season KPP classification will still happen for those players that already have KPP status through the position changes that occur during the season on AFL Fantasy. What it won't capture though is new KPP players. So essentially, Balta would have been captured as a KPD through AFL Fantasy DPP status but a player like Luke Ryan wouldn't as he wasn't classified as a KPP at the beginning of the season.

That makes sense to me. To be transparent, the Ryan eligibility was more a pleasant surprise for me than anything else. As we saw this season, some pretty exceptional circumstances had to happen at Fremantle in order for Ryan playing as a KPD to come to fruition. I fully expect he’ll revert to a non-KPD role next season and wouldn’t expect him to qualify under Prospectus.

It’s the Balta cases that I’d be more wanting to capture as it’s much more commonplace for young KPP’s to be trialed and eventually played on the other end of the ground after an offseason. Those are the changes I would hope to be able to maintain some flexibility in capturing within the season.

The only problem with that is it still requires a decision to be made based on opinions. In 2019 I had Jeremy Howe playing as a key defender and provided links with evidence to back it up but it was denied on multiple occasions. Then this year he was given KPP status in proslectus, backing up my claims.

I don't think we should leave it up to opinions. Keep things black and white. AFL Fantasy will make changes throughout the year. We can just follow them. It won't suddenly allow a small who's playing as a kpp to gain the status but it will allow an eligible kpp forward to play as a kpp defender if he gets dual positioning. If a player is playing as a KPP this season they'll get it in prospectus next season.

Just allow people to play whoever they want as kpp/ruck if they require hardship players, but with a percentage of their score. Encourage people to make an effort to ensure they have sufficient coverage on their lists.

I have no problem with Prospectus or whatever official arm we’re using be the guiding force behind anything within the season. I’m not subscribed to Prospectus and admittedly not too familiar with how they operate, but if as you say they make adjustments during the season and we have visibility of that then I think that more than adequately captures my concerns above.

 

[sausageroll]

That makes sense to me. To be transparent, the Ryan eligibility was more a pleasant surprise for me than anything else. As we saw this season, some pretty exceptional circumstances had to happen at Fremantle in order for Ryan playing as a KPD to come to fruition. I fully expect he’ll revert to a non-KPD role next season and wouldn’t expect him to qualify under Prospectus.

It’s the Balta cases that I’d be more wanting to capture as it’s much more commonplace for young KPP’s to be trialed and eventually played on the other end of the ground after an offseason. Those are the changes I would hope to be able to maintain some flexibility in capturing within the season.



I have no problem with Prospectus or whatever official arm we’re using be the guiding force behind anything within the season. I’m not subscribed to Prospectus and admittedly not too familiar with how they operate, but if as you say they make adjustments during the season and we have visibility of that then I think that more than adequately captures my concerns above.

Prospectus is a book so it doesn't change during the season. Someone who isn't a kpp won't gain it mid season. But AFL Fantasy, which is the scoring system we use, make two or three updates to player positions throughout hte season. So if someone started only as a forward and they start playin in defence during the season they'll become eligible in both positions and if they were a key forward in prospectus they'd then also become a key defender by default.

AFL Fantasy doesn't remove the fwd eligibility, they add defender to make them dual position. They do the same for rucks, where they might become a ruck/fwd, gaining eligibiliy in the 2nd position while maintaining the first.

 

[fightingfury_88]

Great discussion on the KPP rules and I'm all for these changes now as it makes the rule much clearer and provides some certainty around what KPP players are available year to year. I believe it's to the benefit of the competition that we implement the new KPP classification rules immediately as it allows teams to be fully aware of what is on their list for 2021 prior to the off-season commencing.

I'll polish up the rule somewhat but essentially it will look like this:

Key Position Player Classification Rules
Some players may be classified into one (or more) of three key position types; key defender, key forward and ruck.

Players are originally classified as a awarded key position status through their classification in either the current year and/or the previous year's AFL Prospectus (e.g. for 2021 season the player is granted KPP status if they are classified as a KPP in either/both of the 2020 and/or 2021 AFL Prospectus.) There is no minimum or maximum number of these players allowed on your list and a single player can have multiple key position classifications.

In the key position player classification thread coaches can nominate for additional key position classifications for a player/s which will be decided on by the AFLTM league manager (fightingfury_88). There are no minimum or maximums on the number of times a coach can apply for a key position classification.

Coaches can nominate a player for key position classification under two different methods; permanent classification and hardship classification.

Permanent classification is usually the result of an obvious and certain role change for a player and is a permanent classification that lasts for the remainder of the season. Usually this applies to potential dual key position players, however it is not limited to just these players.

Hardship classification can be applied for due to injuries or AFL non-selections resulting in a shortage of key position players being picked for your team. This classification is temporary and may last until the team regains enough permanently classified key position players. Approval for classification of these types of players is less strict than those nominated for permanent classification, however an appropriate player still needs to be selected (i.e do not apply for a small forward to be classified as a key forward). A player may be classified as a permanent and a hardship classified key position player at the same time. (e.g a coach with a shortage in KPD players but excessive KPF players may nominate for one of their KPF classified players to be a hardship classified KPD in addition to their permanent classification.)

A player that has KPP status will automatically be granted dual KPP status if/when they have multiple eligible dual position classifications awarded to them in AFL Fantasy. This includes dual status being granted during the season. (e.g. if a KPP listed player has defender/forward status in AFL Fantasy then that player will have dual KPF/KPD status in AFLTM.)

When selecting teams, coaches must ensure that two key defenders, 2 key forwards and 1 ruck are selected in their starting 18.

If the above team selection conditions are not being met, then an appropriate key position replacement will be selected from the named interchange (i.e if a selected key defender is a late out or not named, a key defender will be selected from the interchange). If team selections conditions can still not be met, a replacement player will be picked from the interchange and their score divided by 2. If a late withdrawal from an AFL team results in a shortage of key position players on your field and there are no other suitable KPP players on the team's list that were eligible for selection, any key position classified player named on your interchange can take the place of the late withdrawal key position player without penalty.

 

[knobby]

I like the new AFL rule where 2 players can be moved directly to the rookie list.
Maybe could look at something like this in our game, obviously with restrictions!
Something like;

• Only available to uncontracted or players with up to 2 years remaining on contract.
• Only available to contracted players with salary no greater than $250k
• In the case of contracted players 50% of players original salary counts towards salary cap (no minimum so an $80k player only costs $40k)
• A contracted player can only be on the rookie list max two years, after this he will revert to normal uncontracted status
• Uncontracted players cost a nominal figure say $100k
• Uncontracted players can still be bid on and any bid from opposition coach invalidates rookie status and player will revert to normal contracted player.

Just brainstorming at the moment, feel free to tweak/discuss, food for thought.

 

[goldcoastsun]

I like the new AFL rule where 2 players can be moved directly to the rookie list.
Maybe could look at something like this in our game, obviously with restrictions!
Something like;

• Only available to uncontracted or players with up to 2 years remaining on contract.
• Only available to contracted players with salary no greater than $250k
• In the case of contracted players 50% of players original salary counts towards salary cap (no minimum so an $80k player only costs $40k)
• A contracted player can only be on the rookie list max two years, after this he will revert to normal uncontracted status
• Uncontracted players cost a nominal figure say $100k
• Uncontracted players can still be bid on and any bid from opposition coach invalidates rookie status and player will revert to normal contracted player.

Just brainstorming at the moment, feel free to tweak/discuss, food for thought.

I like this idea in some form.

 

[fightingfury_88]

Flagging a few more potential rule changes for next season. The first three I am keen on implementing. Proposals 4, 5 and 6 have been raised by coaches throughout the season and I'm flexible on exactly how these rules may look if they are implemented.

FWIW, I don't mind either of the proposals raised, however if the automatic rookie move rule is implemented I am strongly against having any salary reduction as part of it.

Can coaches please post any thoughts they may have as well as vote in the attached poll for the changes they would like to see implemented:

• Rule change proposal 1 - removal of requirement for coaches to use all picks traded for as well as all picks prior.
  • Essentially this rule will mean that coaches are no longer locked into using every pick they trade for.
    • Pros - makes the calculation of required picks and list sizes much easier for coaches and should free up trading opportunities.
    • Cons - could result in trades being completed for essentially nothing.
• Rule change proposal 2 - make all picks after the minimum pick requirements passable.
  • This ties into proposal 1 a little but means all picks are passable after the minimum requirement for the number of drafted players (i.e 3 players drafted minus one for any rookie promotion) are met.
    • Pros - Allows coaches to be much more flexible in trading and drafting
    • Cons - Same as proposal 1 and may also result in less drafted players
• Rule change proposal 3 - remove requirement for having at least one 1st rd pick or future rd 1 pick during trading period
  • Relates to the introduction of future pick trading. Allows coaches to trade all their picks if they wish.
    • Pros - Frees up trading, particularly for high end players as two first round picks are much more easily traded.
    • Cons - could result in a coach 'cashing out' draft picks for a couple of years via trades, making the team much more unattractive for new coaches if that coach then leaves the team.
• Rule change proposal 4 - allow out of contract veterans to be retained on the senior list via bidding.
  • Out of contract veterans can be moved to the senior list via the bidding process. Contracted veterans still must be re-veteranised, traded or delisted. If a coach bids on their out of contract veteran then they cannot then be placed on the veteran list.
    • Pros - allows flexibility for coaches and provides further benefits for players that have been on team's list for an extended period.
    • Cons - Provides further advantages for coaches that have been able to veteranise players on their list. Potentially too big an advantage.
• Rule change proposal 5 - add ability for coaches to move a total of two contracted players with 1 year remaining on their contract from senior list to rookie list automatically during off-season period.
  • A total of two contracted players with 1 year remaining on their contract can be moved from senior list to rookie list during the off-season. Contracted value remains the same as what the player was previously contracted to. Automatic rookie promotion rules do not apply to these players. Once moved to rookie list these players cannot then move back to senior list or be traded.
    • Pros - more list flexibility.
    • Cons - coaches could get themselves in a tight spot TPP wise fairly quickly utilising this too much. Less drafted players/less new players to lists.
• Rule change proposal 6 - add ability for coaches to place a rookie bid on an uncontracted player.
  • I'm open as to whether this would be restricted to just your own uncontracted players, or any uncontracted player. A rookie bid could be placed on an uncontracted player and if won, the player is placed on that team's rookie list. Rules would be the same as current rookie bid rules with any rookie bid beaten by any other bid that meets minimum contract requirements.

 

[sausageroll]

Flagging a few more potential rule changes for next season. The first three I am keen on implementing. Proposals 4, 5 and 6 have been raised by coaches throughout the season and I'm flexible on exactly how these rules may look if they are implemented.

FWIW, I don't mind either of the proposals raised, however if the automatic rookie move rule is implemented I am strongly against having any salary reduction as part of it.

Can coaches please post any thoughts they may have as well as vote in the attached poll for the changes they would like to see implemented:

• Rule change proposal 1 - removal of requirement for coaches to use all picks traded for as well as all picks prior.
  • Essentially this rule will mean that coaches are no longer locked into using every pick they trade for.
    • Pros - makes the calculation of required picks and list sizes much easier for coaches and should free up trading opportunities.
    • Cons - could result in trades being completed for essentially nothing.
• Rule change proposal 2 - make all picks after the minimum pick requirements passable.
  • This ties into proposal 1 a little but means all picks are passable after the minimum requirement for the number of drafted players (i.e 3 players drafted minus one for any rookie promotion) are met.
    • Pros - Allows coaches to be much more flexible in trading and drafting
    • Cons - Same as proposal 1 and may also result in less drafted players
• Rule change proposal 3 - remove requirement for having at least one 1st rd pick or future rd 1 pick during trading period
  • Relates to the introduction of future pick trading. Allows coaches to trade all their picks if they wish.
    • Pros - Frees up trading, particularly for high end players as two first round picks are much more easily traded.
    • Cons - could result in a coach 'cashing out' draft picks for a couple of years via trades, making the team much more unattractive for new coaches if that coach then leaves the team.
• Rule change proposal 4 - allow out of contract veterans to be retained on the senior list via bidding.
  • Out of contract veterans can be moved to the senior list via the bidding process. Contracted veterans still must be re-veteranised, traded or delisted. If a coach bids on their out of contract veteran then they cannot then be placed on the veteran list.
    • Pros - allows flexibility for coaches and provides further benefits for players that have been on team's list for an extended period.
    • Cons - Provides further advantages for coaches that have been able to veteranise players on their list. Potentially too big an advantage.
• Rule change proposal 5 - add ability for coaches to move a total of two contracted players with 1 year remaining on their contract from senior list to rookie list automatically during off-season period.
  • A total of two contracted players with 1 year remaining on their contract can be moved from senior list to rookie list during the off-season. Contracted value remains the same as what the player was previously contracted to. Automatic rookie promotion rules do not apply to these players. Once moved to rookie list these players cannot then move back to senior list or be traded.
    • Pros - more list flexibility.
    • Cons - coaches could get themselves in a tight spot TPP wise fairly quickly utilising this too much. Less drafted players/less new players to lists.
• Rule change proposal 6 - add ability for coaches to place a rookie bid on an uncontracted player.
  • I'm open as to whether this would be restricted to just your own uncontracted players, or any uncontracted player. A rookie bid could be placed on an uncontracted player and if won, the player is placed on that team's rookie list. Rules would be the same as current rookie bid rules with any rookie bid beaten by any other bid that meets minimum contract requirements.

My thoughts...

1 and 2. Pretty much the same thing. If the picks traded in that'd be affected by #1 are outside the minimum number of pcks they'd also fall under the second rule. I can see the potential for someone to trade an overpriced player for pick 120 ito free up salary space with no intention of ever taking the pick (essentially just giving him away for nothing) but I don't really see an issue with that if someone else has the salary cap to take on the overpriced player.
Yes for both.

3. I can see both sides here. We've seen coaches go all out for a premiership and trade all their picks away only to fall short and then quit. This leaves the new coach with no good picks. But they should have a pretty good list and can trade players out to get early picks if they want them. They'll get the first rounder from the followingyear and can amnesty overpriced players so shouldn't be too disadvantaged.
Yes

4. One of the problems with veterans is that they often suddenly drop off in scoring significantly and/or miss more games because of their ageing bodies. The 4th veteran contract is over $400k whil this player is no longer worth a contract of more than $200k. Enabling the coach to retain the player through the bidding system gives them no more advantage over anyone else than retaining any other uncontracted player. through the bidding system They still need to win the bid and match whatever salary any other coach is willing to pay the player. They're retained at market value, which is fair. Not allowing this actually disadvantages the club as they have to pay well over the player's value to retain them.
Yes

5. This is essentially extending the senior list by two, allowing two senior quality players to fill spots that are traditinally gambles on the scraps of players nobody in the competition thought was worthy of a senior spot. They'd replace the very last players anybody drafts too, so it's a significant upgrade. Might as well just increase the senior list by two because that's what it's doing.
No

6. This is a much better option than #5 and makes perfect sense if the rules are the same as the current rules for bidding on an existing rooke. If no coach has placed a bid on them and they're left there at the end of the bidding period it makes sense for the coach to be able to retain them as a rookie.
Yes

 

[goldcoastsun]

Flagging a few more potential rule changes for next season. The first three I am keen on implementing. Proposals 4, 5 and 6 have been raised by coaches throughout the season and I'm flexible on exactly how these rules may look if they are implemented.

FWIW, I don't mind either of the proposals raised, however if the automatic rookie move rule is implemented I am strongly against having any salary reduction as part of it.

Can coaches please post any thoughts they may have as well as vote in the attached poll for the changes they would like to see implemented:

• Rule change proposal 1 - removal of requirement for coaches to use all picks traded for as well as all picks prior.
  • Essentially this rule will mean that coaches are no longer locked into using every pick they trade for.
    • Pros - makes the calculation of required picks and list sizes much easier for coaches and should free up trading opportunities.
    • Cons - could result in trades being completed for essentially nothing.
• Rule change proposal 2 - make all picks after the minimum pick requirements passable.
  • This ties into proposal 1 a little but means all picks are passable after the minimum requirement for the number of drafted players (i.e 3 players drafted minus one for any rookie promotion) are met.
    • Pros - Allows coaches to be much more flexible in trading and drafting
    • Cons - Same as proposal 1 and may also result in less drafted players
• Rule change proposal 3 - remove requirement for having at least one 1st rd pick or future rd 1 pick during trading period
  • Relates to the introduction of future pick trading. Allows coaches to trade all their picks if they wish.
    • Pros - Frees up trading, particularly for high end players as two first round picks are much more easily traded.
    • Cons - could result in a coach 'cashing out' draft picks for a couple of years via trades, making the team much more unattractive for new coaches if that coach then leaves the team.
• Rule change proposal 4 - allow out of contract veterans to be retained on the senior list via bidding.
  • Out of contract veterans can be moved to the senior list via the bidding process. Contracted veterans still must be re-veteranised, traded or delisted. If a coach bids on their out of contract veteran then they cannot then be placed on the veteran list.
    • Pros - allows flexibility for coaches and provides further benefits for players that have been on team's list for an extended period.
    • Cons - Provides further advantages for coaches that have been able to veteranise players on their list. Potentially too big an advantage.
• Rule change proposal 5 - add ability for coaches to move a total of two contracted players with 1 year remaining on their contract from senior list to rookie list automatically during off-season period.
  • A total of two contracted players with 1 year remaining on their contract can be moved from senior list to rookie list during the off-season. Contracted value remains the same as what the player was previously contracted to. Automatic rookie promotion rules do not apply to these players. Once moved to rookie list these players cannot then move back to senior list or be traded.
    • Pros - more list flexibility.
    • Cons - coaches could get themselves in a tight spot TPP wise fairly quickly utilising this too much. Less drafted players/less new players to lists.
• Rule change proposal 6 - add ability for coaches to place a rookie bid on an uncontracted player.
  • I'm open as to whether this would be restricted to just your own uncontracted players, or any uncontracted player. A rookie bid could be placed on an uncontracted player and if won, the player is placed on that team's rookie list. Rules would be the same as current rookie bid rules with any rookie bid beaten by any other bid that meets minimum contract requirements.

I am happy with 1 or 2, I think it makes sense and I think it is important to have picks to trade now live trading is available

3 I am not a fan of, I think you need to be having first round picks.

4, I agree, I can see this situation coming up for myself with my vets.

5, I like this for a one off if we are to more list sizes down, however if not i don't see the point

6, I think this is a good idea.

 

[Pie 4 Life]

I agree with SR, I'd say yes to 1-4 and 6, with a no to 5. Prefer 6 to 5 as there's a few players UC that are worthy of a rookie spot.

 

[knobby]

I like them all with the exception of no. 3 I think we need to protect some teams from their over zealous coaches

with no. 5 as I proposed needs to have a max salary attached I reckon say $200-250k to have some integrity I mean there is not much point having Dusty Martin or Lachie Neale

9

Lachie Neale

Age

30

Ht

178cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

27.0

5star

K

11.5

4star

HB

15.5

5star

M

4.0

4star

T

3.7

5star

CL

5.9

5star

D

28.3

5star

K

13.9

5star

HB

14.4

5star

M

4.6

4star

T

4.0

5star

CL

5.9

5star

D

12.0

3star

K

4.6

2star

HB

7.4

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

1.0

3star

CL

0.4

3star

sitting on a rookie list. I proposed the salary reduction more with long term injuries in mind or slow developers like KPPs, just to allow some flexibility. For example someone like Tom Doedee

12

Tom Doedee

Age

27

Ht

190cm

Wt

90kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.1

4star

K

8.5

3star

HB

8.6

5star

M

5.6

5star

T

2.6

4star

MG

228.8

4star

D

15.3

4star

K

9.5

4star

HB

5.8

3star

M

6.3

5star

T

1.3

2star

MG

228.8

3star

D

19.8

5star

K

10.4

4star

HB

9.4

5star

M

6.6

5star

T

1.4

4star

from Adelaide didn’t play in his first two years but had potential and if the coach who drafted him was prepared to take the long term approach they could benefit from this. But I understand reservations.
maybe not ready for next season as a lot to thrash out.

 

[fightingfury_88]

Thank you to everyone who participated in discussion and/or voted in the poll. It was a great exercise for myself to hear other coaches' opinions on the game.

The following rule changes will be implemented immediately:
Proposal 1 - Removal of requirement to use all picks traded for.
Proposal 2 - Make all picks after the minimum pick requirements passable.
Proposal 4 - Allow out of contract veterans to be retained on the senior list via bidding.
Proposal 6 - Add ability for coaches to place a rookie bid on an uncontracted player. (Their own or other team's)

I am still likely to implement the following rule change in time for the next off-season, pending a bit more thought:
Proposal 3 - Remove requirement for having at least one 1st rd pick or future rd 1 pick.

I believe only being able to trade only 1 year in advance means that a coach will always have at the very least a future 1st, future 2nd and future 3rd rd pick available to trade at the start of every off-season which severely restricts the ability for any coach to completely destroy a team's long term outlook.

The following rule will not be implemented at this stage:
Proposal 5 - Add ability for coaches to move a total of two contracted players to rookie list.