AFL Team Manager Rules - OLD

[TheBeardAmigos]

i am happy to coach a team, if there is a spot available.

 

[ShaunDuggan]

In the event we stick with 18 teams I'm willing to part ways with my StKilda list to entice a coach to stay on board, coz a rebuild takes a few years of commitment so I'd be happy to take on a crap list if need be.

Id also like to see the teams that have been down the bottom for multiple years get a priority pick. Or atleast be able to apply for one, either gives them an extra young kid or they can use as a trade piece to get in some good talent.

 

[Marklar_33]

I've already taken my quality list and turned it to pure shite

 

[ShaunDuggan]

I've already taken my quality list and turned it to pure shite

You do follow Collingwood. #bemorebeveridge

 

[Marklar_33]

As a Malthouse supporter, I sure do follow Buckley's mantra...

 

[knobby]

Like the idea of 16 teams but as someone else raised we would need bigger list sizes and salary caps.

Also what do we do with players from the 2 cut teams do we have a separate draft or do they go into main draft and what contracts are they on?

Also would like to reconsider finals series it seems difficult to follow and contains some meaningless games imo, perhaps should follow afl final 8.

 

[Danoz]

I have a mate whom if was involved, would stick it out. He's not on bigfooty but has asked me before about joining comps like this one.

 

[fightingfury_88]

I have a mate whom if was involved, would stick it out. He's not on bigfooty but has asked me before about joining comps like this one.

That along with TheBeardAmigos means we can probably have 18 teams if wanted. I suppose it depends on if that is the path we wish to go down.

 

[fightingfury_88]

i am happy to coach a team, if there is a spot available.

It's probably worth posting your interest in the thread below so it doesn't get lost in this thread:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2-teams-available.242942/page-12

 

[Roylion]

I reckon more strict rules around team structure. Have to have 2 stoppers, 2 goal kickers and at least one ruck in your team. If you don't have them you can't play someone else.

My suggestions:

1. Scrap the maximum rule of eleven GST in a squad. Far too artificial.

2. Each named team per week, must have a minimum of six GST players, (a third of the team of 18) with a minimum of two GKs, two STs and one TAP named, with the minimum sixth coming from any of the three classifications. Those six GST players should be named at FB, CHB, CHF, FF, RCK and one other position, of the player's choice. You could of course name more. When naming a side each coach should put a 'G', an 'S' or a 'T' next to the relevant player's name to enable a quick count.

For example a team might be named in the following format:

B: Harris Andrews (S), Jake Lever (S), Zak Jones
HB: Liam Dawson, Jake Carlisle (S), Sharrod Wellingham
C: Rhys Palmer, Ryan Bastinac, Harry Cunningham
HF: Michael Hibberd, Joe Daniher (G), Andrew Walker
F: Aaron Black (G), Ryan Schoenmakers (G), Angus Monfries,
R: Ivan Maric (T), Jimmy Toumpas, Angus Brayshaw
I: Matthew Lobbe (T), Nick Robertson, Lynden Dunn (S), Jarryd Blair

So under this format, a quick count can be made. I have a minimum one TAP, two Goalkickers and two stoppers, but also have my minimum sixth (say Harris Andrews) in the back pocket. This week I've decided to name an extra Goalkicker Aaron Black in the forward pocket. It's quick and its easy to check. And also fulfills the whole point of introducing the rule in the first place, which was to maintain team balance on a week to week basis and not have too many high PG midfielders types.

The obvious conclusion is that the minimum GST players you would need on a list would be six. That's 108 players in total from an overall total of 720 players (15%). I don't think any team would have too much difficulty getting a minimum of six GST players on their list. There would be no need to impose an arbitrary, unnecessary and restricting maximum rule.

If a squad did only have a minimum of six, then that carries the inherent danger of one or more of them being injured, in which case they would still have to be named, with resultant penalties and also carrying a 0 into the game. For example from the above side, Ivan Maric might be injured, so I might have one or two extra depth tappers to cover his loss and who could be named each week.

3. Make it a rule that a GST player named but that doesn't end up playing that week can only be replaced by another GST player on the bench. So in my example above, I name Carlisle, but he doesn't play and Lynden Dunn who is a stopper who I've named on my bench for that week, comes in and plays.

Coaches can risk having only six GST players on their squad, but it's a significant risk for reasons already explained.

This system with no maximum GST, does not inhibit coaches from building a list, or drafting the players they want to draft, without having to worry about de-listing required players 12 months down their track because their drafted players are suddenly GST players and the total number won't fit under a maximum.

 

[sante]

I have a mate whom if was involved, would stick it out. He's not on bigfooty but has asked me before about joining comps like this one.

Your alias? just admit you want 2 teams to rig it

 

[sante]

Roylion has summed up the GST perfectly IMO.

 

[fightingfury_88]

Love your ideas Roylion . I'm not 100% sure on what the categorised positions/players should be but I certainly agree with implementing something around naming a certain number of these categorised positions/players in the team every week. I also am fully behind removing the maximum numbers of these players you can have on your list.

 

[Woefully Inept]

I like all the GST stuff suggested, should it be easier to allow players without AFL experience but play in those positions to be considered Tappers and Goal Kickers and Stoppers based on Reserves/U18 footy? I know it was hard to make players Tappers and Stoppers this year without considerable experience so I think you might just have to be more lenient on that, but I like the idea

 

[Roylion]

I like all the GST stuff suggested, should it be easier to allow players without AFL experience but play in those positions to be considered Tappers and Goal Kickers and Stoppers based on Reserves/U18 footy?

I think so. Weitering and Schache were well known as a key defender and a key forward respectively, before they wee drafted. So Weitering would be an (S) and Schache a (G) Classifications will and can very from year to year. Being classified as a GST doesn't stop you from named in other positions apart from the key positions. If I had enough GST players, I might name Schache (G) in the forward pocket.

 

[fightingfury_88]

I like all the GST stuff suggested, should it be easier to allow players without AFL experience but play in those positions to be considered Tappers and Goal Kickers and Stoppers based on Reserves/U18 footy? I know it was hard to make players Tappers and Stoppers this year without considerable experience so I think you might just have to be more lenient on that, but I like the idea

I definitely agree with this too as I don't think you can base the categories on pure stats alone, particularly for young players.

 

[Danoz]

Your alias? just admit you want 2 teams to rig it

I can hardly cope with one team in the off season let alone 2

 

[Presti_is_god]

If we have some coaches who can be vouched for and will stay around then lets definitely stick with the current number of teams.

I really strongly agree with the issue of drafting KPP players. If a kid is a full forward, played FF in the u18's and got drafted to play FF then there shouldnt be an issue naming him there. Unless his role drastically changes at AFL level which can happen.

 

[Danoz]

I'm catching up with my friend hopefully tomorrow night and will make sure he's up for it before I put him up as an option.

 

[loopy_cam]

I'm happy for GST players to be voted on by everyone. So to begin with I go through my list and put up my players that I think should be eligible (and why if necessary). If no-one has a problem with my nominations they all go through. If someone has a problem we have a league wide vote on their eligibility. If everyone does this to their own list it shouldn't take too long.

A problem would be if people put a whole heap of players up who are next to no chance of being 'ok'ed and we have to do a lot of meaningless votes..

 

[Russian]

1) Naming 6 key forwards is just as bad as naming 0, so there will be maximum limits. Going to a weekly system means they don't apply to list makeup.
2) Policing weekly is going to add too much time to the scoring process, so I'm not going to be doing it.
3) I hate the idea of increasing the chances of teams playing short because of bad luck, but I seem to be on my own on that.

So here it is, based on the suggestions of Roylion and loopy_cam

1. Each named team per week must have between six and nine GST players (between a third and half of the team of 18)
2. There must be a maximum of 5 goalkickers and a minimum of 2 named at FF and CHF
3. There must be a maximum of 5 stoppers and a minimum of 2 named at FB and CHB
4. There must be a maximum of 3 tappers and a minimum of 1 named at RUCK
5. A GST player named but that doesn't end up playing that week can only be replaced by another GST player on the bench.
6. If you can't fill those key positions with nominated players, you get a zero for the positions you can't fill.
7. It is up to coaches to police the above rules.
8. Each coach will be allocated two (some coaches will get three if we have less than 18 coaches) AFL lists from which they must determine for each player whether they are happy for him to be named at FF/CHF, FB/CHB and/or RUCK. Where the 2 coaches assessing the player agree on a classification, that determination is final. A discussion thread will be created for all disagreements, and at the end of that juries of 5 randomly selected coaches will make a final majority decision.

To minimise the impact of this rule we will go back to 16 teams, so I need confirmations from GeeCat Bluesy eddiespocket before confirming there is no team available for TheBeardAmigos.

 

[GeeCat]

Still alive and kicking over here

 

[eddiespocket]

Yes still keen

 

[Bluesy]

I'm still in

 

[TheBeardAmigos]

ill be watching with interest