G/S/T discussions

[sausageroll]

Essentially it'll be Russian's decision on what method we use for determining eligibility for key positions and rucks but it's probably a good idea to get an idea of what people would prefer while we're waiting for him to log in.

We've never had a perfect system and I think it's unlikely that we ever will. I've never seen a system that's 100% fair while being completely realistic. And we all know all the systems that have tried here have had their flaws. But I agree we need something to keep things as realistic as possible so we don't see dodgy selections in these positions.

So lets get discussions going in here. How does everyone think we should handle kpps and rucks?

 

[Pie 4 Life]

Well I'm new here but I'll say the same thing I do for every league - AFL Prospectus to determine KPP and rucks. Yeah we might not all agree with some of their rulings, but it's a neutral ruling. Black and white. Anyway, that's my two cents

 

[ShaunDuggan]

I think we should go back to how it was before the GST rule. We are all pretty seasoned now so should know whats right and whats wrong.

Ive never been a fan of the GST rule and i think just keeping it simple is better. Common sense should be used when naming a team and recruiting your team etc.

 

[Danoz]

I think we should go back to how it was before the GST rule. We are all pretty seasoned now so should know whats right and whats wrong.

Ive never been a fan of the GST rule and i think just keeping it simple is better. Common sense should be used when naming a team and recruiting your team etc.

And perhaps just have a system where if you don’t agree with a team’s named kpps you can lodge a request for review or some shit like that.

 

[loopy_cam]

I think go back to before.

I'd like to have a reporting system though. So you can call out if you think a player is in an unrealistic position. Then the league gets to vote on it to determine whether there is a penalty. That way it's not just up to Russian to decide.

I also think it'd be better if that system was anonymous for obvious reasons. Perhaps we PM Russian, or someone else if he's too busy, and that person makes a poll thread. We could have it like the cricket where you're allowed two unsuccesful 'challenges' and then you can't do it anymore. Successful ones wouldn't count in your two.

 

[loopy_cam]

And perhaps just have a system where if you don’t agree with a team’s named kpps you can lodge a request for review or some shit like that.

While I was typing.

Great minds...

 

[Danoz]

I think go back to before.

I'd like to have a reporting system though. So you can call out if you think a player is in an unrealistic position. Then the league gets to vote on it to determine whether there is a penalty. That way it's not just up to Russian to decide.

I also think it'd be better if that system was anonymous for obvious reasons. Perhaps we PM Russian, or someone else if he's too busy, and that person makes a poll thread. We could have it like the cricket where you're allowed two unsuccesful 'challenges' and then you can't do it anymore. Successful ones wouldn't count in your two.

Maybe more than two. When we’re all amateurs and it’s supposed to be a fun game. As long as people aren’t going stupid we should be able to nominate whenever we’re not happy.

 

[loopy_cam]

Maybe more than two. When we’re all amateurs and it’s supposed to be a fun game. As long as people aren’t going stupid we should be able to nominate whenever we’re not happy.

It's only two incorrect ones though. Just makes people think about it instead of automatically reporting every time.

 

[sausageroll]

Maybe two incorrect calls but only if the clear majority is against the appeal. If it's an 8 to 7 majority they shouldn't be penalised because it was a legitimate call

 

[Pie 4 Life]

You could also just post your team list say a month out from the season, list all the players you think are KPD, KPF and ruck and then it's a case of any issues we discuss then... that way everyone knows leading into the season so there is a reference point and no arguments whether or not they are eligible to play there...

 

[Gee Dub]

I like the idea of using the prospectus but I'm more than happy to go back to the way it was before. I had good depth in my key position backs but had 3 injuries to first choice defenders at the one time and it wrecked my season. You can't plan for that. Common sense needs to prevail rather than be dictated to by a rule.

 

[Roylion]

I don't mind the GST rule, (as it does stop naming a midflelder at full forward for example), but the original rule of capping how many you could have on your list was unworkable. The GST rule can be a little inflexible too. 'G' players had to be in the forward line 'S' had to be in the backline . How many times did I have to name Araon Black at centre half forward because he was the very few G's I had, yet I had spare S players, that I coud have swung forward instead to occupy that key position post.

Using the AFL Prospectus to designate GST players is a good idea.

Alternatively... looking at a variety of lists it seems that most KPDs, KPF's and rucks are roughly 195 cm or taller. For example if I used Brisbane's list as an example, the players listed as such are:

Rucks: McInerney, Smith, Eagles, Martin
Tall Defenders: Andrews, Hammelmann, McStay
Tall Forwards: Hipwood, Skinner, Frost, Walker, Close
are all 195 cm plus.

Perhaps these sorts of players could be just designated as a 'tall' and indicated with a 'T'. If designated as a 'T', (i.e. 'tall") a player can be named in any of of FF, CHF, CHB, FB or RCk positions (or any other position too suc as a back pocket). If not designated as 'T', then players cannot be used in those posiitons. The 'T' designation would allow a bit more flexibility to cover injuries / withdrawals / non-selection than the current GST classification. There obviosuly be a minimum of five 'T" players named for each team per week.

Deciding which players can be designated as a 'T' could possibly be done via the AFL prospectus, instead of just height. Or we just go with height. Under that system the above Lions players for example, would be 'talls'. (i.e. "T".). I'll use my existing AFLTM list with the old and the new classification to give an example, although I've used "Tall" as the designation ecause we alreasy have a 'T'.

Adelaide Lions
Manager
Roylion
Senior List
1. Matthew Allen - $81,000 (1) [G] [Tall]
2. Jacob Allison - $100,000 (2)
3. Harris Andrews - $309,000 (3) [S] [Tall]
4. Tom Barrass - $177,000 (2) [S]
5. Ryan Bastinac - $384,000 (3)
6. Rohan Bewick - $219,000 (1)
7. Aaron Black - $130,000 (1) [G]
8. Jarryd Blair - $130,000 (1)
9. Angus Brayshaw - $405,000 (5)
10. Darcy Byrne-Jones ® - $115,000 (1)
11. Tom Campbell - $130,000 (1) [T] [Tall]
12. David Cuningham - $414,000 (3)
13. Harry Cunningham - $163,000 (2)
14. Ben Davis - $88,000 (2)
15. Liam Dawson - $260,000 (1)
16. Jade Gresham - $414,000 (3)
17. Michael Hibberd - $583,000 (2)
18. Josh Hill - $213,000 (2)
19. Zak Jones - $152,000 (1)
20. Mitch King - $88,000 (2) [G] [T] [Tall]
21. Ryan Lester - $196,000 (2)
22. Jake Lever - $360,000 (5) [S] [Tall]
23. Matthew Lobbe - $386,000 (2) [T] [Tall]
24. Ivan Maric - $405,000 (1) [T] [Tall]
25. Chris Masten - $455,000 (2)
26. Rhys Mathieson - $414,000 (3)
27. Liam McBean - $242,000 (3)
28. Hugh McCluggage - $124,000 (2)
29. Angus Monfries - $130,000 (1)
30. Clayton Oliver - $414,000 (3)
31. Rhys Palmer - $130,000 (1)
32. Cameron Pedersen - $130,000 (1) [G]
33. Lachlan Plowman - $130,000 (3) [S]
34. Esava Ratugolea - $88,000 (2) [Tall]
35. Nick Robertson - $130,000 (1)
36. Ben Sinclair - $130,000 (1)
37. Lachlan Tiziani - $88,000 (2) [G]
38. Jimmy Toumpas - $719,000 (4)
39. Jacob Townsend - $198,000 (2)
40. Adam Treloar - $878,000 (4)
41. Daniel Venables - $100,000 (2)
42. Sharrod Wellingham - $356,000 (2)
43. Brendan Whitecross - $130,000 (1)
44. Alex Witherden - $100,000 (2)
Veterans
Long Term Injury List
Rookie List
45. Luke Dunstan (1)
46. Todd Elton (1) [G] [Tall]
47. Kurt Heatherley (1) [S]
48. Jack Leslie (1) [S] [Tall]

Black, Pederson, Barrass, Tiziani, Heatherly or Plowman wouldn't classify as 'talls" under the height rule of 195 cm+. Drop it to 193 cm and Heatherley and Pederson also would qualify.

 

[Danoz]

I don't mind the GST rule, (as it does stop naming a midflelder at full forward for example), but the original rule of capping how many you could have on your list was unworkable. The GST rule can be a little inflexible too. 'G' players had to be in the forward line 'S' had to be in the backline . How many times did I have to name Araon Black at centre half forward because he was the very few G's I had, yet I had spare S players, that I coud have swung forward instead to occupy that key position post.

Using the AFL Prospectus to designate GST players is a good idea.

Alternatively... looking at a variety of lists it seems that most KPDs, KPF's and rucks are roughly 195 cm or taller. For example if I used Brisbane's list as an example, the players listed as such are:

Rucks: McInerney, Smith, Eagles, Martin
Tall Defenders: Andrews, Hammelmann, McStay
Tall Forwards: Hipwood, Skinner, Frost, Walker, Close
are all 195 cm plus.

Perhaps these sorts of players could be just designated as a 'tall' and indicated with a 'T'. If designated as a 'T', (i.e. 'tall") a player can be named in any of of FF, CHF, CHB, FB or RCk positions (or any other position too suc as a back pocket). If not designated as 'T', then players cannot be used in those posiitons. The 'T' designation would allow a bit more flexibility to cover injuries / withdrawals / non-selection than the current GST classification. There obviosuly be a minimum of five 'T" players named for each team per week.

Deciding which players can be designated as a 'T' could possibly be done via the AFL prospectus, instead of just height. Or we just go with height. Under that system the above Lions players for example, would be 'talls'. (i.e. "T".). I'll use my existing AFLTM list with the old and the new classification to give an example, although I've used "Tall" as the designation ecause we alreasy have a 'T'.

Adelaide Lions
Manager
Roylion
Senior List
1. Matthew Allen - $81,000 (1) [G] [Tall]
2. Jacob Allison - $100,000 (2)
3. Harris Andrews - $309,000 (3) [S] [Tall]
4. Tom Barrass - $177,000 (2) [S]
5. Ryan Bastinac - $384,000 (3)
6. Rohan Bewick - $219,000 (1)
7. Aaron Black - $130,000 (1) [G]
8. Jarryd Blair - $130,000 (1)
9. Angus Brayshaw - $405,000 (5)
10. Darcy Byrne-Jones [emoji768] - $115,000 (1)
11. Tom Campbell - $130,000 (1) [T] [Tall]
12. David Cuningham - $414,000 (3)
13. Harry Cunningham - $163,000 (2)
14. Ben Davis - $88,000 (2)
15. Liam Dawson - $260,000 (1)
16. Jade Gresham - $414,000 (3)
17. Michael Hibberd - $583,000 (2)
18. Josh Hill - $213,000 (2)
19. Zak Jones - $152,000 (1)
20. Mitch King - $88,000 (2) [G] [T] [Tall]
21. Ryan Lester - $196,000 (2)
22. Jake Lever - $360,000 (5) [S] [Tall]
23. Matthew Lobbe - $386,000 (2) [T] [Tall]
24. Ivan Maric - $405,000 (1) [T] [Tall]
25. Chris Masten - $455,000 (2)
26. Rhys Mathieson - $414,000 (3)
27. Liam McBean - $242,000 (3)
28. Hugh McCluggage - $124,000 (2)
29. Angus Monfries - $130,000 (1)
30. Clayton Oliver - $414,000 (3)
31. Rhys Palmer - $130,000 (1)
32. Cameron Pedersen - $130,000 (1) [G]
33. Lachlan Plowman - $130,000 (3) [S]
34. Esava Ratugolea - $88,000 (2)
35. Nick Robertson - $130,000 (1)
36. Ben Sinclair - $130,000 (1)
37. Lachlan Tiziani - $88,000 (2) [G]
38. Jimmy Toumpas - $719,000 (4)
39. Jacob Townsend - $198,000 (2)
40. Adam Treloar - $878,000 (4)
41. Daniel Venables - $100,000 (2)
42. Sharrod Wellingham - $356,000 (2)
43. Brendan Whitecross - $130,000 (1)
44. Alex Witherden - $100,000 (2)
Veterans
Long Term Injury List
Rookie List
45. Luke Dunstan (1)
46. Todd Elton (1) [G] [Tall]
47. Kurt Heatherley (1) [S]
48. Jack Leslie (1) [S] [Tall]

Problem is that some kpp are less than 195. I’d want clarity around those players as to whether they can still be put in those positions.

 

[Roylion]

Problem is that some kpp are less than 195. I’d want clarity around those players as to whether they can still be put in those positions.

Not much less. Maybe drop it to 193 cm+.

 

[fightingfury_88]

I don't mind the GST rule but it does need some tweaking. If you are going to allocate roles then do it at the start of the season and have them set. Relying on coaches to review opposition teams named during the year could be a hassle and opens up grey areas. I also don't think height is a good indicator for role.

The GST players needing to be named on the field is too much too. I'd keep it to a minimum of 5. Heck we saw Richmond win the premiership this year with one KPF.

My preference would be to use the AFL Prospectus as it is an independent expert opinion on roles. Perhaps have a method where coaches can apply for additions/changes to the allocations to there team during the season. Could even have some sort of system where you can apply for a temporary allocation due to injuries.

 

[Roylion]

If you are going to allocate roles then do it at the start of the season and have them set.

I'd like to see the 2018 classifications set before the start of this period of trading, so coaches can trade for needs. I wouldn't want to trade for a player thinking for example they were a (G) only to find that they were re-classified into say an (S).

 

[Danoz]

I'd like to see the 2018 classifications set before the start of this period of trading, so coaches can trade for needs. I wouldn't want to trade for a player thinking for example they were a (G) only to find that they were re-classified into say an (S).

I agree. However the trade period will be over prior to the release of the next champion data book (incl rookies) so we’ll need a bit of research done.

 

[loopy_cam]

Having a list is just like having the rule we had this year isn't it?

 

[ShaunDuggan]

If we were to havd the GST rule again its going to take too much time to get moving. We are already a month behind at least.

 

[sausageroll]

The 2016/17 off-season kicked off this time last season, pretty much to the day, so at this stage we're only just getting behind now. Hopefully we'll see Russian appear soon, but this is what I think we should do in the meantime just in case...

Personally, I think we should aim at starting the bidding and trading in a month. At that stage we will be a month behind but we can catch up during the drafts, which always take a lot longer than they need to.
So that gives us time to sort out salary caps, player minimum salary projections, veteran status, etc. We can also use that time to work out exactly what we want to do with regards to kpp and rucks without costing us extra time.

If people think one month is too much to catch up I think we could kick off the off-season bidding in 2 weeks time, but we'd need to get stuck into the contract projections now.

Does this sound reasonable to everyone?
Can anyone think of anything else that needs to be sorted out?
Any other issues (minor or major) with any aspect of the game?

This is probably a good time for everyone to speak up while there's an outside chance we may need to run the game ourselves.

 

[ShaunDuggan]

Russian still hasn't logged in so maybe we should start preparing to run it ourselves?

 

[sausageroll]

Some work has been done in the background and we're confident we can get the projected contracts somewhere close to what they should be and will work at getting everything set up over the next couple of weeks.

I'll start a thread for anyone to contribute in the setting up of the off-season.

 

[sausageroll]

off-season planning discussion and progress updae thread:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2017-18-off-season-set-up.1180757/

 

[sante]

I like the idea that any coach can contest another teams line up if the line up looks unrealistic.