Potential Rule Changes

[fightingfury_88]

Hello coaches. In the past coaches have often floated potential rule changes or tweaks to the game. It's certainly healthy to review things every now and then so that's what I'm opening this thread up for. I've quickly read through the current rules and proposed a few changes below; the live pick trading was mooted by a few coaches last off-season and seemed to have a bit of interest but was left a little late to implement. Please use this thread to discuss the potential changes listed below. I'm also keen to see what other ideas are out there so if you have any other suggested changes please fire away in here also.

I'll also open a poll - please vote for the rule changes you would be in favour of implementing. If a majority is received for one of the changes it is likely to be implemented for the upcoming season/off-season. Poll will close Friday March 6.

The rule changes I'd like to propose are:

• Live pick trading
• Future pick trading
• Rookie restrictions/Draft reshuffle
• Non-selection of teams/Auto-pick of teams

• Live Pick Trading
  • Live pick trading would open when the National Draft commences and close at the conclusion of the draft.
  • Only trading of national draft picks (including future if implemented), no pre-season or rookie draft pick trading.
  • Any traded picks become unpassable in the National Draft, as well as any pick before the traded in pick.
  • Teams must remain under the salary cap and the list size limit/minimum at all times and with every trade. This includes all unpassable picks counting towards total player payments and list sizes.
  • No players can be delisted/traded to make room for live pick trading.
  • No changes to time limits on picks. If you trade for a pick that is on the clock the confirmation of trade and the selection must still be made within 24 hours of the previous pick.
  • When trading a 2 (or 3,4,etc.) for 1 (or 2,3, etc.) pick deal, the team receiving more picks in return must have an enough unpassable picks that can be forefeited in order to remain under the list number limit. The team trading out multiple picks will have their next available pick/s on the "contracted player list table" slot into the appropriate position in the draft to keep the team at the correct list size.

• Future Pick Trading
  • Trading will open up to include the next year's draft picks (e.g for 2020 draft, 2021 draft picks will be available to trade)
  • Restricted to trading only future first, second or third round draft picks.
  • A team must maintain in it's possession a first round pick or a future first round pick at all times.
  • All traded picks and picks before traded picks must be taken in the draft. This includes future draft picks for the following year's draft. (Same rule as current, but expanded to include future picks)

• Rookie Restrictions/Draft Re-Shuffle
  • This rule would remove the age and game restriction on players eligible for rookie status. Essentially, all players will be rookie eligible if they are not drafted in National or Pre-Season draft.
  • As a result of this rule change, the pre-season draft will be moved to immediately after the National Draft. The rookie draft will commence at the conclusion of the Pre-season Draft. A Supplementary Selection Draft and Supplemntary Rookie Draft will be undertaken in the current Pre-Season Draft and Pre-Season Rookie Draft time slots (essentially the same thing for coaches who choose to pass in the National Draft, Pre-season draft or rookie draft).

• Non-selection of Teams/Auto-pick of Teams
  • This is more formalising a rule that I've already applied previous seasons. Essentially if a coach forgets to select their team then the team will be automatically selected from the previous week's selection. If a coach misses three team selections in a row, I will autopick the side based on available players and a new coach may be sought to take control of the team.

 

[eddiespocket]

Certainly in favour of all of those particularly 3 & 4. Have voted

 

[sante]

I’m in favour of all of them

 

[sausageroll]

Voted.

I'd like a change to the veteran retention rules. More often than not a 4th veteran isn't worth $500k (if he is, you've got an awesome veterans list).
They might be average players who were on veteran contracts because you had no other potions last season or they might be players that used to be good but droped off significantly in recent seasons. Either way, they're not worth the price of a 4th veteran.

Under the current rules, those players cannot be retained and another team gets a chance to get him on a cheap salary while the team he's been on long-term has to pay top dollar. If he's still on a contract then fair enough; he needs to be retained as a veteran or traded. But if he's uncontracted I think the team he's on should be able to retain him in the usual way.

 

[Marklar_33]

I’m happy with the current veteran rules. I don’t look at it as having the fourth player costing 500k, I see it as having 4 untouchable players on your list costing only 875k. If you have 4 players who qualify, you’d be mad not to use all 4 slots


A rule change I’ve floated previously is front ended contracts. After all signings, I would like to see the remaining cap money used to reduce a contract on your list for future season/s. It seems crazy to me to have money ‘left over’, unused

 

[fightingfury_88]

Voting has closed on the initial pole with 11 voters in total and a majority yes for all proposed rules to be implemented. I will look to implement these rules immediately. Thanks to all those who voted.

• Live Pick Trading - Votes: 8 (72.7%)
• Future Pick Trading - Votes: 9 (81.8%)
• Rookie Restriction/Draft Re-Shuffle - Votes: 10 (90.9%)
• Non Selection of Teams/Auto-pick of Teams - Votes: 10 (90.9%)

 

[fightingfury_88]

I'm 50-50 on the veteran rule proposed earlier in this thread. As such, I've now opened up a new poll on the veteran list rule changed posed by sausageroll. I've drafted up some rough rules around how the new rule would look. Cases for and against the rule have been posted previously in this thread by sausageroll and Marklar_33. I'm also happy for discussion for this potential rule change or others to continue in this thread.

Please vote "Yes" in the poll if you would like the Veteran List Proposed Rule to be implemented. Vote "No" if you would like the Veteran List Current Rule to continue.

Veteran List Current Rule
Up to 4 players on this list can be classified as veterans. These players must be turning 28 or older during the year of that season, and have completed 5 years on the list. Payments for these players will be free for the first player, 1% of the cap for the second player, 2% of the cap for the third player and 4% for the fourth player. Veterans cannot be unveteranised, they remain veterans until they are delisted or traded.

Veteran List Proposed Rule
Up to 4 players on this list can be classified as veterans. These players must be turning 28 or older during the year of that season, and have completed 5 years on the list. Payments for these players will be free for the first player, 1% of the cap for the second player, 2% of the cap for the third player and 4% for the fourth player. Contracted veteran players must be either retained on the veteran list, delisted or traded to another team. Uncontracted veterans can be moved to the senior list if retained via the bidding process. If the veteran's team places an own bid on their uncontracted veteran player they lose the right to retain that player via the veteran rules for that season.

 

[sante]

Before I vote, is this for the existing team?

 

[fightingfury_88]

Before I vote, is this for the existing team?

Not sure what you mean by existing team, but the rule would apply to veterans on your own list only with the intention to implement the rule change in the next off-season if it gets up.

 

[sante]

Not sure what you mean by existing team, but the rule would apply to veterans on your own list only with the intention to implement the rule change in the next off-season if it gets up.

Nevermind. I get the rule change now.

 

[fightingfury_88]

Thanks to all that voted in most recent poll. End results were 3 votes for changing the veteran rule, 4 votes against changing the veteran rule. As a result of this, the veteran rule will not be changed for the upcoming season.

Would you be in favour of allowing uncontracted veterans to be moved to senior list via bidding?
Yes Votes: 3 42.9%
No Votes: 4 57.1%

 

[fightingfury_88]

The AFL has reduced the matches this year to just 17 rounds. This means the current AFLTM fixture doesn't work. It's likely there are no bye rounds anymore so that leaves a total of 17 rounds to fit in the current 15 AFLTM H&A games + 4 finals rounds. Currently that leaves us two rounds short. I'm proposing one of two options for fixing this:

• Option 1 - Cut the H&A AFLTM rounds by 2, meaning each team plays 13 games. Keep finals system as is with 8 teams playing finals. This would mean that during the H&A rounds each team will not play every other team.
• Option 2 - Cut the finals to just the top 4 and play two rounds of finals. Means that in the H&A season every team plays every other team once but only 4 teams make the finals.

I've opened up a quick poll for coaches to vote for preferred option. Voting closes before the first bounce Thursday night.

 

[sante]

Tough one.

 

[peterss]

Can i suggest an Option 3.

Top 4 but have it as follows

Semi Final Game 1: 1 v 2 (winner straight into grandy)
Semi Final Game 2: 3 v 4 (loser out)

Prelim Final: Loser of Semi 1 v Winner of Semi 2

Grand Final: Winner of Semi Game 1 v Winner of Prelim

Thoughts?

 

[fightingfury_88]

Can i suggest an Option 3.

Top 4 but have it as follows

Semi Final Game 1: 1 v 2 (winner straight into grandy)
Semi Final Game 2: 3 v 4 (loser out)

Prelim Final: Loser of Semi 1 v Winner of Semi 2

Grand Final: Winner of Semi Game 1 v Winner of Prelim

Thoughts?

Only problem is we don't have enough weeks to complete that; assuming the number of H&A rounds is kept to 15.

 

[sante]

I’m really split with a decision. I think it’s fairest that we all play each other though. That way there’s no advantages/disadvantages

 

[sausageroll]

I’m really split with a decision. I think it’s fairest that we all play each other though. That way there’s no advantages/disadvantages

I agree with this. I don't like it being just top four though, especially with the prospect of the minor premiers being knocked out in the first week.
Neither is ideal, but I think I prefer going with 14 rounds, then final 8. Sure, a team might miss the 8 due to not playing one or two of the weaker teams but if they're that low they're not likely to be a real threat anyway. A gteam might miss out on the top 4 in the same way but at least they can still win if they would have been good enough to actually be a top 4 side. But to me the most important factor is the double chance for the top 4, especially minor premiers.

Could we potentially simulate the last two minor rounds we lose by taking the average scores for teams over the first 14 rounds? Compare the average score for each match-up and the higher average wins the match. Do that for each match of the two missed rounds. At least then it's fair for all teams.
I don't really think this is ideal either. Just trying to throw another option out there.


Another option might be to select two (or more) players from your team before each match to have their score count in one of the last two rounds as well as rhe current round. Once you have 18 different players' scores that becomes your team score for that round. You must select at least one player from each round to also score in either of the last two rounds (unless you don't have any unused players available).
Actually, I like this. It adds some tactics. Good planning might actually give you a slight advantage. Again, it's not ideal. But it might work.

 

[fightingfury_88]

I agree with this. I don't like it being just top four though, especially with the prospect of the minor premiers being knocked out in the first week.
Neither is ideal, but I think I prefer going with 14 rounds, then final 8. Sure, a team might miss the 8 due to not playing one or two of the weaker teams but if they're that low they're not likely to be a real threat anyway. A gteam might miss out on the top 4 in the same way but at least they can still win if they would have been good enough to actually be a top 4 side. But to me the most important factor is the double chance for the top 4, especially minor premiers.

Could we potentially simulate the last two minor rounds we lose by taking the average scores for teams over the first 14 rounds? Compare the average score for each match-up and the higher average wins the match. Do that for each match of the two missed rounds. At least then it's fair for all teams.
I don't really think this is ideal either. Just trying to throw another option out there.


Another option might be to select two (or more) players from your team before each match to have their score count in one of the last two rounds as well as rhe current round. Once you have 18 different players' scores that becomes your team score for that round. You must select at least one player from each round to also score in either of the last two rounds (unless you don't have any unused players available).
Actually, I like this. It adds some tactics. Good planning might actually give you a slight advantage. Again, it's not ideal. But it might work.

I don't mind either option, but in reality I want to keep things as simple as possible with so much uncertainty already this season.

 

[fightingfury_88]

Just recording that the final 4 system was the preferred fixture change. Obviously a lot is up in the air around the 2020 season so I'm not going to lock anything in yet, but if we are looking at a 17 round season then I will keep this preference in mind:

Option 1 - Cut the H&A AFLTM rounds by 2, meaning each team plays 13 games. 8 teams play finals Votes: 2 25.0%
Option 2 - Cut the finals to just the top 4 and play two rounds of finals. Votes: 6 75.0%

 

[fightingfury_88]

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.

 

[goldcoastsun]

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.

No issues with either of these from me

 

[Marklar_33]

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.

Will the points be pro-rated this year for the shorter season?

 

[Marklar_33]

And I’ll push again for the front loaded contracts when you have left over salary cap after the signing season is done

 

[fightingfury_88]

Will the points be pro-rated this year for the shorter season?

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

 

[fightingfury_88]

And I’ll push again for the front loaded contracts when you have left over salary cap after the signing season is done

I have looked at it previously. It's very difficult to manage. Not ruling it out for next off-season though.