Round 14 Discussion

[manboob]

I think as long as they announce whatever they will do after round's end it should be OK.

 

[pincrusher]

I would think the fairest way is to maybe do something similar to the byes where only 20 players count give or take. No avg points will be given its a competition for money and potentially end up in court rooms if something like that happens.

I like that idea a lot.

 

[Mr Magic]

Projected points I reckon. There are 3 new players named on extended bench. If they actually get picked, they have no average.

RIP Phil Walsh.

projected points stuff up the values plus its an abstract.

they did not actually play

 

[j0rdy1]

Might swap Glenn and Thompson around so I get Kraks 101. Instead of whatever SC decides to do with the Geelong/Adelaide game.

 

[Mr Magic]

I would think the fairest way is to maybe do something similar to the byes where only 20 players count give or take. No avg points will be given its a competition for money and potentially end up in court rooms if something like that happens.

what complicates it is the round has actually started so this affects those handling the partial lockup to.

Might just have to let in run

 

[Ingy]

They should probably just cancel trivial shit like fantasy football games on a weekend like this.

Everyone gets zero. It's fair as

 

[Woodie99]

I think as long as they announce whatever they will do after round's end it should be OK.

To messy for me, must be before tonight's game so everyone knows where they stand with the players affected.

 

[PoopingHindi]

i dont know how you can give average or projected points when the teams werent even finalised.
...or do 25 Crows and Cats score this week?



just call it off. i could do with the break anyway

 

[FFB1]

If the whole round gets canned then it stuffs SC cup up?

Edit - if it does come to that perhaps it's just by rankings for the round and not head to head (bottom half drop out).

 

[slashin_velvet]

- Cancel the round
- Every player is in their pre-round position (reverse all trades etc)
- Push all the head to head matchups back a week because there is a 1 week buffer for finals.

No impact on people with Adelaide and Geelong players, and no impact on people who made changes accordingly.

 

[FFB1]

- Cancel the round
- Every player is in their pre-round position (reverse all trades etc)
- Push all the head to head matchups back a week because there is a 1 week buffer for finals.

No impact on people with Adelaide and Geelong players, and no impact on people who made changes accordingly.

The whole point of the buffer was to avoid having players rested so not sure that's a solution?

 

[Kadog]

IMO, awarding season avg is the fairest and least disruptive thing to do.

 

[slashin_velvet]

The whole point of the buffer was to avoid having players rested so not sure that's a solution?

We've made do in every year prior.

 

[cookie33]

Projected points I reckon... It's only 1 game so it won't have a major effect in the whole scheme of things.

 

[manboob]

To messy for me, must be before tonight's game so everyone knows where they stand with the players affected.

No, it's best decision if they decide to give average or projected points people will game the system and trade accordingly.

 

[rocker_oz33]

Season av on cats and crows IMHO.

 

[FFB1]

Issue with going average points would be the teams hadn't been finalised so would it be the average of all 25 players including extended bench?

 

[Keg on legs]

Tough decision. If the round proceeds, people will be disadvantaged in a SC sense. Some will win out of it too.

Now, I am not for one secon suggesting that SC even compares 0.01% with the wider issues of this tragedy, but the fact of the matter is there is $50k at stake for the winner. You'd hate to drop down the ranking because you have, say, danger, Jacobs, laird, Selwood and blics and your closest rival has none.

I don't know what they do, and whatever they do won't really effect me, but it is a real consideration.

Puts a lot of things in perspective.

RIP

 

[FFB1]

We've made do in every year prior.

Yes we have, though the bloke in our cash league who lost the GF after losing 1 gsme all season would probably disagree

 

[Krujan]

Tough decision. If the round proceeds, people will be disadvantaged in a SC sense. Some will win out of it too.

Now, I am not for one secon suggesting that SC even compares 0.01% with the wider issues of this tragedy, but the fact of the matter is there is $50k at stake for the winner. You'd hate to drop down the ranking because you have, say, danger, Jacobs, laird, Selwood and blics and your closest rival has none.

I don't know what they do, and whatever they do won't really effect me, but it is a real consideration.

Puts a lot of things in perspective.

RIP

I honestly think that SC/HUN will do nothing and we will all just rely on whatever bench coverage we have.

There just isn't enough time to get computer programmers to make wholesale changes to the SC platform on such short notice and any changes like giving out "projected" scores will undermine the whole competition, since some player projected scores are way under what they could potentially score and visa versa. Season averages are also not a good indication of what a player will score, since some players score better or worse depending on the opposition.

 

[Vapor]

I honestly think that SC/HUN will do nothing and we will all just rely on whatever bench coverage we have.

Agreed, like others have said I think the scoring will get too messy when it comes to extended benches/player price changes if they were to just give projected scores or averages

 

[hoddo]

The SC side of this tragedy really shouldn't be so complicated. The rules of SC clearly state that points are scored by those players who play in each round. If a player doesn't play then he scores no points. That's regardless of whether he is injured in a game, injured at home, a bug sweeps through the club or even a tragic event like this. There are no circumstances in the rules that allow a player to score points when he does not play. I have Adelaide and Geelong players in my team too and I'm not happy about them scoring zeros, but I really don't see any other reasonable option.

 

[OneEyedHawk]

If my son was 16 and I found out he had a beer I'd be happier with that than if he had meth. Meth is highly addictive, expensive, illegal and a far quicker road to disaster than alcohol that is perfectly fine if kept in moderation. Alcohol is more readily available so of course more widely abused therefore causing more problems but to say it's a more damaging SUBSTANCE is incorrect and irresponsible. Meth should not be touched ever by anyone.

I probably should've qualified what I said. That alcohol is more damaging to society than any other substance. And not because it's more widely used, but because...it's more damaging to society than any other substance.

And alcohol is not perfectly fine in moderation for a 16yo, not in any way shape or form. It is completely toxic for a developing (<25) brain and body. And I'm no wowser, I drank (and used) more than most at that age, but if I knew then what I know now...

 

[Krujan]

Agreed, like others have said I think the scoring will get too messy when it comes to extended benches/player price changes if they were to just give projected scores or averages

I'm not a computer programmer, maybe Jiska would know better, but I can't see how the SC website/platform programmers could possibly make the sort of changes for this weeks round that people are suggesting on only a few hours notice.

 

[Falchoon]

I only have Sam Jacobs from either team and I can cover, even still I believe average or projected scores should be awarded.