Round 19 Teams

[ShaunDuggan]

Really annoying to be eliminated purely for not having a second stopper. That rule needs some flexibility I reckon.

Ive lost a few games because of the rule, losing by 20 odd points and having to have a player short. Needs tweaking.

 

[ShaunDuggan]

If an AFL team is decimated by injuries they arent going to play a player short, they will have a makeshift forward line or backline, or chuck a player like Watts/McGovern etc in the ruck. There needs to be the option during the season where you can apply to have a postional change because of hardship. Not fair if your team is hit hard because of injuries you cant replace a player. That's just unlucky.

 

[loopy_cam]

Is be in favor of a gst request thread where you can request a player play as gst due to hardship. Could even be two options to appeal. Either they play as a GST now and they should gain the status, or they could pinch hit as one and you get half their score or something.

 

[Danoz]

Yeah I thought I had Harry Marsh as a key defender. He would've been my 5th stopper. Turned out he didn't play much anyway, but would've been a few extra points. Much of the season I only had one stopper, May injuries and suspension, Schofield became WCs almost 5th option, Dawson was dropped early in favor of youth and Pearce never came back from his broken leg. I didn't ever think 5 (which ended up as 4) wouldn't be enough. But then at times I had 5-6 goal kickers and tappers playing. An option to appeal for hardship would've come in handy.

 

[Russian]

There have been 69 times in 17 rounds so far where a team has been at least one short (17 times it was more than one), and there are only 5 teams who haven't been short at least once (and that will drop to 4 if Stanley doesn't get a game this week), 5 have been short 1-3 times, and 6 have been short at least 6 times. That tells me there's a fundamental problem with the rule and/or its implementation that can't be wallpapered over with the odd exemption.

 

[ShaunDuggan]

Scrap the rule then and go back to how it used to be with them rules. Were all seasoned managers now and so long as we educate the nOObs coming in it might be ok.

 

[Marklar_33]

Scrap the rule then and go back to how it used to be with them rules. Were all seasoned managers now and so long as we educate the nOObs coming in it might be ok.

I don't mind the loopy_cam suggestion of a percentage of the score if playing a non GST in a key post

 

[ShaunDuggan]

That's ok, but ive never been a fan of the rule really. Scrap it.

 

[Marklar_33]

That's ok, but ive never been a fan of the rule really. Scrap it.

Have you ever left your feelings on the matter be known...?

 

[loopy_cam]

If there's nothing in place we'll end up having people play Kade Simpson types at CHB. Need some kind of penalty.

 

[Marklar_33]

If there's nothing in place we'll end up having people play Kade Simpson types at CHB. Need some kind of penalty.

Rarely happened before

 

[loopy_cam]

Rarely happened before

From most people I agree. Is it worth letting one questionable coach 'steal' 2 or 3 wins though?

 

[ShaunDuggan]

If a player is played ridiculously out of position 0 points. Pretty simple. We are all seasoned managers just simply need to educate the new ones coming in a bit better.

 

[loopy_cam]

Who judges ridiculous though?

 

[Marklar_33]

Who judges ridiculous though?

Good point

 

[Danoz]

Andrew Mackie is the same height as Heath Grundy (actually taller) but I'd never argue Mackie as a key defender. Harry Marsh on the other hand is less than 190cm, but last year when Sydney were lacking talks, he played as a key defender and wasn't too bad, and I'd argue he'd be an ok choice as a stopper. There's gotta be some common sense and logic used as well.

 

[ShaunDuggan]

Who judges ridiculous though?

Good point

Russian for one, id even throw in 2 others like fightingfury_88 and sausageroll to gaze over the teams, if there is a questionable position in question then theres 3 to vote on.

But its just plain common sense on postioning and recruiting etc

 

[loopy_cam]

Andrew Mackie is the same height as Heath Grundy (actually taller) but I'd never argue Mackie as a key defender. Harry Marsh on the other hand is less than 190cm, but last year when Sydney were lacking talks, he played as a key defender and wasn't too bad, and I'd argue he'd be an ok choice as a stopper. There's gotta be some common sense and logic used as well.

I think Mackie could be a key defender as a backup. He's done key roles before.

 

[loopy_cam]

Russian for one, id even throw in 2 others like fightingfury_88 and sausageroll to gaze over the teams, if there is a questionable position in question then theres 3 to vote on.

But its just plain common sense on postioning and recruiting etc

That's fine as long as there is a criteria they're judging to.

You could say it has to be realistic but what does that actually mean?

 

[sausageroll]

Russian for one, id even throw in 2 others like fightingfury_88 and sausageroll to gaze over the teams, if there is a questionable position in question then theres 3 to vote on.

But its just plain common sense on postioning and recruiting etc

I'm very happy to step up and help Russian in any way I can, but I'm not sure I'd be the best person for this particular responsibility. I don't spend as much time and effort on fantasy footy as I used to so I don't know anywhere near as much about the players as I used to.

If I was responsible for gazing over the teams and picking up questionable positions then I don't think I'd be any good. But if it involved all coaches being able to question (or request) selections and I was one of a group responsible for voting on the legitimacy of the selection I'd be ok with that as I can very easily do some research and make an educated decision on which way to vote.

 

[ShaunDuggan]

I'm very happy to step up and help Russian in any way I can, but I'm not sure I'd be the best person for this particular responsibility. I don't spend as much time and effort on fantasy footy as I used to so I don't know anywhere near as much about the players as I used to.

If I was responsible for gazing over the teams and picking up questionable positions then I don't think I'd be any good. But if it involved all coaches being able to question (or request) selections and I was one of a group responsible for voting on the legitimacy of the selection I'd be ok with that as I can very easily do some research and make an educated decision on which way to vote.

Perhaps its the responsibility of the opposing coach to question a player thats playing in a questionable position? We could have a seperate thread (Board Room) where it could be voted on as a whole group or by a select 3 or something. Example, during the year Carlton played Weitering as a Forward, was only for a few games, but my team was short a forward as well so i could potentially have played Weitering as a Forward at that particular time due to injuries etc.