Apoligise for the score error -- SUPER-LEAGUE BOARD

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

6/05/26 7:28:52pm [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11/07/06 6:00:02pm
Author: RB
Subject: Apoligise for the score error
In reply to: D9 's message, "It didn't cost the Cats the game........." on 11/07/06 3:24:26pm

Had Pettifer at 70 instead of 67 which would have meant a draw.

After the discussion above the Q needed to be asked though.

The opinions on tanking seemed to revolve around team selection/balance & the majority favoured keeping it realistic by not supporting the demotion of "big name" players in some sort of form.Any guidline/rule needs to be applied to all teams, regardless of ladder position.

If dropping high scoring "big name" players for emotional reasons is deemed acceptable for 1 team then this should also apply to all teams/players regardless of ladder position.Also if you can drop 1 player on emotion then that can be extended to multiple players.

Team selection is probably to variable to be governed by rigid Rules but maybe at the end of the year a set of guidlines regarding balance/form/experience can be put together.

cheers RB

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> Apoligise for the score error -- RB, 11/07/06 6:01:21pm [1]

Had Pettifer at 70 instead of 67 which would have meant a draw.

After the discussion above the Q needed to be asked though.

The opinions on tanking seemed to revolve around team selection/balance & the majority favoured keeping it realistic by not supporting the demotion of "big name" players in some sort of form.Any guidline/rule needs to be applied to all teams, regardless of ladder position.

If dropping high scoring "big name" players for emotional reasons is deemed acceptable for 1 team then this should also apply to all teams/players regardless of ladder position.Also if you can drop 1 player on emotion then that can be extended to multiple players.

Team selection is probably to variable to be governed by rigid Rules but maybe at the end of the year a set of guidlines regarding balance/form/experience can be put together.

cheers RB

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> I agree with RB. -- Josh, 11/07/06 7:08:08pm [1]

Looking at that squad there is no way Ottens would have been dropped.

Now I take the point that he dropped Ottens due to reasons other than tanking, but this makes it almost impossible to regulate.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> Yes not liking a player is no excuse -- Walt, 12/07/06 10:22:35am [1]

We don't have the benefit of dropping players for disciplinary reasons a la Akermanis. Playing "the kids" is no excuse either because they play anyway.

The team had no recognised ruckman so Ottens should've been in it. It didn't make any difference so we shouldn't get too excited but fact is we want to stop the end of the season becoming farcical with teams colluding or going for draft picks. While we don't want to tell Jacko how to run his team (and I don't think we are), all comps have rules and you gotta follow them to avoid anarchy.

So next week I could drop Bradshaw because he's an inconsistant poonce (he scored over 150 last week) and go for the priority pick.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> I agree with RB. -- Josh, 11/07/06 7:10:53pm [1]

Looking at that squad there is no way Ottens would have been dropped.

Now I take the point that he dropped Ottens due to reasons other than tanking, but this makes it almost impossible to regulate.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]