VoyForums
[ 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):

7/10/25 1:01pm [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

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

Date Posted: 27/05/21 3:37pm
Author: D9
Subject: I read the posts you refer to and
In reply to: GTD 's message, "Don’t let facts get in the way of your argument..." on 27/05/21 12:02am

As far as I can tell it was a discussion as you said by a couple of coaches on or around 30/09 so just after the AFL Grand Final had been played, so roughly 5-8 weeks after we had stopped playing, depending on which side you coach.

Apologies for getting back to my life in the off season for a break from it all, before coming back for Draft period. It also suggested it was up in the air, and would be looked at again in the new year. Which unless I am missing it, it wasn't bought up again. Could have possibly been bought up again in compulsory vote form, then I would have been aware.

I think that would have been a reaction to last years discussions with The Ox, who was having all sorts or trouble with his sides Rucks, and would tell me how hard it was in negotiating with other Coaches that had good ruckman not making their team, but asking high premiums for their third best ruck. The Ox had enough of thinking about it, so has left. And in talking with him, this was at least a contributor, hopefully no more in the future leave is my thought.

For my side, I can remember being told that those players were not to be in ruck any more, because I remember pulling them out of the categories in my own balance sheet to match the leagues balance sheet. They did not have R beside their name at the beginning of this year.

I just don't understand why you want to tighten the screws more and more with these balance rules. You got them in with this "We will be flexible" attitude, and just went about tightening the screws until they are so tight and restrictive.

And Brendan suggests in this very Thread, that individual circumstances will be taken into consideration, so when both Witts and Stanley were out of my side last weekend, I had Balta first emergency, and I put in the comment section where Stanley was, saying that Witts and Stanley out, but Balta SHOULD be accepted. Instead of answering the question in the comment section, he simply deleted my question and took 50 points off my score. He then claims to have found that Balta was eligible, which according to my balance sheet that was lined up with the Leagues balance sheet, they were not allowed Ruck. They also did not have R's beside their names. Especially Roughead who has also now.

If you want restrictive powers, it will take time to field questions on individual basis as they arise. Common sense should be considered. You are trying to make it black and white, and set the rules and forget, those two can't happen together. Not without annoyance of coaches anyway.

Brendan said to me when I argued it on Sheets, "I Don't need this", what? A reasonable consideration before reducing a score by 50?

I see heatmaps being used, but my point to that is, if Richmond never play Balta in the Ruck, that eliminates him. Common Sense suggests a 200cm guy who has played the position, and competed well, gives him the tick. We are not in control of what AFL teams do. And we are not asking for a permanent change, just until an injury comes back, and because we have no other choice. That is not too much to ask.

Even Supercoach is more workable, because you can take a injured player out of your side, and draft another Ruck, then go back to your original ruck when he comes back. SURELY we don't want to be more restrictive in ANY way than Supercoach.

I liked it better when the Balance rules where only looked at when the opposition looked over a side, and said, that doesn't look right, and alerted the Mods. Who would put common sense to it and rule which way it was going to go. That was back when the balance rules first come in. Those were like the 70's and now is like now in the AFL, out of touch and being ruined with ever change.

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

Replies:

Forum timezone: GMT+11
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.