Oh, and why do sensible calls need to wait until end year? -- SuperLeague

[ 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 7:14am [ 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: 28/05/21 3:54pm
Author: D9
Subject: Oh, and why do sensible calls need to wait until end year?
In reply to: D9 's message, "Facts" on 28/05/21 2:46pm

Just read that another side has had ruck rejected, only to be postponed until the end of the year. Why?

If the player plays in the ruck, or any other position for a week or two, surely the SC side can play them there. If they go back to their old position, I am sure the SL Coach is capable of doing likewise.

In the Ruck example from John, Dixon has just got 44 taps that makes Dixons average three for the next 14 weeks if he doesn't play another second in there. And is Dixon capable? Is it feasible to think he could play ruck? ABSOLUTELY.

So where is the FLEXIBILITY you spruik?

I have asked before, why can't we just have individual queries be bought up by the side that is playing that side? Treating us like idiots does not help. I had to come hat in hand and ask whether Laverde could play on a half back flank a few weeks ago, and although accepted, I am sure my watching him and hearing commentary on how he has been a revelation there in the past few games, gives me a green light as a coach to make this decision for myself. If an opposition coach found it wrong, they could contact Mods.

If we have the Balance rules voted on again tomorrow, I would change my vote from Yes to No. But see, I want some Balance, how can we have some but not all in a vote. COMMON SENSE IS NOT BEING APPLIED. Can we just have a common sense rule.

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

Replies:

So the rule is this apparently..... -- D9, 28/05/21 4:16pm
- emails were sent the proposal was posted -- GTD, 28/05/21 11:06pm
  - Post some proof to that. -- D9, 29/05/21 1:52pm
    - The post i reference literally asks coaches to comment on the proposal.. -- GTD, 29/05/21 8:11pm
      - YOU proposed -- D9, 31/05/21 2:21pm
        Mods discussed this via email - i posted it -- GTD, 31/05/21 4:55pm
        It appears that way to a couple of coach -- D9, 31/05/21 6:01pm
- Lol -- GTD, 28/05/21 11:17pm
  - I have left my personal email with Mods -- D9, 29/05/21 1:57pm
I have decided to just play him there if I need to and refuse to cop a penalty (NT) -- John, 28/05/21 4:17pm
- Dixon -- Brendan, 29/05/21 9:50am
  - Here: -- D9, 29/05/21 2:06pm
    - Yeh, the 3HO rule... Not Dixon. If he meets that now, he gets eligibility at MS (NT) -- Brendan, 29/05/21 4:36pm
    - Once again you try and twist the truth to suit your argument -- GTD, 29/05/21 8:13pm
      - WTF are you talking about -- D9, 31/05/21 2:26pm
happy do changes whenever -- GTD, 28/05/21 11:10pm

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.