Anzac Day - when do teams need be in by?

Can we PLEASE arrange a part lockout this week?

i see the pies were given a 'soft' game prior to the ANZAC game compared to the dons....


but yes..... a partial lockout ala 'dreamteam' is a good idea...

Evan...you dont have to keep bashing the pies...we're no good!
Pity us.

im not bashing the pies (id take every advantage given as well)....

just cant handle how the afl has allowed 2 clubs and 1 state to monopolise and define what should be a nationally significant ocassion....all for $$$$...how un-australian!!!!

Don't blame us...blame the AFL...they tasted it now they can't resist it.

What do you propose Macca?

FWIW im really not sure I agree with the idea. I dont like the fact that I could name as first sub a player from Collingwood or Essendon and then if that player gets a big score I can name a player I know who is not playing as the starter to ensure my collingwood/essendon player counts.

Yeah fair point Jase.

Just seems so hard to name a team when you dont know the ins and outs of the games next weekend.

I agree that it sucks to name a team when the teams havent been announced yet.

Im not against the idea of the partial lockout if we can find a work around for the sub issue.

easy....you can only name players listed to play....

Or...you can only name Collingwood or Essendon players in 'on field' positions (eg. not as reserves?)

Megabonus wrote:easy....you can only name players listed to play....

How does this solve Jase's issue?

I name a Essendon player (eg Ben Howlett) as my first reserve all star.
He plays brilliantly and racks up 100+ points.
On Friday night, I then deliberately name Matthew Leuenberger as my first all star, knowing he is injured - and say, "I was always going to use a slider here".

So I get an unfair advantage.
Ben Howlett will be named on Tuesday, so I am doing everything legally.

Didn't I address that issue in my post Gez?

Its this simple...

1. You can only name starting players not those on your interchange.
2. Once the game is complete all Essendon and Collingwood players are not eligible to be named for the remainder of the round.

It's not hard to arrange.

I did mention this in Rnd 1 when I was pushing for a partial lockout.

As already mentioned here...you can ONLY name players that are listed to play (obviously, this includes extended squads) by the AFL. Therefore, there shall be NO listing of injured players. I would think this would be obvious if a coach tried this manouvre, and this is where the executive would need to make a decision.

This shouldn't be that hard to implement.

If Jase agrees to this then I believe we can bring this in. Am I correct in assuming that Gerry is against this addition?

The problem there Croz is that people legitimately don't know who is injured yet.
Under my model it is irrelevant.

You can only name Pies & Essendon players in starting positions, thus ruling sliders redundant.

i think it is important that we evolve and try the partial lockout and have faith in the coaches to do the right thing by the league and other coaches

we also have the last four weeks teams to go by and coaches are not making wholesale changes to their weepy teams

I am all for trialling it, we are not all manipulative and deceiptful?

Last time I will write it...if we only allow Collingwood and Essendon players to be named in starting positions there is NO WAY anyone can cheat/fall in a barrel of nipples regardless of if they want to or not.

Simply, once your players have been named and played there is no way to cheat or have their scores either included deceptively (ie by naming in a slider) or eliminated because they are poor.

This doesnt even need to be a trust issue. It's fail safe.

Macca wrote:Last time I will write it...if we only allow Collingwood and Essendon players to be named in starting positions there is NO WAY anyone can cheat/fall in a barrel of nipples regardless of if they want to or not.

Simply, once your players have been named and played there is no way to cheat or have their scores either included deceptively (ie by naming in a slider) or eliminated because they are poor.

This doesnt even need to be a trust issue. It's fail safe.

Ok. I think I get it.
You can't name Essendon or Collingwood players in your reserves.
Kinda reduces your options if you have a lot of Collingwood/Essendon players but it might be workable.

Yes Gerry that's correct.

And only those who wish to name Collingwood or Essendon players need to submit their 'part team'...

As an example, I only need to name Pendlebury, Beams, Swan and Dawes in their positions...yet I cannot name them as a reserve in any category.

That way, regardless of performance, they are locked in.

Yes, yes, yes...Macca you are correct.

Can we get an Amen?

Alleluia

its this simple...

1. You can only name starting players not those on your interchange.
2. Once the game is complete all Essendon and Collingwood players are not eligible to be named for the remainder of the round.

It's not hard to arrange.

Let's make it happen Gerry / Croz / Jason If we name Collingwood Essendon players in a specific position they are locked in on Wednesday Morning.

Really? People are happy to have no reserves being named from either Collingwood or Essendon?

I mean it doesnt bother me as I dont have many players from either team, but surely there is a better idea out there than that!

Are the other 16 teams going to names squads prior to Wednesdays game?

If so, my suggestion was that you should be able to name any player in any position from those squads... Ie no injured or non selected players.

If that is not the case I am happy with Macca's suggestion

i am happy with maccas solution, it seems quite simple and gets around the problem of now knowing who else is playing

trucker wrote:i am happy with maccas solution, it seems quite simple and gets around the problem of now knowing who else is playing

Im not. Unless I have misunderstood, this would mean I cant name a collingwood or essendon player in any of the reserves positions in my team.

Granted its not an issue for me this round coming and hence why I wont put up any form of protest if people are happy to have it for this round. However I do not think that this model is the one we should use moving forward. But for the sake of this week I wont vote against it as long as others are happy with it as a short term fix and it isnt considered as creating a precedent.

Thats assuming that Croz and Gerry dont vote for it and my vote doesnt count anyways

What's a better solution Jase?

Personally I prefer Croz's or Pez (I forget who said it first) idea. Which is

You can name collingwood and essendon players in any positions as starters or reserves. Of course you cant add any Collingwood or Essendon players after Wed night. However when the rest of the teams/squads are announced on Thursday night those are the only players you may select for the remainder of your team. Of course the Sunday games will only be squads, but at least you cant manipulate the system too easily and take advantage of one of your players getting a high score from the Wed game.

The only problem with this, is its unfair to add extra workload on Gerry/Croz as they would have to check everyones teams to make sure each team is doing the right thing. However if it was made up to everyone on their own to check their opponents team and flag a problem to the exec then im all for it.

Hope that makes sense im trying to write this and listen to Josie at same time.

What I dont like about that one is that it is then up to the Exec to make judgment calls on 'sliders'.

Just to give the example...I've got about 6 players I am thinking of playing in AS this week and what if I wanted to run a legitimate slider (which there is no rule against).

Too rubbery in my opinion.

There should be a no slider rule, which obviously comes into play if you can only name players from the AFL named squads.

Sure, you could run the risk oV naming a slider with a player you think may not play, but as he is named he COULD. It just wouldn't be worth the risk...

I agree its not perfect but you asked what I thought was better.

The way I see it, its a case of what is the lesser of 2 evils. 1 suggestion eliminates the option of naming collingwood and essendon players as reserves and the other option eliminates the use of sliders for that round.

As majority of people dont actually use sliders I see that as the lesser of 2 evils. Just my personal opinion ofc.

I would have to agree with the rest of the exec.

There are teams with large numbers of Collingwood/Essendon players (btw I am not one of them) who would be significantly disadvantaged.

Hence, I would have to go with the no-slider rule i.e. you can only name players from AFL squads announced on afl.com.au.

I don't think this is the 100% fool-proof method but I think we should try it.

I will work on adding the teams to the Team Selection forum so everybody will be able to see who is named in the various ASFFL teams on Tuesday.

30 minutes before the start of the Essendon/Collingwood game, players from those teams cannot be changed.

Google Docs has a "See Revision History" function which lets you see what information was added and when.

This should be enough to deter anyone willing to flout the rules.