Results for Round 12 (awaiting confirmation)

Ridgebacks 380 d Bangers 336

This is becoming boring.  A late surge by Griffen and Swan pulled the Ridgebacks over the line although the Bangers were more like 'Whimpers' with only Boak doing any sort of decent scoring.

Mustangs 402 d Warthogs 221

There was a joke going around the Twitterverse yesterday that the Bye was odds-on to beat Melbourne this weekend.  Looks like the Warthogs went 'bye-bye' for this round with only Nathan Foley flying the flag.  And it might get worse because next week, Adelaide has the bye... Mustangs power back into contention with great games from Griggy, Mundy and Dusty.

Maulers 334 d Gladiators 252  257
Gladiators were left with five huge holes in the team this week and I just wonder if it is time to question this great stalwart's commitment to the league.  Gary Ablett's 89 All Star points made the score look even better. Anyway, good luck to the Maulers who are consolidating a top-four position as we close in on the pointy end of the season.

Vipers 367  376 def by Tigers 388
Big game from "Dids" and 80 tackle points saw the Tiges see off a top-four rival.  Seems like the Vipers have never really recovered from the 'trade of the century'. How is Dayne Beams going by the way?  

Terriers 389 def Wolves 326
Big games from Pendles and the God for the little doggies although Dyson Heppel and Brad Ebert did give a little yelp near the end of the weekend.  This was fortunate for the Terriers because the rest of the scores were reasonably even.  Big problems next week though....stupid byes!!!!

I have a couple of different scores to you Gerry. They dont change the results but I have

Vipers at 376 - I assume you subbed Golby into marks but Clancee Pearce played and had 8 marks. There is a double space between Clancee and Pearce so his stats dont show up. 

Gladiators at 259 - Of course we have to differ with this debacle, just caps off a great weekend for me.  I had the following

Poss 37
Marks 24
Tack 5
Goals 4
Ruck 25
AS 164

Thanks, Jase.
Clancee Pearce was a weird one but I got a bit confused with the Gladiators team.

Question: I understand that I havent put a team in for 2 weeks, however, I was under the assumption that my team for the last 2 weeks would be as it was the last time I submitted a team.

After the first week of not submitting a team, obviously there were many reserves that slid in. My question is: Why should the team that resulted from the reserves being placed in, be my team for the following week? Surely it should be the one that was last submitted?

Anyway...Ill leave that with you. Hopefully it makes sense.

croz wrote:Question: I understand that I havent put a team in for 2 weeks, however, I was under the assumption that my team for the last 2 weeks would be as it was the last time I submitted a team.

After the first week of not submitting a team, obviously there were many reserves that slid in. My question is: Why should the team that resulted from the reserves being placed in, be my team for the following week? Surely it should be the one that was last submitted?

Anyway...Ill leave that with you. Hopefully it makes sense.

Interesting point.
I would have to say that it is rare than a coach has not submitted an online team two weeks in a row.
It is not a matter of us accepting the reserves that were put in for you.
It is more that I assumed that you HAD changed your team and was surprised to see gaps.
I did not make the link between you not having changed your team and the idea that we should revert back to your team of two weeks ago.
More thought needed...

Having said that Croz, I imported your Round 11 team into last week's database and your score went up by 2 points!
Maybe that will be your penalty for not submitting a team for two weeks.

BTW - why are you submitting a team this week? Can't you let it go for one more week?

gerry wrote:It is more that I assumed that you HAD changed your team and was surprised to see gaps.  
I did not make the link between you not having changed your team and the idea that we should revert back to your team of two weeks ago.

Ditto.

My intial thoughts on the issue is it shouldnt be our problem or responsibility (as admin) to check if a team has made changes and if not then make amendments to a teams line up to the previous week. The onus should be on the coach to ensure his team line up is what he wants it to be.  

Im sorry but if you cant spare a few minutes each week to select your team, understanding that I am now providing everyone with comprehensive stats to make that task easier than its ever been for you, then I say too bad, you get the team that shows on the team sheet. If that has been amended from the week before and not the original selected team then again I say too bad.

This is not having a go at you Croz, because you raise a valid question that deserves to be discussed. I understand there are times when finding a spare minute is hard and lodging a team is a low priority but I dont think it fair to put more work on Gerry and myself because someone cant find the time to lodge a team. Again not a personal attack, wouldnt matter if it was you doing it or Josie, I would still feel the same way.  

Thats just my 2 cents worth and would be interested however to hear others opinions.

Isn't there something in the constitution about not submitting team for consecutive weeks?

^^^ I have raised this question.

In fact, in regards to 'the Constitution'...penalties apply.

But, that an Exec matter.