I'm a little surprised that the trade got vetoed without input from either robbo24 or snomeD.

It's my contention that on face value the trade of Gray for Ryder may seem a little slanted one way, but if there is a basis for a need-need trade between two teams, we should consider each coach's position on the matter.

I understand that there is actual and projected rankings, and in this case the rankings were different, but really they are both important players for their respective sides one a fwd (x factor), one a ruck. ie. one can kick goals, the other for hit outs and marks.

Is there room for a need for a need trade, or should all trades be considered ok just for their ranking similarities ?

I think it's worth discussing !

PS. I represent the UFPA.....

I would like to hear from Snomed on this Trade issue.

It worries me that he only has 2 Demonland Post's & was not present @ the live draft.

Maybe we should have set a tighter entry criteria.

Hello Snomed are you out there?

I'm new to this game, but that refusal of trade was the stupidest thing I have ever seen on a fantasy sporting comp.

I mean it is round 1 - we're not tired of the game.

And we are all psoting on a footy forum - we are quite committed to the sport in question.

There is little reason to veto trades when you have this dynamic.

That trade should have gone through.

That's what I was getting at.

The other thing is, without snomeD's input, as Old Man Rivers said, he already has two rucks in Hawkins & Graham. Why can't he improve his forward line with Gray (by looking for goals) in place of Ryder ? I take it robbo24 offered it up and snomeD accepted.

I await further input, findings and discussion...

sorry hightower been a bit busy (first child was born a week ago, gorgeous little girl.) i'll try and jump on before tonight, i missed last week had no ruckman i dont think lol. good luck to all for the weekend.

That's ok, I have withdrawn it..I'll re-assess.

Congrats on your baby girl ! You have been busy.

sorry hightower been a bit busy (first child was born a week ago, gorgeous little girl.) i'll try and jump on before tonight, i missed last week had no ruckman i dont think lol. good luck to all for the weekend.

Scarlett- congrats-on the birth of your little girl. Well done.

Congrats Scarlett.

Geez it's a tough gig!! Selwood now a withdrawal, and Riewoldt injured in the opening minutes! You just can't replace your two best players (especially when two other first XI players, and a fringe player, are having a bye!).

Oh boy. Hayes out for the year. That doesn't help.

Injuries hurt in ultimate footy, Lenny goes from being a top 20 midfielder to having exactly no value. At least in SC\DT you could sell him.

Four goals to Gray today surely would have helped Snomed, while I'd love Ryders hit-outs and general points tomorrow...I guess I'm winning out of this at the moment.

I think it's worth discussing !

Sure. That was all that anyone wanted here.

I'm new to this game, but that refusal of trade was the stupidest thing I have ever seen on a fantasy sporting comp.

I mean it is round 1 - we're not tired of the game.

And we are all psoting on a footy forum - we are quite committed to the sport in question.

There is little reason to veto trades when you have this dynamic.

That trade should have gone through.

Nope. Was voted against. That means it shouldn't.

The rule exists for a reason rpfc. I remember thinking the same thing last year at the start of the season. It'll become clearer as the season drags on...

Oh and those thinking that it's a need for need trade... Either you don't understand the game or you're blind. Taking a player ranked in the hundreds for a player ranked inside the top 20? Madness. It's the stars that win you games in UF. ANyone can wangle a lineup of ok players who get their 15-20 touches. It's the big names that play dual roles that sneak up on you.

eg... Ryder will het marks, touches and kick you goals, making him a good solid player. But he'll also pop up with 13 hitouts... which coupled with any one of the league's starting ruckmen who get 25-odd is enough to crack 38 for the game. Sandi averages about 35. Do the math. When you come up against someone with Sandilands, you just play Paddy and, I dunno, Goldstein as a ruck and utility... Robert's your father's brother. That's one category won... and not only that but you nullify an opposition player, as often their ruckman will be there MOSTLY for hitouts. This is the stuff of Ufooty... Players with multiple roles (B,Cs F,Cs and B,Fs) are gold dust too... as are players like a McKernan who is a forward only, but who no-one knew would be playing ruck.

Paddy is MASSIVELY valuable. Grey, even with his bag this weekend, will lose you as many games as win.

Oh boy. Hayes out for the year. That doesn't help.

DOESN'T HELP WHO?!!! EH?!!!! WHO?!!!

I had 5 players ranked inside the top 22 before this weekend. Sandilands (6), Ball (12), Hayes (20), Redden (21) and Burgoyne (22).

Bastard.

Nope. Was voted against. That means it shouldn't.

The rule exists for a reason rpfc. I remember thinking the same thing last year at the start of the season. It'll become clearer as the season drags on...

Oh and those thinking that it's a need for need trade... Either you don't understand the game or you're blind. Taking a player ranked in the hundreds for a player ranked inside the top 20? Madness. It's the stars that win you games in UF. ANyone can wangle a lineup of ok players who get their 15-20 touches. It's the big names that play dual roles that sneak up on you.

eg... Ryder will het marks, touches and kick you goals, making him a good solid player. But he'll also pop up with 13 hitouts... which coupled with any one of the league's starting ruckmen who get 25-odd is enough to crack 38 for the game. Sandi averages about 35. Do the math. When you come up against someone with Sandilands, you just play Paddy and, I dunno, Goldstein as a ruck and utility... Robert's your father's brother. That's one category won... and not only that but you nullify an opposition player, as often their ruckman will be there MOSTLY for hitouts. This is the stuff of Ufooty... Players with multiple roles (B,Cs F,Cs and B,Fs) are gold dust too... as are players like a McKernan who is a forward only, but who no-one knew would be playing ruck.

Paddy is MASSIVELY valuable. Grey, even with his bag this weekend, will lose you as many games as win.

The rule is there to stop tampering from people who collude with other players once one of them is bored of it or doesn't care about it anymore.

It isn't to stop two willing participants trade players they think will benefit their side.

I traded for Mark Blake with 45 and we also swapped pretty well matched first ruckmen aswell, and I also gave up Matt Rosa to get the deal done. Lopsided, yes. But the deal allows me to have three ruckmen which is advantageous for positioning purposes, and I had a sh!tload of centres.

I do not think that trade should have been blocked.

Yeah, not that I'm involved myself, but I think the idea of strategically blocking a trade to protect your own performance, is not the idea at all.

The facility is purely to prevent people from actually cheating, not to protect you from the poor judgement of some when a deal is slightly weighted towards one ofthe involved parties.

Agreed.

And who makes these rankings? Robbie Gray is a gun young player who has struggled to string games together. Coz of this I recon his ranking is lower than it should be. Ryders is higher than it should be because he has shouldered more ruck in recent years due to Hille being injured.

Grimes is a perfect example of this. He has played only 26 games and is perfect for this game. Gray falls exactly into this category.

And Ryder is a ruck and ruck only! So there is no benefit of me playing him in the forward line and getting two ruck scores. I'm basically giving up the win in the ruck because he will never be a 30 hitout player. Actually now I think about it, it seems I was being ripped off by this trade.

Yeah, not that I'm involved myself, but I think the idea of strategically blocking a trade to protect your own performance, is not the idea at all.

The facility is purely to prevent people from actually cheating, not to protect you from the poor judgement of some when a deal is slightly weighted towards one ofthe involved parties.

This has been a good test case I guess as to see how the trading system works. And i'm pleased that people are getting on here and expressing their views, for a while there I was wondering if people were actually caring. In regards to the trade; I agree with you in some ways that it is there to stop cheating and not poor judgement, but there are two problems with that.

Firstly I, and the other 5 coaches who voted against it don't know that it is just poor judgement, for all I know the two teams in question could be cheating, for all I know they're the same person (highly unlikely I know).

Also, I believe that poor judgement in trades is perfectly reasonable in the context of the league, in fact I hope that when I trade with someone they prove to have poor judgement. But only to a point. Extrapolate poor judgement out to something ridiculous; say dappa trading away Sandilands for a Lenny Hayes (post season ending injury). In this case I think it is the responsibility of the league to vote down the trade to protect the uninformed from a mistake. You may disagree with me on this one, perhaps on the basis that the coach trading away Hayes should be rewarded for effecting such a beneficial trade. I guess that is why there is a system of voting down a trade if you think it is unfair.

Now back to the Ryder-Gray controversy. Personally, and despite Gray's performance this week, I don't see how the trade is anywhere near balanced. Even if snomeD doesn't himself rate Ryder, at the very least he could get much better value than Gray for one of the league's best ruckmen. The irony of Gray kicking 4 straight, and essentially being a key force in the obliteration of the Jackattcks is not lost on me. I guess it was bound to happen. I should also say that I am surprised it got voted down so quickly, I actually thought it wouldn't get enough votes to block it.

I think my regret in all of this was actually my original post on the topic, as the administrator I don't think I should be recommending people to vote against it. What I should have done was recommend people look at the trade and decide for themselves as to whether or not they agree with me or the likes of 45 or HT. I guess there is nothing stopping the trade being proposed again and the league could again decide whether it is fair or not. Maybe after thrashing out the issues, and the performance of Gray there will be fewer votes against it this time and it will pass.

Finally I should reiterate a point made by someone else. When deciding whether or not a trade should be voted down, there is a bit of an honour system. Don't vote it down just because you're playing someone that week who might benefit. The voting system was introduced to maintain the integrity of the system, not as a means of tactically giving yourself an advantage by blocking other's trades. And despite the fact that I was playing robbo this week I can say, without reservation that the reasons I voted against it were entirely honorable.

I do not think that trade should have been blocked.

You're entitled to your opinion. Just do me a favour and give it a whole season. Oh, and your assertion that everybody's still in it and isn't bored? It would surprise me if that were right. There's always a couple that aren't happy with their picks (usually the autopick squads) and they only have a passing interest. It happens. In fact in a different Comp, poor old Jackattack has lost Lecras and Hayes from his squad at the start of the year. He'l still participate cos he's obsessed... but it's gonna be tough from here on in unless other teams have similar injuries to their stars.

The facility is purely to prevent people from actually cheating, not to protect you from the poor judgement of some when a deal is slightly weighted towards one ofthe involved parties.

Not purely. Another factor is dual accounts. Though I have a feeling that demonland wouldn't allow it. Not really sure on this...

And who makes these rankings? Robbie Gray is a gun young player who has struggled to string games together. Coz of this I recon his ranking is lower than it should be.

The administrator of the site makes them. There's some odd ones in there but for the most part they're pretty close. For example he raised Cox's value a mile once he saw his preseason. That system isn't ever going to be perfect, but his input helps a lot in the draft for those who can't make it. For example let's say Lenny Hayes does his knee a week before we do our draft. He's still gonna be ranked at 15 or so... And everyone taking part in the draft will overlook him, but those on autopick will be left with him. Like I say, not a perfect system, some slip through the cracks (Mzungu).

Ryders is higher than it should be because he has shouldered more ruck in recent years due to Hille being injured.

Nope. The ranking's are only partially based on previous seasons. For example if there's a ruckman who retires, and his backup is likely to take over as first ruck... then he'll up his ranking to make for a more stable draft. Cox was ranked way further down. The admin guy put him up higher based on projections. So far they've been proven correct, for the most part.

Grimes is a perfect example of this. He has played only 26 games and is perfect for this game. Gray falls exactly into this category.

If he was, don't you think he'd be ranked higher? He's projected was 60, his actual, 71. Again you're missing the point. The trick here is to have players who master MORE THAN ONE category. Grimes, yes, will get you some kicks and a bunch of marks. But he's not breaking records. Even then this puts him up there in the top 75ish... Gray, up until his last game, was ranked out in the 150s for a reason. He only brings a little bit of accuracy and the occasional bag. And he's playing in a bottom 4 side.

And Ryder is a ruck and ruck only! So there is no benefit of me playing him in the forward line and getting two ruck scores.

As I said above, you play him as a utility. He gets you some goals (often a couple), accuracy AND hitouts... you only need ten or so. That's THREE categories... THAT'S why he was ranked so high. The administrator of the site understands this, and has acknowledged that in Ufooty, this is why they have to be ranked higher. It's all to do with the vagueries of the scoring system. So you play Ryder as a utility, then put in a second rate ruck and the combination is enough to beat any single ruckman going round except maybe Sandi, who is worth just about the same as the majority of ruck combinations (why I took him at pick 2), at least for hitouts. At the very least, if you follow this model, your opponent will look at his list (let's say he has Jamar) and realise that the big Russian, on his own, isn't enough to overhaul Ryder and, let's say, Graham, who was ranked 198. He's then forced to play his backup ruck as a utility (someone like Seaby). So the equation there is Ryder and Graham... vs Jamar and Seaby. Jamar and Seaby will likely win hitouts (a big assumption)... which is ok, cos Graham and Ryder have added a LOT to goals, accuracy, touches etc.

I dunno if that makes any sense, but it's this craftiness in team selection that makes the difference... watching the averages, picking to win on certain stats (I always look at hitouts, marks, tackles, score and score percentage... touches are too wishy washy for me).

Once again. Going into the season, putting Ryder and Gray as a same/same trade is ridiculous in this comp. An even trade would be Ryder for Green. One gets you almost there with hitouts, some score and good accuracy. The other gets you score, marks and accuracy. Now granted no-ones gonna give up Green without having a VERY beneficial trade... So you lower your eyes a bit. Maybe a Harvey (touches, a bit of score and acuuracy), a Hall (score, accuracy and marks... but a bit old), a Lecras (score and accuracy)... Getting the gist? Those guys are more in the 50-ish range... you lose ranking position, but gain a valuable forward.

I'm sure that Gray was a player that was going to lift this season. Perhaps go from 180 to the early 100s. He's one of their only forwards, and he's talented. But in Ufooty, he's just a good player. He's not one you'd let go of, but not one you'd pick up Ryder for. Ryder is one of the biggest movers and shakers in the comp.

So as Jackattack suggests, you HAVE to call shenanigans. And you'll all see why as the season drags on. It's fine if everyone decides not to vote against it... sure... but raising a red flag to have a closer look at it is called for in this case. If they go for it again, and it goes through (which it looks like it will), then you will probably find it'll be the most lopsided trade for the season...

That said. If it goes through, go for it. It's all part of the fun of it.

You're slipping into bad habits again, DD. Wall...

The rule is there to stop collusion. If it is a Sandilands for Hayes deal then that is when the rule applies.

That was a trade that involved two players who were playing regular football.

That's all the rest of us need to know.

Swan is an absolute monster in this game. 26k 14h 8m 6t and 1g. Probably got me over the line in both of the opening rounds.

Best player in the comp at the moment?

Ew, a draw.

You're slipping into bad habits again, DD. Wall...

You don't like detail? Stop making me repeat myself.

The rule is there to stop collusion. If it is a Sandilands for Hayes deal then that is when the rule applies.

That was a trade that involved two players who were playing regular football.

That's all the rest of us need to know.

Rubbish. No-one's gonna attempt a Hayes/Sandi trade. It's the slightly less obvious ones that are the reason the rule applies. I'll say it again. We voted against the rule from bitter experience. If the traders would like to do it again, and explain themselves, then have at it and we can go from there. But I've not seen the explanation. Either it was removed, or enough people voted against it, perhaps BECAUSE there was no explanation.

THAT'S all the rest of you need to know.

Short enough for you?

Swan is an absolute monster in this game. 26k 14h 8m 6t and 1g. Probably got me over the line in both of the opening rounds.

Best player in the comp at the moment?

I would have thought so. Hard to go past all that... AND he's a 22 game player, will probably never be subbed, and is ridiculously consistent. And I think it's possible he may have gotten even better.

Ew, a draw.

HA! We'll all have one or two. Fun though, counting down that last stat. I made it this week in a different comp by 3 handballs....

Whatever the semantical definition - the rule is here to stop collusion.

Not allow power hungry players from vetoing trades the 'think' 'might' be on the nose.

I have given 45 Matt Rosa for effectively just Mark Blake.

It's lopsided, don't know my reasoning? You shouldn't expect my tactics to be relayed here (talk about farce).

Go ahead and veto the trade...

Stick to your guns and tell me how to play his tracking game.

Whatever the semantical definition - the rule is here to stop collusion.

Not allow power hungry players from vetoing trades the 'think' 'might' be on the nose.

I have given 45 Matt Rosa for effectively just Mark Blake.

It's lopsided, don't know my reasoning? You shouldn't expect my tactics to be relayed here (talk about farce).

Go ahead and veto the trade...

Stick to your guns and tell me how to play his tracking game.

I completely understand this mentality, and by not voting against the trade you have expressed your 1/16th say in the matter. And the at least 6 others who voted against the trade have also expressed their view as they didn't see how the trade was reasonable. It is a fair, democratic system and in my experience it works.

In regards to your imbalanced Matt Rosa trade, I would not vote against such a trade becuase Matt Rosa is a projected ranking of 100 plus, and you may have had some other reason for such a trade (blake's hitouts(?)). But if someone were to disagree with me and vote it down I would certainly respect their decision, our own respective rankings of players future performances are pretty much subjective and because of that it is important to have a voting system, and one where we respect that their are differing views on the matter.

I would also like to add that it is important for me that this issue doesn't get overblown. I would like to think that I run a fair competition that can be entertaining and fair for everyone throughout the year and maybe beyond. So maybe it's best that the issue is put to bed now and we can return to enjoying the actual game. Although this has been a good distraction from the GCS like performances the Jackattacks have been throwing up.

Sure. That was all that anyone wanted here.

Yes. And that is what I would have liked - was to discuss it first, that is why I brought it up whilst the trade was still pending.

The rule is there to stop tampering from people who collude with other players once one of them is bored of it or doesn't care about it anymore.

It isn't to stop two willing participants trade players they think will benefit their side.

Yeah, not that I'm involved myself, but I think the idea of strategically blocking a trade to protect your own performance, is not the idea at all.

The facility is purely to prevent people from actually cheating, not to protect you from the poor judgement of some when a deal is slightly weighted towards one ofthe involved parties.

Agree with these sentiments.

If two coaches are willing to fill a needs-needs basis and in this case one coach had a surplus of rucks and was willing to give up a ruck for a forward to bolster his forward stocks. It should go through.

I would also like to add that it is important for me that this issue doesn't get overblown. I would like to think that I run a fair competition that can be entertaining and fair for everyone throughout the year and maybe beyond. So maybe it's best that the issue is put to bed now and we can return to enjoying the actual game. Although this has been a good distraction from the GCS like performances the Jackattacks have been throwing up.

Jackattack, it is a good competition and I understand you're the host and I thankyou for it - I enjoy the game. Regarding vetoed trades, in my opinion it should be left up to the coaches of the competition themselves to decide one way or another. I don't think any particular coach should strongly encourage or recommend to other coaches to vote against a particular trade.

Going on Dappa Dan's rants recently he should have no problem accepting my offer of Ash McGrath for Shaun McKernan. McKernan has a projected ranking of 383 while McGraths is 328. McGrath has played every game this season why McKernan has only played 1. Add to this, his starting defender, Crameri hurt his knee and couldn't complete the match so McGrath should slot straight into his backline. I should expect this trade to be accepted sometime today, right?

Going on Dappa Dan's rants recently he should have no problem accepting my offer of Ash McGrath for Shaun McKernan. McKernan has a projected ranking of 383 while McGraths is 328. McGrath has played every game this season why McKernan has only played 1. Add to this, his starting defender, Crameri hurt his knee and couldn't complete the match so McGrath should slot straight into his backline. I should expect this trade to be accepted sometime today, right?

Not unless I beat you to the punch robbo24. You should re-submit with snomeD btw.

Not unless I beat you to the punch robbo24. You should re-submit with snomeD btw.

Don't listen to him SnomeD, I'll give you much better value than Gray for Ryder.