Ultimate Footy - Norm Smith League

[jayceebee31 697]

UF league page lists the trade as officially vetoed.

UF league page lists the trade as officially vetoed.

Thanks for letting us know.

,

[45HG 1,539]

I wouldn't mind knowing what's going on as soon as possible.

[jayceebee31 697]

I wouldn't mind knowing what's going on as soon as possible.

Please advise what value is it to implement changes with 2,rounds to go, then finals, please advise.?

[rpfc 28,046]

I wouldn't mind knowing what's going on as soon as possible.

Yeah, understand where you are coming from jcb but for the teams not making the finals - they need to know what's happening...

[Old Man Rivers 326]

Too late to change anything in 2012

JCB is correct we need to get some clear direction of how this all plays out from 2013 onwards.

We have a great comp happening here, we just need some minor tweeking to remove the grey area's.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Old Man Rivers

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

I vetoed.

I am sorry, I had a look at DD's team and he will go from having 4 players in the top 100 to 8 after this draft.

My team has 3. I would stand no chance and while I realise you are just doing what you think is best to WIN the game.

So am I.

And THAT is why I'm pulling out of his comp.

People carry on on this site about the rules getting changed to make it fairer, when here we are with ANOTHER trade that makes perfect sense in the context of the season, ONLY getting vetoed because you want to win, NOT because it's against the spirit of the competition. So people like me who've traded in a savvy way get ripped off TWICE this year, not because they're abusing the rules, but because everyone else wants to win. This is the same as RR getting the rules changed mid season a couple of months ago, not because it helps the comp, but because he's upset he's losing.

Can't we wait till after the season and sought out some rules etc,that will make us all happy, but we cannot let this last trade go through -,for all of our sakes.

So NOW we want to wait til after the season?

Just to let you guys know, the only reason I was going to stay was because Ablett is the first guy everyone wants. I wanted to trade him away, take a last dash at winning it this year, and then let all my players hit waivers and leave you guys to it. I've had heaps of offers over the past couple of weeks, and all I was doing was waiting to take the best one. I only left the trade as long as I did because I was 50-50 on whether or not to leave, as I thought the sooking would die down, and maybe it would get fun again. This is proof it's gone too far.

You guys have fun with it next year.

[Mad_Melbourne 872]

And THAT is why I'm pulling out of his comp.

People carry on on this site about the rules getting changed to make it fairer, when here we are with ANOTHER trade that makes perfect sense in the context of the season, ONLY getting vetoed because you want to win, NOT because it's against the spirit of the competition. So people like me who've traded in a savvy way get ripped off TWICE this year, not because they're abusing the rules, but because everyone else wants to win.

It's hard with big trades like that and with a veto rule because everyone is always going to look after their own team and think about trying to win the comp, like you were when you took the trade. I know that in my other league with mates, most trades get vetoed within 5 minutes of going through as people don't want others getting something they need, and this often ends out with a few expletives and annoyances but it adds to the fun.

Il agree this year has been a big confusion though, no one knew where to stand and the rule changes have both negative and positive effects on this year, I reckon more traded have gone through because of them but it also adds a bit of a risk for people having a punt on next season with the young keepers. And everyone is getting frustrated because it hasn't really been cleared up, but at the same time it is clear enough (that makes no sense, I'm delirious and tired

Anyway my point is, stay! It's still fun even if there is confusion and complaining throughout the season, it's surely to be expected with an 18 person league with most being randoms!

[rpfc 28,046]

Frankly we are doing well to keep us all on here at this stage!

DD - I know your frustration but I was just doing what you were trying to do - trying to win.

And it isn't your fault, the trade made perfect sense and there is the problem. Scarlett shouldn't want to dismantle his team to that extent, but the rules encourage it.

Any league would veto that trade DD because players are in it to win it and if you were in a league with randoms - that trade just wouldn't get through.

Please stay.

That's my pep talk.

Please have a read through the ideas I have put in the last few posts.

[JACKATTACK 17]

You've been added to my list DD.

Just one more threatening to leave because things aren't going your way.

That said I think the trade veto is disappointing because I don't believe it was against the spirit of the game. I only veto when I think it is not in the spirit of the game, never to better my position in the league. And do should everyone else. But here's the kicker; it is up to Individual coaches to determine whether an particular trade is outside 'the spirit of the game'. And apart from rpfc, who has admitted it was for his own benefit, all voting coaches have vetoed in the right spirit.

Edited July 22, 2012 by JACKATTACK

[Range Rover 1,935]

And THAT is why I'm pulling out of his comp.

People carry on on this site about the rules getting changed to make it fairer, when here we are with ANOTHER trade that makes perfect sense in the context of the season, ONLY getting vetoed because you want to win, NOT because it's against the spirit of the competition. So people like me who've traded in a savvy way get ripped off TWICE this year, not because they're abusing the rules, but because everyone else wants to win. This is the same as RR getting the rules changed mid season a couple of months ago, not because it helps the comp, but because he's upset he's losing.

I got the rules changed because there was support within the group to get it changed. I wasn't on my Pat Malone, Dappa.

And how have you been "ripped off" simply by others wanting to win and voting down a lopsided trade? ?That's what the veto is for.

I know we've agreed to it but I'll say it now as I said it then ... the keepers idea is flawed and I just can't see the justification for it given the anomalies it keeps throwing up.

[rpfc 28,046]

I got the rules changed because there was support within the group to get it changed. I wasn't on my Pat Malone, Dappa.

And how have you been "ripped off" simply by others wanting to win and voting down a lopsided trade? ?That's what the veto is for.

I know we've agreed to it but I'll say it now as I said it then ... the keepers idea is flawed and I just can't see the justification for it given the anomalies it keeps throwing up.

A keeper system where you keep ALL your players or 10 of them lends itself to better list management where you try to keep a good list and not look to trade 5 players for 1.

Not saying it is ideal, just putting it out there.

[rpfc 28,046]

You've been added to my list DD.

Just one more threatening to leave because things aren't going your way.

That said I think the trade veto is disappointing because I don't believe it was against the spirit of the game. I only veto when I think it is not in the spirit of the game, never to better my position in the league. And do should everyone else. But here's the kicker; it is up to Individual coaches to determine whether an particular trade is outside 'the spirit of the game'. And apart from rpfc

I think you cut yourself off there...

Look, I have said my piece but when I traded Selwood I was thinking I want to come out with a trade that would make my team better - I got two medium upgrades and a medium downgrade and I also thought that if I was to get strong of a deal people would veto it on the basis I was getting too strong of a deal.

The 'spirit of the game' is a strong argument but it swings both ways. Have we made the best rule change when it leads to someone dismantling their team for one player?

That was my first veto and I didn't want to do it, but this is a game and we all trying to win. I just look (and feel) like a d!ck because I was 'playing the game.'

[JACKATTACK 17]

I got the rules changed because there was support within the group to get it changed. I wasn't on my Pat Malone, Dappa.

And how have you been "ripped off" simply by others wanting to win and voting down a lopsided trade? ?That's what the veto is for.

I know we've agreed to it but I'll say it now as I said it then ... the keepers idea is flawed and I just can't see the justification for it given the anomalies it keeps throwing up.

The keeper idea is great, it is working perfectly in another league I run, and I have heard of several others that report no problems with it.

I do agree that it has been controversial, but it is only as controversial as we allow it to be, and a bit of heated warmed debate is not a bad thing.

I suspect that it is a result of running a league entirely over a forum. I never have the chance to meet everyone and explain a rule, or discuss a trade, and so there is confusion at times. And while I do my best to explain everything here as much as possible it is impossible for everyone on here to read everything. Also people just behave differently behind an internet name.

[JACKATTACK 17]

I think you cut yourself off there...

Look, I have said my piece but when I traded Selwood I was thinking I want to come out with a trade that would make my team better - I got two medium upgrades and a medium downgrade and I also thought that if I was to get strong of a deal people would veto it on the basis I was getting too strong of a deal.

The 'spirit of the game' is a strong argument but it swings both ways. Have we made the best rule change when it leads to someone dismantling their team for one player?

That was my first veto and I didn't want to do it, but this is a game and we all trying to win. I just look (and feel) like a d!ck because I was 'playing the game.'

Fixed my post, iphone didnt allow editing. I think my fixed post addesses what you were getting at about it swinging both ways. I respect that fact it was vetoed, but we need to do it for the right reasons.

As for the now vetoed trade, I am discounting rpfc's veto because he has admitted that he did it to 'win', and I am vetoeing it myself because you admitted that you did the trade because you were expecting to quit next year so didn't care to keep ablett, which I believe is outside the spirit of the game.

DD, the coaches have spoken and you're just going to have to try and win WITH Ablett.

Edited July 22, 2012 by JACKATTACK

[rpfc 28,046]

As for the now vetoed trade, I am discounting rpfc's veto because he has admitted that he did it to 'win', and I am vetoeing it myself because you admitted that you did the trade because you were expecting to quit next year so didn't care to keep ablett, which I believe is outside the spirit of the game.

To be fair to myself, I have voiced my reasons for veto-ing this trade on here. I didn't have to do that - and I didn't have to do it with 2 hours to go to the deadline and I didn't have to offer a suggestion that the trade be changed so it could go through, and I didn't have to say that a very beneficial trade that DD could make would go through.

I don't want to be overly defensive here but my reasons were more than just 'I don't think DD can be beaten.' I always say that nothing is ever black and white and it is the same here. The keeper rule needs to be balanced to keep people competitive.

And JA could I just ask what the parameters are in the league you are in with the keeper rule? Just curious.

[scarlett 247]

How was that turned over, a disgrace, dappa had ablett, the best keeper in the game, it was the only trade that would get that over the line, the part that wasn't in the spirit of the game wasn't in the game is you guys saying "his team would be stronger then mine". This happened earlier in the season with a few other high profile players, I raised my concerns and nobody cared. If this is the two sided way this league is, well I'm not threatening to leave I'll just remember it next year and do it to every trade that will make someones team stronger. Pathetic.

[scarlett 247]

The way I read dappa dans post is he won't be back next year because of this, not traded him out because he was leaving. Tell me would Hawthorne trade Franklin in a mid season draft if it nearly garenteed them the cup? Your all cheats.

[jayceebee31 697]

JA - It is and has been very difficult managing us in this league. Furthermore, I am one coach that will play under any rules, however, would like it to be before season starts with no change during any season.No doubt you have read my posts which states my thoughts. Sad Dappa is going - he has been a stalwart and really given us all a very hard time as an opponent.Also JA could you update the League Notes on ultimate footy so includes my rookies ,please .

Also, thank you.

[rpfc 28,046]

The way I read dappa dans post is he won't be back next year because of this, not traded him out because he was leaving. Tell me would Hawthorne trade Franklin in a mid season draft if it nearly garenteed them the cup? Your all cheats.

I understand what you are saying, I have said my piece.

JA - is there a way to extend the trade deadline for a couple of days?

[jayceebee31 697]

How was that turned over, a disgrace, dappa had ablett, the best keeper in the game, it was the only trade that would get that over the line, the part that wasn't in the spirit of the game wasn't in the game is you guys saying "his team would be stronger then mine". This happened earlier in the season with a few other high profile players, I raised my concerns and nobody cared. If this is the two sided way this league is, well I'm not threatening to leave I'll just remember it next year and do it to every trade that will make someones team stronger. Pathetic.

Understand your point, but you cleaned Dappa up this round.That is because you had a better team.Understand that you wanted Ablett for next year, however, what you had to give up for him was not fair and reasonable.Maybe Martin and one other player on offer may have been a considerate level.Just a little over the top when 4 in the top 50( or near enough )was also required.You would have handed Dappa the premiership on a platter.

Edited July 22, 2012 by jayceebee31

[scarlett 247]

Understand your point, but you cleaned Dappa up this round.That is because you had a better team.Understand that you wanted Ablett for next year, however, what you had to give up for him was not fair and reasonable.Maybe 3 players on offer maybe a considerate level.Just a little over the top was required.

Would 3 players get it over the line, no, ablett is top 3 keeper, would you trade him for 3 might keeps and might win the cup? No. You voted against it because you had less chance of winning, I raised this happening when we voted on the keepers, no one cared, we've had one player not play since before the bye doing exactly this. We played inside the rules you have not. You used the veto tool not because of a dodgy trade for example 2 people who knew each other were trading albeit for Dunn, you have used it to cheat, ROTC you admitted it on this page. This trade benefited both of us.

[JACKATTACK 17]

The way I read dappa dans post is he won't be back next year because of this, not traded him out because he was leaving. Tell me would Hawthorne trade Franklin in a mid season draft if it nearly garenteed them the cup? Your all cheats.

He'll be back. He's just upset and being dramatic.

[jayceebee31 697]

And THAT is why I'm pulling out of his comp.

People carry on on this site about the rules getting changed to make it fairer, when here we are with ANOTHER trade that makes perfect sense in the context of the season, ONLY getting vetoed because you want to win, NOT because it's against the spirit of the competition. So people like me who've traded in a savvy way get ripped off TWICE this year, not because they're abusing the rules, but because everyone else wants to win. This is the same as RR getting the rules changed mid season a couple of months ago, not because it helps the comp, but because he's upset he's losing.

So NOW we want to wait til after the season?

Just to let you guys know, the only reason I was going to stay was because Ablett is the first guy everyone wants. I wanted to trade him away, take a last dash at winning it this year, and then let all my players hit waivers and leave you guys to it. I've had heaps of offers over the past couple of weeks, and all I was doing was waiting to take the best one. I only left the trade as long as I did because I was 50-50 on whether or not to leave, as I thought the sooking would die down, and maybe it would get fun again. This is proof it's gone too far.

You guys have fun with it next year.

Yep, want to hold off any rule changes ,especially during the year.You know, right from wrong. I rate you the hardest opponent but trying to get this trade through was over the top.I am not happy for you to leave, it will then be like a walkover for me, which not only unfair to all, it will not be a challenge for me anymore.Do me a favour, take a deep breath and a had look at all aspects.If you leave, then ,I will most probably do the same.That will make several happy.Don't do it.

[jayceebee31 697]

Would 3 players get it over the line, no, ablett is top 3 keeper, would you trade him for 3 might keeps and might win the cup? No. You voted against it because you had less chance of winning, I raised this happening when we voted on the keepers, no one cared, we've had one player not play since before the bye doing exactly this. We played inside the rules you have not. You used the veto tool not because of a dodgy trade for example 2 people who knew each other were trading albeit for Dunn, you have used it to cheat, ROTC you admitted it on this page. This trade benefited both of us.

I voted against it,because it was unfair and unreasonable. Martin And one other would have got my vote. Any other two without Martin ,I would have deemed it unfair.I would have given you either SJ or Stanton for any two on offer.

[Mad_Melbourne 872]

I didn't veto the trade, but I can see why people would veto the trade, but I also think that it would have been a fine trade, people veto trades that they feel are unacceptable and of course the people who were involved in the trade are going to be annoyed due to it being vetoed! It was much like the trade that went down for pendlebury earlier in the year.