Ultimate Footy - Norm Smith League

[JACKATTACK 17]

Well you just can't keep everyone happy.

[Range Rover 1,935]

The post doesn't let me quote where you quoted me. And again you're wrong. I have a great keeper position, but I have a horrible one in a different comp I'm in. Even worse than yours. And I still love it. Get your facts straight... It has nothing to do with how well or badly I'm going. And my comments were about you SEEMING to throw a tanty. While I realise your comments are usually well considered, I thought it was worth letting you know that even having the image of sooking is something you should absolutely avoid... And my reason? If every coach who's coming second last gets on and threatens to leave and ruin the comp by delisting his players, and gets what he wants, it sets a bad example... JA has to stand firm here in his democratic principle, and that's all there is too it. If you're losing you get one vote, if you're winning, you get the same. If you want everyone to change their minds, then put your case forward on the threads, try to make them realise your position is different, but don't ruin it for everyone else. Make sense?

I admit the de-listing of players comment was ill-considered. Made it in the heat of the moment after a tense few posts with JA in which I was issues with an ultimatum. I'm happy to apologise for my "threat" and JA and I have PM'd each other to clear the air.

I strongly felt 4 keepers was an unfair system and it seemed the only way I could get my point across was to jump up and down. It looks as though at the very least other coaches, even those sitting on top, appreciate that this is case.

That's the WHOLE POINT. Sam Mitchell and Hayes are gun players, but will you keep them? Won't you? YOu have to roll the dice if you think they have a future. This has been as aspect all year in trades... people are trading older players, and not trading the Shueys and Fyfes...

No. Yet another case of looking on something negatively that everyone else has embraced positively. It's part of the fun of it! No different from drafting Hayes this year coming off a really bad year of injury... you don't know what you're going to get? What rank pick do you spend on him? Who takes him? etc etc...

So many points have been made here, perfectly reasonably, yet you won't give ground on one of them. It's fun for everyone else... it's not for you... fine... but surely you can at least appreciate that not everyone thinks of keepers like you.

I've given ground, understand there are varying opinions, and am happy to go with the results of the poll.

The poll is a good idea... But here's how this sort of thing should go...

I traded for Kreuzer this year in a trade that probably advantaged me more for next year than this, as Kreuzer's not doing much. He's a definite keeper. Now because of your protest (and while some coaches may agree, they're not kicking up a fuss), I'm going to have to let him go this year DESPITE having traded for him safe in the knowledge the keepers were going to be 4 and THAT'S IT. It was agreed upon...

So what do I do? Threaten to leave? No. I don't like it, because I have been operating under one set of rules that were put to the league and agreed upon, regardless of what you might think... But I will go along with whatever decision is made. Under a simple protest. When we start a season with one set of rules, if we get a coach suffering from poor drafting or trading, that has a legitimate gripe, they should be able to run a poll FOR THE FOLLOWING season.

Your situation is not the same as you have drafted/played wonderfully well this season and will be set for 2013 whichever way the cake is sliced.

That's how this should have gone all along.

Nothing would have happened at all had I not kicked up a stink. I'm sorry it came to that but something had to be done.

I hope we can all move on now and enjoy the rest of the season.

[45HG 1,539]

Not sure if it's supposed to be private or not, but personally my vote is for the original 4 Keepers to remain.

It's how I've drafted - it's played a part in my trading/non-trading and it's how others have been playing the game too. I didn't feel there was an issue until the last couple of days.

Otherwise, if it doesn't pan out I'll be happy to go along with whatever JA decides. You've done a wonderful job, keep it up.

[Range Rover 1,935]

Yeah this is [censored].

You can't go changing the rules just cos one coach has had a bad run. And not even the worst run of all the coaches. The league was set up earlier this year in this way. If you missed the news that it's a keeper league, then that's a separate issue, but as it stands one coach has had a bad run, threatened to compromise the league, then somehow we end up with a "vote" to change rules that 17 other coaches have played by.

If anything, the keeper league should be scrapped for this year and everyone get told for next year. And those people that don't read posts on here, and can't get their [censored] together with the rules? Bad luck.

And just in case people think I'm taking sides, I'm in opposition with JA on this.

You've made this comment previously Dappa and it's not correct. Several other coaches have agreed with me on the 'keepers issue'. Please re-read the last few pages of this thread.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

On further reflection... My option would be 2 and 2X under 21s.... As per the legitimate issues RR has brought up with the keeper concept... but at the end of next season, not this season.

[rpfc 28,450]

I voted 2 open and 2 outside the top 100.

I just want to keep a couple even if they are not great.

I like the idea of keeping someone and then they explode!

Don't think I have too many U/21s...

[JACKATTACK 17]

You've made this comment previously Dappa and it's not correct. Several other coaches have agreed with me on the 'keepers issue'. Please re-read the last few pages of this thread.

Enough out of the 2 of you.

Trust in the results of the poll and then we can all move on.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

How do you do that quoting thing, where you can't quote the quoted paragraphs?

In regards to your first paragraph, understood.

You've made this comment previously Dappa and it's not correct. Several other coaches have agreed with me on the 'keepers issue'. Please re-read the last few pages of this thread.

I'll clarify. The defining moment, as you've suggested was the noise you've made on the issue. After which some coaches have agreed with you... My point was only that you were the only to raise the objection, where everyone else was happy to go along with it and review it at the end of the season.... as we will EVERY year especially with new rules. I didn't mean to suggest you were alone in your views.

And hey, I'm one of the people that agrees with you. I admit that with the issues you've raised, the keeper thing isn't perfect. But shouldn't we do what we do every year? If the concept has some holes, don't change mid season...

I dunno. That's my opinion.

Oh and I haven't played THAT wonderfully... I'm only 6-4. How about a peace-pipe trade? Jurrah for ABlett?

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

I think as it stands, RR has lost a bit o ground on his list with the keeper concept. If the 2 old 2 young answer is gone with, then can we at least pass a rule in here that ignorance of rules isn't a good enough circumstance to change rules, and that ANY rule changes are to be made only when the decision doesn't effect the current strategies of players, and that they're made at the END of the season, not mid season... I think that should be agreed upon.

Obviously this one off mid-season poll is a bit different because if it stays as 4, then RR is disadvantaged for this year AND next, which is a bit too long for any player to be disadvantaged. Nobody wants to fly the white flag before the season has started. In other words, if it stays as 4 going into next season, then that's going to make RR's 2013 ALREADY pretty crap. I'm willing to take a hit on my one trade to keep RR involved, given the murky circumstances... and we can put this down to another learning experience. At that point, if keepers as a whole is still something RR doesn't like, he can leave the comp in peace without animosity. Or stay with the compromise.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Dappa Dan

[Range Rover 1,935]

How do you do that quoting thing, where you can't quote the quoted paragraphs?

In regards to your first paragraph, understood.

I'll clarify. The defining moment, as you've suggested was the noise you've made on the issue. After which some coaches have agreed with you... My point was only that you were the only to raise the objection, where everyone else was happy to go along with it and review it at the end of the season.... as we will EVERY year especially with new rules. I didn't mean to suggest you were alone in your views.

No problem, understand where you're coming from.

And hey, I'm one of the people that agrees with you. I admit that with the issues you've raised, the keeper thing isn't perfect. But shouldn't we do what we do every year? If the concept has some holes, don't change mid season...

it would be good if it were that way but really this whole competition and it's rules are in the embryonic stage. Should we really have to wait a whole 'nother year to institute changes when things can be tinkered with as we go? Just seems a bit unfair to have to start a whole new season at a handicap.

I dunno. That's my opinion.

Oh and I haven't played THAT wonderfully... I'm only 6-4. How about a peace-pipe trade? Jurrah for ABlett?

I'd do that in a heart-beat. Are you serious!?

JA would have to unlock my status as I've been in the sin-bin since yesterday with my dummy-spit comments!

[JACKATTACK 17]

Unlocked now. Forgot about that.

[Range Rover 1,935]

I think as it stands, RR has lost a bit o ground on his list with the keeper concept. If the 2 old 2 young answer is gone with, then can we at least pass a rule in here that ignorance of rules isn't a good enough circumstance to change rules, and that ANY rule changes are to be made only when the decision doesn't effect the current strategies of players, and that they're made at the END of the season, not mid season... I think that should be agreed upon.

Obviously this one off mid-season poll is a bit different because if it stays as 4, then RR is disadvantaged for this year AND next, which is a bit too long for any player to be disadvantaged. Nobody wants to fly the white flag before the season has started.

Thanks for recognising the problem. Actually I don't mind being disadvantaged for this year. Only got myself to blame.

It's the starting behind the eight-ball for next year thing that doesn't seem right to me.

But alas, I've said enough about it now. Hopefully the poll works out a fair change.

Cheers to JA for your sporting approach to this matter and like others I appreciate the time you put in. RR.

[Mad_Melbourne 877]

Just for the less tech savy, I'm on my iPad how cani see the poll?

[JACKATTACK 17]

The poll is on the ultimate footy site.

[Mad_Melbourne 877]

League poll on the side, I'm an idiot haha

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

I made the same mistake MM.

[H_T 3,047]

So am I. Lol.

45....offers are on table.

[Sideshow Bob 2,386]

Wow. Haven't felt the need to post on this during the discussion as I don't have to add. I just realized it is actually because I really am ambilivent on the issue. No keepers, 4 keepers, 2+2..... I have really enjoyed last year and this year. I like the idea of keepers (oviously having Sandi would be keeper #1 for me) but really don't care one way or the other. Happy just to go with the masses on this

Edit: just voted on 2 + 2 young players - kind of like the idea that you could have 'the next ablett' as a cheap young un' and hang on to him as well. But still happy with whatever the masses choose.

Edited June 6, 2012 by jako13

[JACKATTACK 17]

So the 2 + 2 young players seems to be gaining traction with already 6 votes if you count RR's change of vote. And 7 if you count Dappas on count back.

If it gets up, the question then is what should be the cutoff date for players? For simplicity I think it should be the year of their birth be the cutoff. It makes it much easier to just look at their DOB to see if they qualify. ie. Todd Banfield's Birthday is 28/06/1990 so his YOB is 1990 and therefore he would just miss out if we took only YOB 1991 players.

And after some quick analysis, I have decided its probably either 1990 and 1991 YOB being the cutoff. I'm interested in your thoughts: So here is the full list of players currently listed with a year of birth >1990. I have bolded the 1990 ones to give you an idea about who would be in if we allowed YOB1990 players to be 'Rookie Keepers' our out if we took only 1991.

Couldn't figure out how to do the table thing so I posted it on the League page under league notes. You can also just check click on a players name on the site and it will show you the player profile with DOB.

Edited June 7, 2012 by JACKATTACK

[Arrow 1,257]

So the 2 + 2 young players seems to be gaining traction with already 6 votes if you count RR's change of vote. And 7 if you count Dappas on count back.

If it gets up, the question then is what should be the cutoff date for players? For simplicity I think it should be the year of their birth be the cutoff. It makes it much easier to just look at their DOB to see if they qualify. ie. Todd Banfield's Birthday is 28/06/1990 so his YOB is 1990 and therefore he would just miss out if we took only YOB 1991 players.

And after some quick analysis, I have decided its probably either 1990 and 1991 YOB being the cutoff. I'm interested in your thoughts: So here is the full list of players currently listed with a year of birth >1990. I have bolded the 1990 ones to give you an idea about who would be in if we allowed YOB1990 players to be 'Rookie Keepers' our out if we took only 1991.

Couldn't figure out how to do the table thing so I posted it on the League page under league notes. You can also just check click on a players name on the site and it will show you the player profile with DOB.

My thoughts are it needs to be 1991 as a birth date. 1990 kids have had 4 years in the system and next year will be their 5th. Thats not rookies or young players anymore- they're developed. 1991 gets my vote for the cut off.

[Arrow 1,257]

My thoughts are it needs to be 1991 as a birth date. 1990 kids have had 4 years in the system and next year will be their 5th. Thats not rookies or young players anymore- they're developed. 1991 gets my vote for the cut off.

For example for me to have Trent Cotchin as a 'young player' just seems silly. Don't get me wrong I'd bloody love to get him with my young player pick up but it seems to wreck the idea of it for me. That said, it's advantageous for me to now vote for 1990 as the year... so i'm just confused.

[Range Rover 1,935]

1991 should be the cut-off IMO.

A lot of the 1990's guys like Rockliff, De Boer, Redden, Selwood, Dangerfield, Hartlett, Zaharakis, Steven, Yarran, Vickery, Shuey, Ward, Cotchin, Natanui ... seem to be well established guns.

[DeeVoted 583]

Fantasy footy needs more like you Deevoted. And I do always log in and try and keep my team up to date, but there are plenty who don't.

That was 2011 2012 wasnt a good year for apples

[Mad_Melbourne 877]

Either has no effect on me my two keeper players are Rhys Stanley and josh caddy, if it is moved to 1991 I just don't have Stanley as a keeper, what happens if you do not have the possibility of selecting 2 "young" keepers

[JACKATTACK 17]

I tend to agree with 1991.

Sucks to be Dappa: Scott selwood: 1990, Redden 1990