SCS Supercoach Ultimate League

[Darkie]

For whatever it’s worth I am in favour of coaches bejng able to play their best players.

No-one is playing H Mclean ahead of Sean Darcy by choice, and personally I don’t think anyone is trying to loop.

The AFL has made it unnecessarily hard for fantasy coaches - maybe we will all be better for the run next year if they insist on doing it again!

 

[Goodie's Guns]

Based on the injury reporting around Sean Darcy from when his injury was first known and across the last month, it was conceivable that he would 'possibly' be available for this round, being AFL Round 5, SCSUL Round 5.

With that in mind, I would rule that unless selected within the initial Round 5 lineup, in the 22 or as an EMG, that he would not be able to replace either Treacy or McLean. Unless otherwise noted, with the selection criteria outlined pending the AFL team selections that unfold.

It had/has been well documented and made known that any selection conundrums, or potential conundrums, be noted down and outlined to make things easier, and effectively, avoid this situation. It has been tough with the hand that the AFL has dished us up this year, but I think we have made the best of a difficult situation.

 

[Diabolical]

McLean actually doesn’t come into the equation as I have already made the decision to field Treacy over him. The issue is if Darcy gets named, I would prefer to field him ahead of Treacy given neither have played yet. Two weeks ago it was sounding unlikely Darcy would be available until at least R6 so I didn’t select him.

If neither Treacy or Darcy get named, then naturally I have no choice so McLean comes on field unless that is deliberate looping?

I didn’t make notes as it was all too hard to make decisions given I have only had 1/22 players play so far in R4. I wrongly thought that I could work out the other 21 this week once I saw teams.

I got caught out in R1 by not selecting players named in R0 as emergencies to then find out expected named players didn’t get named in R1 resulting in two donuts. I mitigate that risk by selecting a player playing first as an emergency to then find out they must come on field before others.

Very frustrating but accept the decision and I will not field Darcy if named despite the stupidity of anyone choosing Treacy over him.

Lesson learned, and I with select Thilthorpe for R6 just in case!

 

[Bomber18]

Based on the injury reporting around Sean Darcy from when his injury was first known and across the last month, it was conceivable that he would 'possibly' be available for this round, being AFL Round 5, SCSUL Round 5.

With that in mind, I would rule that unless selected within the initial Round 5 lineup, in the 22 or as an EMG, that he would not be able to replace either Treacy or McLean. Unless otherwise noted, with the selection criteria outlined pending the AFL team selections that unfold.

It had/has been well documented and made known that any selection conundrums, or potential conundrums, be noted down and outlined to make things easier, and effectively, avoid this situation. It has been tough with the hand that the AFL has dished us up this year, but I think we have made the best of a difficult situation.

I guess the flipside is - if McLean didn’t play or Andrew had a different ruck E that didn’t play the prior round, he could freely change Tracey and Darcy? Seems a bit harsh as obviously you’d play Darcy over Tracey/McLean types.

I hadn’t also appreciated that having a early playing E on any line might hamstring your ability to make changes to your 22.

Lesson learnt for this round - probably makes sense to avoid Melb or Rich Es to maximise flexibility next round.

Hopefully for everyone’s sake (including Jackson owners in Classic SC) Darcy has one more week off

 

[Goodie's Guns]

Lesson learnt for this round - probably makes sense to avoid Melb or Rich Es to maximise flexibility next round.

No, there’s no need to avoid anyone with selection.

As has been the case across all of these Early Bye Rounds (and MBRs in the past), if notes outlining selection situations and scenarios were provided, then the relevant adjustments would be permitted.

 

[Bomber18]

No, there’s no need to avoid anyone with selection.

As has been the case across all of these Early Bye Rounds (and MBRs in the past), if notes outlining selection situations and scenarios were provided, then the relevant adjustments would be permitted.

I guess notes don’t really help with flexibility in changing up your team for other reasons, ie matchups / form / injuries to other players helping your players.

E.g. feels a bit rough that Darkness’ entire fwd and def lines are locked in as he had Pies Es, but I can freely change mine for R5 as I didn’t.

Personally, think it’s worth giving a week of flexibility as it was a rule tweak just announced (mid round) but ofc doesn’t really affect me this round. Just sharing my 2 cents worth.

 

[KLo30]

​

Allowing a little bit of flexibilty seems too controversal. Therefore, teams stay as selected for SCSUL Round 5, with the notes as written two weeks ago. No changes or additions permitted.

SCSUL Round 6 begins with Melbourne on Thursday night, so teams need to be in before the beginning of the game. Highly recommended clear and simply notes are included with your team selection.

 

[Bomber18]

View attachment 71075​

Allowing a little bit of flexibilty seems too controversal. Therefore, teams stay as selected for SCSUL Round 5, with the notes as written two weeks ago. No changes or additions permitted.

SCSUL Round 6 begins with Melbourne on Thursday night, so teams need to be in before the beginning of the game. Highly recommended clear and simply notes are included with your team selection.

Hi Ken

A rolling lockout approach seems to be more reasonable for R5 and R6 to me with only one R6 game in R5.

Can we take that approach for R6?

It also wasn’t clear to me that playing Es locked teams onfield (perhaps for rolling lockouts too?). That’s now clear going forward. I think a rolling lockout probably leads to a better result for all as it’s tricky to select R6 teams in R5….

 

[Bomber18]

I think we’ve all operated in quite good faith with rolling lockouts / bye rounds in the past but maybe we need some clearer rules? I think locking lines based on playing Es seems to limit flexibility.

How about something like the following as “rolling lockout rules” which apply to split bye rounds too

- once Es on a line have played, pre-full lockout, the Es can’t be moved onfield by a coach unless there is a note flagging that the Es are “next in” and a replacement E has already been nominated

- before full lockout, positions in the 22 can be freely altered, but obvious non-playing players are not permitted to be moved on field to take E scores.

- Es can come on field without prior notes if no changes to the 22 have been otherwise made (in which case, there will not be a replacement E permitted). If relying on this rule, the side will be taken to have been as submitted at the first game.

- VC / Cs are not permitted to be changed once the VC has played

- if a player in the original 22 is subsequently not named and the E has played, the E must come on field. Unless a replacement E is nominated in Notes, the coach must leave team as is and let the Commissioner make the change.

 

[Bomber18]

Note: I’m happy either way and with the ultimate commissioner decision - just trying to make some suggestions to help everyone going forward!

 

[lappinitup]

I think we’ve all operated in quite good faith with rolling lockouts / bye rounds in the past but maybe we need some clearer rules? I think locking lines based on playing Es seems to limit flexibility.

How about something like the following as “rolling lockout rules” which apply to split bye rounds too

- once Es on a line have played, pre-full lockout, the Es can’t be moved onfield by a coach unless there is a note flagging that the Es are “next in” and a replacement E has already been nominated

- before full lockout, positions in the 22 can be freely altered, but obvious non-playing players are not permitted to be moved on field to take E scores.

- Es can come on field without prior notes if no changes to the 22 have been otherwise made (in which case, there will not be a replacement E permitted). If relying on this rule, the side will be taken to have been as submitted at the first game.

- VC / Cs are not permitted to be changed once the VC has played

Impossible task - hard to please everyone. Get why Ken has just moved forward as is based on notes!!

I personally think, if an emergency has played.. he has to be next in to your 22 in that position. Otherwise, you have effectively loopholed.

If your emergency hasn't played, you should be able to move as much as you want any players who haven't played as no loophole has been attempted (deliberate or otherwise).

 

[lappinitup]

I have probably stuffed it around more! Have a solution, however will look like im moving a locked player in to my side.

I have named 6 defenders on field, Phillips emergency. With a clear note saying next in line based on depth charts. E.g, at the time didn't want to pick Tom Brown as he was my last in line, if either of Cumming/Cox played would have gone them.

However, Tom Brown has now played and scored 60.

As my on field defender won't play (the highly overpaid Isacc Cumming), I intended my note to be Phillips comes on (emergency), as phillips probably doesn't play is simply goes next in line based on depth chart (per my note).

Next in line is technically Tom Brown.. so he should come in. May be an arugment it is Brennan Cox if depth charts are deemed to be live updated, however, he is out anyway, so irrelevant!

So either way, my only player playing in depth chart is Tom Brown.. so he comes in (If Phillips as emergency isn't selected).

My proposed solution is:

I move my emergency Phillips on ground, as I have to take his score now if he plays.
I move Tom Brown (already played) in to my emergencies.

Otheriwse, Ken has to go through every depth chart looking for solutions if teams don't have 22?

 

[Bomber18]

Impossible task - hard to please everyone. Get why Ken has just moved forward as is based on notes!!

I personally think, if an emergency has played.. he has to be next in to your 22 in that position. Otherwise, you have effectively loopholed.

If your emergency hasn't played, you should be able to move as much as you want any players who haven't played as no loophole has been attempted (deliberate or otherwise).

I agree with this logic for non-playing players but it seems to limit flexibility for returning injured player examples (ie S Darcy for Timelords), where it’s more replacing a weaker player (that is playing) with a stronger player.

I agree that it should be if a player in the original 22 is subsequently not named and the E has played, the E must come on field. Will tweak above.

 

[Bomber18]

Bont and English both fail as Captain - coaches of the Immortals and Rangers couldn’t be happier

 

[KLo30]

​

 

[KLo30]

​

 

[Bomber18]

If your emergency has already played you cannot bypass them. For example, The Darkness has had Quaynor already play. They can't just pick another DEF to not take his score.

If your fielded players and emergencies haven't played, then they are able to be shifted around/re-selected.

View attachment 71075​

Allowing a little bit of flexibilty seems too controversal. Therefore, teams stay as selected for SCSUL Round 5, with the notes as written two weeks ago. No changes or additions permitted.

SCSUL Round 6 begins with Melbourne on Thursday night, so teams need to be in before the beginning of the game. Highly recommended clear and simply notes are included with your team selection.

Hi Ken

Appreciate it’s hard to please all but wondering if we can go back to first iteration which permitted teams to change if the E didn’t play. That’s obviously better than the second iteration!

I’m happy if we just vote on it.

Also, I noticed YRA didn’t get Brown’s score below. Does that mean the reference to “depth charts” isn’t accepted? TBH (sorry Darkie and YRA), I think it’s better if coaches name the backup players.

I have probably stuffed it around more! Have a solution, however will look like im moving a locked player in to my side.

I have named 6 defenders on field, Phillips emergency. With a clear note saying next in line based on depth charts. E.g, at the time didn't want to pick Tom Brown as he was my last in line, if either of Cumming/Cox played would have gone them.

However, Tom Brown has now played and scored 60.

As my on field defender won't play (the highly overpaid Isacc Cumming), I intended my note to be Phillips comes on (emergency), as phillips probably doesn't play is simply goes next in line based on depth chart (per my note).

Next in line is technically Tom Brown.. so he should come in. May be an arugment it is Brennan Cox if depth charts are deemed to be live updated, however, he is out anyway, so irrelevant!

So either way, my only player playing in depth chart is Tom Brown.. so he comes in (If Phillips as emergency isn't selected).

My proposed solution is:

I move my emergency Phillips on ground, as I have to take his score now if he plays.
I move Tom Brown (already played) in to my emergencies.

Otheriwse, Ken has to go through every depth chart looking for solutions if teams don't have 22?

 

[lappinitup]

Hi Ken

Appreciate it’s hard to please all but wondering if we can go back to first iteration which permitted teams to change if the E didn’t play. That’s obviously better than the second iteration!

I’m happy if we just vote on it.

Also, I noticed YRA didn’t get Brown’s score below. Does that mean the reference to “depth charts” isn’t accepted? TBH (sorry Darkie and YRA), I think it’s better if coaches name the backup players.

I think that is ok if communicated early, I tried to simplify my note based on the rules / conversation at the time!

Originally was starting to list every player, had Brown there! If you look at round 1, Brown is named.

Happy to comply with whatever is agreed in here, however given it was accepted once Darkie mentioned it, I simplified my notes to fall in line.

 

[Bomber18]

I think that is ok if communicated early, I tried to simplify my note based on the rules / conversation at the time!

Originally was starting to list every player, had Brown there! If you look at round 1, Brown is named.

Happy to comply with whatever is agreed in here, however given it was accepted once Darkie mentioned it, I simplified my notes to fall in line.

No worries, I’m fine with you getting his score as I think my impression was that it was an acceptable approach. At least it didn’t affect the result…

 

[lappinitup]

Agreed - didn't change the result.

I will list every player on my list if I need too, unfortunately so many unknowns over a few weekends.