SCSUL RULE CHANGES - Discussion
- Thread starter KLo30
- Start date
If being placed on the inactive list precludes the player for the season, then we should treat them the same as out for the season as injured. If it means they are only on the list until such time as the AFL doesn't require vaccination as a condition of playing or they subsequently get vaccinated, we should treat that as being injured for a number of weeks but not out for the season.
1. Publish a list of eligible players for the LTI list
2. Make deadline for teams to nominate players for the LTI list
3. Add Supplemental Selections to Team Lists, where appropriate, available for trading
4. Deadline for trading of MSD picks & Supplemental Selections
5. Publish agreed upon MSD time. If a mutually acceptable time cannot be found a slow draft will occur.
6. Draft will take place using the Pre-Season Draft sheet.
2. Make deadline for teams to nominate players for the LTI list
3. Add Supplemental Selections to Team Lists, where appropriate, available for trading
4. Deadline for trading of MSD picks & Supplemental Selections
5. Publish agreed upon MSD time. If a mutually acceptable time cannot be found a slow draft will occur.
6. Draft will take place using the Pre-Season Draft sheet.
As already stated, players listed as season and inactive will be eligible to be placed on the LTI list of teams, as well as those who have been delisted due to retirement.
There are a couple of players listed as indefinite who have barely trained due to serious medical health issues in Michael Hurley and Ben Cunnington, who I will put on the LTI eligible list unless there are strong arguments brought forward as to why they shouldn't.
I'll go through the AFL list and make determinations from there either tonight or tomorrow.
There are a couple of players listed as indefinite who have barely trained due to serious medical health issues in Michael Hurley and Ben Cunnington, who I will put on the LTI eligible list unless there are strong arguments brought forward as to why they shouldn't.
I'll go through the AFL list and make determinations from there either tonight or tomorrow.
LTI ELIGIBLE
????
Buckley, Howes, McEvoy, etc - should be back before the end of the regular SCSUL season
LTI ELIGIBLE
Ben Cunnington
Jake Pasini
Josh Caddy - Retired
????
Scott Lycett - should be back before the end of the regular SCSUL season
LTI ELIGIBLE
Jack Hayes
Nicholas Coffield
Sam Naismith
Campbell Chesser
Tom Cole
????
LTI ELIGIBLE
????
Last edited:
- Joined
- 24 May 2020
- Messages
- 142
- Likes
- 568
- AFL Club
- Bulldogs
I think anyone likely to return before before end of our season including finals i.e before end of AFL regular season should be ineligible. Would avoid situations where an inactive player can return for a prelim final for example.
Hurley or Cunnington types where it’s unclear but probably unlikely I’m fine being eligible. I assume even if a miraculous return occurred those inactive players wouldn’t be eligible for selection anyway?
Hurley or Cunnington types where it’s unclear but probably unlikely I’m fine being eligible. I assume even if a miraculous return occurred those inactive players wouldn’t be eligible for selection anyway?
Thanks for getting to this so quickly!
I think the approach it seems you have taken makes sense to me (ie the cutoff would be whether or not the player is expected back before SCSUL finals begin (ie before R20?))
I think the point Jordan raised probably wouldn’t apply as a player on the LTI list I expect would be ineligible for selection for the remainder of the year.
Seems fair to me that a team would be permitted to replace a player who wouldn’t be around to help them make SCSUL finals.
When assessing the timeframes, did you use the lower range of the timeframe?
I have MMcGovern right on the cusp at 9-11 weeks, which puts his return at R18-20. He meets the criteria if we use the higher range but doesn’t if we use the lower range.
Feels like for lengthy injuries like that the higher range would make more sense (and there have been reports eg that MMcGovern may not be back til AFL finals eg see here )
Very happy to follow the majority view & ultimate commissioner decision but thought I would put my own thoughts forward that I’d prefer a MMcGovern, Howes or Lycett type at 11 weeks be eligible for the LTI list at a coach’s discretion.
If put on the LTI list then they are not available for selection in SCSUL should they return before the end of the year given they have been “replaced”.
I think the approach it seems you have taken makes sense to me (ie the cutoff would be whether or not the player is expected back before SCSUL finals begin (ie before R20?))
I think the point Jordan raised probably wouldn’t apply as a player on the LTI list I expect would be ineligible for selection for the remainder of the year.
Seems fair to me that a team would be permitted to replace a player who wouldn’t be around to help them make SCSUL finals.
When assessing the timeframes, did you use the lower range of the timeframe?
I have MMcGovern right on the cusp at 9-11 weeks, which puts his return at R18-20. He meets the criteria if we use the higher range but doesn’t if we use the lower range.
Feels like for lengthy injuries like that the higher range would make more sense (and there have been reports eg that MMcGovern may not be back til AFL finals eg see here )
Very happy to follow the majority view & ultimate commissioner decision but thought I would put my own thoughts forward that I’d prefer a MMcGovern, Howes or Lycett type at 11 weeks be eligible for the LTI list at a coach’s discretion.
If put on the LTI list then they are not available for selection in SCSUL should they return before the end of the year given they have been “replaced”.