SCSUL RULE CHANGES - Discussion

[Darkie]

Regarding the time element, my understanding is that this should be quite straightforward.

I think it would just be a matter of adding the 23rd score (ie the flex score) into the SUM, and then removing the minimum score (?), eg:

=SUM(A1:A22)

would become

=SUM(A1:A23) - MIN(A1:A23)

I’m happy for it to not be incorporated in UL. I don’t really have a preference either way (I just wanted to know which way we were leaning).

If we do think it would be good to include down the track, I think it could be done in a way that involves a modest amount of initial setup, and no ongoing time investment for Ken.

If it was going to be labour intensive I’d definitely be erring against, but my understanding is that shouldn’t be the case … so it may be a viable option down the track if desired.

 

[Goodie's Guns]

Interesting, I clearly haven't been keeping up.

Does that make Ruck less important? If we remain at 2, you could easily play a 1 ruck strategy and just have a spare mid on bench?

Means you are exposed to an early injury, more so than opponent (whilst saving $500k-$1m)?

Like I’ve said before, I’m in the wait and see a year camp re. any introduction of a flex.

But will just touch on this, I think your flex would only be allowed to replace the lowest score that is possible through position eligibility (via DPP if applicable).

So for example, if you have a ruck donut. You’d have to either have a flex with ruck eligibility, or a DPP RUC eligible on field (say FWD), for the flex to be able to cover a ruck don’t. Otherwise they just replace the next worst score, and you cop the donut as your 22nd score.

That then eliminates the issues outlined in your post re. Diminishing ruck importance. Additionally, even in my example, the second point just wouldn’t occur. If you had a ruck donut, but a RUC/FWD up FWD, you’d obviously be fielding them in the ruck anyway.

Again in summary, think this is very much one to see how it plays out for a year or so, and properly craft any potential rules for its introduction. Rather than rush anything.

 

[lappinitup]

Like I’ve said before, I’m in the wait and see a year camp re. any introduction of a flex.

But will just touch on this, I think your flex would only be allowed to replace the lowest score that is possible through position eligibility (via DPP if applicable).

So for example, if you have a ruck donut. You’d have to either have a flex with ruck eligibility, or a DPP RUC eligible on field (say FWD), for the flex to be able to cover a ruck don’t. Otherwise they just replace the next worst score, and you cop the donut as your 22nd score.

That then eliminates the issues outlined in your post re. Diminishing ruck importance. Additionally, even in my example, the second point just wouldn’t occur. If you had a ruck donut, but a RUC/FWD up FWD, you’d obviously be fielding them in the ruck anyway.

Again in summary, think this is very much one to see how it plays out for a year or so, and properly craft any potential rules for its introduction. Rather than rush anything.

Interesting, I think on first thoughts I agree with all of the above.

Flex is a nice concept to protect against injuries, stinker scores. However, I think with 10 experienced supercoach coaches it would become more strategic. We have emergencies to protect against late outs.

If the overwhelming majority wanted it in, I would vote in favour for intro in 2028 or after.. giving coaches plenty of time to plan for it.

However, I am comfortable with it remaining out for now.