News

Dear Coaches,
In previous years we have had a peculiar MSD draft order. The reason is we felt that the simple snake order that we have at the PSD wasn’t a large enough benefit for the lower teams given the quality of player drops away rapidly from round 1 to 2 to 3. So instead of the simple snake we’ve had the following

• Round 1: 10th to 1st (based on ladder order)
• Round 2: Random draw
• Round 3+: Snake from then on

The problem is that random draw isn’t actually equitable. It is just random. It is also a pain to organise and as Administrator I’m withdrawing my random draw services for the MSD. So this historical draft order has officially ended. 
So what to replace it with?
Last year during COVID, by emergency Administrative decision we experimented with the following order:

• Round 1: 10th to 1st (based on ladder order)
• Round 2: 10th to 1st (based on ladder order)
• Round 3+: Snake from then on

This extra benefit to the lower teams seemed to be justified – it certainly didn’t help them too much. Of the bottom 5 teams at the MSD, none of them made the top 5 teams at the end of regular season except the 8th placed Mayblooms who snuck into 5th. 
The RGC has now brainstormed and compared 5 different alternative models for the MSD Draft Order and for 2021 have settled on the following tweak to the COVID 2020 order above:

• Round 1: 10th to 1st (based on ladder order)
• Round 2: 10th to 1st (based on Points For)
• Round 3+: Snake from then on

So it is exactly the same as what we did in 2020 except Round 2 is based is 10th to 1st based on Points For rather than ladder order. This helps balance out the inequities created when someone who is last actually has decent points for and is getting unfairly rewarded at the MSD or someone who is high on the ladder has low points for and is getting unfairly punished at the MSD. 

This proposed model has the unanimous support of the RGC. 
Given as described above we don’t have an incumbent model to vote out, as it were, we can’t have a standard vote on this.
Instead, given the unanimous RGC support I’m going to announce that the proposed model will be the MSD order in 2021 unless there are significant objections from the group and clear support for an alternative model (which I doubt).

Kind Regards,
Logistix

PS – Kudos to Koach for his suggestion that provided the tweak required to create the final proposal that garnered full RGC support. 

A player can be subbed post game if they are an eligible player and they experience a qualifying event. A qualifying event is:

• A mid-game injury where injury prevented them from playing more than 3 quarters in he game
• or
• They did not play in the game despite being eligible.

Eligibility

The “traditional AFL team lists” are those where the majority of AFL teams are released on a Thursday night.

Where the traditional AFL Thursday night team lists are released, to be eligible for post game substitutions, the player must be named in that official AFL team list. 

Where the traditional AFL Thursday night team lists are either not released, or they are released but a player plays in an AFL team whose list was not released on those Thursday night team lists (e.g. a Monday game), to be eligible for post game substitutions, the player must have not played and been named in good faith**.

**A good faith naming is defined as any player who an HFFL coach could reasonably expect to play because they fulfil criteria 4 plus any of criteria 1-3 below:

1. They played last week OR
2. They did not play last week but would usually be expected to play in that AFL club’s best 22 and the HFFL coach can produce reasonable evidence they have overcome the problem that kept them out of the game last week (e.g. listed as a “test” on an injury list, or returned from suspension OR
3. They are formally named in an official AFL team list for that round

AND

4) The coach has not been formally notified by another coach by a reasonable time, of reasonable evidence that the playerwill notbe playing this week:

Key Definitions:

Examples of such reasonable evidence include:

• That they are not named in the official AFL team list (the version that is first released for that team for that round).

• A reputable media article ruling the player out. This may have been released before the official AFL team lists. 

A reasonable time is defined as no more than 6 hours after the official AFL team list is released (when it is first released for that team for that round)

Formal notification is defined as “direct person to person WhatsApp messaging” (i.e. not group messaging). 

Below is the transcript of a ruling provided by email on 10/8/20

Dear Coaches,
There has been much confusion this round about the naming rules and the rolling lockout, in particular regarding how they should apply during FoF. After much discussion with different coaches I think I have things clear now and I’m changing my interpretation to align with the spirit of the HFFL as explained below.  
Let’s consider how things used to be and compare that with FoF. 
In standard weekends starting with a Friday night game. 

• Teams come out on a Thursday night
• Round starts Friday evening
• You have 24hrs to replace any ineligible players from your team. 
• Once the round starts on Friday evening – the Partial Lockout begins which means:
  • Ineligible players were now locked (and will score zero)
  • Eligible players were not locked until their team started playing – coaches could make “replacements” (not subs) i.e eligible players had a “rolling lockout”.
• Ineligible players were players not named in their AFL teams that week which included injured/suspended/omitted players and players from teams who had a bye. 
• If there was a Thursday night game, the Partial Lockout deadline was still Friday evening. You just had to act earlier for the teams playing on Thursday night. 
• If there was. Monday/Tuesday game, the Partial Lockout deadline was still Friday evening. You however could name your players from the Monday/Tuesday teams in good faith and if they were not named on Friday you did not have to replace them and could exploit your bench with post game subs. 

COVID FoF: Continuous Daily Footy with Daily Naming of teams

• Coaches are now expected to check the daily teams and change their teams based on this (unlike previous good faith naming laxity allowed in the Monday/Tuesday game examples above).
• With increased coaching responsibility came increased coaching flexibility
  • Special rules introduced to facilitate team replacements during the round lockout http://hfflonline.com/festival-of-footy-fof-administrative-rulings/
• The Partial Lockout has effectively become a Rolling Lockout for both eligible and ineligible players
  • My initial interpretation of what this means was:
    • Eligible players: You have until their game starts to replace them
    • Ineligible players: 
      • You effectively have until their game starts to replace them. However viewed in this light, this creates a loophole that essentially gives you special rights to replace ineligible players at anytime until the end of the round. Based on the above that is against the spirit of the HFFL.
  • My revised interpretation of what this means is:
    • Eligible players: You have until their game starts to replace them
    • Ineligible players:
      • You have until they become officially ineligible to replace them.
        • For players from teams playing in that round, they become ineligible when their team starts playing.
        • For players from teams with a bye, they become ineligible when they rounds starts. 

I hope this clears up any confusion and apologies for confusion I may have caused. 
Kind Regards,
Your faithful Administrator, 
… tireless bending his mind to the complexities of the HFFL even if it ties himself in knots, 
Logistix

This is a delayed post from last season for record keeping.

New Process of Rule Voting

Rules Votes will be called.
After a reasonable time period that will be specified, rule votes will end.
Anyone who hasn’t voted will be automatically recorded as ABSTAINING.
At that time, the majority of YES/NO votes will be counted. A rule will pass if YES votes outnumber the NO votes. 

Proposal

That the ute position calculation change as follows:

Current = 0.5 x Disposals + 2 x Marks + 2.5 x Tackles + 3 x Goals + 0.5 x Behinds + 0.4 x HO – 2xFA

Proposed Ute = 0.5 x Kicks + 0.25 x HB + 2  Marks + 2 x Tackles + 4 x Goals + 0.30 x HO – 2xFA

Vote:
YES: Logistix, Bilbo, Tobes, Sammy, Mick, Roofa, Twadds, Koach
NO: nil
ABSTAIN: Plugger, Savage

Vote passes 8-0

The Forward score will immediately change to

Goals x 6 + Behinds x 1 + I50 x 1

Rule vote:

FOR: Twadds, Tobes, Emperor, Koach, Lyle, Sam, Ross

AGAINST: Nil

Passes 7-0.