Fix the split!!!!!

[liz]

I'm with whoever it was said it was an advantage for us to have played the previous week, especially since we play a game we really can't afford to drop against a team who've been on a roll for a bit. We will have brushed off the cobwebs, while the Tiges will have had a week feeling satisfied with themselves that they've won two games in a row.

The timing of the break also helps in the sense that it gives us some chance of having Bradshaw back. I suspect he won't come up in time, but he certainly wouldn't had we played this past weekend. We probably won't beat the Pies unless they have a bit of an off-game but if we are to, we stand significantly more chance with Braddles than without him.

[aardvark]

I'm with whoever it was said it was an advantage for us to have played the previous week, especially since we play a game we really can't afford to drop against a team who've been on a roll for a bit. We will have brushed off the cobwebs, while the Tiges will have had a week feeling satisfied with themselves that they've won two games in a row.

The timing of the break also helps in the sense that it gives us some chance of having Bradshaw back. I suspect he won't come up in time, but he certainly wouldn't had we played this past weekend. We probably won't beat the Pies unless they have a bit of an off-game but if we are to, we stand significantly more chance with Braddles than without him.

Agree... A good hitout against the maggots will tune us up nicely for the tiggers

[BSA5]

I'm with whoever it was said it was an advantage for us to have played the previous week, especially since we play a game we really can't afford to drop against a team who've been on a roll for a bit. We will have brushed off the cobwebs, while the Tiges will have had a week feeling satisfied with themselves that they've won two games in a row.

The timing of the break also helps in the sense that it gives us some chance of having Bradshaw back. I suspect he won't come up in time, but he certainly wouldn't had we played this past weekend. We probably won't beat the Pies unless they have a bit of an off-game but if we are to, we stand significantly more chance with Braddles than without him.

That is of course a possibility. Whether coming directly off a break or not, it's still a disadvantage to one side. Should just keep it uniform, to avoid the possibility of one side getting an advantage.

[Jewels]

I agree with Chookie. Surely it wouldn't be too hard to work it out so that one side doesn't have any advantage, no matter how small.

[Chookbilly]

That is of course a possibility. Whether coming directly off a break or not, it's still a disadvantage to one side. Should just keep it uniform, to avoid the possibility of one side getting an advantage.

Exactly!
Good to see some common sense coming to the fore by a few.

It's debatable whether we play better off a break or not.
But there shouldn't be any catalyst for debate over one teams supposed advantage/disadvantage, when there doesn't need to be.

[jono2707]

[QUOTE=Chookbilly;492458] Good to see some common sense coming to the fore by a few.

Doesn't common sense put you at risk of being banned from RWO???

[Triple B]

[QUOTE=jono2707;492466]Doesn't common sense put you at risk of being banned from RWO???


Nah, more likely to get banned for stuffing up quote tags.

[liz]

Exactly!
Good to see some common sense coming to the fore by a few.

It's debatable whether we play better off a break or not.
But there shouldn't be any catalyst for debate over one teams supposed advantage/disadvantage, when there doesn't need to be.

We have a competition where:

- the entire draw is determined by commercial considerations rather than fairness or consistency
- teams are activiely encouraged to lose games towards the end of the season to get better draft picks (and have the media constantly reminding them they'd be foolish not to because "it is the only way to win a premiership). One team can even have the gall to claim a PP just two years after winning the premiership
- a player who gets to the ball first and then has a dozen opponents jump on top of him is penalised
- a player whose opponent rams his head into his stationary knees is penalised
- umpires can watch half a dozen pairs of players hold onto each other and bump each other at contests only for the umpire furthest away to randomly pick one such contest out to penalise
- players are penalised for a minor tug of a jumper or body bump 100m away from the play yet a player trying to gather the ball stands only a 50/50 chance of getting a free if he is scragged
- the umpires' boss not only thinks it is acceptable to give his charges a list of a small number of "ball players" who deserve special treatment but then actually boasts that he has done this in the media, as if he thinks it is an acceptable way to adjudicate the game
- a player can throw his elbow back in a contest, causing stitches to his opponent and yet is deemed not to have applied sufficient force for a reportable offence, yet other players can make very minor contact above the head through the momentum of their movement, or even make no head contact in a tackle, and cop a couple of weeks holiday
- the governing body is prepared to throw millions of dollars into two new franchises for populations with very little interest in the game, yet aren't prepared to spend what it takes to fix the surface at one of its showcase grounds so that players can play on a surface that doesn't give way under their feet
- we have a salary cap that supposedly evens out the competition yet the governing body signs off as acceptable million dollar contacts outside the salary cap paid by a company clearly related to the president for activites clearly not commensurate in time or skill for payments of that magnitude

I could go on. Sure, there may be a slight inequity in the way the split round works, even if we can't agree on which side it favours. But in terms of fixing up inequities, this one would be quite a long way down my list of priorities.

[hammo]

It's a pet hate of mine. We always seem to play a team coming off the break after the split round. Ridiculous scheduling.

[BSA5]

I could go on. Sure, there may be a slight inequity in the way the split round works, even if we can't agree on which side it favours. But in terms of fixing up inequities, this one would be quite a long way down my list of priorities.

Fantastic post, BUT, while this may be down the list of priorities, it is easily the simplest to fix.

[Jewels]

We have a competition where:
I could go on. Sure, there may be a slight inequity in the way the split round works, even if we can't agree on which side it favours. But in terms of fixing up inequities, this one would be quite a long way down my list of priorities.

Oh Liz, when you put it in black and white like that, it makes it so clear just how stuffed our great game is......

Very sad.....

[liz]

Oh Liz, when you put it in black and white like that, it makes it so clear just how stuffed our great game is......

Very sad.....

And yet we're all still hooked, despite all that.

Apologies to Chookabilly for my rant. I wasn't intending to trivialise your own gripe so I hope it didn't come across like that. As has been pointed out, it could be fixed very easily. I just felt like getting some things off my chest.

[Jesse Richards]

Great post, Liz. Very useful summary. Thanks.