TOPIC:

Thanks TOO. I just checked the map in Rule 10 and you are right. I could not remember if lake grace is in Claremont's zone off the top of my head but it definitely is.
Maybe the debate will be resolved if everyone had a look at the maps and read the rules.

I gave the link to the 2020 Rules and Regs but the rules have been the same for ages.

Tiger of old wrote:

Senior Seagull wrote: Points aside what needs to be addressed is that Claremont can claim borders from 3 big private schools in their zone, Hale, Scotch and Christchurch as their own, when these lads should be tied to their parents home address. Fyfe should have been a WP district player. it should apply to all borders at private schools, Guildford grammar, Wesley, Aquinas etc.

Fyfe is from Lake Grace - Claremont zone. If a bloke goes to Scotch but comes from, say, Kalgoorlie, then he'd be a Subi zoned player. Schools have nothing to do with your zoning, it's your residential address SS.

My bad I stand corrected, I was sure Lake grace was a WP country zone.

I agree clubs have to be more circumspect with their 10 point selections,and under normal circumstances would'nt have recruited Tony Olongo who was part of the alignment[albeit as a reserves player]and was only recruited because of our dearth of tall players,especially after we could'nt convince the retiring Mathew Leunberger back home to the Royals,and yes we do have 5 to 10 points more in our cap,butit must be remembered we had to replace 12 to 14 players who played on a weekly basis during the alignment,who would be rated 10 point players,and also an anomaly is the fact that Olongo,who never played 1 AFL game and Delahunty from PERTH who played in the N.T. are rated 10 point players,while Masten and the retired Wellingham 11 or 12.

rule 2.8 sets out EP's points (120) (+5 on EF and SD and +10 on Perth, but +20 on the top 4 teams) + some other concessions to protect the list.
That concession has made EP competitive.

Factor opinion wrote: rule 2.8 sets out EP's points (120) (+5 on EF and SD and +10 on Perth, but +20 on the top 4 teams) + some other concessions to protect the list.
That concession has made EP competitive.

Your not very good at arithmetic are you factor????have you bothered to add up the points value of the players on our list then come back to me.

I'm the first to admit my maths might be @#$% and you are right East Perth 125 (see rule 2.8 ) minus Claremont 100 = 25 (ie EP have 25 more points than Claremont, not the 20 I said). My mistake was to incorrectly quote rule 2.8's allocation to EP as 120 instead of 125 (my bad).
And Yes, I have counted EP's used points. EP have not used all 125 (only 116 on my count but we know my maths is no good - so I could be wrong there ), but the point is that the rules give EP more points than any other club and EP are competitive.
If your point RL is that the "5 to 10 more in our cap", is that EP have not used it all, I agree. But again, the rules do not tell clubs how to use what they've been allocated.
I think I've addressed my arithmetic but I'm happy for you to let me know where I've gone wrong.
Sorry RL if I did not understand your post properly.

Senior Seagull wrote:

Tiger of old wrote:

Senior Seagull wrote: Points aside what needs to be addressed is that Claremont can claim borders from 3 big private schools in their zone, Hale, Scotch and Christchurch as their own, when these lads should be tied to their parents home address. Fyfe should have been a WP district player. it should apply to all borders at private schools, Guildford grammar, Wesley, Aquinas etc.

All the Mortons were from Lake Grace also SS.
Wasn’t Mark Bairstow from Lake Grace also? Maybe it was a South zone for a while also.
Fyfe is from Lake Grace - Claremont zone. If a bloke goes to Scotch but comes from, say, Kalgoorlie, then he'd be a Subi zoned player. Schools have nothing to do with your zoning, it's your residential address SS.

My bad I stand corrected, I was sure Lake grace was a WP country zone.

Factor opinion wrote: I'm the first to admit my maths might be @#$% and you are right East Perth 125 (see rule 2.8 ) minus Claremont 100 = 25 (ie EP have 25 more points than Claremont, not the 20 I said). My mistake was to incorrectly quote rule 2.8's allocation to EP as 120 instead of 125 (my bad).
And Yes, I have counted EP's used points. EP have not used all 125 (only 116 on my count but we know my maths is no good - so I could be wrong there ), but the point is that the rules give EP more points than any other club and EP are competitive.
If your point RL is that the "5 to 10 more in our cap", is that EP have not used it all, I agree. But again, the rules do not tell clubs how to use what they've been allocated.
I think I've addressed my arithmetic but I'm happy for you to let me know where I've gone wrong.
Sorry RL if I did not understand your post properly.

I'm afraid your points argument like your counting is a little flawed,as it would mean according to your theory a 10 point Tony Olongo is a vastly superior player to a 1point Ajang Ajang or Scott Jones and players of Olongo's value ensure a clubs competitiveness,even though in the last year of the alignment in most games we fielded 140 points worth of afl listed players,on top of the 20 points worth of ex afl players in McGInnity and Wellingham and together with our local players would've fielded sides under the current point scale worth more than a 165 points yet won 8 games and lost 10,so i'm afraid we need to FACTOR that you've got no idea.

I'm not sure that there's a need to stoop to abuse here RL.
I still don't see how my maths is wrong. Nor is my opinion “wrong”, which is only that EP were competitive this year (and I think we agree about that). The fact is that EP had more points to play with in 2020 than any other club, but they did not use them all in 2020.
As for my “theory” ... well I have not expressed any theory, I've just pointed out what the rules are.
I have offered no opinion at all about what individual players are worth, but in my opinion, despite the expressed object of Rule 2, the rules cannot possibly accurately “value” individual players because each player is unique, but the rules can (and do) attempt make a generalisation about how players of particular playing experience might affect the competitiveness of a club who recruits them. We can all find examples that support our own “valuation” of a player’s contribution being different to the points allocated to them on recruitment (this includes players who have given greater “value”). You clearly have a view about Olango. What would you think if EP could get Grundy in 2021 for 12 points?
I don’t know why AFL allocated players are assigned 0 points but that is what the rule makers have done. However, in my opinion, it is very difficult to compare the “value” of an allocated (eg via alignment) player and a player who is actively recruited by a WAFL club. I have read many posts on this site from disgruntled Royals supports bemoaning the efforts of WCE players when they played for EP during the alignment. I suspect that many of those posts would think 0 points is about right, but I am not debating the alignment issues.
My point really is this – the object of the points rules can only be effective if the clubs use their allocated points wisely. But the rules do not mandate any level of competence in WAFL football departments. Like many rules hoping to even the playing field, they assume rationality and perfect knowledge (but we all know that is not the real world).
The objective Rule 2 is:
“The Senior Player Points List uses a points allocation system to assess the relative strength of each Player based on their playing background. Importantly, the Senior Player Points List imposes a ‘cap’ on the relative strength of a WAFL Club to ensure that no one WAFL Club has a list of Players substantially stronger than any other WAFL Club. The classification of Players in this manner ensures equalisation across the WAFL to the overall advantage of all WAFL Clubs.”
I think that we agree that it has been effective in EP’s case in 2020, and in my opinion, it has been effective for the competition overall.