VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

14/06/26 10:45am [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 6/07/20 12:53pm
Author: D9
Subject: I disagree
In reply to: tenderWARRIOR 's message, "Most if not all have between 14-17 talls according to the Balance List Sheet." on 4/07/20 12:35pm

Coaches are stockpiling Ruckman, because 6 ruckman is not a reality in the AFL. An AFL club will not have so many, because they haven't got the ability to put one at FF, one in the Forward pocket and two on the bench.

Hopefully, the balance rules will see this loophole closed. Coaches will still think that they can ask premium for them, which might work in the short term, but as time goes on, if coaches are caught with 6 Ruckman, they will be trading them out for less later than they would have before now.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Forum timezone: GMT+11
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.