The Criteria Draft - The Drafts

Annahnomoss said:
The issue would be that everybody who got the rule right would be fecked over for having missed out on loads of possible picks.
Click to expand...
rpitroda said:
Quoted so you assholes read it and stop talking shit. The independence thing was always the key in this rule. So, yes, no player from any of those nations should have been selected.
Click to expand...
Look, I understand your point, and I agree that I've read the rule wrong and it's my fault, I just really think it's a dumb section of the rule. I think everybody or most people understood it this way, I actually had no question about it so I didn't even check with you like I did with multiple picks.
Anyway, I think it's stupid and I will let you know that it completely screws my team because my sheep will be in my team probably, and I've worked this pick for a long time because it was really straightforward and clear for me. I guess I just understood the rule
 
rpitroda said:
Actually hang on, the rule was NOT different initially. @VivaJanuzaj I believe you're getting confused. Place of birth was only relevant for the top 30 rule. It was never relevant for the playing in a different country to where born rule.
Click to expand...

You may be on to something there. That was the rule I was thinking about myself - but it did only apply to the top thirty criterion now that you mention it.

That said, the principle could've easily been the same for the criterion we're discussing now - and I wouldn't be surprised if people have been thinking very differently about this. Some may have thought like Annah - others may have thought it was all about place of birth.

As Crappy said above - Kanchelskis wasn't born in Russia (he was born in the Soviet Union, present-day Ukraine, not in Russia). Which looks like a good point - at least that's what I thought when I read it.
 
No one can say I haven't tried to make things clear or haven't been as helpful as I possibly could. I've given a lot of time to this, and it's bloody hard work. I am trying here.
 
So... I need somebody to decide if my pick meets the criteria... Please don't shoot me!!!
 
rpitroda said:
PLAN: When the draft is over, everyone will list the criteria each player meets. I will check them through myself. (You can all thank me for my effort). If anyone has one that is incorrect, we can decide on a re pick at the end or if we go with the sheep idea.

I'm in favour of a re pick. However we have to be honest and not purposely state a player against a criteria they fail just so you can re pick.
Click to expand...

I don't think a re pick is the solution, for me i just think he should be counted for the rule. Plain and simple, or I will be assigned a sheep.
Aldo said:
This is why I got this fecking mindfeck of a criterion out of the way early, so that I don't have to be dragged into the technicalities. :D

IMO if you are saying "Both" the countries should be independent, then Kanchelskis shouldn't qualify since Ukraine was not independent then, but it's a tricky one alright.

Hindsight but in future if someone wants to use this criterion it would be a lot simpler to just count present day place of birth and country they played for, and take the whole independence thing out of the equation.
Click to expand...
This
 
Horry shit it's almost back to me and I haven't a fecking clue on who to pick after @Cutch royally screwed me over with Youri!

Seriously man, I was so calm and relaxed about that pick which increases the shock of it being stolen even more! :mad:
 
VivaJanuzaj said:
Look, I understand your point, and I agree that I've read the rule wrong and it's my fault, I just really think it's a dumb section of the rule. I think everybody or most people understood it this way, I actually had no question about it so I didn't even check with you like I did with multiple picks.
Anyway, I think it's stupid and I will let you know that it completely screws my team because my sheep will be in my team probably, and I've worked this pick for a long time because it was really straightforward and clear for me. I guess I just understood the rule
Click to expand...
Chesterlestreet said:
You may be on to something there. That was the rule I was thinking about myself - but it did only apply to the top thirty criterion now that you mention it.

That said, the principle could've easily been the same for the criterion we're discussing now - and I wouldn't be surprised if people have been thinking very differently about this. Some may have thought like Annah - others may have thought it was all about place of birth.

As Crappy said above - Kanchelskis wasn't born in Russia (he was born in the Soviet Union, present-day Ukraine, not in Russia). Which looks like a good point - at least that's what I thought when I read it.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. It's my fault for not being clear, and it's also my fault that the rule is stupid. And I apologise for that.

I suggest we either allow a re pick on this rule on everyone it fecks up, or we go with the re pick at the end.

I will say again though, it's not easy for me. I just went with what seemed right at the time. Clearly it wasn't right and that's my fault, so apologise.
 
I think it is an impossible job to be an admin, you will never please everybody it is completely impossible. So I always try to cut the admin as much slack as possible and after he makes a final decision we just have to try and get on with it.

I fecked up other criterias like thinking the no CL was "not won the CL" and then I fecked up Ribery thinking he had 90-99 caps but he didn't at all.

It is really shit, but at the end of the day I expect everybody to be a bit fecked here and there so it is nothing to worry about.
 
I'm happy to make an exception in this case to allow Kanchelskis. It's far too much stress to debate in circles. It screws over most of us who did pick properly and could have had other players but if it makes people happy then feck it.
 
Trippy I just want to be clear that I don't have anything against you and I think you're doing brilliantly in this draft managing including right now, and again I won't go bananas like MJJ if you decide to assign a sheep, but I think there's no sense in a re pick, the rule either had to be changed as the way most people saw it and ignore this independent bollocks, or I should get a sheep for missing that part of the rule. A re pick is a grey area and we shouldn't go there in this case
 
BigDunc9 said:
@Aldo
@NM
@rpitroda
@NoPace
@The Red Viper

All you folks without a left back be interested in Baines ? He falls under the criteria of - under 30 caps and never won a league title.
Click to expand...
I cannot say yes now, although I still have both of those criteria to meet but I am bit skeptical about him really not being rated. If I do fall into a situation where all my other options are worse I will certainly let you know, but please feel free to go ahead with the trade if anyone else is interested in the meantime.
 
rpitroda said:
I completely agree. It's my fault for not being clear, and it's also my fault that the rule is stupid. And I apologise for that.

I suggest we either allow a re pick on this rule on everyone it fecks up, or we go with the re pick at the end.

I will say again though, it's not easy for me. I just went with what seemed right at the time. Clearly it wasn't right and that's my fault, so apologise.
Click to expand...

No need to apologize, mate - it's been a hell of a draft so far and you've done a great job. There will always be some little thing - it's inevitable.

What you suggest sounds perfectly fine - finish the draft, then review the potentially contentious picks and let people pick anew from the surviving pool IF necessary. It won't be that many such points anyway.
 
rpitroda said:
I completely agree. It's my fault for not being clear, and it's also my fault that the rule is stupid. And I apologise for that.

I suggest we either allow a re pick on this rule on everyone it fecks up, or we go with the re pick at the end.

I will say again though, it's not easy for me. I just went with what seemed right at the time. Clearly it wasn't right and that's my fault, so apologise.
Click to expand...
Don't sweat about it mate, you've been fantastic in running this. In the process of trying to make the criteria tough it was inevitable that there would be a few tricky cases like this.
 
Aldo said:
I cannot say yes now, although I still have both of those criteria to meet but I am bit skeptical about him really not being rated. If I do fall into a situation where all my other options are worse I will certainly let you know, but please feel free to go ahead with the trade if anyone else is interested in the meantime.
Click to expand...
I made my points on Baines not being appreciated as much as he deserves on here so i can fully understand the skepticism. In fact i was very happy to get him for the criteria of under 30 caps but my Rob Jones pick not counting for the dual nation criteria means i have to get rid of someone. Jones has less than 30 caps aswell.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
No need to apologize, mate - it's been a hell of a draft so far and you've done a great job. There will always be some little thing - it's inevitable.

What you suggest sounds perfectly fine - finish the draft, then review the potentially contentious picks and let people pick anew from the surviving pool IF necessary. It won't be that many such points anyway.
Click to expand...
I shouldn't be granted a re pick, either we change the rule and agree that it was a dumb part of the rule which most or some ignored, or accept that the rule is this and I read it wrong therefor I'm getting a sheep
 
BigDunc9 said:
I made my points on Baines not being appreciated as much as he deserves on here so i can fully understand the skepticism. In fact i was very happy to get him for the criteria of under 30 caps but my Rob Jones pick not counting for the dual nation criteria means i have to get rid of someone. Jones has less than 30 caps aswell.
Click to expand...
FWIW you should keep him, I think he is surely one of the better choices for those two criteria which are bloody tough. Unless of course you have a better option in mind, which means I should start looking for what you have found. :D
 
Aldo said:
Horry shit it's almost back to me and I haven't a fecking clue on who to pick after @Cutch royally screwed me over with Youri!

Seriously man, I was so calm and relaxed about that pick which increases the shock of it being stolen even more! :mad:
Click to expand...

I can offer him in a swap with your player with 90+ caps or your ballon D'or pick. I have de Rossi also can fill that no league winner slot
 
Aldo said:
FWIW you should keep him, I think he is surely one of the better choices for those two criteria which are bloody tough. Unless of course you have a better option in mind, which means I should start looking for what you have found. :D
Click to expand...
To be honest i haven't really looked its just that i think finding someone who has never won a title is probably easier than someone with less than 30 caps. I am basing this on god knows what.
 
1. VivaJanuzaj & Crappy - Messi, Sammer, Lahm, Zambrotta, Etoo, Cocu, F. de Boer, Hyypia, Kanchelskis,
2. The Red Viper -Ronaldinho, Henry, Cafu, Kaka, Hierro, Popescu, Effenberg, Hamann, Mata,
3. Annahnomoss - Ronaldo 9, Thuram, Cannavaro, Ribery, Lizarazu, Pirlo, Essien, Petit, Hazard
4. Cutch - Maldini, Savicevic, Zanetti, Kohler, De Rossi, Benarrivo, Camoranesi, Lehmann, Djorkaeff
5. NoPace - Ronaldo 7, R. Baggio, Senna, Schweinsteiger, Thomas Hassler, Rooney, Aldair, T. Silva, Cech
6. Stobzilla / KM - Zidane, Davids, Robben, Irwin, Signori, Ferrara, Van Der Sar, Veron, Pallister
7. FromTheBench/Theon - Romário, Makélélé, Gerrard, Totti, Blanc, Sagnol, Samuel, Cantona, Panucci
8. EDogen - Keane, Scholes, Weah, Evra, Beckham, Bale, Gallas, Raul, Petrescu
9. BigDunc9 - Xavi, Iniesta, Shevchenko, Albertini, F. Couto, Claudio Lopez, Baines, Reus, R. Jones
10. rpitroda - Nedved, Seedorf, Deco, Ferdinand, Luis Enrique, Guardiola, Zabaleta, Kluivert, Overmars
11. BorisDeLeFora - Nesta, Vieira, Matt Le Tissier, Lucio, Lampard, Villa, Ginola, van Bronckhorst, Emerson
12. Chesterlestreet - Stoichkov, Mendieta, Des Walker, Prosinečki, Ibrahimovic, Kahn, Bergkamp, Adams, Pessotto
13. Paceme - Figo, Rui Costa, Batistuta, Vidic, Del Piero, Cambiasso, Yaya Toure, Abidal, Koscielny
14. NM / Snow - Redondo, Giggs, Ayala, Ballack, Fabregas, Ljungberg, Buffon, Costacurta,
15. Aldo - Rivaldo, Desailly, Stam, Hagi, Simeone, Van Persie, G. Neville, Mascherano,
16. Edgar Allan pillow - Roberto Carlos, Litmanen, Pepe, Arteta, Gamarra, Gattuso, Di Maria, Cazorla
 
If we change the rule to ignore independence and just go with birth place vs where they played, would people object? I know there is a bunch of players who have been picked/would be picked if it was like this originally, but if everyone's ok with it I am.
 
rpitroda said:
If we change the rule to ignore independence and just go with birth place vs where they played, would people object? I know there is a bunch of players who have been picked/would be picked if it was like this originally, but if everyone's ok with it I am.
Click to expand...
I'm happy to see that you see my point. Thanks Trippy
If some people have objections lets just assign me a sheep and move on because we've discussed this enough.
 
rpitroda said:
If we change the rule to ignore independence and just go with birth place vs where they played, would people object? I know there is a bunch of players who have been picked/would be picked if it was like this originally, but if everyone's ok with it I am.
Click to expand...
Even though its fecking me over I think its to late now. What's done is done.
 
rpitroda said:
If we change the rule to ignore independence and just go with birth place vs where they played, would people object? I know there is a bunch of players who have been picked/would be picked if it was like this originally, but if everyone's ok with it I am.
Click to expand...

I'm sure we will all go along with whatever you decide, man - it's been enough drama for a while, surely. Do what you think involves less hassle - so we can all get back to the game.
 
I'm going to hold off picking until a decision is made, as I still have to fill that category..
 
rpitroda said:
If we change the rule to ignore independence and just go with birth place vs where they played, would people object? I know there is a bunch of players who have been picked/would be picked if it was like this originally, but if everyone's ok with it I am.
Click to expand...

Changing would mean rethinking the entire team as new possibilities open.

I think just get the non complying picks to be redone with the stricter rule.
 
Personally, I think the independence rule should still be held. However, in the case where a country has been split up from being a unified state, such as the USSR, then we go by where they were born.

I go with this because I believe the USSR splitting up is a different situation to a country which was previously a colony gaining independence.

That's my decision so I y'all hate it tough shit! Therefore Kanchelskis is valid but picks like Davids or Thuram are not.
 
rpitroda said:
Personally, I think the independence rule should still be held. However, in the case where a country has been split up from being a unified state, such as the USSR, then we go by where they were born.

I go with this because I believe the USSR splitting up is a different situation to a country which was previously a colony gaining independence.

That's my decision so I y'all hate it tough shit! Therefore Kanchelskis is valid but picks like Davids or Thuram are not.
Click to expand...
Okay, glad to see it sorted.
 
By the way, Thuram was surely never considered by anyone? Guadeloupe is part of France - and not a FIFA member either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.