The Fifth Redcafe Sheep Draft

idmanager said:
As per @antohan 's definition , it should not count.
Click to expand...
Yeah I’d agree with this. If that’s the only time they played ‘together’, I don’t think it should count. It really doesn’t fit with the whole premise of sharing the pitch together and the big exercise we all had to do to provide teamsheet evidence of that taking place.

I get your need to make quick decisions but if a majority of players are saying the same thing, and we are now into a 24-hour window to correct things, I don’t see the problem.
 
green_smiley said:
Still counts. Decision has been made and will not be reversed
Click to expand...

Reversing the decision should not impact the draft in any way though as it was the 3rd pick and not 1st/2nd.
Else, its unfair to people who wanted to get the pair and didn't because of the rule.
 
I don't agree with the premise of not letting a manager so away with small mistakes like not providing the Goal 3 link while naming Goal even if they leave the game, but letting it go when a mod makes a mistake after demanding detailed proofs to make your job easier in your own words. Be consistent FFS.
 
Run round 3 again :lol:
 
Lord SInister said:
you should quit going with the theme of this draft:lol:
Click to expand...

It doesn't really effect me since I didn't look into Ronaldo/RvN but I do sympathize with those who did quit after the strict rules and those who skipped Ronaldo/RvN due to the sharing pitch rule.
 
idmanager said:
It doesn't really effect me since I didn't look into Ronaldo/RvN but I do sympathize with those who did quit after the strict rules and those who skipped Ronaldo/RvN due to the sharing pitch rule.
Click to expand...
Noted. What done has been done and I take full responsibility

As I said, moving forward, all results shall be agreed by all 3 of us before release
 
By the way, it's incredible how @mazhar13 managed to get the Hungarian duo. I already had Gento and didn't want to shoehorn Czibor on the right, but I was sure that someone would block it, it's a too good and too obvious pairing
 
green_smiley said:
Still counts. Decision has been made and will not be reversed

Please understand the need for us draft mods to make quick decision, even more so with all 3 of us in different time zones and managers' demand to speed up the drafting process
Click to expand...

Normally I would say this is fine but you and anto have been stickler with the rules (some might even call you Stalin like...) that this is definitely wrong as per your own strict draft rules.

Edited - just a game that i wont take seriously :)
 
Last edited:
I've no problems with EAP picks but I do really think that perhaps in the past some less sterner language could've been used. @Moby and @Raees were harshly dealt by.
 
idmanager said:
Reversing the decision should not impact the draft in any way though as it was the 3rd pick and not 1st/2nd.
Else, its unfair to people who wanted to get the pair and didn't because of the rule.
Click to expand...
Yeah just give him 2 sheeps. ;)

But i did look into this combo and found no link apart for the sub match, probably wouldn't have picked them anyway because it never worked in real life. But then again you don't have to play both so getting Cristiano might have been worth it.
 
Ffs they played the same game of course that counts as playing together......
 
Šjor Bepo said:
Ffs they played the same game of course that counts as playing together......
Click to expand...
Do not move the goalposts and patronize us with this FFS and of course business after-the-fact like a weasel - particularly when Ronaldo could prove to be a decisive player given his stature in the game. Admit that the committee or individual draft mods made an error and move on with grace - that at least signals a bit of accountability after the hard-nosed approach you guys have decided to employ with an emphasis on specificity. Especially when guidelines were laid out as regards the rules of the round - and the decision to allow Cristiano and Ruud went against those guidelines. Didn't comment in the midst of the brouhaha because you guys already had a lot on your plate and I didn't want to pile on, but @Ecstatic and I had Cristiano (left attacker) and Ruud (relief for Seeler if Levin was deemed too be too big of a burden) on the Turn 1 shortlist, and we ruled them out because of the have been defined strictly as sharing a pitch together wrinkle - which left nothing to of course subjectivity and interpretation. Finally went with X + Rivaldo (left attacker), and Zambrotta + Ronaldinho (left attacker) - who shared a pitch together.

PS: What's done is done, etc. :)
 
Same as @Invictus I had Cristiano/RVN on the shortlist - very high because of their potential for getting on the end of Laudrup's service - but ruled it out given they weren't eligible. It would be interesting to hear what EAP's round 3 back up plan was instead of that duo.
 
Gio said:
Same as @Invictus I had Cristiano/RVN on the shortlist - very high because of their potential for getting on the end of Laudrup's service - but ruled it out given they weren't eligible. It would be interesting to hear what EAP's round 3 back up plan was instead of that duo.
Click to expand...

I looked into the combo too but I was sure it would be ruled invalid.
 
Pat_Mustard said:
I looked into the combo too but I was sure it would be ruled invalid.
Click to expand...
Aye this is one of the reasons I asked for clarification in the thread. I wouldn’t have gone for them as they were high profile picks and I had a penalty, but we’re definitely a pair that many would have looked into.

I don’t think it should count as by no means they shared the pitch as during the sub the game is stopped.

It’s the same as one being on the pitch and the other on the bench without an appearance.

I have no problems with whatever the draft mods decide but in future picks I don’t think this one should stand and constitute as sharing the pitch together - to avoid cases like this.
 
Agree on this pick going against the spirit of the draft, although after I was included in the sheep committee for the newbie's draft, I understand how hard it is to keep a trace of everything.
 
As an interested watcher of drafts (but nowhere near knowledgeable to participate), I've always felt the drafts have been informative and rounds very defined (by category)..... the winner deserves it.

Surely "sharing a pitch" was crystal? How is that "ok, let's move on and forget it" when every previous decision has been 100% by the letter of the rules leading to people missing their choices (rightly) or even quitting (their call, not saying right thing to do)?
 
I knew that was trouble as soon as I started reading up. Would have no problem turning the two princes into sheep EXCEPT that EAP didn't try to pull a fast one.

He provided links stating CR was subbed off for RvN and asking whether that was OK. He was told it was OK. He shouldn't now get two sheep because we fecked up.

On another note, you all do realise now why sheep drafts -in particular- need an iron fist? Anything even remotely controversial gets jumped on. It's key to remove any room for exercising judgement, but participants excel at finding new grey areas.

Take this round and the many interpretations possible over receding hairlines. So many players with bald spots yet every man and his dog is pushing the hairline angle. Should have stuck with obvious baldspots, now we are left to go back and forth arguing on hair styling and combovers.
 
@green_smiley screwed up. The way thrifts draft is going, he should be penalized too. So that the sanctity of the draft is maintained
 
For clarification:

jude-law-receding-hairline-for-men.jpg
Jude-Laws-Mohawk-500x542.jpg


Does this fill the criteria?

Cause there are many players with the exact bald spots left and right and are currently on my shortlist(and perhaps everybody elses).
 
Enigma_87 said:
Cause there are many players with the exact bald spots left and right and are currently on my shortlist(and perhaps everybody elses).
Click to expand...
Yeah, got 2 lists here - 1 with proper baldies, another with the 'grey' ones.

male-baldness-stages.jpg


I'm thinking anything from 4-7 above should count, and 3 with the bald crown. Not sure if 3 with the receding temples should count though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.