Are zero scores included?

[big78sam]

up to 3 selected emergencies to
replace up to 3 players in your starting 22 in matching
positions who don't play that round.

From VS

Thank you for your email.

All players are awarded points based on their individual
performances and any player scoring 0 is regarded as not
having made any positive or negative contribution or
impact on their match or their personal performance. As
such, they are automatically replaced by an emergency when
one is selected and available. This rule has been in place
and remained consistent since the start of the competition
several years ago.

This is not going to change now so we just need to live with it.

As a side point, how do you think VS logic would go in other circumstances...

"Sorry officer, I know I was speeding but this is consistent with what I have been doing for several years and the speed limit of 80 has been regarded as having no positive or negative impact on others when there is no one around"

 

[Cat for Life]

This is not going to change now so we just need to live with it.

As a side point, how do you think VS logic would go in other circumstances...

"Sorry officer, I know I was speeding but this is consistent with what I have been doing for several years and the speed limit of 80 has been regarded as having no positive or negative impact on others when there is no one around"

Not very well.
The VS decision itself is definitely open to a challenge. It's unlikely but if someone did bring a legal action they'll be in with a very good chance of overturning it.

 

[Parasite]

I haven't read the whole thread, I imagine it is a mix of people whinging and some sensible discussion of the rules as shown on the website.

Either way, to the people complaining - you have nothing to complain about, whether the rules work one way or another has no impact on how you play the game. It doesn't change your team selections or your trades. It just is how it is. You didn't care about this ruling before the season and the next time it happens, you might be on the other side of the ledger.

That being said, it needs fixing and clarifying for next year

 

[banana_bus]

Someone just asked the for clarification of this on SEN.

They had to go to break, but KB said hed get clarification on it.

Tune in to listen to what is said.

 

[cryptor]

Not very well.
The VS decision itself is definitely open to a challenge. It's unlikely but if someone did bring a legal action they'll be in with a very good chance of overturning it.

I think you'll find chances wouldn't be good.

As has been shown in this thread there are multiple interpretations that could be applied to the rules and each of them are just as right as the other.

Not to mention that you'd be suing an organization that is bringing you a service free of charge.

And I can't find it on the website but I'm fairly certain there'd be a clause in their Terms & Conditions (that everyone had to agree to before registering) that allows them pretty much free reign over the interpretation and enforcement of rules of the competition.

You'd also need to be extremely confident that you had a shot at winning the car before you'd even consider wasting thousands of dollars on suing them over this.

 

[kangaroo19]

The extra money doesn't mean the people will pick the right ruckman. Think Hille over HMac at the start of the year. The extra money may end up stuffing people up if they get their picks wrong!

 

[asanque]

I think you'll find chances wouldn't be good.

As has been shown in this thread there are multiple interpretations that could be applied to the rules and each of them are just as right as the other.

Not to mention that you'd be suing an organization that is bringing you a service free of charge.

And I can't find it on the website but I'm fairly certain there'd be a clause in their Terms & Conditions (that everyone had to agree to before registering) that allows them pretty much free reign over the interpretation and enforcement of rules of the competition.

You'd also need to be extremely confident that you had a shot at winning the car before you'd even consider wasting thousands of dollars on suing them over this.

I think you are wrong.

As I stated before, paragraph 2 of the rules for scoring is umambiguous, that only players that are "non-playing" are replaced by emergencies.

It doesn't matter that it is a free competition, they received a permit to run the competition and must abide by it, especially where monetary prizes are involved.

Surprisingly, the terms and conditions for AFL dreamteam, do not have any provisions dealing with interpretation of rules. Read them yourself.

I'm still awaiting a response from the AFL. Although the Promoter of the DT is Telstra.

 

[Cat for Life]

I think you'll find chances wouldn't be good.

As has been shown in this thread there are multiple interpretations that could be applied to the rules and each of them are just as right as the other.

Not to mention that you'd be suing an organization that is bringing you a service free of charge.

And I can't find it on the website but I'm fairly certain there'd be a clause in their Terms & Conditions (that everyone had to agree to before registering) that allows them pretty much free reign over the interpretation and enforcement of rules of the competition.

You'd also need to be extremely confident that you had a shot at winning the car before you'd even consider wasting thousands of dollars on suing them over this.

Its marketed as a competition, there are TPA provisions that apply. It doesn't matter what boilerplates clauses they have in the Terms & Conditions, an action can still be run.

The last point you make is very relevant though, this is the reason why I think there will be no action. Plus you would also need to show causation and prove that the winning team only won because of this incident, very hard to do.

Disclaimer: I haven't taken the time to actually look at what cause of action this would be under.

 

[cryptor]

You'd also be up against a company remember. If the case isn't clear cut (which it really isn't) then there is a good chance they'd just drag it out for ages. Whoever sued them would probably end up spending more in legal fees than what the Toyota's are worth.

And proving that certain teams wouldn't have scored their emergencies scores otherwise is all well and good but arguing the resulting events following the no-change in price of Hille and Harvey would be next to impossible. Especially seeing how it happened this early in the season (allowing for a lot of variables)

 

[Doza]

All,

First up, I've gotta say I am amazed at this result and squarely agree with those saying the zero should count and prices drop. However, just wanted to know if anyone saw this in the Herald Sun today (sorry if it's been mentioned before but couldn't see it):

"An irregularity in SuperCoach scoring results in players who score 0 points registering as not playing - examples in Round 5 were Brent Harvey and David Hille. This has been the case since the competition started and will be reviewed after the season"

I found this amazing:
a) Herald Sun have decided to say something about it - that's great; but
b) SuperCoach actually DO count the score, in direct contrast to their statement above!!

 

[Cat for Life]

You'd also be up against a company remember. If the case isn't clear cut (which it really isn't) then there is a good chance they'd just drag it out for ages. Whoever sued them would probably end up spending more in legal fees than what the Toyota's are worth.

And proving that certain teams wouldn't have scored their emergencies scores otherwise is all well and good but arguing the resulting events following the no-change in price of Hille and Harvey would be next to impossible. Especially seeing how it happened this early in the season (allowing for a lot of variables)

Doubt VS would want to go through a long litigation, companies aren't keen on legal costs either let alone the publicity. They would be very keen on a settlement.

Moot point though as I agree that it isn't likely to happen mainly due to your second point.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

from a common sense point of view - the scores should count

however - if this is the rules, VS have to stand by it as their is a car up for grabs. They'd have to have licenses for the promotion in many states - and would leave themselves liable should someone be cost a car due to this "ambiguity".

i doubt i'll win the car, and it didn't cost me the weekly win - so i don't really care.

in fact it is rather amusing that you hope your player gets smashed at the first bounce, then 10 minutes in

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This is all good and dandy, but they could at least try covering their mistake by changing Hille's and Harvey's stats so it says they've played 5 games because as far as I know, they've both run through the banner 5 times this season.

That's the key to it all. It shows they didn't account for this. There's no defending it.

 

[Kid A]

a TPA claim would fail: there is no appreciable loss or damage (s 82); any loss or damage would be difficult to pin down as being caused by the conduct of VS given the other variables at play; it is questionable as to whether the terms are misleading or deceptive; VS would argue that competition organisers require some degree of discretion in monitoring teams (indeed there's probably a clause somewhere which says all decisions by VS are final); and finally it would be impractical to run litigation and VS would laugh it off.
-