After the recent discussions in different threads on this subject, lets gather it all here.

The current rules are no substitutes allowed after entering the last half of each fortnight.

Is this fair? Could it be changed? If so, how?



I frankly feel we are putting too much responsibility on clan captains in terms of banned users.

People aren't fortune tellers, and while some users walk around with a big fat sticker saying "Will get myself banned within a week or two", a lot of potential trouble makers don't.

Expecting clans to never recruit players who end up getting themselves banned is asking a bit much - IMHO.

As long as subs can easily be arranged before the deadline, what negative aspects could allowing this have? If the game remains unplayed, the default could still be weighted in favor of the non-banned clan of course.

Edited at 20:50 Tue 12/05/09 (BST)

Post from other thread.

While we are all quoting posts from the other thread-



Still nobody can explain to me why banned users should get preferential treatment over people with real problems

John- You won't hear me say it again anyway

I don't see why subs can't be allowed in the last week in any case to be honest.

As long as it can be arranged before the deadline, and as long as the opposing team wins the default if the game remains unplayed (since the substitution may be the very cause of not being able to get it played), I see no problems with this.





No argument there! Interpret it as you will

Edited at 21:11 Tue 12/05/09 (BST)

We shall just keep quoting that for a longggg time!


Indeed I think the emphasis should be for people to play their games.

I think so long as the reason is legit, there should be no reason for the change not to be made.

If you feel the change is being made because of a tactical descion, I'm sure it will be an easy spot, and then can be just as swiftly handled.

Don't take this as criticsm. These clans are doing awsome, and alot of people admire what you and Potty are doing, however we should always look for positive change and inclusion in this respect IMO.

i appreciate every opinion on this and there are arguments for both.....

the rule as it stands is perfect except for the banned users......

simple solution i think - if clan captains where given 2 "extended time limits" to be used throughout the season to combat banned users.....

this option which can only be used twice gives the captain the opportunity to sub at any time.......

once they are used, they are used and no-one can have any arguments!!!!

my advice would be to save them for banned users however they can be used until the weds of the second week to change any player......

had a few beers so might not make sense

but it does to me

you could allow subs in the 2nd week for people with real problems and players getting banned,
if someone says they have problems and wont be on allow a sub to be used, if they log in at anytime between using the sub and deadline day the opponent gets a 10-0 no matter what the score is with the sub

Wouldn't need to be anymore complicated than that, no. Well said Al.

OK had a think about this.

The current rules were decided on in the management thread, last season there were no subs at all so this is a new feature anyway.

As the main aim of the game is to eliminate defaults where possible, I have decided that subs will now be allowed at any time during the two weeks.

The only reason you cannot make a sub will still be for tactical reasons. Defining how we will decide if it is a tactical sub or not is another matter. I think Alan's theory of "if someone says they have problems and wont be on allow a sub to be used, if they log in at anytime between using the sub and deadline day the opponent gets a 10-0 no matter what the score is with the sub" is the best way forward.
Steph will monitor that as normal, but in the case of any arguments I am nominating Alan and Jan to help decide if our decision is fair or not.

Any further thoughts?

While I understand the need to define and disallow tactical subs, I'm not sure I like the current way of how this is done.

There are plenty, much less absolute reasons why you might have to substitute a player. Lets say a player comes to his captain and says "I will have to work a ton during next week, so I won't be on much. Better substitute me so we're sure we get the game played". This is a perfectly legitimate substitution both in my opinion and according to the rules. But it still doesn't mean the subbed player won't be on AT ALL.

So a less black and white way of defining this would be good, although I must admit I don't have any good ideas to contribute in that direction myself as of right now.

But if what jans says comes up



maybe hard to go round
But let the player come to there captain
then the captain send the reason off to the league runners (pot and mmt)
and then see if its worthy enough of the sub

As i hav had to do this season

But for saying they wont be on AT ALL...i even say that...but ill pop on for a min or two to see whats happening

Its hard to use this rule fully...

Double post.

Edited by forum moderator janmb, at 17:26 Fri 15/05/09 (BST)

I understand where your coming from there. How though, would anyone define a tactical sub as opposed to someone who won't be on much but suddenly get's more free time on here?

It's nigh on impossible, I guess the only way to do it is to use a bit of common sense and have 3 or 4 people deciding if the sub used was tactical or not.

OR

As jan put to me in a message earlier, would people prefer a set number of subs for the whole season that can be used for whatever reason as and when they want to use them? Once your subs run out, whether someone is banned or whatever, you cannot make any more subs......this would then allow for tactical subs.

Opinions?

I actually dont see whats wrong with a tactical sub if it gets the game played - plus it adds a bit of intrigue and, by definition, tactics to it.

but i know thats just me and not the view of the majority.

but if we did opt for the set number
what would this set number be?
as all you have to do is look on the website to see who your playing...so then you could easily do some tactics in advance?

What would you say is a good number? I have no preconcieved ideas about this, Im open to a discussion.
This undoubtedly would make it more tactical, but if that is what the people want, then that is what will happen

make it less then how many games are played?
then they cant do 1 tactical move each game

so its theres 6 games like in div 2 this season?

why not make it 4 or 5 changes?

then you have to consider carefully how you play them

you would need to make sure the substitution is formally announced somewhere because presumably the opposition will also have the right to react to that change or make one of their own elsewhere

make a new thread?

specifically for sub changes?

If you want to move towards allowing substitutions for any reason during the season, I suggest: number of weeks divided by 2 (eg 6 week season allows 3 subs).