Instead of my edit, the above is roughly what i was going to put in haha

ok so u put 2 players of each clan in one as a sub if the other goes away on holiday easy guys

True, but there are always two (or more) sides that can legitimately be argued. I can easily make a fairly convincing case for and against an MVP completion bonus from the fixture set before this one (I mean the one where it was given).

Rick, if it was that easy, there would never be any defaults.

Oh I am on form this morning.

might as well add more to that in a example...

mich vs seb

mich offline for 5 days
seb has sent no messages in those 5 days
mich comes on and hounds seb to play
seb conveniently has to leave every time mich asks and is not replying to offline messages
mich asks for a sub
sebs team refuses
mich is on most of deadline day
seb logs in minute mich is off

has 8-7 written all over it.


I only used seb as we all know he is scared of me.

As can MVP make a decent case on that too.

Anyway enough of the past fixture i like the nice debate we got going here.

u was talking about a players going away if he was on the default panel so you 2 from each team one as sub

Depending on the defaulter them selfs though. Personally a 8 -7 would be my answer maybe a 9 -6 but thats a big maybe.

that actually is a massively controversial one lol.
I could argue that you should be punished with a 9-6 loss because I've been more active over the course of the fixture.
You could argue that you deserve a 15-0 because I refused to play you and avoided you.
Then you combine those two things to find a compromise and end up at either a 9-6 for you or a 10-5 for you, causing chaos and mayhem on the discussion thread after the result is released, because it will be the difference of Snooker Squad getting kicked out or not.

Exactly! I said for and against

Nahhh would be 9-6 at most could even swing as far as 8-7 you due to being more active, however my point is there will be substantial evidence needed for ones like a 10-5 11-4 etc.

Gutted you never saw my edit on my last post.

Simple solution is to have no completion/default bonus and the 5 or 6 players doing the defaults for each division just get on with it.
Clans with a crazy amount of default losses should be looked into by the league runners before the following season and action taken if needed.

Yeah Seb you do have a point there but actual fact if he came back after 5 days away with no messages from you, and him hounding you till your head pops and you refused to play for what ever reason that is something like 9 days of him hounding you to play haha.

10 - 5 would be the wrong decision i feel if that was the case, but if that was implemented teams would have 10 chances not to get a 10 defaults at 10 - 5

That's what the default team has to struggle with though: what is enough evidence? Me failing to reply to messages? Me logging out every time you log in? You not being there for 5 days? You having a history of not getting games played? It's a fine line and the default panel struggles with it almost every week.
Most decisions will be relatively simple, but it only takes one to cause the explosion.

Probably, but the team on the losing end won't feel that way and will let you know that all members of the default panel are a joke - AN UTTER JOKE!!!!

Deal. Well, it might end up being one anyway.

Then i'll get my belt out! Simplesss lmao.

But at the end of the day with sticky situations where it could be 9-6/10-5 on the border line, I am sure no one wants to see clans evicted from the league and I can't see a team arguing they should have had a 10-5 not a 9-6 so in that situation I would personally give a 9-6.

I know this will get hounded as it looks like I am giving a lease of life but in actual fact I am trying to let the league run as smooth as possible.

Eviction of a clan from the league...

Should a clan be evicted from the league I propse that if each team has played the evicted clan once then those fixtures should stand. Any teams who have played more than once will have those fixtures removed. So the league is not so messed up and other teams won't be penalised for the failure of a clan. Obviously some will be due to the clan going down but you have to be fair and if all teams haven't played them once then no results stand.

I can't see the point on deferring punishments for unplayed games/defaults to the following season. Even if you ban a clan presumably all the players are free to take part under a new name and assuming they pass a trial game will be allowed in?

If you're saying it applies to the individuals who have the multiple defaults being banned then I thought that was already the case?

You either punish teams for defaults as they happen or just accept they happen and get on with it.

I like that part, its less hassle