it dosnt happen tht often to spend so much time thinking or worrying about it in my oppinion

I would be amazed if it was used tactically when you think it means a player being thrown out of league, but I guess it could happen.

I think its a better option than, in effect, allowing unlimited subs into any match and letting them score.

Any clan that used it tactically and was willing to lose a player would be mad in my opinion, if it stops ridiculous 15-0 defaults and stops clans who lose a player to deactivation getting hit with a 15-0 default against it has to be fairer all round.
Only clans that may have a problem with this would be those who like when someone deactivates and enjoys getting 15 points rather than having to play and earn them.

If it only happened once then its worth thinking about. I am pretty sure its happened a lot more than that though.

i do like the idea of settling the points on the baize!!! like it should be but you need to think of a system. would points count? automatic removal for offenders? etc.

i still don't like the idea of being able to earn points through 2 players in same game.

example:

its final game of the season and you need a couple points to win

player A doesn't like their clan or the league so tells player B who is a robot to sub in and play when score is 1-0 down so player B gets points required. if points didn't count then that clan would be out of the running.

anyways its not up to me but if it does get brought in ill be intrigued to see how it goes.

Why should you not earn points from 2 players from the same clan in a game, they both play for the clan.

As i have said previously i would happily play 15 different players from the same clan to get the game completed rather than win points on a default. Their is no satisfaction in winning points for doing nothing. Playing games has to be a better way.

you could still earn win bonus but this is difficult because i can see some of the following happening...

- Captain im 1-0 down and im poo please sub me for destiny whos a robot, and i don't care if i get kicked. This is when points do count.

- I hate this clan so i am 1-0 down and not playing my games, mwahahaha, clan subs but cannot earn points. This is when points do not count.

as you see, i see issues both ways and in some cases a removal won't change that.

like i said though im all for deciding the title on the tables, maybe league runners could discuss the reasons between themselves then decide if points should count or not.

The player who leaves would be punished so why worry about getting whooped by someone else. The player who is subbed in could just as easily have been your opponent from the start.

They can do that anyway - currently it will result in a 15-0 loss for the team which is arguably not fair to his clan mates. This way they could reduce it to anything as low as 1-0. I believe that is also fair to the opposing team who arent at fault at all in the situation. They can still earn points from playing but cant lose them. And, dont forget, also fair to the other 4 teams in the division who dont see a competitor gain 15 ridiculous points for nothing.

I dont think it is fair for the opposing player to have to break his game (particularly if hes playing well), and then have to start again against someone else, and for the full score to count. Thats why if there was a way of enforcing that all games be played through to a finish once started I would be all for it. Unfortunately there isnt.

Edited at 00:22 Fri 20/01/12 (GMT)

for horse

what if they don't care though thats the point, surely league runners should look at the reasons why it took place.

if its a vendetta against the clan then let the score count
if its a tactical play for a better player and captain agrees then score shouldn't count.

im not worried, i just posted some scenarios but you could do it tactically, yes they would be removed but they could have planned it to do so.

ab mentioned about defaults team about looking why defaults had taken place, same scenario here.

Don't agree with the player subbing in not getting points, he plays the opponent he deserves the points. If i am 5-0 up and the get a sub for the rest of the games if he beats me 10-0 for the remaining games he fully deserves his points and a 10-5 win. The player who left at 5-0 would be punished by the league. This way the clan who has a player deactivate or refuse to finish fixture can still compete for all the remaining points.

and if they both planned it? would they both be punished?

OK well we agree to differ then. There should be some punishment in my opinion for not completing a game you have agreed to start. For both the player, and the team that has taken them on and selected them to play.

It will be interesting to see if unlimited subs at all times is considered popular and a possibility.

again runners should look at the reasons before punishments, the player who left should be 100% punished but if it was all planned the the clan as a whole should be punished, if it was a unfortunate accident then only the person who left should be punished.

this would also mean holding out on subs until runners has confirmed.

not trying to argue with the idea as its a good one but league runners need to be more involved.

You change rules to allow subs any time, if a player deactivates refuses to play etc. Players who quit at 5-0 down and won't continue are removed from the league if that is a tactic that clans want to use, let them. As a clan player you are drawn against an opponent, clans can do tactical subs as soon as fixtures are released with unlimited subs anyway, which i don't think has been happening. So your original opponent can change anyway so the only difference is it may change half way through a game. MVP have gained 3 large defaults with players leaving / deactivating this season so if the rule was introduced we would have less points than current but at least the players involved would have earned them. And it would let opposing clans score points they don't have now but at least games are played and it is a true result of 15 games that were actually played rather than getting 15 points for turning up. If this means we lose a game instead of winning it that is life but at least all 120 frames would have been competitive frames.

Why should they? If it was to be a rule then its a rule. Its league runners getting involved and trying to interpret them that causes all the problems.

Anytime a player starts a game and doesnt finish it then both the player and the clan that chose him, and chose him to play that game, deserves punishment - no matter what it is.

I think player should be punished only if a player refuses to complete games or chooses to ignore messages etc, in my opinion we do not need players like that in the league and they should be removed. Hopefully the threat of this would be enough for them to see sense and complete.

Clans should not be held responsible for actions of individual players as where would it stop. Clan A has had 6 players inactive that set so they deserve to be punished etc. It is not the clans fault if players are inactive / leave / deactivate there is only so much you can do.

But generally there is far more to it than that. How often does it happen that the player disappearing was winning?

You pick a player - you take responsibility. You pick players that you know to have been banned before - then you accept the danger is there, similarly with deactivators. But with deactivators again do they really leave when they are leading??? Rarely.

What if a player leaves then realises they could get booted out so tries to get the fixture completed but fails before the deadline ?
Or tries to get it completed but their captain uses a sub to finish on deadline day ?

Would you boot the player out ?

I would if they didnt complete it for whatever reason. If you have left a game you have started then you take the risk. If you genuinely leave then its likely you will soon be back to finish the game and in all probability with the agreement of your opponent.