explain in a circumstance how it wont work? and its not just 1 team it usually happens a few times a season at least going back as far as i can remember

yes it does but i cant recall players deacting over it etc.....i dont think it will work as both teams will get punished when they shouldnt...And teams may leave a fixture unplayed to win the tie, very sad if that did happen but you never know.

say I play staffie_man, who is offline the entire 14 days and they refuse to sub. -10 each for that?

yes, it would come down to being honest and loyal to the clan league aswell as your own clan. or in a case like this -10 off them as they have refused and -5 off yourself as you've been online asking- harsh but it works better.

You take the points away from winning against the clans and make it on frame basis alone - this means even if you don't play you wont get the plus 20 or so bonus points instead you face the -10 aswell.

i suggested something like this way back when the season began and we were discussing defaults, cant remember exactly what it was but was something like to do away with the panel and only reward clans with the frames they won... dont play, dont get any frames. keep the fixture win bonus and reintroduce a bonus for 100% completed games

EDIT: this suggestion was completely laughed off the table i might add

Could easily be exploited...

Say UT are 53-47 up vs MVP (Just a example don't go crying MVP)

We can easily avoid being online at the same time as them and avoid subbing as our players are active. they would then lose the chance to go in front and thus could lose them the league because we never played.

ok what about after deadline we give give 3 days for any game and half points offered.

for instance.

deadline me vs zante goes to default.

ll pick a viper from a list of 5 and i vipers pick a ll of 5 they play 3 of each.

or league runners take a online player from each clan weather played or not and they play 3 of each.

or along those lines

Think the focus should be more on allowing games to be played, than what to do when a game isn't played. No defaults means no moaning.

Reducing score potentially means exploitation to maintain an advantage by league leaders.

Completion bonuses can be unfair as found out last season

Current system splits people who both may think they'd win, only 1 can so it's unlikely to keep both parties happy.


No defaults means a fairer playing field, any idea's for that?

May seem a wild "Out there" idea but...

Following on from Zak's post you could split the league up into halves, and have a week break in between, this week could be used to sort all unplayed games up to that point then. If still not played then go to a defaults panel who would consider the efforts made over both time periods.

Same could happen at the end of season for the second half of the season with unplayed games there.

a defaults panel is always going to cause trouble, someone will always be accused of being biased or unfair - just how this seems to work.

nothing biased about our defaults panel now and it still gets questioned. in an ideal world, we would have a league where a defaults panel wasnt needed but unfortunately i dont see that happening. the closest i can offer to a default panel free league is my idea.

ive never understood why people get rewarded points through a default panel for frames they did not play =\

I like mich's idea it's like football if a game can't be arranged then it's played at a different time due to something that may of caused it to be postponed so maybe something like mich said a week break in between bu then would people just not play on purpose as they know they could catch up later on :-/

I suggested allowing extra time at end of season to get unplayed games played and it was bombed out before the season started.

There has been 2 defaults in division 1 in first 3 sets out of 120 games. (Less than 2%)

There has been 4 defaults in division 2 in first 3 sets out of 120 games. (Just above 3%)

2.5% games have gone to default between the 2 leagues.

I can't remember having so few defaults across 2 divisions and after so many games are played.

One thing i do believe needs reworded is the rules regarding the defaults. The rules still mention activity but it was well documented before the season started that we have no monitor like there was in janmb's days so this is impossible to factor into defaults. The only thing that is really available to use is messages between the 2 players and any posts on each others thread which can be highlighted should game go to default. Also the use of subs or the offering of subs / swaps to get games completed would still go in a teams favour and teams who didn't offer or do this it should go against them.

For the record having witnessed the posts and reasoning for scoring by default team this season, they have picked up on most of these anyway.

I think the way it is just now is working, with what Keith posted there has been less defaults this season compared to the other seasons.

I think people are mostly attacking the default panel side of things because a default did not go their way, regardless of whether it was the right or wrong decision made by the panel at question. For many season defaults and transfer rule has been at the top of the agenda constantly but still people fail to realise that you can not have a perfect league.

There is always going to be a player or a team having a problem with this rule and that rule even if they have been reworded to suite people.

Could the league grow without a default panel? I think it wouldn't. Should it go back to a six man default team? Possibly, but even then there is going to be arguments about he is being biased or something like that. It is not easy finding someone who you think will make good decisions on a default by all means, what makes it harder is that when they are getting trashed over the forum by people who don't like that decision but if the decision was the other way about they would be kissing their butts for a week. Its a losing battle whatever way you look at it.

It's working apart from the unnecessary flack the league runners and default panel are receiving.

to all league runners

i want a explanation where as there been a rule that players can swap and sub there self into games
i never see this in any league unless a captain and vice captain give you permission and it meant to be on both teams thread so both teams no what's going on
as i told horse he seems to think your team don't need permission to tell his players
if this is the case then horse what is the point of having captains or vice to run a team if player can do as they please

horse

I suggested allowing extra time at end of season to get unplayed games played and it was bombed out before the season started.

this can never happen in a league
right if i sign a player up he or she can not play for one month or 2 ?
but at the end of the season that player could be eligible to play that extra game at the end of the season that is wrong

As previously advised the snooker squad players have had permission to do subs/swaps and their captain has messaged league staff to advise us of this.
It is up to snooker squad how they choose to run their clan.

please don't go down that road horse where and when i got all your message here if you like me to post them back to you or send them to others to see where you said this to me

iv got this in a message as well horse u stating this

as i told horse he seems to think your team don't need permission to tell his players

Not sure why it would matter who makes a sub from your opponents? However as a captain you clearly have the right to run your own clan how you wish to.

Hence why no such rule on who can or cannot make a sub exists in the Super League. Any sub made by any member is on the understanding that it is made on behalf of and with the full agreement of the clan.