Yeah, depends on the circumstances. If they fall out all over the thread, it's usually a mutual decision that the player leaves the clan. No captain should ask a player to leave the clan when a game is incomplete.

We haven't had to apply it on snooker yet, so can't say how easy that situation is to judge.

Example

therev v whocares8x8
1 - 9
i left game cos of a family emergency then someone says something very personal to me and i get banned, it aint really fair on you to reply those 10 games again.

So there should also be something in the rules saying if you play more than half the frames (8 frames) the sub will continue from the score it was when the person got banned. If there is less than 8 frames played the captains can agree to starting the match from 0 - 0

Do not even know if Jay or Keith would want to include this in the rules but I think its a base that should be covered as a means to reduce defaults should any games go to default for any of those reasons.

I mean, I guess the captains could even get a choice whether to restart from 0-0 or just continue?
As long as the the restrictions are clear enough that it can't be abused, that would work too.

That's a fair suggestion Danny

Provided the rule is worded so it cant be abused and has no sneaky loopholes i think it would be useful to the league

To be honest i don't mind the above that has been talked about, and i may be tempted to implement it if it got some some good feedback.

Thing is though, i don't agree with what Danny has said. For example - I play Danny and Danny is winning say 4 -1 and i left the game for whatever reason but then got banned a few hours later or something. Why should Danny have to start a game at 0 - 0 (if the captains decided on that) when in fact he earned those first four frames from playing me.

It was suggest a while back by someone (sorry can't remember who) that if a game is at 5 - 5 for example and a player leaves either to end up banned/deactivating or leaving the clan then another player could sub into that match for them and continue the game but they can not win any more points for their team, they can only stop the other player scoring more points. So say this subbed in player won 4 - 1 in the last 5 games then the overall score would be 6 - 5 to the player that has been in the game from the start.

Or we can use Jays third paragraph

I am knackered, that did not even make sense when i wrote it. I really can't remember who mentioned that though.... may have been James a few months back.

If you want a proper example then wait until tomorrow as im going to bed

I think that is used in the Super League but im not too sure tho and it made sense to me mate

Yeah that is a superleague rule.

I think the only beneficial circumstance to start again from 0-0 is if a game is close and both players deactivate/get banned.

Everything else should be continue from current score else it can get a bit hazy in defaults. I think if a player deactivates or is banned then they should be banned for a certain amount of fixtures when/if they come back (3 for example after they have joined a clan and are eligible to play).

If a player is refusing to play or is not coming online then the super league style rule should be used where another player (who hasn't played) can complete the fixture but score no points

for the amount of time this happens why bother changing it, just let it go to default

example worst case scenario

cup final ,,,
player (a) is leading 6-1 and cruising to a win
player (b) decides to leave the game, and deactivates

your saying
either a player steps in and finsihes the game
or
it restarts at 0-0 with a fresh player

player (b) has 4 weeks to make a new account and start the new season, hardly a proactive idea in my oppinion

it could promote gamesmanship and blatant cheating somthing that needs to be stamped out not encouraged

the current rule states it goes to default
player (a) should win all remaining games

this sends out a signal, play games and dont look for back door opportunities somthing weve have seen very recently

this is the reason it wasnt added a few sesons ago
maybe common sense,

however maybe im wrong as always

Edited at 09:05 Thu 17/05/12 (BST)

I kind of agree with you craig on this matter. By making sure that the opponent that leaves and deactivates then, yes they should lose the rest of the games by default. But my argument would be, just because one player may be having a bad day etc, would it be suitable to penalise the whole of the team. As matters may not be down to the captain or vices, but at the same time your idea craig will reduce the number of peple deactivating and losing points for their team. I also this that without a good explanation i think this should apply to half played games depending on the situation

Doubted's suggestion is only looking towards players who deactivate.

What if you doubted were 6-0 up and have to continue later ?
You try and log in to find that you are banned (as you have been a tad).
Would you be happy with a 6-9 defeat default or as suggested a way to reset the game?

its not my suggestion its a scenario and a an oppinion

however if i lost 9-6 through being banned so be it i was banned and deserved it

it would be a little differant if people as iv suggested using differant users names every week
or sorry couple of months

this is the exact senario i mean

Bless you Rick, we'd wipe the floor with you :')

"just let it go to default"

didn't really read much past that comment to be honest as its entirely the wrong mindset to be having. we do not want defaults and i think its a good rule to implement to cover another way defaults come about whether they happen often or not.

do not think it is fair a whole team should suffer loss of points for someone getting themselves banned.

like my crazy eights example - was not my teams nor my fault that too_good got banned at 4 - 1 up. all the remaining points went to the other team, why? they did nothing special to deserve those points, i had subs for that game, i could have had it played, but a stupid rule prevented that from happening. a default that could have been prevented in my eyes

It will probably prevent a couple of defaults, however more likely than not, the opposing captains will have different points of views, and therefore they will both vote for different things, meaning the end result is a default. At the end of the day this is a pretty rare occurrence anyway.

Using the method Jay suggested you wouldn't need captains to agree anything, the clan whose player was, for example, banned, could just sub someone in to complete the game.

in your oppinion, its the wrong mindset i assume... sort your team out is what id say in the first instance, people get banned, deactivate or refuse to play and i dont see a difference.. it shouldnt be encouraged,

players getting banned
players not playing a game whats the difference

somtimes i struggle to believe what im reading on here

your team gets penalised cos your player got banned,
id think that would be the least of crazy eights worries this season, like i said for the amount of defaults this applies to and the amount of defaults crazy 8s accumulated ,,
it kinda proves my point

id say concentrate on your teams affairs before wanting rules changing
more effort to get games played
more suitable players

and makesure default information is in, how can you award a banned / deactivated / or a player refusing to play
or their team points,,, it should not be encouraged
its their fault and should be penalised in the strongest way possible

how can you say for example
in a cup final that a player is winning 6-1

the player with one point deactivates or gets banned or refuses to play, that there team should be allowed to have the game replayed.. with the a new player and possibly lose the that game... how can that be right mindset

i think this needs to be thought through before making silly comments about wrong mindsets

this is only my humble oppinion

I don't think games should be reset if a player did decide to leave at 6 - 1 down. I put my idea above about this which stated, the team that lost that player could sub in another player to finish the game. That subbed in player can not gain any points in the match though they can only stop the other player from scoring. So if the player left at 6 - 1 down and the team offered a sub and put them in and that player played the remaining 8 unplayed games and won 6 of them, then he/she has stopped the opp gaining those 6 points but the opponent won two frames so the final score would stand at 8 - 1.