If they did this then we would punish them probably by giving them a 0 score.

In my view no one should play for defaults

But the league is decided on frames. Removing defaults from outside the fixture means that a team who has three defaults through no fault of their own is at a disadvantage to a team with two defaults that are their fault

Yes - that's the key problem

If you want to remove defaults perhaps if any games do go to defaults then put them aside until end of the season, then you have 2 weeks to play the games with anyone at the time (subject to rules). If they don't get played then give a 0-0 unless a team plays for that score, if they do then perhaps a deduction is in order

Of course not - but I know that if I wanted to I would definitely be able to organise me and my team to score 3 pts in your league.

The score still carries forward and impacts on every other team in the league.

There is only one way to go if you want to minimize default impact.

I think defaults have become a major issue with teams now , how many times have we all seen posts about posting for defaults , "a player has been offline for 2 days " its ridiculous.

true, i can understand later in the fixture but not at the start unless they are off 10+ days.

even if a player has been offline 10+ days , it might be the case that the captain knows that the player is away working or on hols and will be back.

I don't think anyone has brought forward a good format, where it doesn't matter whether games are played or not.

And no, it is not worth playing for defaults on snooker. The standards for proving your effort, especially when one side admits to not being able to play the game due to inactive players and no subs, are just more lenient than here. Here, it's a punishment to play an inactive team, especially if that team is low in the tables, because you lost out on a bunch of points, regardless of the effort you make.

true but some people are hasty and want it played ASAP. Captains in most cases just sends a message from their player.

That is probably impossible - but minimising their effect is not.

This is the point where FCL defaults are wrong , how does a player message another player when there is no other player ? The team had admittedly minimal players and no subs to start with and yet the opponents suffer

The defaults just gone over here were decided in a way that limited the affect of the defaults rewarding a team. I've seen stricter defaults over on Snooker this season by far.

If there is no player, posts can be made. As long as that information is given in default info, then they can be equated for.

In my opinion, 90% of 'wrong' default decisions is down to the information provided to us (not just over on here, but over on Snooker too).

Correct. But this is being overdone. At this point, it's an automatic punishment to be playing an inactive opponent. Remember that the "offending" team is the team without active players. Defaults are punishing the teams that try to get the game played.

How can a team get a fixture played when there are no players to play ?

If a team was not at fault in any way then there could and would be no punishment.

During the two weeks there was though - the opponents played their other game.

I explained this many times in messages.