un practical but derik you do make me laugh pal if only a.

LOL
Not Surprised with this stupid post.

BOOT EAGLES!!!

Why not?

If, for example, T.F.S. had been in this situation and had scored 50 points from those 5 games - It wouldn't be unreasonable to award them 10 points in each of the defaults.

The idea is to compensate the team to what they would have most likely achieved.

Based on the completed matches, Monkey Business would have scored around 12 points (there or there abouts) from the remaining 3 matches.

2 of our best players hadnt played
so why not

again i say based on the working out

8 games go to default the average is zero
then what happens

My theory would work

You are contradicting yourself massively.

Defaults should not affect the table yet we should award 15-0s when 100% of the effort has been made, even in a case where a team hasn't scored 15 points from the other 7 matches?

No evidence provided = use an average result, yet evidence provided from one team = 0 points for the other.

....huh?

i see what u saying and to a certain extent agree BUT that gives team the chance to affect the leagues i could play for defaults to stop a team winning,

MAYBE we should look at a way a team in trouble can use players that are less than month reg maybe reduce to 2 weeks

You can't introduce players ability into the default decision because that is too subjective to classify.

For example, one runner may rate you highly whereas I may not rate you at all.

As I've said a few times now, Eagles position in the league will be looked at if they cause more defaults.

Seriously i dont know how Eagles are still competing in the leagues (especially in FCL)

FCL 6 fixtures 12 defaults which means out of 6 fixtures they played only 4 and half of them.

FBL 3 fixtures 3 defaults so far.

Defaults are a support mechanism, scrap that. IF you make them too accommodating then that will encourage teams not to actually try to get all matches played. A default should work as penalizing a team for not completing ALL their matches. A deduction of points instead of gratifying an error or misjudgement. The deduction be based upon what information has been submitted but some points be deducted regardless. (Just another view point)

Is that an example Steve or a statement

going no where at all
ive made my point its flawed

8 games unplayed zero

teams being rewarded more in a similar default is ludicrous

a team making all the acknowledged effort is laughed at

i will say no more

but with a default panel that would average out,

anyway i still say for years the prob is in the running of team and the able to make a team at a whim or manage a team i think we should cap the amount of teams in league so plenty of players to go round and want to play might make it smaller but would stop defaults.

I bet the soloution would work. Captains need to solve the problems you and huts cause them

I'l say it one last time....

Eagles are hanging on by the skin of their teeth.

They have had the highest number of defaults which isn't helped by the fact that they have sent in no team sheets for the last 4 fixture sets across the three leagues.

Even one more default and their position will be looked at.

too many teams not enough reliable players

I definitely think that the team who hasn't made much effort in getting games completed, should be penalised and have points deducted. That way, they actually lose something rather than getting away with a few points awarded to the other team.

However, you'll get some clans, who will try and use this to their advantage (as you already do) by constantly posting and spamming threads asking for subs with a week in the fixture left to play.

But deducting point does nothing to help the team who tried to get games played.