The default info would only be for the original fixture, so swapping better players for default purposes would do no good.

Lets not forget, a default is normally quite a rare occurance, most teams get all games played.

Good point, maybe go with the player that spent the majority of the fixture period there, definately not a last weekend sub!

I thought all players and teams were vetted before the season actually starts? Meaning the runners would/should know who to watch out for?

Like a watch list

Captains: Me - (I admit too opinionated) etc
Defaults: erm wont name and shame them etc.

Edited at 13:39 Tue 25/03/14 (GMT)

I dont understand what you're saying, and what's vetted mean?

Approved, authorized, accepted in to the league, is what i mean. (track record evaluated and taken note off before deciding)

having a list like that would not good for the site personally, because a list would promote people to specially watch for those people rather than focussing on the league as a whole

Something to consider? At least in the current season, if not past seasons.

I don't mean broadcast it, it be there for the League Runners purposes only, who knows they may have one now:

F.Eagles (Team to watch)
Captain (krazyash_07 to watch)

I dunno.

I think each case should be taken from its own merits, a player could have 2 defaults in a row, the first could be entirely his fault, the second not at all..

I don't this is needed, I think each set should be decided by what has happened in that set, unless the team as a whole is causing problems.

I see now ash, but some players do get more defaults than others, some never get one. In a default between a player who gets them often, and a player who's never had one, it's pretty obvious who's fault it is that it went to default. I think that should be considered.

I agree that could happen, I don't think a player's default record should be the only thing considered, just one of the things considered.

Clans are, players aren't. It's up to each clan to get the right players in not the league runners. Particularly problematic players may be monitored if they are proving to be trouble in a current season, but not from past seasons. A new season is effectively wiping the slate clean (apart from any standing bans, though there haven't been for a while now).

Players may change clans, join part-way through and it is far too much to keep on top of for runners (and may be unfair to individuals and clans to block someone joining). For each clan though it is much simpler task, and that is where the responsibility should stay.

fair enough then, well what do other league runners think to this idea i have proposed?

That way defaults would be a whole site choice...

You'd actually be surprised. It has happened where a player with a spotless record has been at fault against one that has a poor default record.

I think considering anything outside of the fixture set the default belongs to is likely to be unfair because it will have had no impact on that game being played.

Zante, is this a system you could be willing to trial for the fixture set, maybe not use the results, as that may cause issues, but trial it on the next default.

Good point zante, and if there's evidence of such, histories wouldn't need to be considered. But in a default where it's hard to tell who's to blame, I think history could be useful.

If nothing else, you could see it as a player getting credit where it's due, for avoiding defaults better than most.

Edited at 14:05 Tue 25/03/14 (GMT)

I'm not sure chappy, if it was to be used it would need to be made watertight.

True been, but if its hard to tell who's to blame then that would imply good effort from both. Occasionally things do slip through where no one is to blame as such, and players have just not been able to come to an arrangement. Blame doesn't have to be attached and for a lot it isn't just a case of one person was to blame and the other did everything possible, there is a lot of inbetween. Potentially it could be used, so long as it was in a careful way to avoid being unfair.

thats a good point

Good points, I still don't think history should be ignored, but yeah, current evidence in the current fixture should count most.