Im sorry but you cannot at all cater for time differences and what no when putting your team lists in as you do not know who you are going to get .... also you cannot cater for personal problems coming into play, for example one of my players lost someone very close to them recently and couldn't/didn't want to come online .. so he would be punished for that ? silly if you ask me.

If I didn't think there was a valid answer or an explanation I wouldn't bother. I just think these discussion threads should be used to get to the bottom of any idea rather than just changing anything for the sake of it then finding it was a bad change, as has happened in the past.

There was a suggestion about playing everyone twice. So why not allow the home team to match up the fixtures. The away team could provide their players and their preferred times. If the home team then chooses to match up players who are 12 hours out in times and that game doesn't get played, they are aware that it could go against them in default. And the other team has the same match up choice in reverse game.

As I said before, maybe there could be exceptional circumstances where subs were allowed. Not considered exactly how you might decide them or what they might be. Although having any exceptions obviously does leave it open to complaint unfortunately. I wouldn't necessarily say time zones automatically deserved subs. Plenty of these games get played through effort. Prime examples being the likes of dv8, beenjammin etc.

i think its best i don't comment here at the minute if i comment on some of these ridiculous suggestions i will get banned due to the words i will use.

im not disputing the games can get played chris i just dont see why subs wouldn't be allowed .. to me its the swaps that are the main cause for concern a teamlist is put through and they are the 8 PLAYERS you feel are good enough for that fixture .. then just because someone is matched up against someone you dont want them to be you swap it round but keep them in the fixture, i think swaps should go but subs should stay. and i do think if someone is subbed out they shouldnt be allowed to sub back in. UNLESS its deadline day i think everyone should be eligible.

The idea of having no subs at all is ridiculous. Maybe try and limit them or name the subs before the games are out, but not having them is a joke. Experimenting over everything just for the sake of it isnt a good idea. The only change i would make to Fbl is that i prefer counting frames in it.

So in that case then a strict criteria for subbing could be used in your opinion?

You can say any number for reasons for subs and swaps the point is the fact that they are there means that any that take place are 'tactical' and cause deviation to how the games were called and intended to be played. The fact they are there really means providing team lists is almost pointless as how many games finish with the same 8 players from each team that started in the fixture with no subs or swaps so all teams are doing tactical subs every fixture set.

I did offer a suggestion for that counting 'live' racks not 'dead' racks but only got feedback from one person.

In my opinion all 8 frames should be played despite if u get a 8-0 or 5-3. Personally i never enter in a frame to lose it even if im 14-0 up, so the concept of ' live' racks and 'dead' racks makes no sense to me if we want to use a system where we count frames.

Plenty of players give up when they reach the point they cannot beat their opponent. It has happened against me even by players now in Pros and other top clans.

And personally once I ever 'won' a clan game I had no interest in taking every other remaining frame particularly against new clan players or from teams where you need to keep them interested and keep them part of the clan environment.

I know for a fact I was not the only person of that mindset. Therefore they are definitely 'dead' racks and skew any point per frame scoring system.

I personally once i have reached the winning point, am of the same mindset as chris.

But there would be no dead racks if u count every point in th final table. That means that u have to play to win every frame

I have already answered that point. It is all in the mindset of those involved. Mine was not to grind somebody into the ground and to the point where they just might walk away. I got no satisfaction at all from that.

I will happily beat or lose 5-0 to someone in an 8 rack contest but would have no interest playing on beyond either as the winner or the loser. At that point the integrity of the scoring system in blown. And even more so because I know how many feel the same way.

Than we should change FCL scoring aswell, cause considering what u say i think you are against a 15-0 result but in favour of 8-0?

The difference with the FCL is that with it having the bonus points and being team v team it largely counters this problem, and many of the other problems associated with point per frame scoring systems.

Besides if it was made a best of 15 racks format then the overriding problem would be what order the game types took place in.

personally if this no sub thing got brought in then i wouldn't enter a clan (if i had one) as defaults are guaranteed unless everyone is active and timezones can be countered.

i did trial it a couple of years back before i discovered the FCL but games wasn't being completed so i am not very confident about this.

all the clans could have a friendly or two (randomly drawn) to trial it or run a separate competition for those that do.

lol James, in snooker you have less games and have subs and you still have a far higher incidence of defaults than Pool.

im not one of them a few times i have been 0-5 or 1-4 down in US then comeback to a score of 6-9 roughly as even when im bored of my form i never give up and give each frame 110% so even a loss could be respected

As Seb always says if you cant win keep it close