Ok thats fair my proposal was fairly simple although obviously needs tweaking to iron out the potential flaws.

. We only have 3-4 subs per fixture but eradicate swaps.

. Once a player has been subbed out of a fixture he/she is then deemed ineligible until deadline day.


.

So far we have...

no subs/swaps at all

home and away fixtures with one side set in stone and seen in advance by opposition - and no changes once games released

limited sub numbers with no other restrictions

unrestricted subs/swaps (as is now)

subs/swaps restricted in number and subject to only being allowed in certain circumstances (league and/or opposition approval?)

subs and swaps unrestricted but subject to approval as above.

limited subs (3-4) subbed player not allowed back till deadline day.

limited subs (3-4) no subbed player allowed back at all

Any others?

Edited at 14:09 Thu 02/10/14 (BST)

I'll start with the second option above.

The negatives are that with (realistically) 9 or more clans it makes the season too long plus it doesnt allow for teams of equal ability to play more games against each other. It also would lengthen the administration process. It would require one team list to be submitted then passed out to another clan and then waiting for a second team list to be received. It can be bad enough just getting team lists in now!! Plus if any team list is not received then I (or anyone else) would still need to draw a team list at random from the eligible players as happens now negating the idea somewhat. Could increase defaults.

On the positive side though it would do away with subs/swaps and associated arguments with one team able to match up suitable players to get round time zones. It allows for one player to only have to directly communicate with one other opponent to get a game played. If its not played deciding where the fault lie should be fairly straight forward.

The first option has the same positives but with the main negative being the possibility of more unplayed games and defaults than there is currently.

It may also mean smaller clan sizes were needed which could lead to more clans.

The third option could work. Captains would have to avoid using inactive players but would still allow some flexibility (say with three subs) to deal with up to three inactive players or counter specific time zone issues.

Could still lead to increased defaults though less than the other options above potentially.

I think in order to make any change you need to decide what you are trying to achieve. Is it to cut down on defaults or to eradicate tactical subs.

It seemed to me that this season the biggest issue was some clans making tactical subs/swaps that others perceived to be against the spirit of the league, albeit that these subs and swaps were well within the rules.

If we could decide whether tactical subs and swaps are allowed then any proposal would be a lot easier to come by.

How do you do that without making it subjective?

A change is to improve the overall experience for the majority of players, whatever the effects, as long as they do not impact on the integrity of the competition.

I was under the impression that you were trying to solve the problem of all the unnecessary arguements. Most of these were caused by disagreements over so called tactical subs and swaps.

My point is that I have no idea what you are trying to change because so many ideas are being floated around. If a more systematic approach was adopted decent progress could be made.

I think the arguments are far deeper than just people's views on tactical subs and swaps. They occur in all manner of different scenarios where subs are involved, for example when people demand subs for inactivity or any other reason which aren't given. Or where they have active players online but no opponent, or where in their opinion arrangements for games have been ignored and therefore again demanding a sub be made.

I think the ideal would be to come up with strict rules on subs which everyone can follow and which are not open to interpretation, have no subs or leaving it as it is but making it clear that the actions of any opponent are entirely up to them and not to be commented on as anything goes as far as the rules go. Any sub actions would not be requiring the approval of anyone.

Looking at the last couple of pages, not going too in depth, there seems to be a good bit about subs, be it tactical or people who refuse them.

This scenario of tactical subbing makes me think that there should be some sort of rule in place for individual clans to have each player play a certain percentage of games for their team......jeeeez it makes me think how hectic it is and gets on here fs :s

Would this be an idea to cut out this tactical subbing?
Point deductions???.....just a thought

I agree completely with what you are saying in an ideal league. However, although I do think implementing strict rules would decrease arguments and defaults I do think it would damage the health of the league.

I still think that people's views on tactical subs and swaps is the root cause of the issue. I don't think it helps that there is no clear clarification on whether they are allowed (albeit there is an implication).

However to address the other point about when arguments occur in alternate scenarios - It's true that arguments arise due to a number of reasons but how do you combat this without being subjective? The easiest way to test this issue is with a timezone problem - Say I am online 12 hours a day from Midday-Midnight and my opponent is online Midnight-Midday. Who should make the sub? There is no way to decide, the only way would be a reactive measure (Which comes to my suggestion);

Could the solution here be in the way defaults are decided instead of removing flexibility in clans. Why not look at the possibility of bringing back completion points? These would act as a punishment for any clan causing defaults.

Then introduce specific parameters on how defaults are decided so that everyone knows where they stand.

Create an official default panel that consists of one nominated representative from each clan. Make these representatives impartially decide defaults by following the aforementioned strict code of deciding defaults.

That is obviously more or less the way we do it over on Snooker. I know all your Poolers hate taking suggestions from the Snooker side but I honestly think our system of dealing with defaults is different class to any system ever used on here and it'd would be reckless not to adopt a similar system.

It's a tried and tested system that hasn't been exploited - Every captain knows where they stand and although people sometimes disagree with default decisions (which is always going to happen) the system runs very smoothly and efficiently.

I really like this kind of suggestion and was something I was hoping to implement in an ideal world.

I think it would work really well if for example a player had to play 50% of available frames to be eligible to play in the latter stages of the FCL or the SL latter stages (or something similar)

It runs smoothly here too I think. There has not been one default dispute all season.

I am not keen on completion bonuses personally where subs are allowed as you just end up with a set of games played at the last minute just to get the completion bonus and forgoing everything that went on in the two weeks before.

The only way I would advocate completion bonuses would be with no subs/swaps allowed.

The percentage of games played would be another nail in the coffin of any so called 'lesser' clan where they potentially could not make maximum use of any good players that they had in order to compete as effectively as they possibly can.

Wouldn't that be double jeopardy?

That is a good point and is one of the issues on snooker. That is why you design the system so that the whole two weeks are considered and make it known that the deadline day is not more important than the rest of the fixture. Meaning that you make it clear in the way of deciding things that clans will not be punished for refusing subs on deadline day for good reason (such that they have nobody available of sufficient calibre available to attain a similar result). Then make it down to the clan involved to prove that statement by means of concrete stats or facts so that the event can be discounted in any decision.

So you do not award completion bonuses even if a game is played where it has been forced through on a reluctant clan?

It depends what you class as competing effectively. Is giving 90% of your games to the same few players competing effectively?

If anything I think it would have a much greater affect on the larger clans who have established backbone of good players who bring back a much larger proportion of the clans points than the lower order who seem to be more interchangeable.

yes I get that, but also gives everyone a good crack at playin matches