tweak the rules then to avoid manipulation, stupidity and excessive subbing and swapping

Ash is Ash we all know what he like.....he won't last another season.

However at the moment there would be and will not be a FCL league if Chris steps down.Stupid request dalton.

Will bump this one as I think it would eliminate the subs problem

No amount of sub/swap rules will change 'tactical subs'

If you don't allow subs/swaps in the first week, then you are potentially taking away a week when the game could be played.

But as it stands at the moment, games can be changed, manipulated or however they see fit.

As far as I am aware, (someone please correct me if I am wrong), although tactical subs are against the spirit for most people, its not against the rules.

But looking from a different perspective, when a manager in the footy is losing, he brings on a player to try and change the outcome of the match.

Potential thoughts:

So maybe a max of 3 subs/swaps per fixture could a be a good route to go down, and when someone is subbed/swapped, they can be subbed back in, but that uses up another sub/swap.

Also, I have noticed a few times that some opponents have the option of playing 2/3 people, this isn't really subbing/swapping but should be, each player should have 1 opponent, otherwise the team is getting away without actually making a sub.

The only thing contrary to the 3 subs/swaps would obviously be deadline day, but I think after 3 subs/swaps have been made, then it is up to both the captains to agree to it.

Can people give me feedback to this?

oi you stepping on mi toes!

may aswell not be one if its with these shenagians taking place, stupid comment francis

Well I think you can have rules that eliminate tactical subs without hindering games and being too complicated mate.

i agree, everyone on site agrees chris why not implicate something before it becomes anymore of a laughing stock

If you have limited subs - then realistically most clans will save those until the last couple of days.

That means that it would give the maximum amount of time for the original players to play the game which is good. Against that it would stop clans from probably subbing out inactive players early on which reduces the chance of that game being played. Ideally of course clans would take the submission of teams more seriously and actually try and confirm players would likely be active in the coming fortnight first.

A clan could hold back on allowing a game to be played because they want to make a tactical sub at some point. That option would be there if they had unused subs left over.

I dont see how you ever eliminate tactical subs other than with no subs. But willing to listen.

I understand where you are coming from, but how does chris decide what is tactical, and what is not.

End of the day, subs are meant to allow games to get played, if one teams gains an advantage from that, then thats the problems with subs.

We could abolish them like onevisit said, but then defaults might be more likely

Most teams try not to include inactive subs, so that would be their own fault that they might have to use up one of their subs.

Many clans stick in inactive players from the start - thats a major issue.

wellm its pretty simple, saynbsomething like each match can only have 3 subs OR swaps, they cant pivk inative players, cant mess around to suit themselves, and they will have to choose wisely like a proper captain / manager

I think there should be no A, B or C options in rules, have set rules and stick to them, abide by one set rule for each category and no one can have any argument over it, don't give clans the option to replay or accept, stick to a set rule and the captain in the wrong will soon learn the rules, if not they shouldn't be a captain.

The one in bold is the only one I can do.

well try it, its not like one persons saying it, everone everyday is moaning about the same things, its stupid that it should even arise but what can u do, when someone likes acting goat

And thats the best thing to do like i always said

You need a certain amount of common sense in rule writing though. If davybaumers, in the same circumstances, had won the game why should he then be told 'sorry you just wasted x amount of time because the game has to be replayed' - with the added hassle and time of arranging it again?

I've even called for it -
Ash wont last another season? - That a Threat?