I read them, they don't prove anything because the same principle problem can happen in any scoring system.
Here, I'll make you an example in match count (don't know why I'm bothering):
team A and team B have already played twice, they're 1-1 vs each other.
team C isn't in reach of first because they've lost 4 already,
team A is 1-1 vs team C, and will finish the season with 2 losses,
Team B has already lost a 2nd match too, they're 0-1 vs team C, and playing them in their last match.
Team B is losing a tight match vs C, but it goes to default, team C is at fault, it turns the match in team B's favor.
Without that default, A would've won the season, now they're tied on points with B, even though the default had nothing to do with them.

Or it could be team B hadn't lost a 2nd match yet, they're 1-0 vs C, and playing them in their last match.
Team B is losing a tight match vs C, but it goes to default, team C is at fault, it turns the match in team B's favor.
Without that default, A would've been tied with B, but now A has lost because of it.

There you are, an example of it happening in match count, and just like your example of it in frame count:
"They have nothing to do with big leads. They show how where teams are reletively even at a point in time, one team can be adversely affected by something that they are not involved in in any way, shape or form on a primary basis."
as you said it.

btw, this is unrelated, but in your example:
http://www.funkypool.com/thread/19738/fcl-general-discussion/48#1702583
a 15-0 default decision could help us by 15 points? really?
like I'd actually score 0 if it'd been played, I'm better at the game than that.
To know how much the default helped/hurt us, you'd have to know the score had it been played, and subtract it from the default decision.

That's why there shouldn't be any 15-0 decisions, it increases the chance of a default helping the team that didn't cause the default, almost makes certain of it by at least a couple of frames.

Edited at 20:53 Wed 26/11/14 (GMT)

The problem with frame count is in your scenario Team C could have won this league.

As per what onevisit says.

And in addition, thanks for providing an example that proves my point. I know you couldn't disprove it, but proving it further is a positive step for you.



As per this. The fact is, you said yourself, no one knows what the score would have been had you played which is even more reason for keeping it on a match count basis as a) the default can properly punish the team at fault in the direct fixture and b) not punish anyone else in the League on a primary basis.

Edited at 23:16 Wed 26/11/14 (GMT)

Not read over the hundreds of pages of disputes and examples but fair play to chris and been for the debates been a great read!

I'm not involved in clans next season for my own reasons but can I say why not go back to basics on something that is used in most pool leagues!

Each frame counts.
2 points for a team win.
No points for breaks and runs etc
Each team posts a list of players every week - so if we decide to play 7 or 8 whatever the number is:

The draw is made:

Pro v UB etc

Pro are drawn home ( we do a home and away fixture) it's down to the home team to list their first player!

Matt picks 1. Harriet
Keith picks. 2. Turtle

They play the game as in the rules, 4 or 5 of each etc! It's then down to the captain or co to pick a team to play each players! Yes tactical but also random due to available players at the time! Some could be away or on holiday! The choice is now on the team captain. Defaults can not reach the maximum number of games

So if it's 7 v 7 the most points in a default will be 7-0 for the winning team if they show no effort! Very unlikely so this reduces the large default numbers! If the team gets 7-0 then the team with the negative default get a -2 points this then comes back to the team runner to make subs because they can be scored minus for less effort!



Just my humble opinion here

Edit: I'm on my iPad wish we could play this on a pad
Edited at 23:24 Wed 26/11/14 (GMT)

Edited at 23:27 Wed 26/11/14 (GMT)

We had a situation in my pool league a few years back when I was running the league, our format was 6 players, so 6 singles matches and 3 doubles. Meaning there is always a winning side in a match.

In the first 2 seasons (that I was in charge) we used frame count, in the second season, the team that won the Div 1 title, lost more games than the team that came second.

So we had a meeting about it, and I introduced bonus points for winning a game of +2 points. Then we started getting complaints that teams were getting to 5 frames won, then not trying anymore, as they had secured the overall win, and therefore the points.

So then we went to 3 points for a win, 0 for a loss, frame difference splitting teams on the same points, but then teams still just got to 5, and then didn't try after that. Causing potentially half the match to be a waste of time.

So after much debate, we eventually went back to plain frame scoring, because then every frame mattered, which I still believe is lost on the skewing effect of bonus points.

That's because you get one win for a 5-0, in the format we use you still need to secure enough points to make sure the fixture is won and as the frames you do win go towards your points it would be silly not to try for the 15 frames. Completely different to your league.

And as said previously I don't feel the FCL is broken so it doesn't need a revamp or fixing.

You haven't said, but are your 9 matches one rack matches? If so that is not frame count that is individual match count and it is the same system that exists in the FBL. Every match win is worth an identical amount. Its still not as fair overall as team match count but its fairer than Frame Count.

Out of interest what do you do, or what would you do if it hasn't happened, when one team fails to fulfill its match - ie they dont have enough players or dont turn up on the night?

Edited at 12:47 Thu 27/11/14 (GMT)

You are correct, I realised my error as soon as onevisit pointed it out haha!

The scorecard at the end of the match is the only thing that matters, so if 3 people show up, there is a mximum of 4 points available for that team. The other team automatically wins other racks.

But the home team always has advantage, for instance, if only 4 people from each team play, then the home is allowed to grab any other people in the establishment to be part of their team, then the away team are allowed to ask people.

But if a match is mutually agreed that it was circumstances outside of both of the captains control that one of the games was unable to be played, eg lambing time, siloing etc, then that game is allowed to be played anytime in a 2 week period after the original match, and still count.

Same for cup comps etc.

If a full team fails to show up;

If they ring beforehand, 6 hours minimum, then the match is allowed to be rescheduled, for anytime in a 2 week period after the original fixture.

If they ring less than 6 hours before the start of the fixture, then they are allowed to reschedule, but can incur a fixed penalty, usually 3 points and £30.

If they fail to show up and not ring beforehand, its a fine, docked points and a 9-0 loss.

Which I think is very fair (as I made up the rules )

But more importantly is the 9-0 win fair on the rest of the League as the 9-0 loss affects nothing?

I feel it is entirely fair, because the team could have won 9-0 without the 'default' score.

If you question a whitewash, then you have to start to question, if it fair to award any frames that were not played.

They could have done or they could not have done. But that 9 points does directly affect everybody else whereas if you simply award a 9-0 win with the actual match win still being worth the same as any other League win - ie the three points that you had - then it is only the frame difference which might potentially impact on others on a secondary basis.

Back to my three team example

Farmers 5-4 Ploughers
Ploughers 9-0 Siloers (Siloers dont turn up for the match)

Farmers now have to beat the Siloers 9-0 to win the League otherwise the Ploughers win it without actually having beaten any other team on the baize.

If you award the 9-0 in the Match Count scenario then the Farmers still need only to win 5-4 to win the League. If they don't achieve that then on a secondary basis the Farmers are going to suffer from that default they werent involved in but at least it didnt affect what they needed to do in the first instance going into that final match. The Ploughers have not been hard done by either as they might have won 9-0 or they might not have - but they have been awarded the 9 anyway.

If it ain't broke don't fix it lol.And no need for bonus points anyway.

I dont think those two statements go together really do they??

Was a joke, but i do not like bonus points as you no.
If you was playing for a Team and played in a pub less say
i have never seen bonus points awarded.Only on Funky Pool

So you agree that this should happen...

http://www.funkypool.com/thread/19738/fcl-general-discussion/50#1703226

And they arent really bonus points - they are points for winning team matches.

The 15-0 default decision is an issue in frame count and match count.
your a) and b) there^ aren't any more or less the case in either scoring system.
I knew I was wasting my time giving you the examples you asked for. As always, when I disprove something you've said, you ignore it and go on believing what you want to anyway.

Prefer whatever scoring system you want to, to each their own. My own captain prefers match count.
The fact remains though, this notion of yours about defaults being a bigger problem in frame count than they are in match count has been disproven, and if you continue to say it, you'll be telling a lie.

Edited at 23:39 Thu 27/11/14 (GMT)

Time to recap.

I said that under a Match Count format no default, let alone a 15-0 default, can unfairly impact on a clan on a primary basis. Any team that beats each other clan in the season will be guaranteed to win the competition. That is not the case in Frame Count where any default score can impact on a third party clan meaning that they have to reach a higher threshold to win the League than they would otherwise without the default score. I have given examples to support both of those comments which have not been contested.

I also said that any default can impact on other clans on a secondary basis in Match Count - ie where no clan has beaten every other clan. I have given an example of that too - again not contested.

You provided an example in which you clearly stated that the teams involved in the example had already lost at least one match each. Now that example clearly does not disprove my first comment in my first paragraph and supports my second comment in my second paragraph and yet you claim to disprove all my theories. You also claim that a 15-0 default is no more a problem in Frame Count than in Match Count. So in Frame Count it affects you directly on a primary basis and also on a secondary basis and in Match Count it only affects you on a secondary basis and the default issue impacts equally on both? Who is trying to brainwash people now with bullish claims in a Rafa Benitez style 'Fact' speech?

Let me just add that the credibility of any competition format stands or falls by whether it is has that credibility from the first break, kick-off, serve, tee shot or whatever. In Frame Count you are holding your breath and crossing your fingers that some events do not happen before you can even attempt to argue whether or not it is credible and that is an untenable position to be in whether you, or anyone else, likes it or not.

Edited at 10:47 Fri 28/11/14 (GMT)