ok how about this for consideration

if one player is responsible for not getting the game played
they have another week
to put a player in

the game gets played which is what everyone is striving for
and also the player or players responsible for the default gets penalised 3 points for it going to default, in the first place

if both players are responsible
same outcome

league runner to set date and time for game to be played


can be discussed and expanded upon, maybe a solution

We would have decipher your post first before we could expand and discuss. I know their conversation is likely over your head but they aren't discussing 'problems' with the way the default system is currently used. I'll try explain so you understand.

Big people
are
talking adult talk
about one thing
making
more of a boo-boo
to the maybe winner than
the
other
thing

There is no issue over defaults. Other than obviously they are undesirable. But no system can realistically remove them as there is no way of ever guaranteeing a game being played on here.

The discussion has not been specifically geared towards any default issue - certainly not on my part - I have just used them in multiple examples (which have just been some examples of many examples) of why we (and everyone else running fully credible competitions) uses a certain format of scoring.

However Craig, if you are proposing a new way to cater for defaults, then that could be something to be discussed?

I'm sure Chris is more than happy to listen to somethijg different.

I am absolutely.

I have heard similar proposals to Craig's before - although without the 3 point penalty.

I don't like extensions particularly. Why does one fixture get a longer period to compete than another? Why should one clan make a last minute sub of a weaker player into a fixture at the end of two weeks costing them points whereas another clan rides out the two weeks to see what might happen in the third?

I do like the idea of there being some form of penalty on any clan remotely at fault for a default. There have been many cases where clans have been guilty of contributing in part to an unplayed game through minimal effort of their own and yet have got away with large defaults due to the overall situation involving the opposition.

Maybe you could state that any clan not considered to have made a full effort in getting a game played, no matter what the overall circumstances, can achieve no more than 50% of the points.

That would at least let people know that making anything less than the full effort from the start of a fixture will have consequences. Maybe then if people do start to make full effort for the duration then more defaults might be avoided.

It is amazing how some clans manage to find, arrange and get games played against certain opposition that other clans say was impossible for them - even during the same two week period of time.

Define making full effort:

We have set our stall out too not have to make any subs nor swaps (only if absolutely necessary). Would we get penalised for adhering to our own thinking? Obviously we aren't going to throw spanners in the works but also not going to make any unnecessary sub/swap(s) if we feel pressurised into doing so.

So there needs to be a line drawn between: full effort and pressurised in to acting just to appease one team.

Otherwise you may as well just allow one team per fixture to have dominance over the other. (Like HOME & AWAY)

Edited at 12:37 Fri 28/11/14 (GMT)

pointless answering this post with anything constructive
however I take the nature of your post to be very distasteful and very rude
please don't continue

full effort has been defined for many a season now. We are all aware of what full effort entails. If your not sure there's a thread explaining it at the top of the clan page.

You would be adversely affected by your teams stance on defaults if you don't follow the league guidelines. By entering any league you agree to the way they expect you to behave, not the other way round.

We haven't a different stance on defaults to anyone else, matches will be played hopefully by the original fixture pairings.

but by limiting the possibility, in any way, of the game being played more so than the opposing clan you automatically are on the back foot if a game goes to default. I'm not saying you will, I'm not saying you won't but your thinking of subs and swaps doesn't come into it unless it's in a negative manor as it will only ever be a negative aspect in defaults, it could never be looked at in a positive light.

Lets make it clear, no matter how you about doing it, if you get all your games played without a default then there is no default scoring issue.

If you dont get them played then thats another issue and one that needs critical examination to produce an outcome in such a way that it is fair to those involved and also those not involved.

If matches:

Get completed
Argument free zone
Players & Captains alike enjoy themselves

Then it'll be a successful idea. (no harm in trying, not done to be awkward neither)

FCL, FBL and SL (only posted in here to save posting three times).

We need some more team lists registering and we will also need eligible players from those team lists to populate the first FCL and SL fixtures which are to be released next Sunday.

The fixtures are...

FCL

XVth Man v Uprising
Baize Burners v Pool Sharks
Pocket Dynamos v F.P.D.
Unbeatables v The Professionals
XVth Man v Baize Burners
Uprising v The Professionals
Pocket Dynamos v Pool Sharks
Unbeatables v F.P.D.

Super League

Group A

Un'B'eatables v Uprising
Annihil-8 v F.P.D.
The Professionals v Pool Sharks
Un'B'eatables v Annihil-8
Uprising v Pool Sharks
The Professionals v F.P.D.

Remember that any player named for a team in Group A, or subbed in to a game for a team in Group A, will not be eligible to play for any team in the first fixture set of Group B which will be released on 14th December.

The Divas threw a strop over their name - so changed back!!

Edited at 17:16 Fri 28/11/14 (GMT)

I think craig has an idea there.

I always liked chappy's probable score thing, because it would be better at giving the 'team not at fault' a score that wouldn't punish or reward them, compared to what we have. A score more in line with what they'd have gotten had it been played.
I know there were people who felt strongly against that idea though.

Why not just play the game late? Default decision still needed, but it would decide how many points to deduct from the team or teams (if both were lazy about getting it done) at fault's actual score once played.

No 'team not at fault' would get punished or rewarded, same effect as chappy's idea, without the highly contested predicting of scores.

So it gets extended a week. Then next season when there are still defaults we could extend it another week. Then the year after another week.....

If you can't get players to play their game within two weeks then they shouldnt be in clans. Just adding on an extension every time is just ridiculous.

responding to chris regarding our other unrelated debate,
I admit, I may have misunderstood what you meant by "primary".
Still not sure if I understand, first I thought you meant: can decide the winner of the league (happens in both scoring systems), then: can decide the league because of a 3rd party (happens in both scoring systems, shown in my recent match count example), now you act like it requires an undefeated team (which isn't even guaranteed, hasn't been one for 2 seasons) but in that case, an undefeated team in match count is really no different than a team in frame count with a comfortable lead, and in both cases, it's only the top team that's protected from defaults having an effect.
But it doesn't really matter if a default's unfair effect is primary or secondary. It still had an unfair effect.

You've yet to give a legit reason as to how and why frame count exacerbates defaults.

Edited at 21:12 Fri 28/11/14 (GMT)

I agree there's no excuse, that it should've been played already, hence the deduction for those at fault,
But think about it, no one would be able to say a default helped a team win anymore, because they played for their points. and no one would play for defaults because they're gonna have to play for their points afterwards anyway.

Edited at 21:15 Fri 28/11/14 (GMT)

no defaults is always the hope but extending the deadline would be pandering to those that can't be bothered to arrange a game or leave it till the last minute because they fancy winding up there opponent. The person who advanced the idea being one of those who would take advantage of any possible extensions. The two week deadline rewards those who make the effort by forcing their opponent or opposing clan to play or if need be default. The two week deadline never rewards the inactive or down right lazy.

How does it pander to them if it deducts points from them?
What advantage would there be for anyone? I don't see one, only punishment for not meeting the deadline.
and there would still be pressure to play before deadline, you'd want to avoid deductions

On the back of that thoss guilty of causing defaults should be punished. I refer you all back to erigerts idea. I like it in principle with perhaps a slight tweak of the numbers.