Needs to be more than half the fixture, any less and it doesn't work. Inactive players will still be put in if they can be subbed out after a week. Two weeks and there should be more active players in from the start.

Teams who put in inactive players will need to sub them out or be heavily punished in a default.

This is where the 2 week subs rule ruins the flow of matches.

Or maybe keep the rule but allow some common sense to prevail and actually allow subs if both players are is agreement? In this case shad and fran!

Surely the higher portion of the three week period should be both players being able to arrange and play their fixture. At the moment if one of the players is inactive, unable to play for personal reasons or technical ones the opponent is having to wait around or failing that leave a match which could easily be completed with the aid of a sub until approx 1 weeks time.

Shad has been message by his opponent suggesting it be best he be subbed from their SL match. Now Shad has to wait till 21st just to play 6 frames.

It's just not right imo.

FCL Table after fixture set 1

The rules are quite clear if a player has issues and cannot play for the first couple of weeks it is unfortunate but hopefully in future most players will let their captains know and they wont be put in fixtures to start and used as subs instead.

The rule was introduced as captains abused unlimited subs from day one, maybe if they had used subs only when they were required and for common sense as you put it, had prevailed there would have been no need to introduce the rule in the first place.

I understand that and appreciate why it was implemented but can it not be reduced to 'if both players are in agreement?'

No as if the rule was that, their would be no point in having the rule in the first place.

Okay how about just in SL & FBL then? With the format being really short.

Final request...you'll be pleased to hear.

No if you loved subs being easy and helpful to get games played, maybe you should have a long hard look as when they were unlimited captains chose to abuse them which is against why they were allowed in the first place so now you are prevented from doing them for 2 weeks.

The last set of fcl worked perfectly with over 80% of games completed with the original team members. Then a few games where there had been issues had subs delivered when they were allowed and then apart from a couple of instances at the end all teams then had players available to get games completed which is exactly the same as how it should work with unlimited subs, it has only been captains that have chosen to abuse how they were used.

Bump

Whereas I do agree with you I do object to being solely singled out, others followed the same practise and most of my alledged malpractices were actually genuine. Admit some were trying to obtain the best result possible but that's just competition is it not?

It was great to see no defaults plus most matches completed by the original players. I have and can see the error of my ways and will only make subs when necessary and not any other time

Up to you, you're the League Runner, I'll adhere to any rule you enforce. (Begrudgingly lol)

I didn't single you out, i responded to you, I said that captains abused the rule but if the cap fits you can easily wear it.

No if you loved subs being easy and helpful to get games played, maybe you should have a long hard look as when they were unlimited captains chose to abuse them which is against why they were allowed in the first place so now you are prevented from doing them for 2 weeks.

* those yous were aimed directly at me. Hence I felt they singled me out.

I reckon that's how it will finish

Yes in response to you, but I clearly then point out that it was captains who chose to abuse the rule, which if the cap fitted then you will know exactly why and if the cap doesn't fit you may feel hard done by.

Anyway the rule will be remaining as no subs for 2 weeks

I presume you mean the order?

If it was frames won with no bonus points, pocket dynamos would be 4th even though they had not won a game so i am happy with the scoring but i am sure a few will complain

And as for the order, you might be right but their is a long way to go

I agree hundred percent if pds didn't win a game then they don't deserve no points

So the fact we got 50+ in all games means nothing? In your opinion.
Tbh Joe if PDS were a popular team people would be causing an outrage.
Personally i like it how it was but I won't moan and see how it goes, just think some people post politically.

Politically?

Some people do post more Liberally than others and some do Democratically.

Some think it's too much work (they would call it Labour) to even type and some prefer to remain Conservative with their views.

So each to their own.

Nowt against your punky its same as ash saying they git 59 vs ups but got nowt its all about getting over the win line though

The argument is shouldnt for EG pds get rewarded for winning 160+ racks, I think so, but im a stickler for how it used to be... and obviously am biast