Everyone knows, why it was introduced.
But instead of making things better, it has changed things to worse.

There has to be a better way! Because this is one of them ways , but by far, not the best one.

There are at least 3 clans here, who doesnt do tactical subs. So, for them clans, this rule made it worse. And the ones that want to do it, will just drag it out until the third week.

so my question is-where is the point??

For example,i have played 2 clan games now, just cos instincts kicked in and i wanted to get games played. win or loose, is not important, effort is tho.

Many would say that i should know the rules and so on. Reality is tho, that almost every cap so far has made a sub, only to be told by others that "no, after second week ". Its not about adapting to the NEW rules, its about trying to get games played. That is what captains have to do, and this rule is so much restricting me (us).

swaps....yeah, they can be useful, but we had that option before!


so in my opinion, this rule should be changed. ok, if not changed, then at least modified.
for example-leave the same rule, but if both captains agree, then sub can be made. if one doesnt agree and thinks tht his player will come online later, then thats ok, too.

Common sense would win and agreement to get it played takes the priority.

pretty simple, and would avoid defaults , too, while making sure that games get played on time and with less hassle.

Edited at 05:33 Thu 17/09/15 (BST)

Reminds me a saying by russians, this rule.
"We tried our best, but the outcome was as per normal..."

thank god we r not dealing with them tigers here

Edited at 08:16 Thu 17/09/15 (BST)

Yes reduce to 1 week but should be in clan league management

oh well. u found it-every1 else will, too

i offer almost free advice on that matter tho, but that a different story, id probably get shot if i say it out loud. oh............

tbh im not up on clan rules iv never had to read them

i think u get 3-4 weeks to get games played so 2weeks of no subs sounds ok but i would add that if either player for the game is inactive for 7days and both caps agree then it should be allowed to have the player subed

yeah, need some space for common sense like...

I think this rule is Good and has worked well this season, well done keith . This rule allows the players selected a good chance to play there games without silly subs done . You should have faith in your players who you select to get games played .

But what if your available for two weeks like cliffy and dynamos only available last week, is it right for cliffy to be subbed? both teams don't mind so all good but its the principle.

So theres a loophole, all you have to do to avoid an opponent is stay off for first 14 days. Dynamos aren't like that though and a decent bunch

or like legend_pot, who is on once in a blue moon. u would have to wait 2 weeks to , well get a sub, as ash couldnt even sub him out before the last week?

well there hasnt been any defaults yet, so it looks like its working, but it doesnt feel like it is

Yeah It seems to be working but some people are getting penalised when they are drawn against an opponent who isn't very active for no fault of their own, let's not forget that this rule was brought in to stop captains picking inactive opponents, is it solving It's purpose? Not in the slightest...

There's not a chance in hell that Ash would sub legend out unless he really has 2 anyway Kris, he wouldn't keep putting him in games else when he's only available for 1 or 2 days of a 3 week fixture.

True

There is always some way to go around the rules or bend them . Which is a shame because the idea is a good one
It is very annoying to try arrange a game versus someone that's very inactive. Especially when there captain comes on your thread to post that your opponent will be on at such a such a time can you be online .

I keep the rule tho . It's doing some good

so in other words, theres still a problem. but this isnt a dig at ash so all is good.

what harm could it do, if both caps agree, post it and let it be plyed?
none. it would just get one more game played.
and the same- if one of the caps feel tht the sub is tactical, then he can refuse it, as per normal. nothing eould change.

SO why the hell do we have this right now?
and before u come and tell me tht Keith is doing it alone and so on-i know that. but he also had threadfulls of stuff, to have a look and decide and go by. its not like we didnt care.

yet we ended up with this sad bit of an abortion

I agree with the current rule but if both captains agree to make a sub when a player is inactive then they can be allowed to make subs. But only if both captains agree

"Things are worse"

Completely disagree, zero defaults and the only troubling game was the Uprising vs Phoenix final game which would've happened like that whatever the rules were. I would like to point out, that I haven't seen any issues with regards to being refused a sub which were also rife before this rule. No holding an inactive player in a set to 'give them a chance'. The common sense issue is that there are still a few inactive players going into teamlists, when they shouldn't really. I'll demonstrate this now...

"But what if your available for two weeks like cliffy and dynamos only available last week, is it right for cliffy to be subbed? both teams don't mind so all good but its the principle.

So theres a loophole, all you have to do to avoid an opponent is stay off for first 14 days."

This game is only an issue because a player going on holiday got put in as a starter, coincidentally I think we only found this out after playing the other 3 games with his opponent going on holiday for the last week. It's not really a loophole because if it went to default the team who had an inactive player in would be destroyed. That is also suggesting that you would know the opponent is going to be away the last week and the game isn't swapped in the meantime. Plus you could do that under the last rules anyway and people did.

"reduce to 1 week"

Wouldn't work, you would get more inactive players going in. Say a player is offline 3 days, they could be put in the fixture and subbed out after a week because that does no real damage to the team in a default situation. Under two weeks, it means they would get less than half points in a default so it is damaging for them to put an inactive in so they are less likely to put that player in if they don't know when they'll next be on. To reduce the time by a week also takes the onus off the team with the inactive player, whereas with two they really need to actually give a sub who can match the opponents times else they suffer should it go to a default.

"if both caps agree"
The problem with this is not when both captains agree, it is when one disagrees. I would be well within my right to refuse my opponent to be subbed out, but then if the game goes to default I was to blame - yet I've followed the rules. Tactical refusal would then be an issue, and it puts pressure on captains again. Under this there is only pressure to use active players.

how about...

a) You cannot sub for 7 days however you can't pick a player who has been off 7 days or more. Captains can be punished if they add an inactive player at start of matches by point deductions or strip them of captaincy for two sets. In this example i don't mean FCL, FBL, SL, FCL, FBL, SL but FCL, FBL and can captain again in SL.

b) If a Captain disagrees then forget who's fault it is and treat the default the same as you would with the two week rule. the disagreeing captain shouldn't be punished much like if a player was off 23/24 days, active player makes effort and active captain refuses to sub.

c) Maybe allow Captains to keep a result if a game has been played as if the Both Captains agree which me and kris would have done then the sub and score could have been kept, i know kris and sarah wrongfully played but its like they have to play again once its been played which gives the losing player a chance to fight back

Well kris your first post was identical to mine from the FCL Discussion thread lol.

After reading the posts after and zante' where he weighs up the Pros and the Cons the best bet and safest one is to keep the rule as it is.

It is down to the Captains to know their own players availability or activeness. Where as I find it to restrict rather than encourage the fact the final week is unlimited subs offers a perfect solution.

So I've changed my mind, keep it as it is and Captains need to ensure they make subs in order to complete all fixtures instead of leaving their best players in until the end.

I said last Fcl set after the unfortunate circumstances with frans match vs shad. He were unavailable for the first two weeks so imo as soon as the 3rd one started out of respect to the opposition he should have automatically been subbed out.

Also whilst we are on the subject about availability, the Deadlines are set. Just because a player can only play up until a certain time doesn't mean they have the right to make their opponent wait until week 3 when they may become available. Basically if a player isn't available for the entire fixture or only week 3 do us a favour and keep as a sub from the start, regardless who they are.

Stop changing deadlines just when it suits! IF I'm told a player will be online at a certain time I have no choice but to take their word for it. IF you're not available for the entire fixture then be prepared to be subbed out in week 3.

Edited at 12:04 Thu 17/09/15 (BST)

as zante said it couldn't be helped as cliffy didn't notify them of his vacation before the fixtures came out. If say chaulkmeup was unavailable for 14 days (was active before fixtures and playing games) and say legend_pot was on vacation last week then legend_pot would have to wait until week three where they could sub before two weeks and have more time to play but then legend_pot has to be subbed out.

^ doesn't seem very fair to me.

The point being that chaulkmeup shouldn't be in the fixture in the first place. Just because there are three weeks per set doesn't mean that you shouldn't try and get games done because there's still 2 weeks left.