View Full Version : World Cup- Replacing players
flameharvester
12-06-2009, 05:02 AM
So lets say player A falls sick and cant play and we need to replace him what will the rules on that be?
I suggest the following please pull me up if u have any issues...
1) If a player quits you can replace them but must make it public who your replacing them with so you can prove their your nationality(maybe have a thread for this)
2) If a player is so bad their rank 50000 and the ally is rank 1 you can replace them IF the alliance agrees to on a 15 out of 20 majority
3) only 2 replacments maximum
4) Team captains have to justify their Replacments to The organiser (referee?), Dark Angel or someone chosen to fill this spot preferably someone not actively playing.
Right thats my idea thoughts?
Nitrous
12-06-2009, 08:01 AM
Imo, if you have a slacker. You *SHOULDN'T* be able to replace him. Because the captain's job is to pick the 9 most adequate players for the job. If they are slacking, tough!
(Again im going to refer to any international footbal tournament).
Teams only take a set number of players in their squads, they cannot just replace someone because they are slacking. They have to make do with what they have.
I believe that should be the case here too - make do with what you have. :D
timtadams
12-06-2009, 08:47 AM
Imo, if you have a slacker. You *SHOULDN'T* be able to replace him. Because the captain's job is to pick the 9 most adequate players for the job. If they are slacking, tough!
(Again im going to refer to any international footbal tournament).
Teams only take a set number of players in their squads, they cannot just replace someone because they are slacking. They have to make do with what they have.
I believe that should be the case here too - make do with what you have. :D
lol. That analogy is just sooo good for a counter argument.
Firstly, flameharvester said if a player is sick, not lazy.
And now for your analogy. In an international football tournament every team has a few spare players, commonly referred to as 'subs'. Im sure you know this. So, in your example, if a player is lazy/sick/underperforming for whatever reason, this player would be replaced by another (ie a sub). The team captain/coach would not let the player stay on the field.
Aside from a flawed analogy, if a player is slack then fine. But what if, as flameharvester said, they are sick? Or what if something comes up and a player can no longer commit?
Nitrous
12-06-2009, 10:02 AM
Imo, if you have a slacker. You *SHOULDN'T* be able to replace him. Because the captain's job is to pick the 9 most adequate players for the job. If they are slacking, tough!
(Again im going to refer to any international footbal tournament).
Teams only take a set number of players in their squads, they cannot just replace someone because they are slacking. They have to make do with what they have.
I believe that should be the case here too - make do with what you have. :D
lol. That analogy is just sooo good for a counter argument.
Firstly, flameharvester said if a player is sick, not lazy.
And now for your analogy. In an international football tournament every team has a few spare players, commonly referred to as 'subs'. Im sure you know this. So, in your example, if a player is lazy/sick/underperforming for whatever reason, this player would be replaced by another (ie a sub). The team captain/coach would not let the player stay on the field.
Aside from a flawed analogy, if a player is slack then fine. But what if, as flameharvester said, they are sick? Or what if something comes up and a player can no longer commit?
Haha I was waiting for someone to use that "sub / reserve" stuff against me.
Ok Change of view here...maybe allow every captain to have 2 STAND-BY players.
They cannot start an account unless needed...and can only replace people if they are unable to commit. If however they are so s*** (Flamey did say that in his original post), I don't think they should be allowed to replace them. Sort of a punishment for the captain for picking sucha unreliable player! :P
Meh, so now my view is - make do with what you have...unless they are too sick to play. :P
I agree with the if they are sick, then they should be able to be replaced if they cannot commit, personally though if im sick i cant go to work which gives me more time on bush cos id be laid in bed...
But if they are slacking then im sorry i disagree with the swap or sub as you like to call it. its down to the captain to pick the best players for his team and he should look at all the angles including activity. some regions will not have this option to have a spare two players so i think the field should be made fair and you should stick with the 10 selectee's unless someone is really ill and cannot commit.
pinpower
12-06-2009, 03:46 PM
Yeah, why doesnt each team just have 2 players who are stated before the PW starts to be "in reserve" incase a player is unable to play or drops out.
Simple.
tobapopalos
12-06-2009, 04:25 PM
Oh right, and if a player is slacking the captain surely wouldn't just say he's sick to get a replacement.
Naivety ftw.
Alcibiades
12-06-2009, 04:29 PM
Oh right, and if a player is slacking the captain surely wouldn't just say he's sick to get a replacement.
Naivety ftw.
Aye.
I think the lineup you start with is the lineup you finish with no matter what happens.
"To hack and to spy, from this tick forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in land thin-ness and in land fatness, to attack and to defend, till death do us part."
pinpower
12-06-2009, 04:34 PM
I personally dont see the problem with having 1/2 "subs" that can be brough in if a player isnt pulling their weight. As the subs wont have been playing they will have to catch up as well so its not like the team will have an unfair advantage. And as long as the subs are from the right country its fine IMO.
Alcibiades
12-06-2009, 04:35 PM
I personally dont see the problem with having 1/2 "subs" ....snip....
What use is half a sub? and which half do you get to use? the bottom half or the top half? or the left side or right side?
pinpower
12-06-2009, 04:36 PM
Its not even a choice...bottom half all the way!
But yeah 1 or 2 you numpty!!!! ;)
"2) If a player is so bad their rank 50000 and the ally is rank 1 you can replace them IF the alliance agrees to on a 15 out of 20 majority"
if that were the case they shouldn't have been picked. Screw substitutes, if someone for whatever reason has to drop out part way through, it's their fault for claiming they could commit when they actually couldn't.
No reserves/replacements. One fixed team, nothing more and (hopefully) nothing less :P
Alcibiades
12-06-2009, 04:38 PM
"2) If a player is so bad their rank 50000 and the ally is rank 1 you can replace them IF the alliance agrees to on a 15 out of 20 majority"
if that were the case they shouldn't have been picked. Screw substitutes, if someone for whatever reason has to drop out part way through, it's their fault for claiming they could commit when they actually couldn't.
No reserves/replacements. One fixed team, nothing more and (hopefully) nothing less :P
Oh also... there are only 10 members per team, so getting a 15 out of 20 majority will be tricky ;)
Garrett
12-06-2009, 05:02 PM
"To hack and to spy, from this tick forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in land thin-ness and in land fatness, to attack and to defend, till round end do us part."
hehe. couldn't resist. too good to pass up. loved the adaptation.
while i'm not opposed to final line up from start to finish, I also think there are some points beyond the captains control to allow 1 or 2 stand ins (happy to limit it to 1) that outweigh the cons.
a) people that know each other well enough sometimes they do weird/odd things for each other because it struck them funny at the time. so someone who joins a team, gives up on 'national pride' because they don't see them winning and help out a friend. they become at best a drag by being inactive/ sacking a roster spot.
b) the stand-in(s) wouldn't have an ID to begin with so you wouldn't be able to sandbag a developed player. it hurst to have a brand new person at first.
c) stuff just happens. what if they never showed up to register to begin with? kinda handicapping a team's attitude from the word go if they aren't able to start with full ranks, knowing that they will always have to make up that slack. lets at least give people an illusion :D
edit: maybe rename or have an offshot tourney called 'world cup:iron man?'
Nitrous
12-06-2009, 11:27 PM
Oh right, and if a player is slacking the captain surely wouldn't just say he's sick to get a replacement.
Naivety ftw.
Ye, we need a medical certificate - every "sick" player must send it to Azzer's Mansion and hope Azzer reads it in time! :o (Fan mail's a b****)
/end sarcasm
Alcibiades
12-06-2009, 11:37 PM
Oh right, and if a player is slacking the captain surely wouldn't just say he's sick to get a replacement.
Naivety ftw.
Ye, we need a medical certificate - every "sick" player must send it to Azzer's Mansion and hope Azzer reads it in time! :o (Fan mail's a b****)
/end sarcasm
It would be abused without a doubt :P I don't really like the idea of multiple replacements, perhaps 1 at most as garrett suggested (brilliant man that he is). however i really don't think it necessary. You should be able to replace/switch members due to medical/inactivity reasons right up until the round starts, and then you're stuck with what you're stuck with imo. Or that's how it should be. /end common sense
Nitrous
12-06-2009, 11:49 PM
/me supports Common sense! :P
Garrett
12-06-2009, 11:53 PM
/me supports Common sense! :P
hot damn, a convert!
alci, get this man his robes. go forth young acolyte and spread the good word.
flameharvester
13-06-2009, 02:37 AM
sorry but wouldnt it make more sense To judge each one on a case by case basis then Deny replacments altogether. If the captain goes to the organisers and the playerbase in general listen Such and such Is uber inactive Due to these reasons and we wanna replace him with so and so Then it could be decided then and their to allow or not
Garrett
13-06-2009, 03:25 AM
i'm a little tired so cutting to the point so don't take this harshly....
case by case... by who? the world 'owner' manager... then they would need to be on all the time. and take even more time by deciding whether or not a replacement is worthy? a group vote? stall as long as possible anyone?
that's fair? or did i misread your suggestion?
Alcibiades
13-06-2009, 05:32 AM
/me supports Common sense! :P
hot damn, a convert!
alci, get this man his robes. go forth young acolyte and spread the good word.
holy buggery my scam, errrr.... religion is working!
here thou art young padawanski, here art thy robes with which thou shalt heal the world of neanderthal like hairy knuckle dragging brutish insolence!
flameharvester
13-06-2009, 11:27 PM
Choose some people before hand? Like I think people who can be trusted to be online alot and the whole community respects like markb, never header of ANYONE with a problem with him
Sorry but no subs seems the most deem able option, for some reason you are all forgetting that the tourny is only for 2 week not 3 month!! Now I'm sorry but if you start off well then the chances of you contracting some fatal illness (I feel something about swine flu coming on..) you should be able to play, captains will choose players for reliability and dedication, not people who will slack and use "manflu" as an excuse!
flameharvester
14-06-2009, 02:12 AM
well said.
+1 internets for you
However I guess we can simply say If something so horrific happens that we cant prepare for it Then thats Just something that you have to deal with when it happens :P
Alcibiades
14-06-2009, 02:19 AM
well said.
+1 internets for you
However I guess we can simply say If something so horrific happens that we cant prepare for it Then thats Just something that you have to deal with when it happens :P
Agreed with Jase. He wins teh internetz
And Flameharvester; if it's something that horrific, then the chances of it happening are astronomically low. Wouldn't you agree? :P
flameharvester
14-06-2009, 02:25 AM
Exactly which is why I decided to no longer argue in favour of it common sense says it shouldnt happen hence why i said IF it does we just deal with it when it happens
Alcibiades
14-06-2009, 02:26 AM
Good man! i didn't mean to imply you weren't agreeing, just that if a meteor wipes out some people, we're going to go on!
timtadams
14-06-2009, 03:10 AM
You know, i agree with no subs, after all it could put countries with not enough people at a disadvantage.
btw, what the heck does '+1 internets' mean?
i'm a little tired so cutting to the point so don't take this harshly....
case by case... by who? the world 'owner' manager... then they would need to be on all the time. and take even more time by deciding whether or not a replacement is worthy? a group vote? stall as long as possible anyone?
that's fair? or did i misread your suggestion?
As I don't care who wins - and I'll undoubtedly like so few people in the England team anyway that I have no bias towards them, I'm happy to judge each case :)
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.