-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Forfit
- Thread starter Rik
- Start date
Rik
Well-known member
Well, since I automatically didn't have a chance in my 4D playoff last season due to not submitting, you might understand why I find that a tad unfair.Cloete said:
If someone doesn't submit their team, they shouldn't get the result, dunno why it needed to change.
Also I saw no mention of this rule, could you make any rule changes a little more obvious?
Mister Wright
Well-known member
I agreeRik said:
Blewy
Well-known member
Rik this rule was made as clear as possible at the start of the season...
The problem is quite clear, people do not read the information given to them, then when something happens they come back running say why o why??
I suggest all read this thread again before making any other complaints...
The problem is quite clear, people do not read the information given to them, then when something happens they come back running say why o why??
I suggest all read this thread again before making any other complaints...
Rik
Well-known member
Please point me to where it was written, because this is the 1st I heard of the rule change. I'm not denying the rule has changed, I'm just saying I haven't read it anywhere or heard it mentioned at any time. I don't really agree with it though, why should someone who hasn't posted their team get a win when they arn't playing? I was a victim of it last season, although I feel it was beneficial because it gave you another reason to post your team. Not only did I not hear it had changed, but I also have no idea why it did!Blewy said:
Last edited:
Blewy
Well-known member
http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4720&highlight=Meeting+outcomes
The reason it was changed was because the new sim had the WCC points system built in to it and there was no way of putting in forfeits...
It was discussed a fair bit before the season and the majority agreed with it...
The reason it was changed was because the new sim had the WCC points system built in to it and there was no way of putting in forfeits...
It was discussed a fair bit before the season and the majority agreed with it...
Rik
Well-known member
I didn't see it mentioned once, and although I'm not around all the time, I would consider that a bit of a problem. Could you include any rule changes in the start of season email?Blewy said:
The new SIM was created by one of the members. If you create a program you should be able to put in something else. I know from experiance that's it's not hard to put in an edit option so you can change results. And I still haven't found out why people who can't be bothered to include their sides should get the points!
In order for this not to happen again, could the board ask for everyone's opinions on such matters? All it will take is one email, and this is a play by email game...
Cloete
Well-known member
Dead right. And while I also got a win, it was over marc's team actually, that's not the reason for me liking teh rule. The fact is last year teams were left in gastly states and positions on the table when people hadn't been bothered to post their teams. With this rule it means that the new manager may not lose interest straight away because of the state of his/her team..marc71178 said:
Rik
Well-known member
Ok, that makes more sense, but it still means you can be ahead of a side who haven't missed a submittal when you haven't submitted a few times and are on your last warning! I have spoken to a fair few people who also feel the same way, but I see your point. Still, if I finish behind a side who have had 3 managers by the end of the season and each one hasn't submitted the max. number of times, heads will rollCloete said:
Rik
Well-known member
I picked a full strength team in OD, several players averaging anything but 40 and some bowlers who should have taken Somerset to the cleaners, yet not a single player performed, just like they haven't all season. After this many games I'm doubting it's because I made bad picks, because most of my batsmen have a lot of games behind them!marc71178 said:Probably yours for not picking a good enough team
Rik
Well-known member
Why should a new manager pick up a team in a good position when they haven't been playing all season? Seriously, the old way was that if you joined a team not doing too well, you would battle through the rest of the season trying to do better than the previous manager and then fix up the team in the draft. I certainly wouldn't want to pick up a side leading even though they haven't deserved it due to forfitting several times.marc71178 said:
Rik
Well-known member
You ment that I didn't pick a strong enough team over the season? Averages of 39.8, 39.8, 37.47, 36.4, 32.8, 32.52, 27.62, 11.32, 10.48, 8.3, 5.4 equate to an average total of 281.91 per game. Only 2 of the top order have less than 50 games under their belt. Not strong enough?marc71178 said:
Last edited:
Rik
Well-known member
Look at recent results and tell me that's the reason. Free State, who are very weak in 4D, pushed my side very hard, but if you look at their side and my side, even Neil will tell you that result would only happen once in a blue moon. But results such as these have become pretty common. It would be lovely and simple if it was a case of better side, but results can go either way without much basis. That and the new Sim interpreting an average of 39+ as one of 20. Look at Guyana's Chopra, Jamaica's Pietersen and Mashonaland's Mongia. Seriously it can't just be random that they arn't performing anywhere near their potential.marc71178 said: