Skar2
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Oct 25, 2005 - 09:27 |
 
|
Here´s again a poll about the well known problem. Some coaches disagree with the actual rule that a niggled player of a non apo-team has to retire. Since in the last poll some possibilities weren´t mentioned is set up this new poll about the problem. Please vote again for your favorite.
What shall we do about the niggled player problem?
1) A player of a team without an apothecary has to retire before the next match.
2) If a niggled player of a team without an apothecary fails his niggling throw the game has to be conceeded.
3) If a niggled player of a team without an apothecary fails his niggling roll he must give the opponent a free match after reloading.
A short comment to 3)
The game hastobe reloaded. It´s mot possible to let the opponent play without having a player ready, since the game stalls at the end when it gives the MVP for the game. So reload until the niggled player is on the field and step aside for the complete half. If the player get the ball, he has to throw it away immediately. The opponent gets a full free game for easy scoring touchdowns. |
|
|
TheViking
Joined: Jun 30, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 25, 2005 - 10:40 |
|
I assume option 3 means that the opponent cant block or blitz the "nigged" player, right? |
_________________
Only accepts games against chatty coaches! |
|
Skar2
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 25, 2005 - 12:41 |
|
Of course, the player should be ignored as if he isn´t there |
|
|
Craftnburn
Joined: Jul 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 25, 2005 - 20:12 |
|
Option 1 isn't fair since it's unlikely the coach can afford to replace the player after 1 game.
Option 2 isn't really fair since it robs the opponent of TDs and thus SPPs.
Option 3 is certainly the best, although it should be mentioned that if the niggled player is somehow SI/RIP (Rock?) during the match, it should be restarted since he should not have actually been on the field. |
|
|
tassel
Joined: May 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 25, 2005 - 21:21 |
|
Option 2 is simply the best. It robs the opponent from scoring a big bunch of times but then again the extra MVP compensated a little. It also discourages the accumulation of niggles a bit (or cures the problem by itself) since high SPP nigglers have the huge chance to leave the team after suffering the humiliation of not being able to play in a 1vs1 league. |
|
|
MRnobody
Joined: Jul 01, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 26, 2005 - 03:00 |
|
option 1 seems to unnecessarily discourage the undead.
option 2 will also give a chance of a player with enough spp to leave the team after each concession, so seems to be a delayed forced retierment.
option 3 seems to accurately represent what should have happened and is therefore my vote. |
_________________
Kill a pixel, Sponsor a Cheater! |
|
skull
Joined: Dec 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 26, 2005 - 04:49 |
|
Option 2.
The opponent gets 10 free spps, 2x cash, and +FF.
Nobody likes to waste his time on a match he doesn't play in (option 3).
Nuff said. |
_________________
Chaos and Order are not enemies, only opposites. |
|
Skar2
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 26, 2005 - 14:06 |
|
Since most of you are against the retiring rule, I will change therule to the following.
A teamwithout an apothecary which suffers from a niggling injury has to concede the game OR give a free match afterwards. |
|
|
|
|
Having issues launch...
Search
