Session 6 orders deadline in 40 hours and 21 minutes
MSWL UNITEDMSWL U2 TMBL MSWL The Manager
Friday, December 14th, 2018 - 01:38:10 AM (gmt)
 
ball MSWL UNITED ① - Landing
 
Home Auctions Blog Forum History Login Rules Scores Stats Tables Teams
 
Coaches Directory Donate Guest Rankings Schedule Updates Waitlist Wall
 

Join
MSWL
UNITED!

Recent Entries

Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Mike Parnaby
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Tim Batth
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Rob Baptiste
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Brian Beerman
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Paul Cockayne
3 Comments
Paul Cockayne
3 Comments
Dave Dowson
4 Comments
Roy Rolsten
2 Comments
Dave Dowson
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Dave Dohm
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Brian Hayes
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Rob Baptiste
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Rob Peterson
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Graham Wilkes
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
19 Comments
Brian Beerman
20 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Andy Bate
1 Comment
Kevin Martin
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
21 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Graham Wilkes
1 Comment
Jose Freitas
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Dave Dohm
10 Comments
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Rob Baptiste
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Graham Wilkes
6 Comments
Graham Wilkes
5 Comments
Dave Dohm
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Rob Peterson
5 Comments
Brian Beerman
11 Comments
John Holden
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Kevin Martin
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
19 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Rob Baptiste
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Rob Baptiste
5 Comments
Mark Stretch
5 Comments
Jake Hanny
1 Comment
Andy Bate
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
25 Comments
Graham Wilkes
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Brian Beerman
7 Comments
David Blair
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
12 Comments
Brian Beerman
5 Comments
David Blair
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
18 Comments
Graham Wilkes
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Mark Stretch
17 Comments
John Holden
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Rob Peterson
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
25 Comments
Allan Sellers
30 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
15 Comments
Andy Bate
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Mike Cabral
4 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Kevin Martin
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
26 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
23 Comments
Kevin Martin
6 Comments
Dave Dohm
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Brian Beerman
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
14 Comments
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
3 Comments
Dave Dowson
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
John Holden
4 Comments
Mike Cabral
9 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
23 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Simon Compton
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Abe Hamdali
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Roy Rolsten
6 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Roy Rolsten
2 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
20 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Andy Bate
7 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Andy Lewis
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Simon Compton
4 Comments
Kevin Martin
12 Comments
Simon Compton
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Simon Compton
1 Comment
Simon Compton
1 Comment
Dave Dowson
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Rene Wilkens
5 Comments
Trevor Taylor
3 Comments
Rob Peterson
17 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Trevor Taylor
7 Comments
Trevor Taylor
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
27 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Dan Fitzgerald
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Alon Atie
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Rob Peterson
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
 
Should Suspensions Carry Over To The Next Season?
Posted by Allan Sellers on Saturday, May. 2nd, 2009 at 1:53 PM

The title says it all...should they?

We don't carry over 'fitness' but rather reset it. We DO carry over DP as a penalty for players that have 25+ WILL start with a DP of 10 or higher. 

Personally (and for my team it would impact 5 players) I think the suspensions should carry over as a balance to the notion that folks can just play hard all the time without consequences.  I think there should be good consequences/penalties for that hardness.

I'm asking because we don't have anything clearly stated in the rules, one way or the other, on this.  And I want to:
a) determine how to handle it and set the precedent
b) update the rules to be clearer for next season.

Quick thoughts please.

Al

Readers Comments

Suspensions should definitely carry over.

While the suspensions track is quite mild, I am in favour of carrying over some DP for the bad boys, since this would seem them getting longer bans more quickly.

Alternatively you could move to a system where a red card always earns you a one game ban.

There are then additional bans for 12DPs (1 game), 24DPs (2 games), 36DPs (3 games), etc.

Under that kind of system then I don't believe that any DP carry over would be justified.

But suspensions should always carry over.

Cheers

Andy

 

Andy Bate on Saturday, May. 2nd, 2009 at 2:34 PM
 

I personally like the DP carry over. I think that it is necessary to counter balance hardness and in reality it wont be such a harsh penalty.

It will also make teams who played hard 1 season consider changing their tactics for the next which adds uncertainty and thus is good for the game.

Alon Atie on Saturday, May. 2nd, 2009 at 3:13 PM
 

  Andy, 

We already have that system now. A red card is an automatic 10DP, which is a guaranteed suspension. Players are suspended 1 game per every 10 DP. So when my players hit 30 DP, they were suspended for 3 games. 

Alon,

It's already in the rules that some level of DP will carry over into next season. Any player who has 26+ DP will start next season with at least 10 DP. That's a given.

 

What Al is questioning here is should existing suspensions carry over to next season. For example, I have 1 player suspended for 3 games, 3 suspended for 2 games, and 1 player suspended for 1 game. Should they all start next season with their current levels of suspension?

I would like to vote against this. I can post the overall numbers if folks want to see, but the teams that played the largest Hardness throughout the season did indeed suffer the most penalties through the season. Add on top of that the fact that DP partially carries over for players with 26+ DP, and I think that the penalties are currently sufficient as is.

Here's what the numbers look like for PLY:

Team Player Age SL Pos DP Total Games Suspended Total Suspensions for Team
PLY Reuben Shah III 11 Df 32 6  
PLY Rhys Wilson APP 7 Df 32 6  
PLY Kyle Clarke APP 7 Mf 24 3  
PLY Oscar Stevens SBY 5 Df 24 3  
PLY Leo Mitchell I 11 Df 22 3  
PLY Taylor Booth SBY 5 Mf 22 3  
PLY Lewis Frost SBY 5 Fw 22 3  
PLY Jesus Hidalgo I 13 Df 20 3  
PLY Luke Shah SBY 5 Sw 20 3  
PLY Oscar Gibson II 14 Sw 16 3  
PLY Muhammed Gill II 9 Mf 16 3  
PLY Lilian Chapelle APP 10 Fw 16 3  
PLY Ashton Phillips II 16 Fw 16 3  
PLY Morgan Harris I 7 Mf 12 1  
PLY Victor Pascal APP 9 Fw 12 1  
PLY Leo Singh SBY 5 Df 10 1 48

 

So, as a team, PLY suffered 48 games worth of suspensions. With somewhere between 30-50 games in the season, that's an entire season's worth of suspensions for 1 player. Additionally, the team has 2 players who will carry 10 DP into Season 2.

These penalties are harsh enough. Let's not add anything else that will completely deter anyone from using anything other than Hardness 0.

 

Rob Peterson on Saturday, May. 2nd, 2009 at 5:20 PM
 

Ok heres my take on it

I think that any suspensions from end of this season should carry over and be served.

But that all DP totals  should be re-set to zero for new season

ie if you had a two match suspension (20DP) at the end of   Session 10

the player should serve the two match ban in session 1 of this season but his DP Total should be rest to 0 for season 2

this should apply to all suspensions & DP totals regardless of the size /length/amount

Dave Dowson on Saturday, May. 2nd, 2009 at 8:41 PM
 

 pardon the ignorance, but is that how the English leagues work in reality Dave?

Rob Peterson on Saturday, May. 2nd, 2009 at 8:45 PM
 

Hi All,

I am unclear on my views as yet, but to put the record straight and back up Daves comments, the English FA Rules stipulate that any suspensions gained in a previous season that cannot be served will automatically mean the player carries forward the suspension to the first game or games of the following season, so in reality any players who are cautioned or receive red cards who cannot serve the ban due to the summer break will and must miss the relevant opening games of the season in order that the ban is served.

This has to be right, otherwise we will all be kicking mary hell out of one another in the last few games of the season in the knowledge we will have no penalty at the beginning of the new season.

I see it as ALL bans must be served and if that means players are banned for 1,3,6 or more games then thats the risk for having a team full of Norman Hunters!!, i do think it is correct to reduce the disciplinary points down as the rules suggest by 10 and then a further 20 deducted would mean virtually all players except the really violent ones resetting to O, so in my opinion Al the rules you have set are fine.

Definately all suspensions to be carried forward and started in session one, it effects me as i have three players suspended, but that is the choice i took along with all other hard play teams.

Simon

Simon Compton on Saturday, May. 2nd, 2009 at 9:52 PM
 

Rob

My proposal was subtly different to that in place now.

Currently, if you only get yellow cards, you get a one game ban for 3, a two game ban after 5 and a three game ban after 8.

My proposal would have seen that slightly lightened into a one game ban for 3, a two game ban for 6 and a three game ban for 9.

To counter this, you'd get an automatic one game ban for every red card you got, as well as it contributing towards your bans for accumulating DP.

I'd then be happier with the idea of completely resetting DP at the end of each season.

I can't see that I'd ever be happy with the idea of suspensions not carrying over since it just doesn't seem right that you could play lots of hardness at the end of the season and not worry about any players getting bans.

P.S. Looking at your figures, why have players with 16DP been banned from 3 matches?  Surely that's four yellow cards and therefore only a single game suspension?

Cheers

Andy

 

Andy Bate on Sunday, May. 3rd, 2009 at 11:32 AM
 

Hi guys,

First off, thanks to Andy, Alon, Rob, Dave, and Simon for the feedback. 

Secondly, I want to apologize for not having this clearer in the rules...it should have been clear prior to session 10, but just never came up in terms of conversation.  So that's my fault.

After reviewing all the conversation, two thoughts:
1) I like the DP carryover itself as a penalty (which doesn't impact players at DP under 25).  I think its a good counterweight to playing a high level of hardness.

2) We will (now and in future seasons) carryover suspensions at the end of session 10 into the following season.  Here's how the updated rule reads:

 

EFFECTS OF DISCIPLINE.
Players who are sent off are deemed to operate at half their total level in that match. Disciplinary Points (DPs) are
cumulative through the season. Reaching 10 DPs brings a 1 match ban, 20 DPs a 2 match ban, and so on. At the
end of the season, DPs are rounded to the nearest 10, and then 20 DPs are subtracted (minimum 0 of course).
NB All suspensions start in the first match of the following session.
NB All suspensions occurring in session 10 WILL carry over to the following season.
 

Also, in some of the comments folks provided some alternative approaches, however I want to stick with what we have for now.  I think it will allow everyone to weigh the benefits of hardness against the penalties for playing that.  It might reduce some hardness play, and that's okay.  We'll have to see what the impact is though overall.  I'm going to try to save off some of the data so we can comeback to it later.

Thanks again!

Al

 

 

 

Allan Sellers on Sunday, May. 3rd, 2009 at 1:02 PM
 

 

I think my sentiments fall exactly in line with Dave Dowson's post above.  Carry the suspensions over to the next season, re-set DP to zero.

BTW, there's nothing wrong with Hardness = 0.  I'm not a big fan of the "watch me cripple your team for fun" aspect of the game as it is. 

 

Phil McIntosh on Sunday, May. 3rd, 2009 at 5:25 PM
 

I think I agree.  Suspensions should carry over.  The DP carry over is a good deterrent for perpetual hardness  So all in all I think we have it about right.

James Tucker on Sunday, May. 3rd, 2009 at 10:37 PM
 

 I know it's already been decided, but I'm still against the notion of suspensions AND dp carrying over to the next season. The sheer number of suspensions that get picked up throughout the season by a large hardness team versus a team that doesn't use any hardness is penalty enough. It prevents teams from playing their ideal lineups and it also has the potential to really screw with a team's plans for the youth players. 

Hardness is a part of the game. If we didn't want teams to use any hardness, just take that aspect out. I didn't use hardness this season to try to hurt other teams, I used it because I was one of the only teams who actually put an effort into developing a youth squad. That effort put me behing most other teams by a lot of SL, which I was able to make up by using Hardness.

The penalties that are already in place are good enough - a lot more penalty kicks given up, a lot more yellow and red cards, DP carrying over to the next season. I don't see why we have to try to go out of our way to penalize managers for using the tools that are available in the game.

 

Andy,

Thanks for catching that suspensions issue. I'm not sure what happened there - the calculation must be off. The 16 DPs should only be 1 suspension, which brings the total suspensions that PLY garnered throughout the season to 40.

Rob Peterson on Monday, May. 4th, 2009 at 2:04 AM
 

Carry the suspension over to next season is a must. 

I am however leaning more to the resetting to zero than keeping some of the points.  But if we will keep them, could we come to an agreement of % of them being kept.  Like you keep 25% of them the folloeing season.  It could be that a player that got two bookings starts next season with DP 2 and now he only needs 2 yellows to get a suspension.  A player with 40DP will keep 10 DP which is close to the rule we have now.  It seems like this rule is only punishing the really hard/unlucky players.  Maybe that is the objective

Just wanted to put my 2 kronas in (I know they are worthless so could you please return them to our national bank as we need them to pay our outstanding loans) - 

Oli Sigurjonsson on Monday, May. 4th, 2009 at 2:08 AM
 

As I said before In my opin ion  DP should be reset to zero for each player at the beginning of the season.

The Suspensions will be carried over & served so why the need to doubly punish a player by carrying the DP over too.

After a while we could end up with players carrying a 3 match suspension into new season + 20 /30 DP which could result in another 2 - 3 match ban in his very next game

If we want to discourage Hardness altogether then this will do it for sure!

Dave Dowson on Monday, May. 4th, 2009 at 11:16 PM
 

Just had another thought on this carry over of DP

from the rules

At the
end of the season, DPs are rounded to the nearest 10, and then 20 DPs are subtracted

So if I had a player who had 35 DP at the end of season 1, that would be rounded to 40 & 20 subtracted leaving 20 Carried over

If he earnt another 20 DP in Season 2 ( 20 + 20 = 40) that would mean he carried another 20 DP over to season 3 ?

 Or would just the twenty DP that he earnt in Season 2 be counted,(20 - 20) therefore the carry over would be 0 DP

This will render a player nigh on useless as he carries over 20 DP every season & 1 RED CARD (10DP + 20 DP carried over) will result in a straight 3 match ban.

This is too draconian & will result in a namby pamby league where everbody is scared to play Hard!

Really think we need a rethink on carrying over the DP .

Carrying over the suspension is punishment enough!

Dave Dowson on Thursday, Jun. 25th, 2009 at 12:27 AM
 

 I hate to say it, but I agree with Dave. This is a HUGE double-whammy here. I think we should only have 1 of the 2 cases. EITHER suspensions carry over, or the excess DP carries over, but not both. It's not a fair system.

Rob Peterson on Friday, Jun. 26th, 2009 at 3:43 PM
 

I think everyone knows where I stand on the issue of hardness and impact on suspensions.  That's the real underlying issue.  If people weren't trying to use 10 hardness every match this wouldn't be an issue.  Teams that consistently play 7+ hardness and get the area stat benefits and competitive edge as if they were playing a 12th man every match are going to rack up the DP faster than any other team.  If you don't want all that DP, then pick and choose your matches to play the hardness in and don't play 10 every match.  I don't think that using it full out every match was how it was intended anyway.  I see it more as a tool like GPP or PFD that has uses in situations where your team needs the boost for a major match.  You can balance hardness, youth development, and match success without going overboard in any one area.  If you choose to fully embrace one area, you get the negative end of the deal with that.

The suspensions issue is a non-issue to me.  Player gets suspended, player serves suspension in next matches.  Doesn't matter if it was end of season or not.

To keep perspective on the scope of this 'potential problem' with the DP carryover on DP 26+, of the 846 non-schoolboy players in the league at this time, only 13 had any DP carry over from last season.  That's 1.5% of the league.  They were spread over 8 teams, with only one team having three (Watford).  Only three players picked up enough DP to make the 20 DP carryover mark (0.4% of the league), one of which was Al's so if anyone has a beef it should be him or James at Watford (2 20's, 1 10) - though both rode their hardness waves to Cup titles so they got a big benefit along with the negative.  Of those teams having the DP carry over for a player, all were in the top 12 for total hardness played over the course of the season.  Of those having more than one player affected (four teams), all were in the top six.  Luck did play a big factor though, as Lincoln City (4th overall in hardness played) managed to spread the DP around enough to avoid any carry over while the others in the top 7 all had at least one player affected.

I don't see 0.4% of players who fit Dave D.'s scenario as being enough of an issue to merit a rule change at this point.  If you don't want to worry about it, quit playing 10 hardness every match.  Pick and choose your 'must win' matches or drop to using 4 or 5 instead to get a few extra shots or boost the Gk/Sw.  Of those who averaged under 3 hardness used per match, NONE had any problem with DP carry over.  You could play 10 hardness one match per session and come real close to hitting that average. Or 5 each in two of them.

It's my understanding that the rule was put in place to discourage teams from playing 10 hardness every match as the negatives would eventually outweigh the benefits.  I think we should let it do just that since it appears to be working.  Teams still play hardness all the time.  Most are avoiding the 8+ every match now.  Even so, there have been 1215 points of Hardness used through the first five sessions.  That's on pace for around 2300 based on matches played and matches remaining.  Last season we saw 2253 total points used.  Close to the same total number is being used while numbers of "9" and "10" games are down from last season.

Kevin Martin on Friday, Jun. 26th, 2009 at 9:38 PM
 

You are still missing the points Kevin

1. I do not play hardness 10 every match

2. My point about the cumulative effect of carrying over the DP.

3. The End of the season is the end of the season. If you have a player with -10 fitness at the end of the season he starts the new season on fitness 0 not Finess -10

4. Its not a level playing field. If you have 35DPat end of season you serve your 3 match ban next season, but then you only have to be sent off once to get another 3 match ban. Any player who has a 0 DP carry over but then gets sent off only has a 1 match ban. Thats not fair!

Can we have a vote on this Al?

Dave Dowson on Friday, Jun. 26th, 2009 at 10:38 PM
 

Hi guys,

I'd like to hear some other folks weigh in on this one...  

Personally, I have some definite opinions on this...and I'd really like to say what those are...  

...but I'd like to see what others think.  Sure, we can vote on it, and there are a few things I'd like to have some votes on for the upcoming season, but I think we'd need to hear from others in addition to those who have weighed in already.  

Al

 

Allan Sellers on Sunday, Jun. 28th, 2009 at 11:02 PM
 

I'm happy for no DP to carry over into the new season provided we go to 10DP = 1 game ban, 20DP = 3 games, 30DP = 5 games, etc.

Andy Bate on Sunday, Jun. 28th, 2009 at 11:24 PM
 

I think Kevin provides a great summary on the topic. This game is always about balancing resources and if there is not enough downside in playing H or any other tactic it will just become automatic for everyone. Kevin clearly provides statistics to prove that the hardness carry over is not that great a penalty.

If managerswant to obsess about the fact that it does not happen in real life we can adopt a variant of what Andy says and just make the penalties harder in the current season ,but personally I think the rules work very well from a playability respect as they are, and am loath to change anything that might upset the balance.

Alon Atie on Tuesday, Jun. 30th, 2009 at 6:55 PM
 

I am confused on this one....Here are some thoughts

DP carry over does feel like a double punishment, not only have you lost a player through suspension he will carry on being punished potentially in seasons going forward. 

But then it is a deterrent for high hardness each game.  I think without it I would still be playing 10 in every game as I still have good enough squad to cope with suspensions (this may not be the case in future seasons).  I think Kevin does highlight it is only a small number of playes who are affected and therefore could be considered a minor issue. 

... But the difficulty is that it is random, some players will pick up more cards than others just through luck, and that makes it feel unfair.

(A strategy may be to play hardness on one season followed by hardness off the next, followed by hardness on in the 3rd season! )

This rule is the biggest reason I think more about using hardness this season - suspensions and current penalty shot occurrence alone are not a big enough balance to the benefit of hardness - and therefore something is needed for the risk/reward balance. 

.....But having said that whether this DP carryover is the best method I am not sure.  I might prefer a slight increase to penalty chance (say 15% each H point) and stop the DP carry over which is just maybe too random on individual players to be completely satifactory.

If there was a fence I think I might like to sit on it!

James Tucker on Wednesday, Jul. 1st, 2009 at 10:36 PM
 

Table below.  Ranked in order of hardness used so far this season (H#), with team listed. Players With Carryover noted following session 7 (i.e. all players currently at 26 DP or higher who will have carryover into next season) and one final column noting which teams currently have players between 16 and 24 DP who are At Risk of carryover if they pick up a red card in the final matches of this season.

H# Team Players with Carryover At Risk
174 SU Fw Kieran Hayes (48 DP) 3
172 PLY Df Oscar Stevens (26 DP) & Mf Kevin Lane (26 DP) 4
162 LEI   2
109 CRE   2
97 NOR   3
92 BHA   1
67 SWA   1
64 FOR   1
61 CAR   0
61 WYC   0
53 WAT Fw William Arvidsson (30 DP) 2
50 OLD   0
45 COV   0
42 PV   0
41 DAG   2
40 LEE   0
39 DER   0
37 LEW   0
36 BLY   0
36 BRE   3
36 LIN   1
35 TRA   0
23 WES   1
21 SHU   0
20 DOR   0
20 PNE   0
18 SWI   0
10 CHF Sw Jamie Sullivan (28 DP) 0
10 QPR   0
9 HER   0
6 BRI   0
0 CRD   0

846 total non-schoolboy players (or APPs added for this year only) have played in this season.  Of those 5 will currently be effected by DP Carryover (0.6% of players) and there are another 26 (3.1%) currently at risk of at least 10 DP carryover if they pick up another red card or one to three yellows in the last three sessions.

Kevin Martin on Monday, Jul. 6th, 2009 at 10:55 PM
 

Sorry about that table format.  It was supposed to be tighter together and have lines for reference.

Kevin Martin on Monday, Jul. 6th, 2009 at 10:57 PM
 

Great discussion (I'm late I know...but here's my opinion!):

- Any suspensions should definately carry over

- DP should be re-set to 0 (new season, fresh start , poss new manager or change of heart regarding Hardness tactics?!) but I like Andy B's suggestion of 10 DP = 1, 20 = 3, 30 (& every next 10 after) = 5 match bans - I think that offers a good counter balance for the 'over' use of Hardness.

Dan.

Dan Fitzgerald on Tuesday, Jul. 7th, 2009 at 9:02 AM
 

I'd settle for Andy's proposal if it meant doing away with the crazy DP carry over rule!

- DP should be re-set to 0 (new season, fresh start , poss new manager or change of heart regarding Hardness tactics?!) but I like Andy B's suggestion of 10 DP = 1, 20 = 3, 30 (& every next 10 after) = 5 match bans - I think that offers a good counter balance for the 'over' use of Hardness.

Dave Dowson on Tuesday, Jul. 7th, 2009 at 5:14 PM
 

I'm in Kevin's camp here.  I'm not in favor of ramping up the penalties for multiple DP's in a single season (as proposed by Andy).  That would have an impact on some teams that don't deserve the attention.  After all, the purpose of the rule change is to address the issue of excessive aggression, not "random" aggression.  As for the carryover, yeah, I think it's necessary.  At the start of the season, I was not so sure.  I had a player suspended from the outset this season, and my team had never played an ounce of hardness.  That didn't seem right.  However, after experiencing two seasons of MSWL-U and rarely having a fully healthy roster (largely, but not totally, due to +10 hardness), I'm a little frustrated.  Just as the extra edge guarantees a shot in this league, seemingly excessive hardness guarantees and injury to your opponent.  After facing several sessions in the past two seasons of multiple injuries....yeah, enough's enough.  

Book 'em, Dano.

Phil McIntosh on Saturday, Jul. 11th, 2009 at 6:17 AM
 

Surely that's an argument in favour of ramping up the penalties in the current season, to give someone pause before they lump in another 10 hardness.

After all, the carryover might be on a player that they're going to dump, but who is important during the current campaign.

Maybe if your own hardness increased the chance that your own players would be injiured that might curb the hardness 10 brigade.

Of course, we must be careful not to make hardness 0 the only sensible option.

 

Andy Bate on Saturday, Jul. 11th, 2009 at 7:05 PM
 

Yeah, hardness definitely has its place in the game, but its "hardness as a team policy" or "wreck your opponent's roster" tactic that I take issue with. 

Referring to Andy's argument....if you want to play crazy with one or two or three players with an eye to cutting them loose next season, that's cool.  Surely, though, a manager won't do that with the entire roster.  The overall proposal, though, would seem to have the effect of having everyone curtailing hardness at every level.  I don't think that's the goal here. 

 

Phil McIntosh on Saturday, Jul. 11th, 2009 at 8:49 PM
 
 
 
Terms and Conditions