I THINK THIS WHOLE SUBBING IN FOR AN ABSENT PLAYER IS BULL****. IF YOUR PLAYER CAN'T MAKE IT THAT NIGHT, TOUGH ****. DEAL WITH IT. YOU SHOULD HAVE TO PLAY WITH FIVE PLAYERS, AND IF AND ONLY IF, A PLAYER FOULS OUT, YOU'RE ALLOWED A SIXTH PLAYER TO COME IN THE GAME. NOT A STAR, A MEDIOCRE PLAYER, JUST TO FILL IN AS A 5TH GUY ON THE COURT. YOUR TEAM SHOULD NOT BENEFIT FROM A PLAYER BEING ABSENT. YOUR TEAM SHOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE LOSS FOR THAT GAME. THE CAPTAINS DRAFTED THE PLAYERS AND THEY KNOW WHETHER THAT PLAYER IS RELIABLE OR NOT. I KNOW WE ALL HAVE LIVES OUTSIDE OF CAL, AND IMPORTANT THINGS COME UP. I'M NOT KNOCKING PEOPLE FOR MISSING GAMES, BUT IF A PLAYER CAN'T MAKE IT TO A GAME, IT'S HIS TEAM'S LOSS. I THINK THE COMMITTEE NEEDS TO ADDRESS THIS. DO YOU GUYS AGREE/DISAGREE?
You know what Ray, I hate to admit it, but you are 100% right... I know what we do in the Chaldean Football League is all the captains draft a reserve who is their 11th man, and in case somebody cannot make it that person tells his captain in advance, captain calls his reserve, and thats that... I think we have the flexibility to do that, b/c as you guys have said time and time again, there are a ton of guys trying to get into the league, I see this as a good way of making them earn their way in, they fill in as a reserve for a session or two, and then when the openings are available, they have priority on those openings, I cant imagine there will be many guys who will not want to play a game here and there in place of somebody, I know when somebody calls me to ball on occasion I always take advantage
I disagree Ray, how can u say a team benefits from an absent player, I think its the hardest thing to replace an absent player, especially if he (or in your case she) is one of the top players. The team's opposing captain has to choose the player to replace your absent teammate, and that captain will NEVER choose anyone better then u already have. He will always choose an individual w/ equal or lesser talent, so in that sense the team is hurting right there. I don’t like it when we have to find subs, but its part of the game and it’s the fairest way. Joe I would never want to bring someone in the league to replace a player I have, first the person probably wont know any of the teammates so there is no chemistry, second, if for instance my case Fadi went down, my first option would want to bring in Zane, (Tameem’s brother), who is suppose to be just flat out sick, then the opposing team is gonna have a problem w/ that, but they wont know that until we start to play, then that is gonna start a bigger problem. Fadi, I would LOVE to have you replace Fadi E. (Didn’t I just say that?). Anyway if you guys have any other option’s let the captains know.
I agree with Ray 100% but I also agree with the problem Samer addressed if we go the route of Joey K's.
Why doesn't anyone man up and be like Nolan. If I remeber correctly. When I was going to miss the last game, Joey K. was goin gto sub for me BUT NOLAN told him that it would only be to give someone a breather because he wanted to win with his own squad. That's what you call being a man John B.
Listen guys, again you guys always seem to overlook important things when drafting. When you draft, you are not only drafting an individual that is a good player, a good shooter, etc. You are drafting someone that will put your team in position to win night in and night out. Everyone knows who can't make it at certain times due to school and or work. When Chauncey went down with a sprained ankle against Nwe Jersey, were the Pistions allowed to pick up another guard? NOPE...
Here in lies another problem. Last week when Nick missed the game but Jalal filled in and ran point all game long and they won, down the road, that win might make the differnece between who gets in the playoffs and who doesn't because I can almost promise you that if Jalal wasn't running point and getting the ball to the wings which motivated the rest of the players, they probably would not have won that game. If he was only a fill in for breathers, what would of the outcome have been?
We've talked about this from day one...the best solution I could come up with is having 7 guys per team, but the problem with that is (God willing we all stay healthy and active) that every guy that already gets a lot of PT doesn't want to sit out, and the sixth guy doesn't get enough playing as it is...so as logical an idea it is to have a 7th guy for the God forbid injuries or everyday unexpected occurances, we leave it at 6 so that the guys that are here can utilize the PT.
I DID SUGGEST IT, I SUGGEST THAT TEAM HAS TO PLAY WITH FIVE PLAYERS. IF SOMEONE FOULS OUT, WE HAVE A SUB, SO THAT SUB IS ONLY IN FOR MAYBE 5 MINUTES, IF THAT, AND THAT SUB DOES NOT GET TOO TIRED TO PLAY THEIR OWN GAME, AND THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME ISN'T DECIDED BY SOMEONE WHO IS NOT ON EITHER TEAM
Ray, I love the shirt you got me, I'm wearing it right now at work, my manager was asking me if I found a new job or something. I went from dressing nice everyday for work to a Low-Price-Auto-Glass shirt. Any way's I still dont agree w/ the sub thing, but thats just me.
Ray, I see what you mean, but there's no consistency in your suggestion of letting someone sub for 5 minutes...I do agree that a team should play if they have only five players and no sub, but also note that any team is allowed to continue with four players (it's actually happened before, when 2 of the 6 guys were fouled out toward the end of the game). The game is only forfeited when the fourth player is fouled out, leaving a 3 on 5 situation. Regardless, the way I see it is that we have three options to choose from:
1.) Leave it the way it is...a player is missing and the opposing captain has to agree to the substitution. (most convenient way for the captain who is short a player)
2.) No subs, play straight up (most clear cut/least controversial way)
3.) Implement a 7th player to each team (reduces total playing time per player/but less headache regarding filling in the missing spot)
Take a poll if you guys want...maybe it will influence the committee's decision for next session
I agree with Ray. I think that if a team is short handed but still has 5 players to play, that's who should play. The reason I agree with it so much is because a teams odds should not drop considerably if one player does not show. If the odds drop that bad, hey, that's the reason for teh draft and that team should have words with their captain for surrounding them with a one man team. Again, last week if Nick was here, his team probably would not have won and for those that are going to be fighting for a playoff spot, that isn't right.
Elton, you have been spitting a lot out about team work, unity, playing as team, etc. A team is team.. Even if it's playoff time, you should finish with the team you start with.
1) I dont understand what the problem is with my suggestion of having each team draft a 7th person as a reserve to have "on call" for games somebody misses"... Samer said it would not be good for team chemistry, but when Jalal or whoever fills in for Fadi it is???
2) The next best solution is Ray's idea, b/c they way I look at it is if a guy can't make it and his team is going to lose on account of that, then so be it, they deserve to lose... No offense to Fadi, but he is doing residency or he is a Dr. already, I am not sure, but the point is, he probably knew he wasn't going to make it to a few games, how fair is that to his team or the rest of the league that they get to replace him with a player who meets there needs every game??? Again, no offense Fadi I am just using you as an example, but for the sake of his team he should have been responsible enough to either 1) not play this session or 2) made a commitment and stuck to it by playing each week
In essence, I am saying that if a guy can't make it, they should be punished and not receive special treatment or help from the league. Whether it be a 7th guy who is a reserve that is not as good as who he fills in for or whether they play shorthanded, it is their own fault a person is missing not the rest of the league's
If we could find 6 players who are willing to only play in the league when they are called upon, I agree with Joe K. But it looks like it would be difficult.
Joe, the main issue about the 7th guy, who would want to do that? I think it will be annoying, there will be no team chemistry, b/c my teammates wont even know the dude, and using a player in the league will bring more chemistry b/c at least they have seen him play and know what the person can bring to the table. Your right the team is losing out when a player doesn't show up, but things happen in life where u can’t make it to every game. For instance w/ Derek last season, he knew he wasn’t going to make it for a week b/c of his Honeymoon, were we suppose to drop him out of the league for that session just b/c of a game, of course not. All I'm saying is that the sub thing isn’t really a big deal, were not taking the best player of the league to replace another player, that was a joke, that would never happen. But seriously guys I love how you guys tell us what is wrong w/ the league, everything always needs improvement, nothing is set in stone that can’t be changed. Beer time...literally we have beer at work today…
Tony, I'm not sure if you're actually reading my posts or you just like to say you disagree with me...but anyway, if you read the second sentence of my last post that starts with "I do agree" it's says I rather they play with 5 players and no sub. Predicting that you'd probably come back "well why didn't you implement that philosophy last session and not pick up J" that's b/c if other teams are using the free sub, why should I do it differently for my team. That is until we decide whether or not to change the rules on that as a committee. The only thing I can say that I didn't go by the book with last session was not going by the list when I picked up J...but I rather bring my cousin in than a stranger, it worked out that he asked me if there were any openings, at the time I said no, but when I had to sit out, I wanted to give him the opportunity to play rather than wait until the next session. Is that bad? I don't think it is, others may disagree, but I think he gets along well with everyone and is a good addition to the league. Hopefully that clears things up as to how J came in.
Samer, as far as not knowing what a player brings to the table, nobody knows what anybody brings to the table until they play... Like when I joined last session nobody knew what I brought except like nick and Keith and couple others, but it only took about two games to see...
Second, it is just my point, that if a player misses a game, whether it be a honeymoon or being on call at the hospital, his team is going to suffer b/c of it and should deal with the consequences with the other five players
Any way's I still dont agree w/ the sub thing, but thats just me.
...but anyway, if you read the second sentence of my last post that starts with "I do agree" it's says I rather they play with 5 players and no sub. Predicting that you'd probably come back "well why didn't you implement that philosophy last session and not pick up J" that's b/c if other teams are using the free sub, why should I do it differently for my team. That is until we decide whether or not to change the rules on that as a committee. The only thing I can say that I didn't go by the book with last session was not going by the list when I picked up J...but I rather bring my cousin in than a stranger, it worked out that he asked me if there were any openings, at the time I said no, but when I had to sit out, I wanted to give him the opportunity to play rather than wait until the next session. Is that bad? I don't think it is, others may disagree, but I think he gets along well with everyone and is a good addition to the league. Hopefully that clears things up as to how J came in.
