That is more occurences than 12 men on the pitch and we are debating that?

I change my mind (no, I am not a girl !)

The occurance of a blowout is no longer low, so we are correct to be debating this!
Well said Raith.

6 goals of a difference for blowout should be considered if there is a groundswell of opinions in favour of this.
Anyone else?

If the occurance of a blowout is no longer low, perhaps the penalties associated with a blowout are too light?

Or People can justify why they should not suffer from the Blow out
and the punishment is not being handed out ?

I feel that the penalty for a blow out is high enough. The loss of a couple of CPs can be quite hurtful.

What I don't like is the fact that people are asking not to recieve the penalty.

In extreme cases - such as a rookie manager or a veteran manager taking over a club which is near destitution - it is reasonable to show leniency.

But not on regular cases, even if the team losing by 5 goals played their T11 there should be a penalty. You got to take the good with the bad. After all everybody is pleased about bonuses, so what's wrong with fines? they are two sides of the same coin.

The penalty was brought in (it's automatically done by the code) to prevent managers deliberately fielding a weak team, not to punish managers that are unlucky.

...bear in mind also that the code is written so that as your lead increases, your chances of getting another goal actually decrease.

But the chances of SET piece goals are not reduced. The blowout rule predates SET which adds, if I remember correctly 0.5 goals per game. 4-0 defeats can now easily become 5-0 defeats.

Having noticed STJ lose 6-0 to RAN and 4-0 to INV last session,
I am sure Yoav will not be appealing for blowout refunded!

Majority of players for STJ were under 10 SL, and had the INV GK not been sent off after only 9 minutes, the ten men of INV may well have blowout of STJ again.

I would like to read Yoav's opinions on his lineups and if, per the rules, they "were in the spirit of the game."
It appears no effort was made to win either of these games?

Naturally, I shall not dream of making such an appeal.

Some times I get a blow out playing my T11, sometimes when I play a weaker side, it's all part of the game, so I take the good with the bad.

Fighting to avoid relegation as well as attempting to succeed on the cup put a lot of strain on my roster, and hosting Hearts at McDiarmid Park was the most crucial game of the entire season, so every bit of effort had to be and indeed was thrown into that match, there simply wasn't any alternative this session.

I believe that my club has been playing attractive and competitive football even despite having the worst roster on the division and scoring 61 goals as well as having John Robertson taking the lead on the golden boot list for many sessions goes to show my point.

Or will he appeal after my GRE team blow him out this weekend coming!

Careful Killie! Anyone can change their mind. Again and again!

This is an old discussion thread and Blowout rule updated to 6 goal of a difference now.

6 goals of a difference for blowout seems perfect now. And with the APPEALS PANEL as a further option, there seems no need for further change.

I again suggest looking instead to a percentage of T11 or T17 SL as the criteria for punishment. If a team doesn't field a certain percentage of T11 or T17 SL is deemed to be fielding a weakened team and in breach of the rules.

However, if the weakened team still gets a result, then why should they be punished.
You only have to look at the weakened sides put out in the cup competitions in RL.

The power of the forum!
Garner talks of an idea way back in JUNE, and now last month it has been implemented in to the game -
REMARKABLE!

With the new 50% rule now invoked and shot chances already reduced, should the penalty of a blow-out be increased?

I think so... for as long as there are managers out there willing to risk the opponents stalling at 5-0 after 10 minutes, there needs to be a deterrent.

Goal difference at the end of the season has been shown to be important, so even if you know your opponents are weak/poor/under-the-weather you should NOT feel any guilt at their blowout penalty being enforced.

120k is not enough, you should be able to field a team that does not bring this fine game into disrepute . We have all seen matches this season where a Blowout has been avoided, simply by the losing team at least trying.

The 50% was brought in to defend teams who at least try, if you get blowout's now, then you are not trying.

Maybe a sliding scale of -120k for 6-0 and -100k per goal thereafter so 8-0 would cost -320k may do the trick, or TPs then CPs at 100k each intervals if the cash is not there.

What do you think of teams openly 'not trying' in a match?