Les suggested this rule my be past it's sell-by and I'm inclined to agree. What do others think ?

I voted no. I'm if favour of it being changed, not scrapped.

There needs to be some way to stop a manager playing T11, T11, any old crap every three games and that's why the blow-out rule was introduced.

Yes it happens in real life - I think Sheffield United did it in the FA Cup to concentrate on their relegation fight, Liverpool "reserves" against Fulham because of a Champions League game and Man Utd in the League Cup.

But these are one-off games and not every 3rd game, which will happen.

NO!

I feel that the rule plays an important part in the respect that it 'educates' managers not to tank games.

In the past we saw a lot more blowouts occur and the number is much lower now a days. I am sure that the fear of being penalised had a lot in bringing this change about.

Maybe its the culture or the internet or something, but everyone seems to want to tinker with things which IMHO arent broken (or at least not badly enough to warrant wholesale changes).

In this case theres a perfectly good system of appeal for those situations where you feel you didnt deserve the fine.

The (possible) alternative of someone complaining and then retrospectively applying a fine could leave a bad taste in the mouth and be counter productive.

I like the current system.

GMcD.

I think there are two reasons for this.

1. Blowout penalty is now at 6 goals rather than 5
2. More managers change to less attacking formations when thrashing the opposition.

But I like tinkering!

Yes, appeals work OK - if it's granted. But wouldn't it be better to not have the need to appeal?

As I said above we need something to avoid tanking.

In my opinion it would be better to have something that imediately tells you that your team is too weak - and if you lose by 6 goals then tough - rather than have a panel of managers deciding if you made the wrong choice of tactics, played the wrong GK, didn't mark, tried to win a vital game and so hoped that your side against a team you had no chance of winning was strong enough to hold on to 0-5 etc.

We probably got lucky against Saint Mirren (13 shots against, I believe, but playing an SL 40 GK). I have no idea if it was 40% of T11 or whatever as it doesn't matter. I had to play Petruzzi and pray. I'd have rather played Blanchard and use Petruzzi in games I need to win.

Anyway it makes no difference if Al Sellers decides that nothing needs changing.

NO!

[B 7.0] Blowouts
To discourage managers from fielding lineups that are too weak, whenever a club loses by 5 (now 6) or more goals, that club is said to have been "blown out".

Now that's fine, to discourage managers from fielding lineups that are too weak ie. playing NOT their strongest possible line-up (which gives an avenue for resting players on 4/5 EL or less due their increased injury threat). However, this does not include a manager selecting poor tactics.

A recent Blowout appeal was granted, partly due to my own input, but only due to what the rules state. Now if the rule on Blowouts [B 7.0] was to include reckless team tactics, that's a different question.

Personaly I'm not keen on an "Appeals panel" made up of "Experienced" managers.
There's too much room for a, unintentional, clique to form, but the current process which includes all managers who want to take part and have their view-point taken into account should remain.

The SESL Appeals Panel - Appeal a team blowout, dispute a trade, respond to Chairman etc should be encouraged, this is not just appeals about blowouts and so some lighthearted or otherwise appeals should be made...

Anyway, back to the subject matter, when you are getting a good cuffing (by 4 or more), OLMEC adds a Sweeper to your lineup, and his SL increases every time you lose a goal....

Goal Difference............................Adjusted Shot Chance
Winning by 1, 2, or 3 goal ..........ShotChance / 1
Winning by 4 goals......................ShotChance / 5
Winning by 5 goals......................ShotChance / 10
Winning by 6 goals......................ShotChance / 15
Winning by 7 goals......................ShotChance / 20
Winning by 8 goals......................ShotChance / 25

So with the 'CODE' helping you out, irrespective of your opponents tactics, you have to have a pretty good argument in order to appeal your blowout.

One last thing.
Commish has the final say on ALL matters and so irrespective of what is said, discussed or how many managers 'vote' in the appeals panel, Commish decides whether to uphold or deny the appeal.

Just a thought - why not ask every team manager to include a tactic that says they move to Stall if they get a 5 goal lead?
That way nobody should get a 6 goal drubbing....

That should stir things up a little!!!

Actually I'm against this.

I dont think I should have to put in a stall tactic after 4 or 5 goals.

The only time I tend to (and even then only when I remember) is when I'm up against an obviously weaker team - which admittedly for the Bankies isnt that often.

GMcD.

A blowout rule is required of somesort.

Happy to leave it roughly as it is, but with a slight tweak.

Appeals Panel seems to work well too.