As this rule has only been used once or twice I think, and we have played half a season,
could a player be on -10 or worse EL rating for it to be effective in future?

-17 EL seems prohibitive to virtually all players.

Is this a possible rule change to consider for next season?

I guess the -17EL figure wasn't entirely random, and was chosen deliberately.
I assume the idea works something like this.
Use the physio boost on a -17EL player brings them back up to -1 for the start of the next session, so they've only missed two matches.
You can't play them in the first match of the session, seeing as they are on -1 EL, but they could play 45mins of the second match of the session, as they would be on 3EL by this point.
So, even using the physio boost has still meant they missed 3 matches, or 3 1/2 really.
To get them back to full fitness, ie 10EL would still take another session, so they'd have missed 5 matches in total.
Should the -17EL value be raised a little then? Surely you would hope that using the physio would get your players back to full fitness faster than 5 matches.
How about letting you use the physio at -12 or less?

I have now re-read this entire topic and would like to surmise...

I can't quote everybody, as every single post has been excellent! (GM scarf! love it!)

The -17 is too harsh and to change this to -12 would bring in the middle ground from that ridiculous 'magic sponge'.

Agreed, the -17 is too harsh.

Why not any negative EL? There is a cost of resources, so why have it -17 only?

You get +8 free anyway in a 2 match session.

I suspect the idea is to have it such that only badly injured players get to use the physio.
A player on -1 EL hardly needs the boost because, as you correctly point out, they get a +8EL boost anyway, bringing them back to 7EL. They've only missed two matches.
Not much of a penalty if you consider that every player generally misses 1 match every few games through squad rotation.
A player who is actually badly injured, ie -12 or less, is going to miss a significant number of games and so the manager has a real decision to make.

My point in earlier forum past a few months ago was,
if we have a feature in SESL that no one seems to be using, then if its to be kept should we not make it more attactive/useful ?

Idea is the help the clubs who maybe take a risk with a player and he gets real badly injured. Player would need to sit out 2 matches anyway while injured, but maybe a more accellerated EL restore may encourage a few managers to push their players a little more, occassionally.

Games could be more exciting and interesting,
rather than being able to predict the 'rest player' matches.

My final thought on this , is that we should reduce the QUALIFICATION to minus 8 (-8).

If a player is on -8 he misses (under normal situation) the next 2 games at least , and probably the 3rd as he will be on 0.

If the player could have an 8 boost in a Session , then he would only miss 1 session and then be ready to start on 8.

Costs should stay the same.

Robin

Final , Final , comment , to those who don't think we should have it .

It is in place as an option to help a club out of a problem. - not really as an tool to keep the "BIG" SL players on the pitch - hence the negative QUALIFICATION.

If you are going into the last few games of the season ,facing RElegation and one of your best players gets injured you may be doomed , but this facility could be a lifeline.

The other senario is , early in the season you get a "BIG" player end up on say -36 , it means he will miss a substantial amount of games and possibly ruin your whole season.

It is there to help - not a cheat facility.

I posted an answer to Commish's Season 20 rule amendments. An edited version follows:

It's rare that you'll be able to use Physio Boost in the first place at -17.

If the game is the second league game or a cup game then you can only start the next session on -17 (or worse) in these cases.

1. 2% chance of a random 20 EL injury when your player was at -1 or lower. -1 then -20 then +4 at the end of the session = -17. And as it's random there's only a 1 in 22 chance this player will pick up the injury.

2. 10% chance of a -32 or -96 EL exhaustion induced injury (negative EL)

3. 15% chance of a -16 EL injury when on -5 or worse at the time. -5 -16 + 4 = -17.

If it's the first league game of a pair then there's no chance of a random injury causing a player to be on -17 as he'll pick up 8 EL after the two games.

The -16 injury while at -7 would leave the player on -15.

So there's just that 10% chance of the -32 or -96 being the reason for using the Physio boost.

I think Robin's idea of -8 is a much better option - if you want to keep this rule.

Agreed, I think Robin's idea of -8 is a much better option.

Little point having a feature that was only used once or twice a season, so a change to -8 as threshold opens this up to others, as an option.

This is a good iniative, and a rule worth keeping incase a manager is dealt a tough roll of the dice and suffers several injuries around same time.

Plus, it may stop QOS constantly moaning about random injuries
if there is a Physio Boost 'get out' !

I am in the obvious minority here, but I would do away with this rule altogether. The rule is there to help a club out of a problem? Why is the club having a problem in the first place? Either the team randomly received an injury, or earned the injury via hard play or low EL. If the injury was earned, then it was earned with a benefit of extra SL on the pitch, and it was earned with an associated risk that the manager knew about when the tactic was used. If the injury was random, then we have to accept that random injuries are a part of the game...in real life and otherwise. The random injuries are there for realism...not to create a problem that the league must somehow find a remedy for. It's part of the game. If there's a problem that needs to be solved, skip the physio boost and just get rid of the injuries. Then managers won't have these problems to deal with.

Okay, that last part was sarcasm, so don't anyone start quoting me with that proposal. The injuries are a part of the game...a realistic part. The physio sponge is a magic remedy that has no basis in real life. Get rid of it.

I've always been on the fence about this rule. However it's better than the previous magic sponge rule.

Quote "The injuries are a part of the game...a realistic part. The physio sponge is a magic remedy that has no basis in real life. Get rid of it."

I would agree with you Phil if this was back in the 70's.

Today it is realistic , players get serious injuries and are jetted off around the world to specialists (even USA) to get keyhole surgery etc and recovery time has now been greatly reduced.

Compared with years ago modern physio etc are getting players back on the pitch much sooner than expected.

I respect your opinion . but it is a real part of the game now.

Robin

I think Robin's idea of -8 is a much better option,
agreed.

I am going to go with -8 for season 20, and review at end of season 20.

The Physio Boost is given AFTER matches played, so injured player of -8 or worse is going to have to sit out 2 matches minimum anyway.

thanks for the few who offered feedback on this forum thread

Mark
Commish

This rule was again largely overlooked in Season 20.

A manager had hoped to use it in the play offs in June08, but misunderstood the rule that an injured player still had to sit out some matches (magic sponge rule scrapped a few seasons ago when he last played in sesl, was the confusion.)

Will again go with -8 as the qualifying EL to invoke the +8 Physio Boost for season 21.