English Premier League Last Person Standing 2021/22

[BigHewer]

9 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

I need to refer this for a VAR decision by @BigHewer

VAR pending folks. In the meantime, I’m just watching a highlights reel of all the penalties Neymar has won on one screen with a replay of West Germany vs. Austria at the 1982 World Cup on another. 

Full English breakfast first and then into it.

[Lowseasonlover]

16 minutes ago, BigHewer said:

VAR pending folks. In the meantime, I’m just watching a highlights reel of all the penalties Neymar has won on one screen with a replay of West Germany vs. Austria at the 1982 World Cup on another. 

Full English breakfast first and then into it.

I just watched the Toon Review 

[King Cotton]

15 minutes ago, Lowseasonlover said:

I just watched the Toon Review 

It's okay, @Lowseasonlover . . . you'll soon get over it. I reckon @BigHewer's FEB is as good a way as any !

[BigHewer]

18 hours ago, King Cotton said:

Hi, @JohninDublin. Having just learned that the Liverpool vs Leeds game is postponed, will you please change my LPS choice to Spurs?

 

17 hours ago, Andrew Reeve said:

I now have heard the Liverpool match has now been postponed and would wish to change my selection to West Ham please for week 19.

Thank you

In principle, the rules are that once you make a selection, that selection is final. This is to prevent confusion and ensure consistency. In the event of a postponement, a player receives a point for the selection and progresses to the next game week. A player may not pick that particular team again in the sequence of 20 teams. Sound fair enough? In theory, yes. 

Under Law 14 of the International Football Association Board, a penalty kick is awarded if a player commits a direct free kick offence inside their penalty area. This covers reckless and careless play or excessive force including tripping, striking, pushing and challenging. Sound fair enough? In theory, yes.

We’ve all shouted at the screen over the years and Neymar in particular has not endeared himself to English viewers. Why not? Because he cleverly exploits a loophole in the rules and the result is something many regard as “unfair”. We all know that Neymar is taking the Mickey, but the referee is powerless, and so are we.

IFAB rule changes take years to ratify, with proposals, votes and multiple rounds of amendments. IFAB is a democratic body with strict rules of conduct and governance. Luckily, LPS is not burdened by the vagaries of democracy. It’s a more of an oligarchy influenced by consensus. No good for a country but great for us.

I agree with the one-hour deadline for submission of selections. I also think it’s only fair that a player should have options if a game is postponed:

a) take the point and progress to the next game week.

b) change to a PLAYING team before the one-hour deadline.

Rules are a wonderful thing because they provide security and structure, but why follow a silly one when it doesn’t have to be that way?

My ruling is that @King Cotton’s selection can change to Spurs. @Andrew Reeve’s selection can change to the Hammers. Other affected players may wish to retain their selection or change to another team as per a) and b) above.

Fair?

[BigHewer]

34 minutes ago, Lowseasonlover said:

I just watched the Toon Review 

Even more of an outrage than Neymar’s penalties.

[King Cotton]

5 minutes ago, BigHewer said:

Fair?

Completely, @BigHewer and your approach is commendable.

[Faz]

1 hour ago, BigHewer said:

I agree with the one-hour deadline for submission of selections. I also think it’s only fair that a player should have options if a game is postponed:

a) take the point and progress to the next game week.

b) change to a PLAYING team before the one-hour deadline.

VAR clarification required on a point from an earlier ruling.

 

  

On 12/18/2021 at 5:36 PM, BigHewer said:

VAR decision:

1. Anyone selecting a team playing in a postponed game (e.g. Norwich) shall receive one point. That team is deemed to have been selected and need not be selected again in the sequence of 20 teams.

2. If you select a postponed team (e.g. Norwich), you are still alive in GW19.

3. If all selected teams that play (e.g. Manchester City and Aston Villa) lose or draw, the sequence shall be ended and a new sequence involving all members shall begin in GW 19. 

This earlier ruling suggests if you select a postponed match, (2) you proceed to the following week, BUT, not if all the teams selected that play lose or draw, which then starts a new sequence the following week (3).

Does the later ruling a) take the point and progress to the next game week, overrule the earlier rule in (3) 3. If all selected teams that play (e.g. Manchester City and Aston Villa) lose or draw, the sequence shall be ended and a new sequence involving all members shall begin in GW 19.

Slight contradiction that needs clarification.

 

[BigHewer]

44 minutes ago, Faz said:

Slight contradiction that needs clarification.

The previous ruling on progression is unaffected. My apologies, I should have included that in my post.

3. If all selected teams that play (e.g. Manchester City and Aston Villa) lose or draw, the sequence shall be ended and a new sequence involving all members shall begin in GW 19. 

—-> (with Game Week 18 context removed)

3. If all selected teams that play lose or draw, the sequence shall be ended and a new sequence involving all members shall begin in the following game week.

[JohninDublin]

6 hours ago, BigHewer said:

In principle, the rules are that once you make a selection, that selection is final. This is to prevent confusion and ensure consistency. In the event of a postponement, a player receives a point for the selection and progresses to the next game week. A player may not pick that particular team again in the sequence of 20 teams. Sound fair enough? In theory, yes. 

Under Law 14 of the International Football Association Board, a penalty kick is awarded if a player commits a direct free kick offence inside their penalty area. This covers reckless and careless play or excessive force including tripping, striking, pushing and challenging. Sound fair enough? In theory, yes.

We’ve all shouted at the screen over the years and Neymar in particular has not endeared himself to English viewers. Why not? Because he cleverly exploits a loophole in the rules and the result is something many regard as “unfair”. We all know that Neymar is taking the Mickey, but the referee is powerless, and so are we.

IFAB rule changes take years to ratify, with proposals, votes and multiple rounds of amendments. IFAB is a democratic body with strict rules of conduct and governance. Luckily, LPS is not burdened by the vagaries of democracy. It’s a more of an oligarchy influenced by consensus. No good for a country but great for us.

I agree with the one-hour deadline for submission of selections. I also think it’s only fair that a player should have options if a game is postponed:

a) take the point and progress to the next game week.

b) change to a PLAYING team before the one-hour deadline.

Rules are a wonderful thing because they provide security and structure, but why follow a silly one when it doesn’t have to be that way?

My ruling is that @King Cotton’s selection can change to Spurs. @Andrew Reeve’s selection can change to the Hammers. Other affected players may wish to retain their selection or change to another team as per a) and b) above.

Fair?

I will begin by saying that I will do as directed.

I have not made any input into this decision, but I am uncomfortable with it.

Last week we were denying players the right to change, and this week we reversed ourselves. During the meantime, we have already had several players make a selection. Suppose they are the victim of a postponement and also want to change their picks, but still think we are operating under the no change rule? Therefore they are unlikely to be aware of the rule change and the first time they become aware is when they look at the updated table. How is that fair to them? And during the meantime, a lot of players got rid of having to choose Norwich as a pick last week. My view is that they have been gifted an advantage, and for others to be similarly treated, we need to see another Norwich postponement. 

My own view is that in fairness to everyone, there should be a 7 day notice period for rule changes to take effect so that we are all aware of this before making our choices. Whether they actually read the rule changes is up to them, but at least the info is made available to all before they make a pick.

So having said my piece, my issue is that I don't have a problem with the rule change, other than the way it is being implemented. Once you have considered this, I will do as directed.

Best wishes

[BigHewer]

1 minute ago, JohninDublin said:

Last week we were denying players the right to change, and this week we reversed ourselves. During the meantime, we have already had several players make a selection. Suppose they are the victim of a postponement and also want to change their picks, but still think we are operating under the no change rule?

I will review the changes from last week and get back to you. From memory we had two different types of changes.

a) players changing from postponed teams to PLAYING teams, as per the rule change clarification earlier today.

b) players changing to low-ranking POSTPONED teams for which games had already been postponed.

If the players choosing option b) feel aggrieved by my ruling, I would find that patently absurd, because they are complaining about an unfair loophole being justifiably closed. 

Now, would anyone among us like to speak up for option b) above?  Anyone at all? Let us hear your justification. If not, I would consider the matter decided.

[JohninDublin]

37 minutes ago, BigHewer said:

I will review the changes from last week and get back to you. From memory we had two different types of changes.

a) players changing from postponed teams to PLAYING teams, as per the rule change clarification earlier today.

b) players changing to low-ranking POSTPONED teams for which games had already been postponed.

If the players choosing option b) feel aggrieved by my ruling, I would find that patently absurd, because they are complaining about an unfair loophole being justifiably closed. 

Now, would anyone among us like to speak up for option b) above?  Anyone at all? Let us hear your justification. If not, I would consider the matter decided.

My issue remains that changing the rules with less than 3 days until the next round, means that there will be players who have made their picks who will not be aware of this. It's not the rule change I object to, but the inherent unfairness in changing the rules after some people have made their choice, and may not be aware of the change, while others are. This applies even more so, because there will be those who saw the posts regarding the "no change" rule after the last round who expect that to still be the position, and will not be aware of this until they next visit this thread.

If you don't think that is worth consideration, then I will proceed as directed. Perhaps after this, you might want to consider that any further rule changes should be done with a 7 day notice period.

[Faz]

35 minutes ago, BigHewer said:

I will review the changes from last week and get back to you. From memory we had two different types of changes.

a) players changing from postponed teams to PLAYING teams, as per the rule change clarification earlier today.

b) players changing to low-ranking POSTPONED teams for which games had already been postponed.

If the players choosing option b) feel aggrieved by my ruling, I would find that patently absurd, because they are complaining about an unfair loophole being justifiably closed. 

Now, would anyone among us like to speak up for option b) above?  Anyone at all? Let us hear your justification. If not, I would consider the matter decided.

Not sure exactly what your suggesting BH.

John's only complaint is regarding a)

Quote

players changing from postponed teams to PLAYING teams, as per the rule change clarification earlier today.

feeling their should be a 7 day notice to rule changes, which is fair comment.

Personally, I have no issue if they wish to change to a playing team (and take a risk) or stick with their chosen team (and a guarantee to proceed to the following week, but only receive one point)

Regarding b)

Quote

players changing to low-ranking POSTPONED teams for which games had already been postponed.

You need options available. Take a scenario farther into the game where a player has only 4 teams available for selection and through no fault of their own, all 4 teams have their games postponed (Covid, adverse weather). If they are not permitted to choose a team where the match has already been postponed - what happens to that game. Do they forfeit it?
As it stands they'd get 1 point and proceed to the following week.

Personally, I've chosen a lower rank team due to postponements. An advantage is that I'm almost certainly guaranteed to proceed to the following week (provided everyone else doesn't go out), the disadvantage is I only receive one point, when I had the opportunity to choose differently and perhaps receiving 2 points.
The game can't dictate which team a player chooses in this situation.
 

[BigHewer]

9 minutes ago, JohninDublin said:

My issue remains that changing the rules with less than 3 days until the next round, means that there will be players who have made their picks who will not be aware of this. It's not the rule change I object to, but the inherent unfairness in

If anyone has an issue, post it here and let us all know. I see no sense in protecting or upholding a rule that is objectively unfair. Like I said, if anyone feels aggrieved by the change with "only" three days notice, let them post it here and we'll deal with it. Nobody will post because to do so will mean admitting they like a system with an unfair loophole. But the invitation remains in place. 

I will still get back to you summarizing the changes that have been requested since these postponements started, after which you will see that it is a minor matter.

[BigHewer]

3 minutes ago, Faz said:

You need options available. Take a scenario farther into the game where a player has only 4 teams available for selection and through no fault of their own, all 4 teams have their games postponed (Covid, adverse weather). If they are not permitted to choose a team where the match has already been postponed - what happens to that game. Do they forfeit it?
As it stands they'd get 1 point and proceed to the following week.

Sorry, but that is deliberately muddying waters that are not muddied at the moment. We are not at that point yet and won't be for a month or more.

Do you think it's fair to deliberately pick a low-ranking team when you know full well they're not playing? I don't. It's against the spirit of a fun game.

My role is to keep the game fair and (hopefully) keep it fun. It's not that fun at the moment.

[Marble-eye]

7 minutes ago, BigHewer said:

Sorry, but that is deliberately muddying waters that are not muddied at the moment. We are not at that point yet and won't be for a month or more.

Do you think it's fair to deliberately pick a low-ranking team when you know full well they're not playing? I don't. It's against the spirit of a fun game.

My role is to keep the game fair and (hopefully) keep it fun. It's not that fun at the moment.

I know my timing might not be too great here, but can I change from Man U to Leeds please. 

[Faz]

38 minutes ago, BigHewer said:

Do you think it's fair to deliberately pick a low-ranking team when you know full well they're not playing? I don't. It's against the spirit of a fun game.

Why not, there was nothing in the rules to suggest otherwise and everyone has the same choice.
Spirit of the game or tactics.

We can't keep changing rules for sure, that could advantage some whilst disadvantaging others.
As long as the rules are clear for all, I'll play by the rules.

 

[BigHewer]

56 minutes ago, Marble-eye said:

I know my timing might not be too great here, but can I change from Man U to Leeds please. 

My nomination for post of the year.

[Faz]

1 hour ago, Marble-eye said:

I know my timing might not be too great here, but can I change from Man U to Leeds please. 

19 minutes ago, BigHewer said:

My nomination for post of the year.

Especially when you consider his choice was Man City   

 

On 12/22/2021 at 10:55 PM, Marble-eye said:

Hi John, week 19 could I please choose Man City, thanks.

The festivities have started early for some it seems 

 

[JohninDublin]

1 hour ago, BigHewer said:

Like I said, if anyone feels aggrieved by the change with "only" three days notice, let them post it here and we'll deal with it. Nobody will post because to do so will mean admitting they like a system with an unfair loophole. But the invitation remains in place. 

And I have posted it here, and not because I " like a system with an unfair loophole.". I am posting here because I do not want to see those who are ignorant of the rule change be disadvantaged by it. That's why I think the fairest thing to do is to give seven days notice. 

I'd hoped that my last post would have settled matters one way or the other and I said, I would do as instructed. However your response totally mischaracterises my issue and implies bad faith on my part. As such I am left with no alternative but to respond.

[Marble-eye]

10 minutes ago, Faz said:

Especially when you consider his choice was Man City   

The festivities have started early for some it seems 

Did you take my post as serious Faz, it was aimed at brevity, something that is lacking at the moment on this thread. It seems that we cannot follow the rules that was given to us when this comp first started. It is not a case of changing the rules but more of a case of making it up as we go along. The rules favour no-one at the moment, there is no unfairness, it is the same for us all, so why keep complicating things as we go along is a total mystery to me as one. Why we couldn't have waited until the end of the season and amended any anomalies that some folk may have problems with.

And with that said I no longer wish to participate in this thread. Thanks.

[JohninDublin]

3 hours ago, BigHewer said:

b) players changing to low-ranking POSTPONED teams for which games had already been postponed.

Just to correct this: It didn't happen because no changes were allowed. Whatever selections were originally made, were the selections I entered.

[JohninDublin]

4 minutes ago, Marble-eye said:

Did you take my post as serious Faz, it was aimed at brevity, something that is lacking at the moment on this thread. It seems that we cannot follow the rules that was given to us when this comp first started. It is not a case of changing the rules but more of a case of making it up as we go along. The rules favour no-one at the moment, there is no unfairness, it is the same for us all, so why keep complicating things as we go along is a total mystery to me as one. Why we couldn't have waited until the end of the season and amended any anomalies that some folk may have problems with.

And with that said I no longer wish to participate in this thread. Thanks.

I am sorry to see your final sentence, and hope that we can all take a few minutes to calm down and that you might reconsider. 

This has largely been a fun thread till now. If we can all calm down for a while, I think things may revert to that.

[BigHewer]

10 minutes ago, JohninDublin said:

That's why I think the fairest thing to do is to give seven days notice. 

Fair enough John. Now then, where does that leave @Andrew Reeveand @King Cottonwith their changes? No changes permitted, I presume? 

In that case, I see now my “VAR” role is done. I’ll just carry on as a player for now. 

[Marble-eye]

1 minute ago, JohninDublin said:

I am sorry to see your final sentence, and hope that we can all take a few minutes to calm down and that you might reconsider. 

This has largely been a fun thread till now. If we can all calm down for a while, I think things may revert to that.

Thanks for those kind words John, but it is a case of "Too many cooks"

Merry Christmas to all.

[Faz]

43 minutes ago, Marble-eye said:

Did you take my post as serious Faz, it was aimed at brevity, something that is lacking at the moment on this thread.

I think you misinterpreted my intent.

Requesting to change from Man U to Leeds, when you'd actually chosen Man C, was absolutely brilliant.
Not just post of the year, but best joke of the year.