Current rule regarding no-shows:

Anyone failing to enter in any week will forfeit their match.
Their opponent will be awarded a 1-0 victory by default. However, if they manage a Nett positive score themselves, this will be added to calculate their final score. Eg. Awarded a 1-0 win, and their selections score +2, they will actually win 3-0


Managers who fail to enter or enter an invalid set of selections will remain in the competition and may enter as normal in subsequent weeks.

Anyone missing more than two weeks in any one season will need to reapply to join the following season

IMO this rule works because:
It penalises the offender
Their opponent can still gain an advantage by using bonuses ie. Improved goal difference
It doesn't make extra work for me!
Future opponents need to make proper selections in case the no-show returns that week

There is a problem when a no-show plays another no-show. This happened a week or two back and I simply awarded a loss and no points to both players. This requires a degree of manual input on my part, but luckily doesn't happen very often.


We have had many different rules for no shows:

1. Keep previous week's selection
This was a good rule, as values change each week there was a good chance of going over budget, thus penilising the player further for the no-show. There was also a chance that the no-show could still win in the week he didn't enter.
This rule made it easy for opponents of a repeat 'no-shower' to predict the line-up they would be up against.

2. No-shows to be given a line-up comprising the lowest value defence and five lowest valued, valid strikers. With this rule, the no-show would almost inevitably lose but once again, in subsequent weeks, his opponents could easily predict his line-up.

3. No-shows given a randomly selected line-up. I liked this version of the rule as it kept the no-show's selections under wraps from future opponents. It wasn't really random however, and with a little work people could figure out what the line-up would be. It couldn't be random as that would make it unfair in some weeks when it might be stronger than in others. This rule was also the most extra work for me!

4. Someone else makes selections for the no-show, could be me or a player from the waiting list. This rule keeps the no-show's fixture 'live' but doesn't punish him for not entering (unless you count having selections made by me as punishment...). There isn't always someone on the waiting list to step in either - often not, in fact.


I try to make it easy for players to avoid no-shows. Lists can be made available earlier than usual, selections can be made by me or another surrogate if known about in advance, entries can be made by PM, email, Facebook message, text message etc...

Remember, no-shows are not that common. Anyone can forget to enter one week, there are more important things in life than FISODAS! Under these circumstances, I don't think players should be penalised any more than losing their match that week. Their opponent won't know they're up against a no-show, so will make their selections without the advantage of knowing they are going to win anyway.
It's when players repeatedly fail to enter that it becomes a problem. This season is an exception remember - we don't often get the situation we have now when several people drop out at once. If anyone can come up with an easily worked rule, that deals fairly with those who offend and re offend, I will be eternally grateful!


Please add any suggestions to this thread.

I like the idea of rule 1, sticking with 2 or more no shows then having to reapply for next season, but then I'm sure if I or anyone else is up against a no show and they luckily win the fixture with their selections from last week the player up against them who does turn up is gonna be fumng that someone that doesnt make selections can still be allowed to win the match

maybe rule 1 but if the no show luckily wins the match its deemed a draw to the opponent (no show still 0 points whether they win or not and if the other player loses or draws they get 1 point)?

I think its a hard rule to sort. Granted I agree to some extent the player that doesn't turn up should lose the game, but why does the player that does turn up automatically win?

I feel bad as I have only raised this when it does/could affect my promotion and could have raised it earlier when I've seen it happen but I feel like a premiership manager thats fighting relegation at the end of a season and then sees a direct opponent also fighting relegation playing a top table team that doesn't need the points rest their star players and in essence handing the direct opponents a great chance of gaining 3 valuable points.

Someone help me as this rant has proved how addicted I have become to Fisodas!

Don't feel bad Chuck - it's great you're thinking about it!

This game belongs to everyone who plays it, so it's only right you have a hand in it's future.



I like the idea that a no show loses by default, but his opponent doesn't necessarily win.

Perhaps, rather than a default win, it's a default 'One point to the shower, no points to the no-shower'? The player who does turn up has to get a positive score in order to win the match.

That might have some legs, and won't be hard for me to implement.

I think that sounds like a reasonable idea. But perhaps the defaulting team should be given a score of -1 and the playing team has to better that to win the match, as in many weeks a "net" score of zero (e.g. defence doesn't concede but no strikers score) isn't that bad and will win a fair few matches.

In terms of repeated no-shows, I would suggest a first one is not penalised other than by the loss of the game, a second one means they will have to re-apply and drop to the Conference the following season, and a third one means all their results are cancelled and the division becomes one of 9 teams, rather like a club going out of business during a season - that would perhaps be fairest to everyone.

Didn't read the dates at the start of this thread, and wondered why you were harking back to season 7 - and why I missed a match against CP.

Personally I would like to see the person who has failed to enter lose a bonus if the person playing against them uses one. But I like the one point rule you mentioned above.

I think that does have some legs and is a bit fairer. Very difficult situation though.
Certainly the no shower shouldn't get anything, but the auto win for the other is a bit of a problem.
But building on the suggestion and on something that has become more popular this season - the guest predictor - why not have a 'guest chooser' too. Nothing extra needs to be done as it could be a rota and the person who's turn it is that week has the team they have chosen as the team to use for all no shows. The no show definately loses, but their opponent could be beaten or get a draw against the guest predictor (without any bonuses of course). Or Jester you could pull a random name from all those who have entered that week to use for all no shows.
This might need a bit more thought but it means everyone entering that week gets a game and surely as its a bit of fun really, thats what its all about.

Thinking on my feet a bit, but with the idea I've just posted, no shows should be chucked out after two weeks (and need to re-apply) but there's no need to reduce the division size or delete any previous results as everyopne would get a game every week!!

I agree whole heartedly with Keithys idea

A no show gets 0 points

Someone does 2 no shows he/she has to reapply for the following season

3 or more no shows in a 9 game period then they are chucked out for the rest of the season and the following season

A random player from any random division picked by Jester has their team replicated that week to fit in for any no shows

The team up against the replicated team gets 1 point even if they lose the match, 1 point if they draw the match and of course 3 points if they win

If that person uses a bonus then it counts but can also be used again?

Perhaps one of the existing bonuses could be replaced by a new one?

As for no-shows, what about using the same set of players (even if it broke the selection rules) from the team that had suffered the biggest defeat the weekend before? They will probably be rubbish, but might turn it around.

To me the unfair thing about a no-show half way through is the people that lost to them at the start of the season are at a disadvantage to those that know they are about to face the same player later in the season. Do we put that right? or is it a fact of life?

I think there are only two options if you want to do something about it.

1. make all previous and subsequent games a standard 2-0 win (boring, admin-tastic and contentious! "I would have had immunity if .. blah blah."
2. put in a scratch\random team on their behalf so subsequent opponents cant assume too great an advantage.

I think we all agree option 2 would be the most pragmatic (if not perfect) option.

So jsut 1 question
A no-show vs no-show would be a draw?, as they would have identical teams. they would get a point and no negative goal difference? No objection to that personally... just asking

No-show v no-show is a void match with neither scoring any points, I think. Doesn't impact on anyone else so no need to award them a point really.

I like some of the ideas and see mileage in forestfans idea.
Why not start all no shows on -1 goal so the showing team needs to ensure they keep a clean sheet to win.
The noshow should also have 1 point deducted as a further punishment and get no points from the game.

If both teams are non-showers then they both lose 1 point.

I have split the original thread so this one only includes recent discussion.

So far, my favourite suggestion is for no-shows to be given a 'randomly chosen' set of selections.

This would comprise lower than average ranked defence and strikers, but not THE lowest. It would therefore be most likely to lose, but would have a chance of pulling off a shock.
The no-show would not win the game however. He would always get zero points in that week, his opponent however, would not get a 'walkover'.

If a player misses more than two weeks, he would need to re-apply for the following season. He could however, make selections again later in the same season as his no-shows. This would give him the chance to demonstrate that he's back and willing to play, and would give his opponents a 'real' game.

(I have adapted this from other suggestions, with a little bit of poetic license thrown in - before anyone goes looking for who actually suggested it!!)

See you've changed your mind a bit Jester (which is of course allowed ).
But its a nice simple solution you've got to there Jester and of course it means everyone who takes the trouble to play can enjoy a full and proper season which is really what its all about
- I like it, although I might be a bit biased IMO
And no more bonuses please - it aint broken, the item on this thread was the only problem

Agree with what has been said on another thread, if it ain't broke.......

However how about minus 1 goal if your player gets sent off??? or minus 1 goal if any member of your defence team gets sent off?????

For season 13, the following rule will be used regarding no-shows:

The player concerned will score zero points in any week he no-shows.

His opponent's score will be determined thus:

The no-show will retain the selections made in the previous week.

If it means he goes over budget, this will be dealt with using the existing rules concerning overspending. If he ends up with less than three valid strikers he will be allocated substitutes from the current week's player list - these will be the lowest value players that give him a valid line-up.

His captain will not score double points.

His opponent can still win, draw or even lose the match. (If he loses, both players 'lose')

If a player misses more than two weeks in a season he will be expelled from the game at the end of the season and need to reapply to join the Conference in the following season. He may return and enter selections later in the season in which he no-shows.

The no-show will lose bonuses (if any remain) as follows:
First week missed - bonuses unaffected
Second and each successive week missed - one bonus is lost in the order: SOF, DS, CB



I will of course provide whatever help I can to ensure no-one misses a week.
I can be contacted by PM, email, Facebook or text message! It is in you interests therefore that I have your contact details.
Players can also have someone (myself included) enter for them.

What happens if their defence is not listed/doesn't have a game?

It will be treated in the same way as a postponed/abandoned game ie. the 'selected' defence will score minus one point.

I'm going to chuck something else into the mixer here.


How about scrapping goal difference for the tables and replace it with goals scored?

Eg. Player A wins a tie 5 V 0. The score was actually Player 3 v -2 Player B. So instead of a +5 goal difference the "goals for" for Player A would be +3.

Surely this would be a better reflection on a player's season long performance as opposed to goal difference???

I hear what you're saying and will be interested in what others think.

Personally I would ask what's the point in playing matches in that case? Everyone could just send in their selections and the best after nine weeks would win.
I think the standard of opposition should be counted in the result. Liverpool beat Villa 4-0 the other week, but in F'DAS that would be more like Pool 2 Villa -2 as they played so poorly!
I don't know if everyone plays the same, but I'm aware that there are players who save certain bonuses for when they are playing a particular opponent. Therefore they 'play better' against those opponents - my point being that the goals against figure needs to be counted to give the fairest possible results across a season.

Like I said, I'm interested to hear what others think?

The point I was trying make (poorly!) was the number of goals a player scores throughout a season is a better measure of a player's skill rather than the luck aspect of goal difference.




Not sure there fella. Points are awarded for the result after all. Everyone has the some boni and therefore everyone has the same opportunity to score goals for their own selection regardless of their opposition.

Most of the new rules seem to be working well this season, but one thing that has shown up now is that if someone misses a second week, but has no bonuses left, they don't really lose out as others might. Also the chucking out for re-election to the conference if they miss more than two weeks probably means they wont play for the rest of that season and their opponents nearer the end of the season have less chance of getting a 'real' game...
...so how about points deductions instead.?
Rather than lose just bonuses how about:-
miss one week and as now you're on a warning.
Miss two and you lose a bonus and a point.
Miss three and you lose another bonus and two more points (if no bonus to lose you lose a third point)
Miss four and you lose three more points (and a fourth if no bonus to lose)
After four misses, that would potentially then mean all bonuses are lost even if the person had them all to lose and so, miss five and thats more than half the season, so clearly the person is not interested or thoughtful about the game and they must then go for re-election, to see if they become interested again.
This means if people miss more than two games they might still come back and play again that season to try and stay in the division, but its more doubtful they will stay in (and will therefore face a simple relegation) with the more they miss. It does though mean others nearer the end of the season might still get a game against someone who has not always turned up but comes back.
It also means that unless people really stop playing and miss more than half the season, you dont need to re-adjust the leagues to count for that, as the league tables and relegations based on points gained (or lost) stand (although a missing games player might be on minus points!.

I like the idea of three strikes and you're out but as I don't value my bonuses too much I think a "financial penalty" would be more suitable. Unlike in real like if you hit a team with a £2m-£5m penalty that'll more fairly affect their point scoring potential than a lack of bonus.

You are right about the detrimental effects that chucking someone out has on their remaining games but hopefully we won't get to that stage too often.

The current rule for no shows.

Seriously, if the current rule has been the most discussed part of the game over a number of years how the hell did you end up with the rule as it is!





Its totally unfair that if someone doesn't turn up his opponent faces a team that has no captain and possibly missing players depending of previous weeks fixtures/selections?

If a rival in my league plays a no show it makes me

Just as bad is when you use one of your bonuses and your oppo doesn't show up

Everyone expects to have to beat a team selected by someone who makes selections based on that weeks games, they will have 5 strikers from that weeks list and one of them will be a captain.

If your oppo doesn't show why not just pick a team selected by someone in a different division? I like the idea of the person in the same position in the league below (or above for the bottom league) but you'd have to put something in the rules in case the 'new' oppo has used a bonus - as that would be unfair. Maybe just keeping moving down the league until the first team with no bonus used?

Going back to real-life football, if your opposition doesn't turn up you will be awarded the points. OK it's very rare at professional level, but the league wouldn't go to any effort to create an artificial opponent. It's just the luck of the draw.

Is a team which no-shows twice in a season still forced to reapply and drop to the Conference if they want to continue playing the next season? I think that was a fair rule and I'd certainly be in favour of any player who does it three times in a season having all their results cancelled as with Chester City this season, and the division simply remains at 9 teams for the rest of the season.

Of course, we could reduce the probability of it happening by allowing early entries to be changed so people don't have to remember to do their team on Friday once the team news is available...

Allowing people to change lineups would make it a nightmare for Barry

Yeah I know, all three organisers have said that on many occasions! But it's such a disadvantage to enter before Friday (as for example I'm sure anyone who picked Defoe early this week will realise) that the no-show issue is an unavoidable consequence of this.

I've suggested a once-per-season "team change" bonus, that would perhaps encourage people to enter early if they haven't used it yet, rather than risk forgetting on the Friday?

I try to avoid entering early because of this. This does make it a gamble on Fridays however.
I tend to come home, someting to eat, crack open a bottle of red and start on my team. As I'm currently working in South Africa it means a gamble as simple things like a power supply or working internet are far from certain (and I did miss a week last season because of this).
Regardless I would rather not have changeable line ups

Ideas could involve you all having a "default" line up - based on prices, stated before the start of the season ie

10th defence
5th Striker
15th Striker
20th Striker
30th Striker
40th Striker

if this didn't add up I would probalby reduce your most expensive player first etc. No show's would still lose the game though.



not necessarily.....

Cheryl suggested a good idea on a thread (I'll hunt it out and edit it in) but basically it involved you all (if you wanted) to draft a team, send it to me but title it as "draft", therefore allowing you to get in early just in case, but still allow to enter a team last minute.

other thoughts I've had are

Just allowing everyone a one player change every week - i.e. you put your team in early and if you discover on Friday that, for example, Defoe is out you could pm/email me - "defoe to carew" etc to save me more work it would be limited to one change only

rewarding early team entries - extra ££'s before Wednesday?

changing the deadline completely - Thursday for all teams but allow a one player tweak on Friday, and no shows can enter on Friday but be penalised (no captain bonus, start off with -1 etc)

changing the deadlines relating to Leagues

Conf / league 2 - Wednesday
League 1 / champ - Thursday
Prem - Friday

A few things for you to think about....
every idea there has it's flaws, but the main thing is to get 100% turn out.

This problem has been magnified in League Two due to the top 2 facing no-shows. Barring any hiccups it is likely that the promotion will be decided this week and leave some teams with little to play for next week, which is not ideal or indeed fun.

I reckon the no-show should be replaced by a randomly picked line-up to keep the competitive element intact.

Knocking up a random generator on excel would a peice of pish as it's pretty much how I pick my team already