Bogdonavist asked: Who should sit out when a social sporting team has too many players available?

The user added:

This question may be considered to be off topic by some. I'm happy for the community to decide if this is a reasonable question for this site or not and it be closed if deemed not appropriate. My reading of the FAQ suggests that since this is a dilemma for participants of a sport then it is on topic, but I'm mindful that it may be deemed too subjective and couldn't be definitively answered. I think that isn't so (naturally) but again, am happy for the community to take a different view as there aren't any other similar questions. I think there could/should be but the community may disagree.

After a few comments and flags, is this a legitmate question for Sports SE? State why or why not.

  • @SocioMatt states: "My gut tells me this should be closed because etiquette will vary depending on lots of different factors. This is a tough decision, and my personal opinion is that you should let the people who have paid to be there, the ones that have played undermanned, continue to participate more. This is especially important if you're actually trying to be competitive since they've had more playing time and are probably better at the game. However, this is not an answer, just my opinion. Maybe we should move a discussion about this to meta." – user527 Jan 11 '13 at 17:58

I think it is on topic. It is a situation directly related to Sports that is not unique to OP with a solution that, while not "factual" in the explicit sense, would be relevant to other people.


Obviously I think it's on topic, but am aware that it is unusual, hence the comment I left when I posted the question.

I think it is on topic because it is a question that is likely to come up for 'participants and observers of team and individual sport activities', whether the participant is the one making the decisions or the one affected by those decisions.

I think the current close votes are in the wrong category; this question is certainly on topic but I could understand someone thinking it fell into the "Not Constructive" description

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.

Indeed, the answers that have been provided are all reasonable good, yet none of them is a definitive answer to the question, although they may well provide a useful perspective to people in a similar situation. The peculiarities of cricket are somewhat unique compared to most sports.

  • I agree! (Note I am the OP) I'm just pointing out that it is perhaps debatable and I can at least see why someone with a stricter interpretation of that guideline might have an issue, whereas I don't agree that the question could be consider to be off topic. – Bogdanovist Jan 10 '13 at 9:53

I think it is a great question and very much on-topic for me.

If you add the "coaching" tag then I believe it is very relevant to a sports audience. In fact, I have had the same issue myself and plan on adding a detailed answer when I get a chance over the next few days.

You must log in to answer this question.