Recent Entries
![]() | Hardness Query Posted by |
6.1 RED/YELLOW CARDS.
For each player in a team there is a chance that he will be booked (incurring 4 DPs) or sent off (10 DPs):
Booking chance=1.5 x (3+H) %
Sending Off chance=0.25 x (3+H) %
Where H is the total hardness used by your team (excluding the Gk).
Does this mean that the SW and outfield have a chance of being booked/sent off only due to the total hardness being played on those four areas?
6.4 GOALKEEPERS.
A goalkeeper is a separate case to the rest of the team. The chance of him being booked/ sent off depends not on
the teams hardness, but only on hardness played on the G k himself.
E .G. If you play no hardness on the Gk, there is a 0.75% chance of him being sent off.
I presume there is a formula here that has gone walkabout?
Cheers
Andy
Readers Comments

Here's a couple of snippets to illustrate how this works:
1) Brentford played 0 hardness as a team
******* BRENTFORD FC YELLOW/RED CARD CHANCES ******* - Team Hardness = 0 - Gk Hardness = 0 Gk Sean Carter: Chance of booking = 4.5% | Random number = 76.55 (no booking) Chance of straight red card = 0.75% | Random number = 90.11 (no red card) Df Chen Zhào: Chance of booking = 4.5% | Random number = 67.26 (no booking) Chance of second booking = 0.75% | Random number = 95.98 (no red card)
2) Brentfort played 10 hardness as a team (5 Gk, 5 Sw, 0 Df, 0 Mf, 0 Fw)
******* BRENTFORD FC YELLOW/RED CARD CHANCES ******* - Team Hardness = 10 - Gk Hardness = 5 Gk Sean Carter: Chance of booking = 12.0% | Random number = 12.66 (no booking) Chance of straight red card = 2.0% | Random number = 94.99 (no red card) Sw Henrik Jacobsen: Chance of booking = 19.5% | Random number = 83.43 (no booking) Chance of second booking = 3.25% | Random number = 95.97 (no red card) Df Liam Walker: Chance of booking = 19.5% | Random number = 36.52 (no booking) Chance of second booking = 3.25% | Random number = 27.26 (no red card)
The key variables used here are team hardness and Gk hardness.
If there is no hardness used at all (as you can see in the first example), then the Gk and "rest of team" chances are exactly the same.
In the second example, that differs as there is Gk hardness and overall team hardness. So for the Gk its (1.5 x (3+5)) = 12 (for bookings) and (1.5 x (3+10)) = 19.5 chance for the rest of the team (non Gk) to get bookings.
For determining bookings, the Sw has the same formula as the Df, Mf, and Fw as it uses the "total team hardness" whereas the Gk just uses the Gk hardness.
In summary, this appears to be working per the rules, however again if there are further specific questions, just ask and I'll try to clarify further.
Thanks,
Al

I was reading this post and I noticed something.
The line at the end of 6.1 says
Where H is the total hardness used by your team (excluding the Gk).
Based on this line should the hardness for a team when determining yellow cards not exclude the GK . So in the example above if Brentford play 5 hardness on the GK and 5 Hardness on the sweeper should this not result in the team hardness being only 5 as the goal keeper is excluded .
Am I reading this correctly?
Either way I dont think this makes a big difference to the game so even if we are going to change this we could wait till the end of the season.

Alon
I read the rule the same way that you did, hence my query.
Al has confirmed that the rules should actually read:
For each player in a team there is a chance that he will be booked (incurring 4 DPs) or sent off (10 DPs).
For the SW (if playing) and all outfield players, the chances are:
Booking chance = 1.5 x (3+H) %
Sending Off chance = 0.25 x (3+H) %
Where H is the total hardness used by your team.
For the GK, the chances are:
Booking chance = 1.5 x (3+GKH) %
Sending Off chance = 0.25 x (3+GKH) %
Where GKH is the hardness used by your team on your GK.
Cheers
Andy

Hi guys,
For....
Where H is the total hardness used by your team (excluding the Gk).
I think I was reading it like this:
Where H is the total hardness used by your team (excluding the Gk who follows a different formula).
Rightly or wrongly that was how I read it... 
Now I see the more logical reading of it and the points Alon/Andy note above.
In terms of changing it or not...I'm still of the opinion that the benefits of playing with a high hardness value still outweigh the penalties of doing so and don't think a change is needed. As always though I'm open to debate/discussion...
Al

