@kaiserlunwood I'm pretty sure Dode would be in favor of allowing leagues to change the amount of randomness (say, removing kick-off events or changing their place on the 2d6 table), without deviating from the rules in the official ladder.
When it comes to the dice, minimizing risk means you're constantly working with probabilities, even if (or because) you don't actively roll them.
You don't plan all of it out. First you click your player, select blitz, then click him again and select leap. You will be starting your blitz with a leap. (this works from prone too, but you have to click, press blitz, click again, press stand up, click again, press leap.) Be careful not to click twice in succession (in BB2 control mode), since you might stand up without blitzing.
Yes, some people. Like the ones who say attrition is too high but also say they don't want a rez solution (which includes many of the claw-complainers). Do you deny they exist? I'd actually have no problem with claw (or indeed any skill) removal being an option for league commissioners. What I wanted even before release was a situation where league commissioners could choose specific rulesets (e.g. CRP, Plasmoids etc) as default and modify them by allowed skills, races, and rules (such as SE, bank, levelling SPP, SPP awards, number of skills per player etc) but Cyanide weren't big on options at the time. They are getting there, and commissioners have more options than they had but not as many as I, for one, would like.
it's pretty clear that you're not just offering it as an alternative to one apo reroll per game
I was offering it as an alternative to the "use the apo post match if it unused" or the "a reroll for only one player of your choice at the end of the game" options suggested above. I even provided links. I've also previously offered it as a method of reducing attrition, which it undoubtedly does (because, <snort>, maths), and does so in a race-neutral manner. If you want to (incorrectly) infer some other intent then that's down to you, but you are tilting at windmills when you claim I "wholeheartedly think should be implemented". I've stated my position quite clearly and you don't get to change it for me.
Matches are objectively poorer by the metric of TVplus difference being greater on average as population reduces. Given TVplus difference is the matching metric in the first place then it is a valid metric by which we can measure how well a game is matched. Claiming it is "only worse when it fails to make matches" ignores the metric which has been put in place by the designers. Seeing as such metrics are chosen by the game designers (the only people with the authority to make subjective decisions about game metrics) they are sound metrics upon which to make objective assessments of matching. Similar to lifetime win% being the metric for balance because the designers said so.
We seem to have drifted off-topic
So... It's the right way because Cyanide says so (TV+) unless you disagree with it (few commish options).