nlrobert Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 If someone said "I have Steve Smith in my lineup if he "Starts" and another player if he doesn't", would you consider Steve Smith a starter against TB? He wasn't in on the first offensive series (granted they through a TD pass on the first play, but he wasn't on the field). It then appears that he played in most of the remaining offensive possessions, but he was in and out of the game on every 2nd or 3rd play versus a full time role in the offense. We are pretty flexible in our league by allowing owners to start alternate players if a player is injured and is a gametime decision. In this situation the owner clearly stated to Start another player if Smith did not "Start" the game. I am just not sure if Smith was technically a non-starter and limited in action or not. Any thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ts Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 I will avoid comment on whether or not you have a good or bad rule in place, or if it's poorly worded/clearly written enough to match the presumed intent, so ... to answer the original question ... Smith is listed as a "starter" & is not listed amongst the "substitutions" from the Game Book, FWIW: http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/gamecenter/g...20060924_CAR@TB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 We are pretty flexible in our league by allowing owners to start alternate players if a player is injured and is a gametime decision. In this situation the owner clearly stated to Start another player if Smith did not "Start" the game. I am just not sure if Smith was technically a non-starter and limited in action or not. Any thoughts? You made your bed.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolly Rodgers Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 If someone said "I have Steve Smith in my lineup if he "Starts" and another player if he doesn't", would you consider Steve Smith a starter against TB? He wasn't in on the first offensive series (granted they through a TD pass on the first play, but he wasn't on the field). It then appears that he played in most of the remaining offensive possessions, but he was in and out of the game on every 2nd or 3rd play versus a full time role in the offense. We are pretty flexible in our league by allowing owners to start alternate players if a player is injured and is a gametime decision. In this situation the owner clearly stated to Start another player if Smith did not "Start" the game. I am just not sure if Smith was technically a non-starter and limited in action or not. Any thoughts? First off, what a pain in the ass that league must be to run....Anyways, technically Smith appears to not be a starter but played most of the game. If you are so liberal about the rules in the league, just ask him if he thinks Smith started the game or not. He should have said he would start Smith if he plays... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 You made your bed.... Exactly. What a load of crap ... allowing owners to say I want to start player x unless y then I want to start player z. You are opening the door wide open for league controversy and pissed off owners. I can't even fathom why anybody would consider a rule like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 I think your rule is there for the case of a player who is questionable and doesn't play...Big deal if he actually played the first play or not...If it is a pretty flexible rule/league, don't punish they guy over a technicality... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nlrobert Posted September 25, 2006 Author Share Posted September 25, 2006 First off, what a pain in the ass that league must be to run....Anyways, technically Smith appears to not be a starter but played most of the game. If you are so liberal about the rules in the league, just ask him if he thinks Smith started the game or not. He should have said he would start Smith if he plays... We have not had any issues in 5 years because everyone is pretty clear on how the system works. Everyone league likes the rule because you aren't locked into a starting decision when a game time call is made at kickoff. 99% of the time the owners put in the correct lineups and we very seldom have to make a lineup change. The owner in this case is actually ok with whatever decision we make, but we usually put things up to a league vote if there is any question about it. The officeal gamebook may help clear things up though, so thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 We have not had any issues in 5 years because everyone is pretty clear on how the system works. Everyone league likes the rule because you aren't locked into a starting decision when a game time call is made at kickoff. 99% of the time the owners put in the correct lineups and we very seldom have to make a lineup change. The owner in this case is actually ok with whatever decision we make, but we usually put things up to a league vote if there is any question about it. The officeal gamebook may help clear things up though, so thanks. OK, if he was in the line-up on the first offensive play from scrimmage then he started. If he was not in the line-up on the first offensive play from scrimmage then he didn't start. That's the definition of "starting" vs. "not starting". How many plays he was on the field for after that is irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notamomo Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 OK, if he was in the line-up on the first offensive play from scrimmage then he started. If he was not in the line-up on the first offensive play from scrimmage then he didn't start. That's the definition of "starting" vs. "not starting". How many plays he was on the field for after that is irrelevant. What if the guy is announced as a starter at WR when they announce the team out of the locker room? His name and number are called as a starter but he's not on the field on the on first offensive play? Is he a starter? What if he couldn't find his helmet or needed to change his cleats b/c it started raining and he came in on the 2nd play? Is he a starter then? I think it's a terrible rule, but the intent of the league seems to be more if he plays and play a lot than if he's officially listed as the starter. I say the guy should get Smith's stats, but I probably would be lobbying to change the rules too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 (edited) According to NFL.com's GameBook for CAR/TB, Smith was the starter. I believe this is the official recount of the game. Oh, and your league's rule is STUPID. Sorry. Edited September 25, 2006 by darin3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I need to introduce this rule in the leagues I commish. I never have this kind of fun controversy and I could really use some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardrocker Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 (edited) You made your bed.... Sounds like a rule that virtually guarantees you a nightmare...Steve Smith is a starter period if he plays...Perhaps on the one play, he was not to be involved and maybe the Panthers even expected the TD on that play. Point is you have a rule that is designed I guess to give every opportunity of flip flopping to each owner. So my answer would be he started. He gets the points. In the future, to make it easier...you could just let every one set their lineups on Tuesday morning, after the games. Just kidding Good luck Hardrocker Edited September 26, 2006 by Hardrocker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LooGie Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I'm gonna start a league where you can start player x, and substitue him for player y if he has a better score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxfactor Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I hope you have a plentiful supply of valiums in your medicine cabinet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 (edited) I think your rule is there for the case of a player who is questionable and doesn't play...Big deal if he actually played the first play or not...If it is a pretty flexible rule/league, don't punish they guy over a technicality... +1 And I don't have a problem with your rule, either. I would guess you play in a laid-back league, with guys that don't live fantasy football it 24/7 like some of the rocket scientists here. I am in league with my dad, two of his buddies, my brother, and his two sons, and we too have some added flexibility in our rules that I am sure the nobility here might think is "stupid". Ignore their short-sighted criticism... As stated above, you have this flexible rule so not no teams get punished by not being at their computer 5 minutes prior to game-time trying to find out if a guy is active or not. I think you can infer correctly the intention of this owner, and what you should do as Commish in keeping with the good-faith nature of your league. Perhaps stating it this way could be your rule: make your coaches say "If a player is active for his NFL team, start him...if not, start player B." If you want to continue to give your coaches some flexibility, I think this could be a way to do it without creating the ambiguity you are currently experiencing. Hope this helps... Edited September 26, 2006 by i_am_the_swammi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueCrue Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Exactly. What a load of crap ... allowing owners to say I want to start player x unless y then I want to start player z. You are opening the door wide open for league controversy and pissed off owners. I can't even fathom why anybody would consider a rule like this. exactly... i got hammered by Donte Stallworth this weekend but i didn't cry about it. Know why? Because my league is very clear on the rules. You start a player on your own recognizance. Do your homework and pay attention to everything up to game time. If there's still some uncertainty, you make the best decision you can with the information you've got available. Sometimes it works out for you. Sometimes you get screwed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.