Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Commish Help Please


Easy n Dirty
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

well, he probably takes a zero on all of those, with the possible exception of B and C, depending on league rules regarding legal lineups. of course, in ALL of those hypotheticals, a QB WAS submitted, distinguishing it from the current example A.

 

but as long as we're tossing around hypotheticals....what if the guy somehow went to the "submit lineup" page, didn't check ANY boxes, and then clicked submit. according to your logic, he takes a zero at every position, correct? or what if he was dumb or just in a hurry and he wanted to carry over his entire lineup from the previous week, except to switch kickers, so he goes in and clicks the other kicker and that's it and submits. he takes a zero at every position except kicker?

 

 

FWIW - on MFL, players from the prior week's lineup are automatically checked off when you go to set the current week's lineup, so if you went to switch kickers you would not end up with only a kicker. In the situation in my league, the guy must have inadvertently unchecked his QB.

 

That's all, pardon the interruption - you two go right back at it and resume our regularly scheduled programming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting. so you're advocating making up rules to suit your own beliefs :D

 

 

What rules did I exactly make up in your clouded & confused mind? The rule that lets the results be based upon an owner's actions? Okay, I submit. I believe in that in the absence of rules that state otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll play Devil's advocate with you. How would you address each of the following with fairness to all owners in the league, given the rule as EnD listed it for us:

 

A ) An owner submits a lineup without the QB checked (just like the initial post).

 

B ) An owner submits a lineup starting a QB who is on a bye week.

 

C ) An owner submits a lineup with a QB who is declared inactive before the game.

 

D ) An owner submits a lineup with a QB who is questionable on the NFL injury report and does not end up playing in the game even though he remains on the active roster.

 

E ) An owner starts a QB who is hurt on the first play of the game and accumulates no stats for the game.

 

 

good convo here...if nothing else, gives everyone some things to think about when posting rules for next year.

 

But to answer your question:

 

A ) IMO, no line-up was submitted. Thus, accroding to their rules, his entire starting line-up from the prior week is active.

 

B ) QB submitted earns a zero, just like any other player who doesn't score any points.

 

C ) see above

 

D ) see above

 

E ) see above

 

B, C, D & E are all essentilly the same. If a QB is on an owner's roster, he can be started. If the owner doesn't know he is on the bye, hurt, inactive, whatever...that is the owner's fault for not being prepared.

 

And yes, it might be unfair to some other owners who are hurt by the fact that another team probably gets an automatic win by facing the team that screwed up.

 

The good news: it probably makes the vote unanimous next year to give the dopey owner the boot :D

Edited by i_am_the_swammi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

good convo here...if nothing else, gives everyone some things to think about when posting rules for next year.

 

 

Agreed. Enjoying the debate immensely.

 

 

 

 

The good news: it probably makes the vote unanimous next year to give the dopey owner the boot :D

 

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owner went to the line up page, selected the players he wanted to start unselected the players he did not want to start and clicked the "Submit" button. This constitutes submitting a lineup.

 

There is no language in the rule that specifies that a partial lineup is illegal. EnD specifically said that the owner "submitted a lineup without a QB". The rule then goes on to say "if you fail to submit a lineup you get the previous week's lineup".

 

This is cut and dried. The owner fails to submit a lineup he gets last week's lineup minus Thursday/Saturday players. If the owner submits a lineup then there is no carry forward.

 

There is nothing in the rules that say a partial lineup submitted is not a lineup. There is nothing in the rules that says individual players carry forward ... it says the entire lineup minus Thursday/Saturday players.

 

I understand it may have been obvious who he wanted to start but the bottom line is he neglected to do so AND he didn't check his line up AND there is absolutely no basis in the rules for carrying forward a single player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does being online with MFL change anything? The league in question here is on MFL. My experience is that MFL will warn an owner if he submits a starting lineup with too many players, but not if he submits an incomplete lineup (unless there's some sort of preference box that I should be checking off somewhere).

 

 

 

MFL does warn owners when the lineup is incomplete ... I have my leagues set up that way. However, if you allow a flex position or allow submission of partial lineups then you may not get a warning.

 

You have to go in and set that owners cannot submit a partial lineup. The way I have it is that the lineup fromt he week before rolls over to the nextweek after the last game of the week. With this if someone doesn't set a lineup they get what they last had in. After that, set it in the setup that they cannot do a partial lineup. Now, If they went in and tried they will get the warning. It's up to them to actually see the warning and do something about it.

 

I think some leagues go out of their way to hold the hands of some owners when the bottom line is if they were doing their part and took it upon themselves they would be just fine. I don't think the commish or league should have to bail them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owner went to the line up page, selected the players he wanted to start unselected the players he did not want to start and clicked the "Submit" button. This constitutes submitting a lineup.

 

There is no language in the rule that specifies that a partial lineup is illegal. EnD specifically said that the owner "submitted a lineup without a QB". The rule then goes on to say "if you fail to submit a lineup you get the previous week's lineup".

 

This is cut and dried. The owner fails to submit a lineup he gets last week's lineup minus Thursday/Saturday players. If the owner submits a lineup then there is no carry forward.

 

There is nothing in the rules that say a partial lineup submitted is not a lineup. There is nothing in the rules that says individual players carry forward ... it says the entire lineup minus Thursday/Saturday players.

 

I understand it may have been obvious who he wanted to start but the bottom line is he neglected to do so AND he didn't check his line up AND there is absolutely no basis in the rules for carrying forward a single player.

 

With Blitz on this one, the site let the owner submit a partial lineup so zero points at the QB position. In addition, it does not appear the league rules addresses this type of situation at this time.

 

We do allow partial lineups in our league. It is clearly written in our rules that the owner has to live with their mistake if they fail to submit a full lineup, it is not grounds for dispute.

Edited by Gunther
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owner went to the line up page, selected the players he wanted to start unselected the players he did not want to start and clicked the "Submit" button. This constitutes submitting a lineup.

 

There is no language in the rule that specifies that a partial lineup is illegal. EnD specifically said that the owner "submitted a lineup without a QB". The rule then goes on to say "if you fail to submit a lineup you get the previous week's lineup".

 

This is cut and dried. The owner fails to submit a lineup he gets last week's lineup minus Thursday/Saturday players. If the owner submits a lineup then there is no carry forward.

 

There is nothing in the rules that say a partial lineup submitted is not a lineup. There is nothing in the rules that says individual players carry forward ... it says the entire lineup minus Thursday/Saturday players.

 

I understand it may have been obvious who he wanted to start but the bottom line is he neglected to do so AND he didn't check his line up AND there is absolutely no basis in the rules for carrying forward a single player.

 

 

I see your point, but you are naturally looking at it from your perspective.

 

Try this perspective:

 

You state "there is no language in the rules that states a partial lineup is illegal." Conversely, my feeling is that there is nothing in the rules that states a partial line-up is legal.

 

All I can go on is the rules they currently have in place.

 

I would guess their rules clearly state the following: a line-up consists of 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, etc.... Since the owner did not follow these rules, he DID NOT submit a line-up. How can a line-up not include a QB?

 

It can't, so by definition, no line-up existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see your point, but you are naturally looking at it from your perspective.

 

Try this perspective:

 

You state "there is no language in the rules that states a partial lineup is illegal." Conversely, my feeling is that there is nothing in the rules that states a partial line-up is legal.

 

All I can go on is the rules they currently have in place.

 

I would guess their rules clearly state the following: a line-up consists of 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, etc.... Since the owner did not follow these rules, he DID NOT submit a line-up. How can a line-up not include a QB?

 

It can't, so by definition, no line-up existed.

 

 

That is faulty logic. By that logic if an owner starts a bye week player or a player that is hurt/inactive his whole lineup in invalid and he has to use the lineup from last week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is faulty logic. By that logic if an owner starts a bye week player or a player that is hurt/inactive his whole lineup in invalid and he has to use the lineup from last week.

 

 

Faulty Logic? Not really.

 

An owner has the authority to start ANYONE on his roster. If he is a bonehead and starts someone who is on the bye or inactive, that is his own pathetic fault, and he should pay for it with a "0".

 

However, that is entirely different than not selecting anyone from their roster. Apples and oranges. Almost every league I know requires you submit a line-up each week. If you forget or opt not-to-do-so, most leagues have rules in place that state the consequences.

 

The issue here is what constitutes a line-up. Some here feel that you should be able to submit a partial line-up, and be forced to take a "0" for positions you forgot/omitted.

 

I feel the other way: a partial line-up is no line-up; by definition of the rules, a valid line-up is composed of certain numbers of players from certain position. If you fail to submit a valid line-up, you have not submitted a line-up at all. Just how I feel.

 

As such, by the rules they have in place, the owner should have his prior week's line-up in effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faulty Logic? Not really.

 

An owner has the authority to start ANYONE on his roster. If he is a bonehead and starts someone who is on the bye or inactive, that is his own pathetic fault, and he should pay for it with a "0".

 

However, that is entirely different than not selecting anyone from their roster. Apples and oranges. Almost every league I know requires you submit a line-up each week. If you forget or opt not-to-do-so, most leagues have rules in place that state the consequences.

 

The issue here is what constitutes a line-up. Some here feel that you should be able to submit a partial line-up, and be forced to take a "0" for positions you forgot/omitted.

 

I feel the other way: a partial line-up is no line-up; by definition of the rules, a valid line-up is composed of certain numbers of players from certain position. If you fail to submit a valid line-up, you have not submitted a line-up at all. Just how I feel.

 

As such, by the rules they have in place, the owner should have his prior week's line-up in effect.

 

 

 

It's an interesting perspective - I don't necessarily agree with it, but I could see where some might.

 

To me, a lineup lacking one player (you're calling that an invalid lineup) doesn't obviate the entire submission. But your argument supports the opinion expressed here by others that he gets his entire starting lineup replaced, not just the QB, with last week's submission. I find this preferable to just adding Eli to what he started because I can support it with some reasoning - but I still think him getting a zero at the QB spot is the right solution.

 

I like Carry The Rock's suggestion too - I already changed the league setting to not accept partial lineups, and I think having last week's lineup carry over immediately (rather than gametime Sunday, which I think is what I have now) might be helpful too.

 

Thanks all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But your argument supports the opinion expressed here by others that he gets his entire starting lineup replaced, not just the QB, with last week's submission.

 

 

that's probably a reasonably fair resolution. but i still say it's a partial lineup (that's what MFL says it is, too), and that only the part of his lineup that wasn't submitted should be treated as though it were not submitted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the question is, should this team be stuck with a zero at the QB position, or should he get the QB he started last week?

 

He should get zero points. Our league has the exact same rule as you do...

 

Way back during week 2 I had a 'gut feeling' about Ryan Longwell. I didn't know what it was, but I knew he would have a huge game. So I dropped my current kicker and picked up Ryan Longwell. After picking him up I even remember gleaming with anticipation because I knew how well Longwell played for Green Bay (think GB during the winter weather), and now is playing for the Vikings -- an indoor football team for all home games. It was the perfect storm not yet seen by all other franchise owners.

 

So game time comes, and just as dreamed, Longwell has a career day. He even threw his first ever pass for a touchdown! It was then that I checked my roster and found that I had forgotten to activate Longwell from the bench after picking him up. I started 10 players that week. :D I remember being so pissed, but still ended up winning the game.

 

At any rate, we call that a "coaching error". It's completely his fault that he submitted his lineup without activating a player from the bench to the starting squad. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he oughta get a zero for QB position.

 

For those advocating he should get last weeks' QB, let me pose another scenario:

 

Suppose the league rules state you need to start 2RB's. The guy does a partial lineup and puts in a single RB that was one that he did not field the previous week. And then screws up and leaves the other RB position blank. How would you fill in the open RB spot? I don't think you can put in anything but a zero in that case. In this case a blank roster spot = zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he oughta get a zero for QB position.

 

For those advocating he should get last weeks' QB, let me pose another scenario:

 

Suppose the league rules state you need to start 2RB's. The guy does a partial lineup and puts in a single RB that was one that he did not field the previous week. And then screws up and leaves the other RB position blank. How would you fill in the open RB spot? I don't think you can put in anything but a zero in that case. In this case a blank roster spot = zero.

 

 

 

This was definitely part of my decision-making process. You could argue that he gets the lowest scoring RB from the previous week - but again, there's nothing about that in our rules, so as I noted earlier, this to me is tantamount to rewriting the rule book in week 13.

 

Here's another example - suppose we're in the middle of bye weeks, and an owner starts a lineup without a tight end. But if we rule that an "invalid lineup" and therefore not a lineup submission, he now reverts to last week's lineup, but oh by the way his QB and one RB from last week are on a bye this week. So instead of a zero at tight end he ends up with zeroes at QB and RB1.

 

I really can't see my way through to only giving him last week's QB, and these two examples show some of the dangers of replacing his entire lineup. I've become more and more comfortable that giving him a zero at QB was the right answer here. And the best answer is to not allow partial lineup submissions, which I have now done on our league site.

 

Good stuff, thanks again to all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the best answer is to not allow partial lineup submissions, which I have now done on our league site.

 

 

 

Good info here.

 

In my main league you are greeted with a large yellow banner atop your "line-up" page whenever you have an invalid starting line-up.

 

It makes this issue obsolete.

 

But good call on your "zero" decision. My interpretation of your rules says you should have used his entire Week 12 line-up, but I never felt it was the fairest thing to do. The zero is the right answer, just as it would be if he had to start someone on the bye (if his roster was filled with guys from one position who were all on the same bye week, for instance.), or who were injured, etc.

 

Easy way to justify your decision: his QB position scored a zero, which would be correct.

 

But you should think about enacting a rule regarding starting players who are on their bye-week. In some cases, owners may have to start a bye-week player out of necessity, but in most cases, that reason never arises. Where a rule should be considered is when someone starts a bye-week player when an active alternative is available. At this point, it is either 1) a mistake, 2) collusion, or 3) tanking for a better draft spot next year...all three of which should offer a consequence, as I would think it would be in the league's best interest to try to ensure each owner is committed to fielding, in their true opinion, the best possible line-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information