Commissioner Question...

[Savage Beatings]

We have a rule in our league regarding illegal lineups that says:

 

Each weekly starting lineup will consist of:

1 QB

2 RB

2 WR

1 TE

1 Kicker (Individual – not Team Kicker)

1 Defense/Special Teams - (Team D/ST – not Individuals)

8 Players total

 

A starting lineup that does not consist of the above will be considered illegal and will result in a forfeit.

 

This week one owner in our league did not have a starting QB in their lineup resulting in a forfeit. There is currently no mention in our rules about whether a forfeiture would result in zero points for the week for the team with the illegal lineup, or if they would just automatically get a loss for the week, but still keep the points that their players accumulated.

 

Since it is not spelled out clearly, I will need to make a ruling on this and am looking for some advice. I can see two main arguments:

 

1) If it is not clearly spelled out in the rules that a forfeiture ALSO means zero points for the week, then the team should still receive their points and we will have to address the language of the rules in the off-season.

 

2) Forfeit clearly implies zero points. Since the team basically lost their matchup this week before the players even started accumulating stats, their production should be ignored.

 

What would you guys do?

[Bronco Billy]

Forfeit by definition means chose not to play. If a decision was made - per the rules - by an owner not to play, the point total ought to be zero. It would be the same as a football team not taking the field.

 

On the other hand, what you have on your hands is a really crappy rule. Why not zero out the offending position and allow the owner to compete shorthanded? I'd look to change that in the offseason, unless you can get a unanimous approval to change now.

[Furd]

At a minimum, you have an ambiguity in the rule.

 

As I see it, there are differences between: 1) failing to start a player at a position, resulting in an incomplete lineup; and 2) starting too many players at a particular position. Both lineups are "illegal."

 

I could make arguments either way. However, IMO, forfeit doesn't mean "0 points." It means a loss. Therefore, under the circumstances, I would rule that the team with the illegal lineup loses the matchup (regardless of the score), but keeps the points. I would reach a difference conclusion if the team had started too many players at a particular position, as I would then have to somehow interpret/modify the lineup.

Edited October 7, 2008 by Furd

[Savage Beatings]

On the other hand, what you have on your hands is a really crappy rule. Why not zero out the offending position and allow the owner to compete shorthanded? I'd look to change that in the offseason, unless you can get a unanimous approval to change now.

 

Agreed, but it's there right now so we have to wait to deal with it in the off-season. I'm sure this will change. Original purpose of the rule was to make sure that we had active owners in a new league. But after a few years going now, I don't think we need to worry about that any more.

 

At a minimum, you have an ambiguity in the rule.

 

As I see it, there are differences between: 1) failing to start a player at a position, resulting in an incomplete lineup; and 2) starting too many players at a particular position. Both lineups are "illegal."

 

I could make arguments either way. However, IMO, forfeit doesn't mean "0 points." It means a loss. Therefore, under the circumstances, I would rule that the team with the illegal lineup loses the matchup (regardless of the score), but keeps the points. I would reach a difference conclusion if the team had started too many players at a particular position, as I would then have to somehow interpret/modify the lineup.

 

MFL will accept an illegal lineup that has too few players, but will NOT accept an illegal lineup that has too many players.

[detlef]

Forfeit by definition means chose not to play. If a decision was made - per the rules - by an owner not to play, the point total ought to be zero. It would be the same as a football team not taking the field.

 

On the other hand, what you have on your hands is a really crappy rule. Why not zero out the offending position and allow the owner to compete shorthanded? I'd look to change that in the offseason, unless you can get a unanimous approval to change now.

I agree with both points, especially part 2. Rules and penalties should be in place to keep players from gaining an unfair advantage. Failing to submit a complete line-up is not an example. The offending player is already at a disadvantage, why give another team a free victory when at worst, they would be playing an undermanned team anyway?

[Bronco Billy]

Agreed, but it's there right now so we have to wait to deal with it in the off-season. I'm sure this will change. Original purpose of the rule was to make sure that we had active owners in a new league. But after a few years going now, I don't think we need to worry about that any more.

 

Have you put it to the league to see if you all can address it right now? I'm sure no other owner wants to get caught in the same boat as the offending owner.

[Savage Beatings]

Have you put it to the league to see if you all can address it right now? I'm sure no other owner wants to get caught in the same boat as the offending owner.

 

No I haven't yet but I will.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Thsi will likely need to be a commish decision, since any league vote will be tainted by personal gain or loss.

 

I'd lean towards allowing the owner to get the points his short-handed team accumulated, but tagging him with a loss in standings.

 

The way you list the points in your original post clearly supports this decision.

 

1.It is not spelled out that he should get "zero" points. period. This should be your rationale for making the decision.

 

2. Forfeiture may "imply" zero points? Imply it to who? Not to me, or the owner getting the shaft.

 

Moreover, I disagree with the comment that the forfeit would take effect prior to his team starting Week 1. Week 1 started on a Thursday night, and ended with a double-header Monday night. Suppose he realized his mistake Monday afternoon, and inserted a QB that was scheduled to play Monday night. Do your rules allow line-up changes up until gametime? If so, he theoretically could have corrected his mistake in time. or picked a back-up QB off waivers just to plug-in so he could have an "active" QB. Thus, the forfeit wasn't really a forfeit until the Week 1 was over, not at the beginning of Week 1. Most importantly, his team obviously accumulated points from the day before (Sunday), and did so up until the forfeit became official.

 

Using this thinking, I checked online for stats involving college teams that had to forfeit games due to recuriting violations. In none of those instances were the stats from those games not counted...just the W/L was affected. I think you apply the same thinking here. The forfeit was granted after-the-fact, but the stats still count.

 

And as BB suggested, I'd change this rule immediately in the offseason. The essence of the rule is solid, but to penalize a team already shorthanded seems harsh.

Edited October 7, 2008 by i_am_the_swammi

[Savage Beatings]

Moreover, I disagree with the comment that the forfeit would take effect prior to his team starting Week 1. Week 1 started on a Thursday night, and ended with a double-header Monday night. Suppose he realized his mistake Monday afternoon, and inserted a QB that was scheduled to play Monday night. Do your rules allow line-up changes up until gametime? If so, he theoretically could have corrected his mistake in time. or picked a back-up QB off waivers just to plug-in so he could have an "active" QB. Thus, the forfeit wasn't really a forfeit until the Week 1 was over, not at the beginning of Week 1. Most importantly, his team obviously accumulated points from the day before (Sunday), and did so up until the forfeit became official.

 

I misspoke in the second part of my 2nd point. The forfeiture does not occur before the stats accumulate for the week. Each owner can sumbit lineup changes up until the beginning of the last game of the week (unless the player already in their lineup has already begun playing). The problem that this owner had is that both of his QB's on his roster played early games, and once the games begin FCFS Waivers close, so he had no chance to pick up a QB playing in a later game.

 

Here is a bit more from our rules in this section:

A starting lineup that does not consist of the above will be considered illegal and will result in a forfeit. Starting a bye-week player will be considered legal, however you will obviously get zero points from him for the week.

 

Starting lineups must be submitted in part, by the beginning of the game for each player in your starting lineup each week, and in whole by the beginning of the last game of that particular week. If a legal lineup is not submitted before the beginning of the last game of a particular week, then the previous week’s entire starting lineup will be used (except for week 1, which will result in a forfeit). If you have a player listed as a starter in a particular position, and that player's game for the week has begun, then it is too late to drop him from your starting lineup for someone else.

 

Eg. Reggie Bush's game for week 1 begins at 8:30pm on Thursday so he must be in your starting lineup before that game begins... but Chad Johnson's game for week 1 doeasn't begin until 7:00pm on Monday so he doesn't need to be in your starting lineup until just before his own game starts.

[dmarc117]

if someone can win playing less players, they should get the pts and the win.

[i_am_the_swammi]

I misspoke in the second part of my 2nd point. The forfeiture does not occur before the stats accumulate for the week. Each owner can sumbit lineup changes up until the beginning of the last game of the week (unless the player already in their lineup has already begun playing). The problem that this owner had is that both of his QB's on his roster played early games, and once the games begin FCFS Waivers close, so he had no chance to pick up a QB playing in a later game.

 

The point is, he COULD have made a change, had an option existed. You can't apply the rule differently to him just because he didn't have a player to plug-in. The rule needs to be enforced as if it was being applied to any team, not just him.

 

The point being, no matter what the team, an owner is allowed to make a change up until kickoff of the final game of the week. A forfiet is not given until this point. Thus, all the stats accumulated until the forfeit was given were valid.

[Bronco Billy]

Again - I focus on the word "forfeit", since the rules are vague. Forfeit means intentionally chosing not to participate in the game. While that may not be the intent of the rule, it's the way the rule is written as you explained it, and words still mean something. Since no good commish wants to issue an arbitrary & capricious ruling, I think you really have your hands tied by the language - and you should make that ruling and let the language be your cover.

 

That might get the league stirtred up and get the thing overturned this season for you. In fact, I might use that as leverage as a commish: "Look, guys, if we can't hash this out right now, I'm going to be forced to give team X a zero for the week because of the language. I'm sure no one wants to do that. Can't we decide that 'forfeit' applies to that position's scoring and not to the team as a whole?"

[Savage Beatings]

The point is, he COULD have made a change, had an option existed. You can't apply the rule differently to him just because he didn't have a player to plug-in. The rule needs to be enforced as if it was being applied to any team, not just him.

 

The point being, no matter what the team, an owner is allowed to make a change up until kickoff of the final game of the week. A forfiet is not given until this point. Thus, all the stats accumulated until the forfeit was given were valid.

 

I tend to agree, but that's why I am asking people's opinions here. It really comes down to the definition of forfeit. BB makes a great point. In general if a team forfeits a match, isn't it by definition as if the match never took place? That's the crux of my dilemma here. I'm not applying any rules any differently to anyone. In fact I'm going out of my way to try to be as fair as possible.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Forfeit means intentionally chosing not to participate in the game.

 

I kinda disagree. The word forfeit can have different meanings. You can forfeit a game before it starts (which is what you imply above), or be forced to forfeit if it is found out after the game has already been played that you were in violation of the rules(I.e a college team being forced to forfiet all its wins when a player was found to be ineligible).

 

In Savage's case, I am of the camp that the forfeit is after-the-fact....that the team is in violation of the rules only after the Week had ended. Thus, the stats accumulated prior to the forfiet being official should stand.

 

Simialrly, any college team that is forced to forfiet doesn't lose its stats. I think the same logic applies here. The stats accumualted by the players should still count, even if the team has to be forced to forfieit the game.

[Bronco Billy]

I kinda disagree. The word forfeit can have different meanings. You can forfeit a game before it starts (which is what you imply above), or be forced to forfeit if it is found out after the game has already been played that you were in violation of the rules(I.e a college team being forced to forfiet all its wins when a player was found to be ineligible).

 

In Savage's case, I am of the camp that the forfeit is after-the-fact....that the team is in violation of the rules only after the Week had ended. Thus, the stats accumulated prior to the forfiet being official should stand.

 

Simialrly, any college team that is forced to forfiet doesn't lose its stats. I think the same logic applies here. The stats accumualted by the players should still count, even if the team has to be forced to forfieit the game.

 

That's a good argument.

[i_am_the_swammi]

In general if a team forfeits a match, isn't it by definition as if the match never took place?

 

Absolutely not!

 

Look at college sports....teams are forced to forfeit all the time, due to players being found to be ineligible. The stats from those games still count.

[skylive5]

We might want to remember that this is not college. This is the NFL and NFL FF. Adults here that get paid over-the-table and not under-the-table.

 

So with that in mind..... a forfeit is a forfeit and zero is zero. If one can't follow some simple rules one should be penalized. FF Commissioners are not supposed to be babysitters....the are supposed to enforce the rules.

 

The rules of the league under discussion are iffy. They do not clearly state just what is the penalty called forfeit. So my take is that no matter what the stats are...they guy loses the game and would also not count the stats since the rules do not state one way or the other what a zero implies and if he can't put in a simple legal lineup the should suffer the penalty. Zero to me means zip, nada, nothing, nil.

 

But then my take has always been a bit different.

[Sprtfan]

Absolutely not!

 

Look at college sports....teams are forced to forfeit all the time, due to players being found to be ineligible. The stats from those games still count.

 

I think the best example, and best way to justify your choice to the rest of the league. The points should count. The only other information I could fine about a football games being forfeited before the game started results in a 2-0 win for the team that did not forfeit. By that example, if the game was forfeited before the game started neither team would have any stats becasue a game was not played. I really think the only choice is to give him a loss but have the stats count.

[Bronco Billy]

Adults here that get paid over-the-table and not under-the-table.

 

 

Truth - except for USC, whom apparently has incriminating pictures of NCAA officials with livestock or vegetables or something...

 

 

But then my take has always been a bit different.

 

Understatement of epic proportions...

 

[skylive5]

:Understatement of epic proportions...

 

 

 

Yeah...well.....

[gsmayes]

You should post this guy's roster and game start times.

 

Say all his players have 1pm games, if he has an illegal roster at kickoff, then he forfeits before any stats are accumulated, meaning he gets a zero. However, say his QBs have a 1pm and 4pm game. At kickoff of the 1pm game, he has not yet forfeited because he could still start the 4pm QB. However, if at 4pm he has not started his other QB, then at that point he forfeits the week. All points from 1pm players should still count, but those accumulated after the 4pm deadline would not.

[i_am_the_swammi]

You should post this guy's roster and game start times.

 

Say all his players have 1pm games, if he has an illegal roster at kickoff, then he forfeits before any stats are accumulated, meaning he gets a zero. However, say his QBs have a 1pm and 4pm game. At kickoff of the 1pm game, he has not yet forfeited because he could still start the 4pm QB. However, if at 4pm he has not started his other QB, then at that point he forfeits the week. All points from 1pm players should still count, but those accumulated after the 4pm deadline would not.

 

All good, except you are interpreting a rule specific to this one player's roster. The rule should be interpreted accross all rosters, the same way NFL rules are interpreted accross all teams.

 

Say, for instance, that two owners (rather than one) were in violation of the same scenario at hand. Owner A had both QBs on his roster in 1:00PM games. Owner B had both his QBs in Monday night games. Neither owner started a QB, so both must forfeit.

 

Are you saying that the Owner B should be able to accrue a ton more points than Owner A simply because his possible QBs had later start times? Even though they both were in viiolation of the exact same rule?

 

Sorry, doesn't make much sense to me.

[gsmayes]

All good, except you are interpreting a rule specific to this one player's roster. The rule should be interpreted accross all rosters, the same way NFL rules are interpreted accross all teams.

 

Say, for instance, that two owners (rather than one) were in violation of the same scenario at hand. Owner A had both QBs on his roster in 1:00PM games. Owner B had both his QBs in Monday night games. Neither owner started a QB, so both must forfeit.

 

Are you saying that the Owner B should be able to accrue a ton more points than Owner A simply because his possible QBs had later start times? Even though they both were in viiolation of the exact same rule?

 

Sorry, doesn't make much sense to me.

 

His lineup deadline is "all players lock at kick off of their game". You should apply the same logic of the rule to all rosters, but because of the variable deadlines, the result will vary. If his lineup deadline was "all players lock at kick off of the first game of the week", then yes, it wouldn't matter. Personally, I would just give the offending team a zero, but what I outlined would be a compromise that everyone should be able to live with.

[Outshined]

MFL will accept an illegal lineup that has too few players, but will NOT accept an illegal lineup that has too many players.

 

That sucks that MFL will allow an incomplete roster when the roster rules clearly state what must be started. On Fanball, it won't let you submit your roster unless it conforms to the rules on what the starting requirements are. A message alert pops up that the starting requirements require 1 QB.

 

It could have been a simple mistake on his part.

[Big John]

That sucks that MFL will allow an incomplete roster when the roster rules clearly state what must be started.

The commish can set MFL to force a complete roster to be submitted.