Another league contraversy post

[osu1322]

I agree that the liine up should be made legal (if ur league requires a full line up by rule) however I don't think that the commish should make the line up change. If the owners last thoughts while using his line up were "screw this I want to lose every game" he set his line up and never checked it again. How does the Commish have the right to change that?

 

Yes i agree that doing something like this really messes up the leauge and effects the playoffs but unless instructed by an owner a commish shouldn't be able to make line up changes. I also agree that the guy in ur leauge is crying like a 12 year old school girl who just got beat up and her lunch money taken. The right move is leave the line up as it is and make a rule next year.

[detlef]

I'll go against the grain (surprise, surprise).

 

The commishes set a precedent with their inaction. Given how egregious the situation is being described when it first started and that it has gone on for multiple weeks, someone should have picked up on it much earlier - that's when the decision should have been made. There apparently wasn't even a modicum of effort made to contact the offending owner - which is your second mistake. Now you've got a course of action (or should I say inaction) that has been established and you are asking if it okay to change an established precedent for one specific circumstance.

 

I say no, it isn't. In fact, given the facts presented, it's downright inappropriate to do so. The situation sucks, but that's what you've left yourselves with through your inaction. Let this one go and deal with it through rules chaanges in the offseason.

Well, here's the issue. It's not as if they let it continue for weeks after they knew. You say "much earlier". Like, what? A week? The soonest possible would have been 2 weeks ago, and that would have basically meant, as soon as you fail to start a legit line-up, your team becomes property of the commish who then auto starts your team unless you get a hold of him that week. Seems a tad extreme.

 

So, maybe it's one week late, because they could have seen dude was not paying attention after the 2nd week of bye week players not being switched out. Given that the commish who actually has control over rosters was going through a birth in the family, it seems understandable. Now, if any contending team benefited from this situation, I could see where it would make sense to just keep it that way the rest of the year. But he says later in this thread that was not the case. So, no team that matters has gotten an advantage from the situation. Or maybe, no team on the bubble. Which is slightly different but still.

 

So, again, the guy who is complaining is pissed that he's being deprived of an unfair advantage that no other team in his position has gotten. Sure, it's annoying that the commishes got their act together just in time to play your team and you need the victory, but it's still rather dishonorable to campaign for this. After all, I assume what is being suggested is not to make a waiver move, but simply sub an active player already on the team's roster to make it so he actually fields a complete team. I have to think that is not going to result in a very formidable team, so anyone playing him from here on out still gets a somewhat easy out.

 

Just seems like a punk move on the part of the team that is complaining.

[Bronco Billy]

Well, here's the issue. It's not as if they let it continue for weeks after they knew. You say "much earlier". Like, what? A week? The soonest possible would have been 2 weeks ago, and that would have basically meant, as soon as you fail to start a legit line-up, your team becomes property of the commish who then auto starts your team unless you get a hold of him that week. Seems a tad extreme.

 

He details 4 weeks earlier: The first event when multiple players were on bye, the next week when one player was on bye, the next week when a player was on IR, and then the week after that when he e-mailed. That whole time and not even one attempt to contact the abandoning owner.

 

This has been going on for what has been a full third of the season. This one is on the commishes, not the "whining" owner. And I find it difficult to believe that the 4 weeks of inaction does not affect the playoff situation, but it's possible. But this is on the commishes failure to do something earlier - much earlier, like make a freakin' e-mail or call when a guy starts multiple players on byes the first week it happened.

 

They made their beds by not taking their commishing roles seriously. Now they have to live with it. And if I were the other owner and watched that happen for 4 weeks and then had the situation changed specifically for me in a playoff affecting scenario, I'd be damned pissed too - and rightfully so I might add.

[Jackass]

Well, here's the issue. It's not as if they let it continue for weeks after they knew. You say "much earlier". Like, what? A week? The soonest possible would have been 2 weeks ago, and that would have basically meant, as soon as you fail to start a legit line-up, your team becomes property of the commish who then auto starts your team unless you get a hold of him that week. Seems a tad extreme.

 

So, maybe it's one week late, because they could have seen dude was not paying attention after the 2nd week of bye week players not being switched out. Given that the commish who actually has control over rosters was going through a birth in the family, it seems understandable. Now, if any contending team benefited from this situation, I could see where it would make sense to just keep it that way the rest of the year. But he says later in this thread that was not the case. So, no team that matters has gotten an advantage from the situation. Or maybe, no team on the bubble. Which is slightly different but still.

 

So, again, the guy who is complaining is pissed that he's being deprived of an unfair advantage that no other team in his position has gotten. Sure, it's annoying that the commishes got their act together just in time to play your team and you need the victory, but it's still rather dishonorable to campaign for this. After all, I assume what is being suggested is not to make a waiver move, but simply sub an active player already on the team's roster to make it so he actually fields a complete team. I have to think that is not going to result in a very formidable team, so anyone playing him from here on out still gets a somewhat easy out.

 

Just seems like a punk move on the part of the team that is complaining.

 

Wow, you really kind of nailed it -at least from my perspective.

 

To me, the fact that no contending team has benefited is a very important differentiating factor. In essence, the unfair advantage would be going to the team that is playing him this week and next week - both teams that are competing for the playoffs.

[detlef]

He details 4 weeks earlier: The first event when multiple players were on bye, the next week when one player was on bye, the next week when a player was on IR, and then the week after that when he e-mailed. That whole time and not even one attempt to contact the abandoning owner.

 

This has been going on for what has been a full third of the season. This one is on the commishes, not the "whining" owner. And I find it difficult to believe that the 4 weeks of inaction does not affect the playoff situation, but it's possible. But this is on the commishes failure to do something earlier - much earlier, like make a freakin' e-mail or call when a guy starts multiple players on byes the first week it happened.

 

They made their beds by not taking their commishing roles seriously. Now they have to live with it. And if I were the other owner and watched that happen for 4 weeks and then had the situation changed specifically for me in a playoff affecting scenario, I'd be damned pissed too - and rightfully so I might add.

I missed the 4th week and, like you wonder how nobody of consequence was affected in the period of time. Even if it was only 3 weeks. I just took him on his word.

 

That said, I agree with Opie in that this is the fault of the whole league. Being a commish flat out sucks. Even in leagues where the commish gets a break on league fees, it still is not worth it. Basically, the commish is everyone's b!tch. They have no power because everyone gets pissy every time they step in a make a ruling. But as soon as something goes wrong, everyone points at the commish and cries, "Make it better!" Then, when they do, they start to cry if the ruling doesn't help them specifically.

 

But what you, and the other owner is implying is that they're out to get him. Which may not be a fair accusation. Sure, the timing sucks. But, that doesn't change the fact that dude is complaining that he doesn't get to play a team with inactive players on the roster.

 

ETA: I re-read the first post and it seems like this is the 4th week, so I think you're adding a week. They're acting after 3 weeks of incomplete rosters.

Edited December 4, 2010 by detlef

[Jackass]

He details 4 weeks earlier: The first event when multiple players were on bye, the next week when one player was on bye, the next week when a player was on IR, and then the week after that when he e-mailed. That whole time and not even one attempt to contact the abandoning owner.

 

This has been going on for what has been a full third of the season. This one is on the commishes, not the "whining" owner. And I find it difficult to believe that the 4 weeks of inaction does not affect the playoff situation, but it's possible. But this is on the commishes failure to do something earlier - much earlier, like make a freakin' e-mail or call when a guy starts multiple players on byes the first week it happened.

 

They made their beds by not taking their commishing roles seriously. Now they have to live with it. And if I were the other owner and watched that happen for 4 weeks and then had the situation changed specifically for me in a playoff affecting scenario, I'd be damned pissed too - and rightfully so I might add.

 

The first week was the multiple players on bye, the next week 1 player on bye, the next week is lineup was legit, that week, the guy had a player go on IR, the fourth week i saw that the guy was on IR and tried contacting the other commish but he didn't react to my email.

 

so yes, could've been handled better. But the point is now, we have to act in the best interests of everyone in the league.

 

when i say the games don't affect the playoff situation, some weeks the guys team lost by a lot and would've lost even if we had subbed in the for the bye week or IR player so the outcome of the game was not affected. The exception was the first week with multiple players on bye where he would've won but played a team that is out of the running.

[Bronco Billy]

so yes, could've been handled better. But the point is now, we have to act in the best interests of everyone in the league.

 

The point is you screwed up badly by not doing anything for so long, and now you want to suddenly want to correct the error after weeks and that change penalizes an owner in the playoff hunt.

 

It sounds like you are trying to get a blessing for mishandling this for so long and then suddenly trying to do the right thing. Your best course of action is to continue your developed pattern of inaction and deal with it in the offseason. That's what you have created. Don't penalize another owner to try to belatedly right your mistake.

 

It sucks, for sure. Sometimes you get advice you don't like...

[Jackass]

The point is you screwed up badly by not doing anything for so long, and now you want to suddenly want to correct the error after weeks and that change penalizes an owner in the playoff hunt.

 

It sounds like you are trying to get a blessing for mishandling this for so long and then suddenly trying to do the right thing. Your best course of action is to continue your developed pattern of inaction and deal with it in the offseason. That's what you have created. Don't penalize another owner to try to belatedly right your mistake.

 

It sucks, for sure. Sometimes you get advice you don't like...

 

I appreciate your opinion. but not sure i agree. it penalizes the other owners not to do anything more than it penalizes the owner who is playing him this week. the reason i see it this way is because none of the other teams have benefitted up to this point. why should this team get to do so?

 

i understand that some advice i will not like. There seems to be differing opinions.

 

It is a sh!tty situation as i work with a lot of these people and don't want to sour any relationships over this.

[Bronco Billy]

I appreciate your opinion. but not sure i agree. it penalizes the other owners not to do anything more than it penalizes the owner who is playing him this week. the reason i see it this way is because none of the other teams have benefitted up to this point. why should this team get to do so?

 

i understand that some advice i will not like. There seems to be differing opinions.

 

It is a sh!tty situation as i work with a lot of these people and don't want to sour any relationships over this.

 

I really am sorry to hear that. And I'm blunt to a point where I sound harsh. I think you're probably a pretty good person and I sure like you as a poster because you don't put up with my #### and are willing to disagree in a constructive way.

 

Take it to the league via e-mail today. Explain where you've screwed up and what the consequences are. Chances are the guys will pretty much as a whole want to do the right thing here, even if it is distasteful.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Bronco Billy

[i_am_the_swammi]

At this point, if other teams have benefited by the bad lineup, you have to leave it as is. If you substitute players to make the lineup legit, you might actually be making it unfair to those who have to play him, since everyone else basically got a free ride.

 

Yep, exactly 100%. other teams got the benefit of his mismanagement. How can you now punish another owner by taking over his team at this critical point in the season?

 

Moreover, why wasn't his team taken over weeks ago when it first happened? Why wait until now (Week 13)?

 

ETA: Never mind...just read the whole thread and saw some of the other responses you've had to some questions. Tough spot to be in for you. But I'll stick with my original thought and say you can't take over this team at this point. While the the owner of the mismanaged team hasn't had his partial lineup affect a win/loss, his inactivity in waivers/trading likely has. The benefits of his inactivity have been felt in other ways...while a tad dishonerable, his opponent this week should also reap that benefit.

Edited December 4, 2010 by i_am_the_swammi

[Qball86]

good. It wasn't meant to be. It's absurd that volunteer commishes receive noise when they're just trying to help. You and the other commish should make a decision and if anyone has a problem with it, remind them that league integrity is the responsibility of all owners and that they should speak up sooner when they have a concern.

+Infinity, these are the types of leagues that eventually break apart because no one is willing to be commish because they are afraid of being the next whipping boy.

 

I don't think commissioners should put any player in a line-up without being asked by that owner. At least I won't. The closest I will come is a rule where I can put in a bye week player to prevent an illegal line-up which would be zero. The player has to be on the team already.

 

I assume this guy has been unreachable? Googled his name and searched facebook? I would try very hard to implore him to finish out the year.

 

Isn't that a contradiction? Why have an illegal lineup clause if you are going to prevent it from ever being invoked? If an owner has an illegal lineup then they get a zero, not bailed out by big brother.

 

I'll go against the grain (surprise, surprise).

 

The commishes set a precedent with their inaction. Given how egregious the situation is being described when it first started and that it has gone on for multiple weeks, someone should have picked up on it much earlier - that's when the decision should have been made. There apparently wasn't even a modicum of effort made to contact the offending owner - which is your second mistake. Now you've got a course of action (or should I say inaction) that has been established and you are asking if it okay to change an established precedent for one specific circumstance.

 

I say no, it isn't. In fact, given the facts presented, it's downright inappropriate to do so. The situation sucks, but that's what you've left yourselves with through your inaction. Let this one go and deal with it through rules chaanges in the offseason.

 

Agree here, we had this same issue in our league this year. A few teams have gone over the roster limits for certain positions due to players being listed as RB-WR-TE and not their actual position. The site then let them pickup more WRs then they could have. The owners argued that the site should have blocked them from the transactions but it didn't so they thought it was cool. Each team was told to drop a player and it was decided that since the site was creating part of the problem no penalty but the site will be setup differently next year to avoid a repeat issue. 3 weeks later an owner noticed a team with again too many WRs and wanted the 0 score rule invoked so his loss would be a win.

 

In the end it was decided that you can't arbitrarily decide when to start following the rules to the letter. Since no penalty was levied prior for the same violation, no penalty can be invoked now. Same thing here IMO, it went 3/4 weeks without being addressed and you are now arbitrarily deciding to follow the rules. Whether it benefits anyone or not you are changing the way you apply the rules to all owners and therefore have given the team complaining every right to do so.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Qball86

[detlef]

Try this:

 

Dear league,

As many of you know, Joe stopped managing his team a few weeks ago and has been incommunicado. That has placed me and the other commish (who some of you might know just had a baby join the family) in a tough position. We feel for the sake of competition, we step in and do the bare minimum by starting the best available back up he has (according to the website weekly predictions) to make it so that he has no inactive players. I realize the timing sucks for the two teams about to play him. However, please realize that, thus far no contending team has unfairly benefited from the situation.

 

What were trying to avoid is that any team gets passed over for a playoff spot by someone who won a game they would have lost had they not faced a team with an incomplete roster. Surely you can see there's nothing fair or sporting in that. Of course, had anyone already benefited from the situation, then we'd have no choice but to leave it alone. But that is not the case.

 

Regardless, it's everyone's league, so I'd prefer that we decide as a group. What say you?

[satelliteoflovegm]

+Infinity, these are the types of leagues that eventually break apart because no one is willing to be commish because they are afraid of being the next whipping boy.

 

 

 

Isn't that a contradiction? Why have an illegal lineup clause if you are going to prevent it from ever being invoked? If an owner has an illegal lineup then they get a zero, not bailed out by big brother.

 

 

 

Agree here, we had this same issue in our league this year. A few teams have gone over the roster limits for certain positions due to players being listed as RB-WR-TE and not their actual position. The site then let them pickup more WRs then they could have. The owners argued that the site should have blocked them from the transactions but it didn't so they thought it was cool. Each team was told to drop a player and it was decided that since the site was creating part of the problem no penalty but the site will be setup differently next year to avoid a repeat issue. 3 weeks later an owner noticed a team with again too many WRs and wanted the 0 score rule invoked so his loss would be a win.

 

In the end it was decided that you can't arbitrarily decide when to start following the rules to the letter. Since no penalty was levied prior for the same violation, no penalty can be invoked now. Same thing here IMO, it went 3/4 weeks without being addressed and you are now arbitrarily deciding to follow the rules. Whether it benefits anyone or not you are changing the way you apply the rules to all owners and therefore have given the team complaining every right to do so.

 

 

No, because the league agreed nobody wants to be handed a game if the other team gets a zero for an illegal line-up. However if you win because for any number of reasons a team gets zero from a kicker on a bye well good for you I guess.

 

None of my guys wants to win that way, against a zero I mean.

 

and it hasn't happened in 17 years but all twelve of us agreed winning with a zero for whatever reason is not something we want.

Edited December 4, 2010 by satelliteoflovegm

[Qball86]

No, because the league agreed nobody wants to be handed a game if the other team gets a zero for an illegal line-up. However if you win because for any number of reasons a team gets zero from a kicker on a bye well good for you I guess.

 

None of my guys wants to win that way, against a zero I mean.

 

and it hasn't happened in 17 years but all twelve of us agreed winning with a zero for whatever reason is not something we want.

well thats a bit different then I guess. Seems you have all agreed to have a rule to prevent another rule from being used and you monitor it consistently. Sounds like a good league to be in where everyone wants to win the right way. That K might get 0 for a bye but nothing says they can't still win with the other players going off against a team that slumps a bit that week. I wish I could say there weren't a*holes in leagues who are so cut-throat they would rather win at all cost of fairness and friendship. The age old battle of the spirit of the league vs. the letter of the law.

 

You also aren't arbitrarily following the rules though like in this case. It went on for weeks one way and is now being handled a different way all together. That would be my sticking point.

[Jackass]

Try this:

 

Dear league,

As many of you know, Joe stopped managing his team a few weeks ago and has been incommunicado. That has placed me and the other commish (who some of you might know just had a baby join the family) in a tough position. We feel for the sake of competition, we step in and do the bare minimum by starting the best available back up he has (according to the website weekly predictions) to make it so that he has no inactive players. I realize the timing sucks for the two teams about to play him. However, please realize that, thus far no contending team has unfairly benefited from the situation.

 

What were trying to avoid is that any team gets passed over for a playoff spot by someone who won a game they would have lost had they not faced a team with an incomplete roster. Surely you can see there's nothing fair or sporting in that. Of course, had anyone already benefited from the situation, then we'd have no choice but to leave it alone. But that is not the case.

 

Regardless, it's everyone's league, so I'd prefer that we decide as a group. What say you?

 

That's pretty good. i will use a lot of that.

[NSab]

I think you need to let it ride. Too late now. Should have been dealt with several weeks ago

[satelliteoflovegm]

well thats a bit different then I guess. Seems you have all agreed to have a rule to prevent another rule from being used and you monitor it consistently. Sounds like a good league to be in where everyone wants to win the right way. That K might get 0 for a bye but nothing says they can't still win with the other players going off against a team that slumps a bit that week. I wish I could say there weren't a*holes in leagues who are so cut-throat they would rather win at all cost of fairness and friendship. The age old battle of the spirit of the league vs. the letter of the law.

 

You also aren't arbitrarily following the rules though like in this case. It went on for weeks one way and is now being handled a different way all together. That would be my sticking point.

 

 

I mean it can happen, a team getting a zero. If there isn't a bye week option on the team at that position I can't sign someone on a bye for them. Also if someone calls after 12:55p and tells me someone has an illegal line-up I can't, by rule change anything after the deadline for starters EVER.

[STL Fan]

Our league imposes a penalty for lineup holes or errors. Starting a player on a bye, or one who is listed as "OUT" by his NFL team or not starting a player in a position at all costs you the same as a transaction - $3. And you can have more than one fine per week. Start a guy on a bye and start no kicker at all, that's $6. That helps keep owners from abandoning their team.

[Pope Flick]

Pot meet kettle.

 

 

No manure.

[rhippens]

let me ask this question. let's say for discussion purposes, the dead team currently has 8 of 10 starters going this week IF you leave it alone. let's then say 3 of those 8 get injured. is it fair that the guy that plays him next week gets to go against an even more destroyed team?

 

or would you feel responsible for putting it back up to 8 to meet the perceived level of competition it's at right now?

 

my point is that the most fair thing to do (in my mind) is set the lineup to what it should be both weeks. you don't have to make lineup decisions, other than maybe stating you are using generic rankings from XXXXXXX website. next week, if the same lineup from this week is healthy, it stays and plays. if somebody goes down again, you put in the next player in XXXXXX rankings.

 

leaving a dead team only sets you up for more controversy next week. apologize for missing it, but explain the only way to keep things as fair as possible is to ensure a full lineup for any remaining games.

[golfishgrace]

If a team is in fact "abandoned" then IMHO the only "fair" way to deal with it is for the abandoned team to forfeit all of their games.. Including those already played.

 

How could you possibly justify rewarding a team with a "win" when the abandoned team did not set a line up, and then later " penalize" a legit team with a loss cause the comish set an awsome line up..??

 

My opinion, if a team is abandoned all games are forfeited, simple no???

[detlef]

If a team is in fact "abandoned" then IMHO the only "fair" way to deal with it is for the abandoned team to forfeit all of their games.. Including those already played.

 

How could you possibly justify rewarding a team with a "win" when the abandoned team did not set a line up, and then later " penalize" a legit team with a loss cause the comish set an awsome line up..??

 

My opinion, if a team is abandoned all games are forfeited, simple no???

Well there's a thought. Though, the "awesome line-up" bit is a stretch. I believe what is being discussed is simply replacing inactive players with the best back-up on the team based on a pre-determined ranking. My guess is that this team is not going to be awesome unless by accident.

Edited December 4, 2010 by detlef

[golfishgrace]

Well there's a thought. Though, the "awesome line-up" bit is a stretch. I believe what is being discussed is simply replacing inactive players with the best back-up on the team based on a pre-determined ranking. My guess is that this team is not going to be awesome unless by accident.

c

 

 

OK, agree "awesome" line up my be a stretch, but if you nix all of their games how could any one possibly complain?.

 

Equal treatment to all involved..

[detlef]

c

 

 

OK, agree "awesome" line up my be a stretch, but if you nix all of their games how could any one possibly complain?.

 

Equal treatment to all involved..

Unfortunately, nixing all other games could actually open a whole other can of worms. Not sure how big the league is, but maybe someone lost to him twice already and, by virtue of those two losses is out of the hunt. You take those away, and then all of a sudden, they're ahead of someone else.

 

Just saying, someone could always "possibly complain"

[golfishgrace]

Unfortunately, nixing all other games could actually open a whole other can of worms. Not sure how big the league is, but maybe someone lost to him twice already and, by virtue of those two losses is out of the hunt. You take those away, and then all of a sudden, they're ahead of someone else.

 

Just saying, someone could always "possibly complain"

 

 

yea.. nothing simple in this life eh??

 

it seemed like such a good solution too!