need advice on argument in league...

[Goopster24]

Seems clear - rule in place states that a full starting lineup must be drafted. Oversight or not, come the 18th round, whether he intended to draft Hernandez or not, he should not have been allowed to. In order to comply with the league rules, it seems that dropping Hernandez from the roster, as it was an illegal pick, and putting in a kicker is the most logical solution. Allowing him to drop anyone else is not a logical solution to this issue. Not having this owner follow this rule at this point just sets a poor precedent of bending rules, whether it was an oversight or intentional attempt to circumvent the rules is irrelevant.

 

Providing the next team Hernandez is a little tricky, but likely of minimal impact. I say tricky because technically you need to check with the owners that picked afterwards whether or not they would have taken the guy you took over the player they took if you assign Hernandez to the team requesting him.

 

 

Now, to the completely separate question about the rule itself, I've played in leagues that require full starting lineups be drafted and played in those with no requirements on the draft. I've also played in leagues that allow moves post draft but prior to Week 1, and I've played in many leagues that do not allow transactions until after the week one games. I have my preferences, but I would not be so bold as to say one is a better system than the other. Different strokes for different leagues.

 

This is non issue but an important point, thanks.

 

What your preferences regarding these rules?

[Azazello1313]

but in his mind he wasn't performing an illegal move when he drafted Hernandez.

 

I don't see how that matters. he made an illegal roster move, commish didn't catch it until later, but he did catch it. it was his last act of the draft, so you can't say that he made other moves thinking the guy was on his roster. he loses nothing by having his illegal pick caught after the fact rather than on the spot. this is really a no-brainer.

[i_am_the_swammi]

While he has said he was targeting Hernandez in the last round, he has said it is his fault that he didn't know the rule. He just believes he shouldn't have to give up the last pick, a guy he was targeting; he wants to choose the player he drops. He doesn't care about the kicker; he said give me anyone.

 

At this point, you're in a no-win situation. You have to make the call, and by the sound of the board, its to give Owner A a kicker, and Owner B Hernandez. On the surface, its the most straight-forward decision to make.

 

I just have an inkling that Owner A likely would have drafted Hernandez in the 16th or 17th round had he remembered the rule....but because he was not present to hear the rules being read, he assumed he could wait and get him with his last pick.

 

Having owners absent from drafts is a bummer....as commish, it puts you in a very tough spot. Not that it was in any way your fault, but it does seem like he was at a disadvantage in the sense that the other owners got reminded of all the rules prior to the start of the draft, while the one guy not present (and who needed it) wasn't reminded.

[i_am_the_swammi]

he loses nothing by having his illegal pick caught after the fact rather than on the spot. this is really a no-brainer.

 

in hindsight...yes, its a no-brainer.

 

But I think its important to understand what led to the illegal pick. the fact that the one guy who wasn't present when the rules were read is the same guy making an illegal pick doesn't stick out as something to consider? Based on his actions, it was a big disadvantage, and one that likely cost him a guy he would have taken earlier had he been reminded of the rule, a luxury everyone else enjoyed.

[Azazello1313]

in hindsight...yes, its a no-brainer.

 

But I think its important to understand what led to the illegal pick. the fact that the one guy who wasn't present when the rules were read is the same guy making an illegal pick doesn't stick out as something to consider? Based on his actions, it was a big disadvantage, and one that likely cost him a guy he would have taken earlier had he been reminded of the rule, a luxury everyone else enjoyed.

 

from the original post:

We have rule in our league that full teams need to be drafted; so you cannot NOT draft a kicker and then wait until free agency starts to pick one up, later dropping a player. There is no penalty in place for not abiding by this rule. But the rule is on the books and I made it clear to everyone in attendance of the draft. It also has been in effect every year of the draft.

 

so while yeah, others were reminded AT the draft, this guy should have known the rule as well. the rules in place for everyone else shouldn't be thrown away because the guy who wasn't at the draft forgot the rule.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Azazello1313

[Big Country]

It is an owners responsibility to know the rules. I got caught in this once when I joined a league and didn't realize they did not have a FCFS waiver period ever. So, week 5 or 6, and my kicker is on bye. I think nothing of it, don;t want to waste waiver priority on a kicker and just give myself more time to evaluate kicker options. Saturday comes around and I put in for my kicker and am blocked. Contact commish saying I think there is a problem on MFL, only to be informed that there is no FCFS. So, I went without a kicker that week. It was my fault for not recalling the rule, just as it is this owner's fault, present at the draft or not, for not remembering/knowing the rule. What he may or may not have done is completely irrelevent. The only logical course of action is to reverse the pick of Hernandez and put in a kicker.

[delusions of grandeur]

While he has said he was targeting Hernandez in the last round, he has said it is his fault that he didn't know the rule. He just believes he shouldn't have to give up the last pick, a guy he was targeting; he wants to choose the player he drops. He doesn't care about the kicker; he said give me anyone.

I would definitely make sure you express to him that allowing him to do that would skew the draft results far more (since the other owners did not have the opportunity to draft the guy he now chooses to drop from what could be rounds earlier, and will have to fight for the player through bidding if they still want him), and it's simply not fair that he gets to keep the player he wants while others would have to pay for his mistake.

 

Aside from what we've already concluded is the right thing to do, you also should emphasize that his solution is unfair to the owners who drafted according to the rules to potentially be penalized for his mistake.

 

in hindsight...yes, its a no-brainer.

 

But I think its important to understand what led to the illegal pick. the fact that the one guy who wasn't present when the rules were read is the same guy making an illegal pick doesn't stick out as something to consider? Based on his actions, it was a big disadvantage, and one that likely cost him a guy he would have taken earlier had he been reminded of the rule, a luxury everyone else enjoyed.

I see what you're saying that it's a tough situation all around, but remember that this is a 12-year standing league and the commish was bending over backwards to keep him updated by spreadsheet. He should have made sure he was refreshed on the rules if he's being accomodated and disrupting the commishes ability to draft and catch things like this.

Edited September 6, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[Big Country]

This is non issue but an important point, thanks.

 

What your preferences regarding these rules?

 

 

My preference is to allow owners to draft whatever they want. No position limits, no forced taking a full lineup, etc.

 

As for preseason waivers, the earlier a draft, the more I am in favor of it to account for injuries and changing situations. If you are drafting the week of the first games, I prefer to not have a waiver period, and it really is much less of an issue in those leagues anyway.

[i_am_the_swammi]

so while yeah, others were reminded AT the draft, this guy should have known the rule as well. the rules in place for everyone else shouldn't be thrown away because the guy who wasn't at the draft forgot the rule.

 

yeah, the rule has been in place every year....but as the OP stated, its never come up before...which is likely why he reminded everyone.

[Goopster24]

yeah, the rule has been in place every year....but as the OP stated, its never come up before...which is likely why he reminded everyone.

 

To clarify, an issue like this never came up.

 

That said, me reminding everyone during the draft came up because an owner asked if he could do what Owner A did; not draft a kicker. I said no and reminded everyone at that point of the rule.

[flemingd]

The thing that some are missing here in this thread is this: "if" I would have caught the error, he WOULD NOT have been allowed to draft Hernandez in final round. If he said at the point, "well, I didn't know, can I drop an earlier player? I really want someone right here that I've been targeting," I would have said simply "no."

This, this, 1000x this. A commish that is tracking these things (not a dig at you) would have caught this and said "Joe blow, you have no kicker, you must draft one now" - controversy solved. Legal rosters are 100% the responsibility of the owner to comply, the commish just handles when it doesn't. This is crystal clear in my mind - he gets the kicker, other owner gets Hernandez.

[i_am_the_swammi]

That said, me reminding everyone during the draft came up because an owner asked if he could do what Owner A did; not draft a kicker. I said no and reminded everyone at that point of the rule.

 

So it was a rule that another owner inquired about? To me, that means it was a rule that not only Owner A forgot, but someone else as well. I think that actually strengthens Owner A's side....he missed out on it actually being discussed during the draft.

 

Again Goop, at this point, I don't see you having much of a choice here. You need to do something. Most here feel its back and white. But I'd like to see if you could reach a compromise...ask Owner A (hypothetically) who he would drop in lieu of Hernandez. If its a guy that Owner B would rather have over Hernandez (and it might be, since it would be a player taken a round or two earlier), then everyone wins. If not, then go with the idea that he drops his final pick. At least Owner A can take solace that you tried to rectify the situation as fairly as possible, but it didn't work out.

 

Oh, and I'd let the league vote on this form of compromise prior to you offering it. Unless you are dealing with a bunch of cut-throats, I can't imagine anyone having a problem with it.

[Big Country]

So it was a rule that another owner inquired about? To me, that means it was a rule that not only Owner A forgot, but someone else as well. I think that actually strengthens Owner A's side....he missed out on it actually being discussed during the draft.

 

Again Goop, at this point, I don't see you having much of a choice here. You need to do something. Most here feel its back and white. But I'd like to see if you could reach a compromise...ask Owner A (hypothetically) who he would drop in lieu of Hernandez. If its a guy that Owner B would rather have over Hernandez (and it might be, since it would be a player taken a round or two earlier), then everyone wins. If not, then go with the idea that he drops his final pick. At least Owner A can take solace that you tried to rectify the situation as fairly as possible, but it didn't work out.

 

Oh, and I'd let the league vote on this form of compromise prior to you offering it. Unless you are dealing with a bunch of cut-throats, I can't imagine anyone having a problem with it.

 

 

Not true at all... the rest of the owners in the league are adversely affected, as this was a player not available to them at their picks, that otherwise would have been. By allowing this kind of a course of action, you are adversely affecting the draft and decisions made because of the player not being available, and in a sense rewarding the owner for violating league rules. Whether or not he was clear on the rules is irrelevant, it's a rule that was in place for 12 years, and just because it came up during the live draft for the owner's that were present does not exclude him from having to abide by the rules of the league.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Not true at all... the rest of the owners in the league are adversely affected, as this was a player not available to them at their picks, that otherwise would have been. By allowing this kind of a course of action, you are adversely affecting the draft and decisions made because of the player not being available, and in a sense rewarding the owner for violating league rules. Whether or not he was clear on the rules is irrelevant, it's a rule that was in place for 12 years, and just because it came up during the live draft for the owner's that were present does not exclude him from having to abide by the rules of the league.

 

which is exactly why I said you'd need to have the other owners sign off on this compromise before he offered it.

 

Sounds like everyone is trying to be a hard-ass here, and its easy to be that way when we have nothing at stake....but these are guys Goop has played FF with for a dozen years. Sounds like an honest mistake, and unless the other owners are complete dbags, they should be able to work something out that everyone can live with....and then instill a penalty for future years so it never happens again.

[Big Country]

I don't see how it is being a hard-ass.

 

A rule was violated. By allowing him to choose who he drops, not only is the owner not punished for violating the rule, he gets exactly what anyone doing this would want... the ability to choose who he wants to drop from his roster, after the fact, in order to fill the kicker spot. By allowing him to choose who he drops, you are in a sense invalidating the rule and may as well remove it from the books.

[delusions of grandeur]

So it was a rule that another owner inquired about? To me, that means it was a rule that not only Owner A forgot, but someone else as well. I think that actually strengthens Owner A's side....he missed out on it actually being discussed during the draft.

Obviously I agree with BC about the rest, but why does that strengthen his argument, just because someone else wasn't fresh on the rules?

 

Does the commish in your leagues go over every rule with you before you draft? No, in my dynasty's there are 7+ page rulebooks to cover all circumstances, but that's no excuse for not knowing the rules for your league before you draft. That's your responsibility, and anything the commish does to help you out should be considered a personal favor... Just like he did a favor by answering that guy's question, he did this guy a freaking HUGE favor by updating a spreadsheet the entire draft. There's only so much you can do before people need to take care of their own business. Goop is still in competition with them afterall, so he's not required to do anything but enforce the layed-out rules as best he can.

 

He should absolutely not be put in a tough position because of someone else's ignorance, which is never a viable excuse when it comes to following long-standing written rules.

Edited September 6, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[detlef]

FWIW, I have played in at least one league, often more, nearly every year for the past 15 or so years and it has been the rule in every draft I've taken part in that you had to draft at least a starting line-up. In drafts that happened early enough that I would prefer the flexibility of speculative picks at positions other than PK and waited until closer to the season to make the call on who to drop and grab a kicker, I asked, and was always told "no". In other words, it is a prevailing enough rule that one should assume, unless specifically told otherwise, that you need to draft a full team. So, even if you didn't make it clear, it's still on him. Especially if it has been discussed in previous years.

 

Further, I think the "I was planning on taking Hernadez last" bit is a weak argument. If you wanted the guy so bad, why didn't you take him earlier?

 

In short, this is the sort of BS that would come up all the time in my old-school league and exactly why I stopped playing it. Team A is clearly at fault and is trying to bitch his way into a favorable ruling as opposed to doing the honorable thing and recognize that he screwed up and wasn't caught by you in time. After all, if you were on top of it and realized he hadn't drafted a kicker and refused the pick then and there, would he demand that you change his last pick? No, he'd be chight out of luck and grabbed a kicker.

[MikesVikes]

I thought this was going to be about the Ladder league.

[i_am_the_swammi]

I don't see how it is being a hard-ass.

 

A rule was violated. By allowing him to choose who he drops, not only is the owner not punished for violating the rule, he gets exactly what anyone doing this would want... the ability to choose who he wants to drop from his roster, after the fact, in order to fill the kicker spot. By allowing him to choose who he drops, you are in a sense invalidating the rule and may as well remove it from the books.

 

 

a rule was violated, but no enforceable penalty is listed. If I was Owner A, and wanted to be a hard-ass, I'd say "Ok, I violated a rule...I'll take the penalty laid out in the rules".

 

Which would be nothing.

[delusions of grandeur]

 

a rule was violated, but no enforceable penalty is listed. If I was Owner A, and wanted to be a hard-ass, I'd say "Ok, I violated a rule...I'll take the penalty laid out in the rules".

 

Which would be nothing.

No, had he caught it at the time of the infraction, the enforceable penalty would have been him saying "No, you have to select a kicker here"... It's the same penalty here, just applied as best as he can after the fact.

 

The penalty is still having the pick reversed, regardless of when it was enforced.

Edited September 6, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[detlef]

No, had he caught it at the time of the infraction, the enforceable penalty would have been him saying "No, you have to select a kicker here"... It's the same penalty here, just applied as best as he can after the fact.

 

The penalty is still having the pick reversed, regardless of when it was enforced.

Exactly.

 

Swammi: Say you were that guy and you were seemingly unaware that you had to take a kicker and were bold enough to assume that you didn't have to draft a complete team. So, you make your last pick of Hernandez and Goopster, being on it says, "Dude, you need a kicker. You can't take him."

 

What would you do then?

[i_am_the_swammi]

No, had he caught it at the time of the infraction, the enforceable penalty would have been him saying "No, you have to select a kicker here"... It's the same penalty here, just applied as best as he can after the fact.

 

Thats completely hypothetical. The point everyone seems to be on board with here is "he violated a rule, end of story".

 

My point is that, if you have a league with roster limit rules, and someone violates them, there needs to be a spelled-out penalty for such. In both locals I am in, we charge $10 if someone, even for a moment, is over or under said limits. Its part of our rules.

 

In this case, if on one hand people are saying the guy should be punished for breaking a rule in their constitution, but on the other hand are saying the penalty imposed should be made up as you go along (since the penalty for breaking a rule isn't defined)...that's a pretty slippery slope.

 

I still stick by my original answer: there isn't anything you can do at this point, and his "penalty" is that he has no kicker Week 1.

[detlef]

Thats completely hypothetical. The point everyone seems to be on board with here is "he violated a rule, end of story".

 

My point is that, if you have a league with roster limit rules, and someone violates them, there needs to be a spelled-out penalty for such. In both locals I am in, we charge $10 if someone, even for a moment, is over or under said limits. Its part of our rules.

 

In this case, if on one hand people are saying the guy should be punished for breaking a rule in their constitution, but on the other hand are saying the penalty imposed should be made up as you go along (since the penalty for breaking a rule isn't defined)...that's a pretty slippery slope.

 

I still stick by my original answer: there isn't anything you can do at this point, and his "penalty" is that he has no kicker Week 1.

Requiring him to redo his last pick with the understanding that the guy he did take had been pre-requested by the very next team is not a "punishment". I don't think anyone is truly saying he should be "punished". We are simply saying that they should retroactively do exactly what would have been done had the commish noticed what was going on at the time. "Dude, you can't draft Hernandez. You need a kicker." That's not a punishment. That's just not allowing an illegal move.

 

What people are saying is that Team A should not be able to take advantage of the situation, which, allowing him to drop who he wants would be.

 

Honestly, I'd be annoyed as hell at the guy for even making a stink about it.

Edited September 6, 2011 by detlef

[delusions of grandeur]

Thats completely hypothetical. The point everyone seems to be on board with here is "he violated a rule, end of story".

 

It is totally not hypothtical. It's the penalty that the commish will force you to change your pick if you make an illegal pick... So just because he didn't catch it until later on, we're supposed to assume a whole new set of rules and penalty for the rule violation? No. Violation = not drafting a kicker; Penalty = No, you have to draft a kicker

 

Seriously, are you just trying to drive me crazy?

Edited September 6, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[Goopster24]

Thanks for all the comments guys. The rule really didn't come into effect until round 18, where he was "technically" forced to make a kicker pick. He did not, and that in itself was an "illegal pick." That's how I view it.