League Dispute Question

[stethant]

Score corrections after the Sunday action has completed are a known hazard of FFL. He should've waited to make the move. He did not - buyer beware. My main league is a bunch of close friends who get along well and the league is run with a bit of give-and-take, but even then we would not reverse the roster moves team A made.

[SecondString]

Part of a small tribe in the northeast region of Krzyzyzyzywbedubanski. Pretty obscure place, but it's my roots.

 

How is this different from getting info that Highhtower is starting, yet I get Shanahan'd by Torain? "All reports said HTWR was the starter..." Is this "bad info" too?

Lenny, the difference here is where the information came from. In your example, the information was provided by a third party that has no knowledge of, and nothing to do with the league. In reality, the information was provided by the league administrator, who actually provides and publishes the scoring information on which owners' decisions are based. In fact, they are paid to do so. No comparison whatsoever.

Edited October 11, 2011 by SecondString

[untateve]

Once a player is dropped and hits the waiver wire, he's locked there through the next waiver period, in this case Wednesday morning.

 

Your opinion is exactly how I felt about it, but I knew I might be biased since it's a good friend of mine. That's why I posted it here. Apparently, you and I are the only ones who feel that way, lol. Like I said, he's cool with it, is manning up and moving on, but it's a pretty bad break, i believe.

 

The bold is the league rule. He dropped the player and the rule is he's locked until the next waiver wire period. The commish must follow the rule.

[flemingd]

The bold is the league rule. He dropped the player and the rule is he's locked until the next waiver wire period. The commish must follow the rule.

And if the system errored out and dropped Calvin Johnson instead of Thomas? Rules are made with the assumption you're not going to be fed bad information by the system. If he has listened to another owner, a Huddle forum advice, ESPN, Sirius XM, just about any third party this holds water. It doesn't because the system you trust to be accurate wasn't.

[untateve]

And if the system errored out and dropped Calvin Johnson instead of Thomas? Rules are made with the assumption you're not going to be fed bad information by the system. If he has listened to another owner, a Huddle forum advice, ESPN, Sirius XM, just about any third party this holds water. It doesn't because the system you trust to be accurate wasn't.

 

If the commish doesn't follow the league rule, then I guarantee when someone drops johnson instead of thomas, that owner will be screaming that I didn't make the mistake, the system did. "you broke our rules for Owner 1, why won't you break them for me?

 

Perhaps the league should consider changing their league rules.

[flemingd]

If the commish doesn't follow the league rule, then I guarantee when someone drops johnson instead of thomas, that owner will be screaming that I didn't make the mistake, the system did. "you broke our rules for Owner 1, why won't you break them for me?

 

Perhaps the league should consider changing their league rules.

And if it's something as glaring as dropping Calvin Johnson for Thomas, or making a FA move to break a tie that didn't really exist, I would have no problem taking the guy at his word.

 

And yes, a rule covering it would be a good thing going forward.

[untateve]

And if it's something as glaring as dropping Calvin Johnson for Thomas, or making a FA move to break a tie that didn't really exist, I would have no problem taking the guy at his word.

 

And yes, a rule covering it would be a good thing going forward.

 

You may not have a problem taking the guy at his word. But what happens when the next incident in question becomes grayer and then you decide to follow the rules of your league firmly. Now the owner is upset because you ignored the rules twice before as commish but now you won't. And another owner agrees that you ignored the rules in the past and to him, it seems like you should again. But there are a couple other owners who are upset and are screaming no way can you ignore the rule in this case. It won't end pretty.

[flemingd]

You may not have a problem taking the guy at his word. But what happens when the next incident in question becomes grayer and then you decide to follow the rules of your league firmly. Now the owner is upset because you ignored the rules twice before as commish but now you won't. And another owner agrees that you ignored the rules in the past and to him, it seems like you should again. But there are a couple other owners who are upset and are screaming no way can you ignore the rule in this case. It won't end pretty.

Apples and oranges. By the time future ones happen this will be addressed. And if the first occurance were more gray, you err on the side of caution and disallow it. However, that's not what's here - there is no gray, it's crystal clear that in the absence of the system error the guy wouldn't have made the move.

[SecondString]

Apples and oranges. By the time future ones happen this will be addressed. And if the first occurance were more gray, you err on the side of caution and disallow it. However, that's not what's here - there is no gray, it's crystal clear that in the absence of the system error the guy wouldn't have made the move.

 

Yes, your point in bold above was my thinking too. It really surprised me that more respondants didn't side with this and agree that the move should be reversed.

 

What if you were in basketball game, and the scoreboard said you were down by one with five seconds left in the game, and your opponent was inbounding the ball. So you foul them immediately, hoping they miss the free throws, and you get one last shot. But before they shoot the free throws, the score is corrected and you were actually up by one. You wouldn't have committed the foul.

 

In our FF games, we count on someone to keep the score, in this case ESPN. That is who we pay to do so, we rely on what they publish and make our decisions accordingly. A commish making a judgement call on this is not out of line at all, IMO.

 

Wondering if the responses would be different if this owner had made his roster move on Monday afternoon rather than Sunday night....I would hope so.

Edited October 11, 2011 by SecondString

[Grits and Shins]

I can't believe the owner had the gall to ask for the move to be reversed.

I can't believe the commissioner would even consider reversing the move.

 

The fact that ESPN misrepresented the score is totally irrelevant.

 

When the owner made the move (Sunday or Monday) is totally irrelevant.

 

What is relevant is that Team A chose to make a roster move ... there are no do overs on roster moves.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Grits and Shins

[CurlyDumps]

Hey, it's not me, but it is a friend of mine.

 

riiight...that old line? lulz

[SecondString]

I can't believe the owner had the gall to ask for the move to be reversed.

I can't believe the commissioner would even consider reversing the move.

 

The fact that ESPN misrepresented the score is totally irrelevant.

 

When the owner made the move (Sunday or Monday) is totally irrelevant.

 

What is relevant is that Team A chose to make a roster move ... there are no do overs on roster moves.

Interesting position to take that under no circumstances should a roster move be reversible. Here's a scenario:

 

You wake up tomorrow and log onto your league's webpage, and read a new LM note notifying you that effective immediately, for the betterment of the league, all teams are required to drop one player because it has been determined that the waiver wire is too thin (due to the excess of injuries in the NFL this year). The penalty for not doing so is the forfeiture of one game in the Win column. A couple of the owners comply on the first day, dropping players. The next day, a new LM note is posted stating that the message was in error. Due to an error by someone at the provider's (ESPN/Yahoo/whoever) administrative office, and/or a computer glitch, the message was incorrectly posted on your league's page instead of the correct page for a different league. The players already dropped must now go through the normal waivers process, even though only a couple of the teams dropped players. This is the same as the situation we are discussing here in that:

 

1) The owner(s) made a decision to make a roster move for the betterment of their team's record (to avoid forfeiting a "W")

2) That decision was based on incorrect information provided by the league administrator

 

According to you, this would have to stand, because "What is relevant is that Team A chose to make a roster move ... there are no do overs on roster moves."

 

Correct??

 

Here's another: An unscrupulous owner somehow gets the log-in info for another owner and makes a roster move on his behalf (this has actually happened in our league about five years ago). It can't be proven, but the move is so ridiculous, the affected owner's claim is very credible and seems to be the only logical explanation for the move. In this case, the LM would have to make a judgement call.

 

The point is, I don't believe it correct to say that all roster moves should be irreversible. Mistakes are made by the league, and the ensuing results of those mistakes should be able to be reversible, if practical and possible...kind of like replays/booth reviews?? The goal is to get it right.

Edited October 11, 2011 by SecondString

[SecondString]

riiight...that old line? lulz

No, it really is a friend of mine, I sent him the link to this thread and he's been following it with interest. Doesn't matter, the decision has been made as far as our league is concerned, but it does make for interesting discussion.

Edited October 11, 2011 by SecondString

[No Quarter]

I have to agree with Grits. I think you have two seperate things here. The scoring correction is what it is, a necessary change to reflect accuracy.

 

The fact that your system allows team A to make a waiver move after some games have been played before all games have been completed makes it legal. So team B has to live with it. ( I wouldn't like that rule, but if everyone can do it, then it is fair.)

 

That your system doesn't allow for undoing a roster move means that team A has to live with that.

[detlef]

Interesting position to take that under no circumstances should a roster move be reversible. Here's a scenario:

 

You wake up tomorrow and log onto your league's webpage, and read a new LM note notifying you that effective immediately, for the betterment of the league, all teams are required to drop one player because it has been determined that the waiver wire is too thin (due to the excess of injuries in the NFL this year). The penalty for not doing so is the forfeiture of one game in the Win column. A couple of the owners comply on the first day, dropping players. The next day, a new LM note is posted stating that the message was in error. Due to an error by someone at the provider's (ESPN/Yahoo/whoever) administrative office, and/or a computer glitch, the message was incorrectly posted on your league's page instead of the correct page for a different league. The players already dropped must now go through the normal waivers process, even though only a couple of the teams dropped players. This is the same as the situation we are discussing here in that:

 

1) The owner(s) made a decision to make a roster move for the betterment of their team's record (to avoid forfeiting a "W")

2) That decision was based on incorrect information provided by the league administrator

 

According to you, this would have to stand, because "What is relevant is that Team A chose to make a roster move ... there are no do overs on roster moves."

 

Correct??

 

Here's another: An unscrupulous owner somehow gets the log-in info for another owner and makes a roster move on his behalf (this has actually happened in our league about five years ago). It can't be proven, but the move is so ridiculous, the affected owner's claim is very credible and seems to be the only logical explanation for the move. In this case, the LM would have to make a judgement call.

 

The point is, I don't believe it correct to say that all roster moves should be irreversible. Mistakes are made by the league, and the ensuing results of those mistakes should be able to be reversible, if practical and possible...kind of like replays/booth reviews?? The goal is to get it right.

So, you've got a league where you can pick up players mid game, dudes log into other team's pages and make BS moves, and whine when the somewhat bush-league move they made was not needed and want a do-over?

 

I think you should just ro-sham-bo for all disputes. Seems appropriate for your group.

[otis29]

I can't believe this is even in question. Doesn't every fantasy football system include a caveat in their live scoring that the scores are "unofficial" until they say differently?

 

You keep fishing for the answer you want, because this guy is a buddy of yours. It makes me question whether you are actually up for the job, since you're supposed to be looking for fairness for the league as a whole rather than one guy in particular.

 

The guy took a chance and it didn't work out. He shouldn't get a safety net.

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

you mean like this:

 

Stat Corrections Rule for ESPN League

[SecondString]

you mean like this:

 

Stat Corrections Rule for ESPN League

Yes, that affects the score, which everyone understands can change as a result of possible posting errors. Nobody can do anything about that, it can happen. Has nothing to do with the roster move though, which can be corrected.

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

Yes, that affects the score, which everyone understands can change as a result of possible posting errors. Nobody can do anything about that, it can happen. Has nothing to do with the roster move though, which can be corrected.

 

No, the issue is he made a roster move based on 'unofficial' stats. If they change later and he didn't need to make the move in the first place, oh well, too bad for him.

[SecondString]

So, you've got a league where you can pick up players mid game, dudes log into other team's pages and make BS moves, and whine when the somewhat bush-league move they made was not needed and want a do-over?

 

I think you should just ro-sham-bo for all disputes. Seems appropriate for your group.

 

"So, you've got a league where you can pick up players mid game"

All standard ESPN leagues are set up this way...not unique to our league, roster spots don't lock until that player's game begins. I think most other leagues are that way too.

 

"dudes log into other team's pages and make BS moves"

One time deal, that owner was ousted of course, but the situation had to be dealt with as unique...which is why it is relevant here, in this discussion.

 

"and whine when the somewhat bush-league move they made was not needed and want a do-over?"

I think most owners in that position would seek a reversal, based on that their actions were based on bad info provided by the league. Nobody's whining, it's over, we've moved on, but nothing in the world wrong with raising the issue.

 

"I think you should just ro-sham-bo for all disputes. Seems appropriate for your group."

Really appreciate the constructive input.

Edited October 11, 2011 by SecondString

[SecondString]

No, the issue is he made a roster move based on 'unofficial' stats. If they change later and he didn't need to make the move in the first place, oh well, too bad for him.

He couldn't wait until the following Saturday to make a roster move. His deadline for that was kick-off Monday night.

[detlef]

"So, you've got a league where you can pick up players mid game"

All standard ESPN leagues are set up this way...not unique to our league, roster spots don't lock until that player's game begins. I think most other leagues are that way too.

 

"dudes log into other team's pages and make BS moves"

One time deal, that owner was ousted of course, but the situation had to be dealt with as unique...which is why it is relevant here, in this discussion.

 

"and whine when the somewhat bush-league move they made was not needed and want a do-over?"

I think most owners in that position would seek a reversal, based on that their actions were based on bad info provided by the league. Nobody's whining, it's over, we've moved on, but nothing in the world wrong with raising the issue.

 

"I think you should just ro-sham-bo for all disputes. Seems appropriate for your group."

Really appreciate the constructive input.

Like others have mentioned, it looks like you're here looking for a specific answer. One that you're not getting. There's been plenty of constructive input, but you keep saying "but, but, but". So, obviously, you don't want to hear it.

 

And, apparently "most owners" wouldn't seek reversal. This thread has shown as much. "Most owners", it seems, would have either not dropped Thomas to begin with or lived with the fact that they had him. Assuming you care about the opinion of those who belong to a forum that you chose to raise this question.

 

Oh, as for why someone sabotaging your team and you not being allowed to fix it has anything to do with you consciously choosing to drop one player for another, even if you were doing so based on info that was incorrect, though labeled as "unofficial" is beyond me.

Edited October 11, 2011 by detlef

[SecondString]

Like others have mentioned, it looks like you're here looking for a specific answer. One that you're not getting. There's been plenty of constructive input, but you keep saying "but, but, but". So, obviously, you don't want to hear it.

 

And, apparently "most owners" wouldn't seek reversal. This thread has shown as much. "Most owners", it seems, would have either not dropped Thomas to begin with or lived with the fact that they had him. Assuming you care about the opinion of those who belong to a forum that you chose to raise this question.

 

Oh, as for why someone sabotaging your team and you not being allowed to fix it has anything to do with you consciously choosing to drop one player for another, even if you were doing so based on info that was incorrect, though labeled as "unofficial" is beyond me.

No, I'm not looking for a specific answer, just seeking other opinions. I get that I am in the minority here, which is I guess why I keep bouncing back with replies to dissenting views. I just feel that there are some instances where exceptions need to be made, and that this would be one of them. In our case here, this owner should have waited until Monday afternoon or later (but before kickoff Monday night) to make his move. If he had, I think it should be a clear decision that he should get the player back (reverse the move), and am surprised there is not more agreement on this. I'm not gonna lose sleep over it, or make personal attacks on those that don't agree with me, just stating my arguement.

 

I will say that I believe almost every owner, if put in the position of dropping a player to insure a win, or hanging on to him and take a sure loss, would have done what this owner did.

Edited October 11, 2011 by SecondString

[otis29]

I will say that I believe almost every owner, if put in the position of dropping a player to insure a win, or hanging on to him and take a sure loss, would have done what this owner did.

I don't disagree with this. But that argument is really a red herring.

 

I don't agree that most would want the transaction reversed after the fact, they would see it as the risk inherent in pursuing the reward.

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

"So, you've got a league where you can pick up players mid game"

All standard ESPN leagues are set up this way...not unique to our league, roster spots don't lock until that player's game begins. I think most other leagues are that way too.

 

"dudes log into other team's pages and make BS moves"

One time deal, that owner was ousted of course, but the situation had to be dealt with as unique...which is why it is relevant here, in this discussion.

 

"and whine when the somewhat bush-league move they made was not needed and want a do-over?"

I think most owners in that position would seek a reversal, based on that their actions were based on bad info provided by the league. Nobody's whining, it's over, we've moved on, but nothing in the world wrong with raising the issue.

 

"I think you should just ro-sham-bo for all disputes. Seems appropriate for your group."

Really appreciate the constructive input.

 

I've played in many ESPN leagues in the past, as well as many at other sites. I can't recall ever seeing a league where you can perform an add/drop during a game. I'm in a friendly Yahoo league this year, and add/drops lock at 1:00 Sunday. While roster spots may not lock until a player's game has started, that is all you can do, switch somebody from bench to starting line-up. This part is standard as to help a player not start a game-time-decision 'out' player. The fact that you can add a player from FA to your starting line-up after kickoff Sunday is a problem. If that's the way ESPN is right now, sure glad I don't play there any more.