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 This theme may be out of date.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

League Dispute Question


SecondString
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Not making it up...that's the way it is. He had, as stated earlier, posted a blank, so all he had to do was drop a bench player (on a bye) for any player on waivers from Chicago or Detroit before kickoff Monday night, and they would be eligible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How is this discussion still going?

 

Look ,scoring is not official at the end of games. We've had a discussion here about this before, and most every league hosting site has stat corrections after the fact.

 

I've lost a game due to one before, on an Boldin pass that got ruled a run later. It happens. You live and die by the scoring corrections unless you have some other rule in place. No exceptions, no excuses, because you're playing under the same ambiguity as everyone else until it becomes official.

 

It is not a "system error" that needs to be corrected, it's the way scoring is done. It's not official until it's official. Sorry your buddy got screwed by that fact, but it's the way it goes...

Edited by delusions of granduer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record I'll say the move should not be reversed... while within the rules the owner was still trying to "work the system" and needs to deal with how it turned out. On occasion I have double checked my teams numbers in our ESPN league scoring against stats on NFL.com and other sites when I'm in a matchup that gets really close.

 

That said, I'll offer some unsolicited opinions...

 

-I don't believe in using bench scoring for exactly this reason... between bye weeks, injuries, etc... bench points are irrelevant, it should still be about putting out your best lineup. Using bench points to me would be like the NFL putting in a rule that once a game goes to overtime both teams have to put in their backup quarterback. There are a number of better options than bench points for breaking ties... first, ties could be allowed during the regular season... fractional points, our league goes to most total TD's in the lineup, then highest individual player, 2nd highest etc... all better than using bench scoring IMO.

 

-I also think it's silly to allow add/drops after Sunday at noon. I am a firm believer in everyone having a chance at players on the waiver wire. Imagine if leading up to the game last night there was a last minute announcement that Jahvid Best or Matt Forte were out for whatever reason... injury, team discipline, whatever. In my mind it's not fair that the teams that had players on a bye would be able to grab K. Williams, Harrison, or Barber if available, while other teams whose rosters were already played out and locked did not have the same opportunity. I'm fine with lineup changes up to an individual players game time, but all teams should have equal opportunity to all players on waivers, and that would mean locking waiver moves before the games on Sunday.

 

-Only two bench spots is a little bit harsh as well. I understand the possible motivating forces behind it... leaving more available players on the WW, adding more strategy to take bye weeks into consideration when drafting and making roster moves, but 3-4 bench spaces would accomplish the same without being quite so harsh. Bye weeks should be a consideration when filling out a roster, but not in the first 3-4 rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this about the point where taz comes along to run through the thread naked?

 

 

 

I think most of the issues have been beat to death, there will be no consensus, so my opinion on the particular incident is irrelevant.

 

 

One thing to note though is that I would disagree with SecondStrings statement that most leagues allow players to be add/dropped during games - I am in no league that allows this and very few that I am aware of do allow this. Now, most, ever since the advent of online league management systems and the move from a USA Today and a pencil allow teams to make lineup changes for players in games that have not yet started, so long as that player was on the roster prior to the stars of the Sunday morning games (some leagues lock at first game of week, which can be problematic with the addition of so many Thursday games)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record I'll say the move should not be reversed... while within the rules the owner was still trying to "work the system" and needs to deal with how it turned out. On occasion I have double checked my teams numbers in our ESPN league scoring against stats on NFL.com and other sites when I'm in a matchup that gets really close.

 

That said, I'll offer some unsolicited opinions...

 

-I don't believe in using bench scoring for exactly this reason... between bye weeks, injuries, etc... bench points are irrelevant, it should still be about putting out your best lineup. Using bench points to me would be like the NFL putting in a rule that once a game goes to overtime both teams have to put in their backup quarterback. There are a number of better options than bench points for breaking ties... first, ties could be allowed during the regular season... fractional points, our league goes to most total TD's in the lineup, then highest individual player, 2nd highest etc... all better than using bench scoring IMO.

 

-I also think it's silly to allow add/drops after Sunday at noon. I am a firm believer in everyone having a chance at players on the waiver wire. Imagine if leading up to the game last night there was a last minute announcement that Jahvid Best or Matt Forte were out for whatever reason... injury, team discipline, whatever. In my mind it's not fair that the teams that had players on a bye would be able to grab K. Williams, Harrison, or Barber if available, while other teams whose rosters were already played out and locked did not have the same opportunity. I'm fine with lineup changes up to an individual players game time, but all teams should have equal opportunity to all players on waivers, and that would mean locking waiver moves before the games on Sunday.

 

 

-Only two bench spots is a little bit harsh as well. I understand the possible motivating forces behind it... leaving more available players on the WW, adding more strategy to take bye weeks into consideration when drafting and making roster moves, but 3-4 bench spaces would accomplish the same without being quite so harsh. Bye weeks should be a consideration when filling out a roster, but not in the first 3-4 rounds.

 

 

Yeah, you raise three interesting points, none of which address the original issue.

 

1) I agree with you on the tie-breaker, and we've had league votes on this and bench points has prevailed each time

 

2) They would only be able to grab and use the handcuffs if they had posted a blank for the week, or chose to replace another starter who also happened to be playing the late game. At any rate, you are right that there could possibly be a very rare occurrence of advantage for someone with open slots for late games.

 

3) This league was started by people who were tired of being in leagues where there were a bunch of bench spots, nothing of value on the waiver wire, and not enough strategy once the draft is complete. Two bench spots were chosen for the purpose of forcing owners to make waiver wire moves and/or trades on a regular basis to survive. I for one, agree that three would be a better number, and have campaigned for that in our league. However, we have voted on it three years in a row now, and two bench spots has prevailed each time.

Edited by SecondString
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One question, do you use decimal scoring? If so, I'm shocked that anybody made a roster move without going through the scoring with a fine tooth comb. Rarely do I see moves of 6 points, but very frequently there is a yard or two that is moved around that cause a tenth change from Sunday to Monday. If you don't, then you should.

 

Also, to your question at hand, I agree with the majority that you shouldn't reverse the trade. What happens if Titus doesn't play or gets negative points for the game? Team A still loses without the scoring change and he can't ask for a reversal in that case show so he shouldn't be able to ask for one here. It's easy to ask after the fact when it helps his team. Even though this isn't your team, you have a vested interest in the situation due to friendship or the fact that Thomas may be picked up by another team that may negatively impact you. The impartial majority has spoken.

 

Just my :wacko: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My (very late) 2 cents

 

1) The original transaction never should have been possible. Rosters should be locked between start of first game and end of last game. But since your league permits it, it's a moot point --- but something you should probably address going forward

 

2) Since your league permitted the transaction, there's no reason for it to be reversed. He's using the benefit of hindsight to ask you to undo a transaction that he made a concious decision to proceed with. It's a ridiculous request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Now you are being silly.

 

Teams following a league directive to drop players is NOT the same as an owner making a conscious decision to make a roster move in a bush league move to work the system so he gets a win. Furthermore, I believe the scenario you proposed is the type that would never occur anyway. Since when are roster sizes CHANGED after the season starts. I would quit any league that changed rules like that mid-season.

 

Your second example is silly as well. Operating as a commissioner I have often corrected a mistake when an owner fat fingers a waiver wire, mistakenly dropping one player when he meant to drop another - but only if I am notified immediately. You will note that this is not a reversal of the original transaction as the team is still dropping one player and acquiring another - but a switch out of the actual player dropped. I find it highly unlikely that one owner would get another's password and make a move in the manner you proposed. But should such a thing happen as commissioner I would investigate - should I find that one owner did such a thing I would reverse the move and kick the offending owner out of the league.

 

Both of your scenarios are of an extreme and unlikely variety. In the original case Team A made a conscious decision to make a move ... I don't care WHY he made the move ... he made the move. If he picks up a kicker to cover for his off week kicker and finds out he could have won without the kicker will you allow him to reverse the move he made to pick up the kicker - this is the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you are being silly.

 

Teams following a league directive to drop players is NOT the same as an owner making a conscious decision to make a roster move in a bush league move to work the system so he gets a win. Furthermore, I believe the scenario you proposed is the type that would never occur anyway. Since when are roster sizes CHANGED after the season starts. I would quit any league that changed rules like that mid-season.

 

Your second example is silly as well. Operating as a commissioner I have often corrected a mistake when an owner fat fingers a waiver wire, mistakenly dropping one player when he meant to drop another - but only if I am notified immediately. You will note that this is not a reversal of the original transaction as the team is still dropping one player and acquiring another - but a switch out of the actual player dropped. I find it highly unlikely that one owner would get another's password and make a move in the manner you proposed. But should such a thing happen as commissioner I would investigate - should I find that one owner did such a thing I would reverse the move and kick the offending owner out of the league.

 

Both of your scenarios are of an extreme and unlikely variety. In the original case Team A made a conscious decision to make a move ... I don't care WHY he made the move ... he made the move. If he picks up a kicker to cover for his off week kicker and finds out he could have won without the kicker will you allow him to reverse the move he made to pick up the kicker - this is the same thing.

 

"Both of your scenarios are of an extreme and unlikely variety"

 

The incident in discussion is also of extreme and unlikely variety. But it happened, thus this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Both of your scenarios are of an extreme and unlikely variety"

 

The incident in discussion is also of extreme and unlikely variety. But it happened, thus this discussion.

 

Scoring adjustments ARE NOT of the extreme and unlikely variety - you are telling me they are?

 

Your owner acted on incomplete information - owners do it all the time - this is not an extreme and unlikely scenario.

 

You didn't answer my question - if an owner picks up a kicker to cover his off week and finds out he could have won without making the move (i.e. with a zero from his kicker) will you allow him to reverse his move after the fact?

 

I get the distinct impression that YOU are Team A.

Edited by Grits and Shins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm interested in hearing what most people feel about this. Here's the situation:

 

Two teams, we'll call them "Team A" and "Team B" were tied in their weekly head-to-head matchup after all games completed yesterday. "Team A" had chosen to post a blank on his roster going into the week, rather than drop a good player on a bye week to waivers (he had three players with byes, and we only have two bench spots in our league). The tie-breaker is bench points, and "Team B" was winning the tie-breaker, since "Team A" had three byes on the bench. Therefore, the owner of "Team A" decided to go ahead and drop one of his benched players (Daniel Thomas) and pick up Titus Young (playing Monday night), since it only took one point to give him the win, and "Team B' had no players left (all spots had already played).

 

Overnight, there was an adjustment in the scoring. "Team B" had a 6-point deduction. Therefore, "Team A' already had the win in hand and had unnecessarily made the roster move.

 

The owner of "Team A" appealed to the LM to reverse the roster move, since he would never had made the move in the first place if the league administrator (ESPN) had not posted the error.

 

The LM denied the request.

 

What is fair here?

 

 

Classic case proving that "bench points" should NEVER be used for anything. NEVER! There's too much room for bizarro things like this situation. Gebeesuz. Why not have a sensible tie breaker instead? Total TDs is usually a good one. In fact, I've never really understood why people object vehemently to in-season ties. Playoffs can't have ties, of course, but in-season, if both teams score the same head-to-head in a given week, then guess what? It really is a freaking tie. Best of luck sorting it all out.

Edited by Dcat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scoring adjustments ARE NOT of the extreme and unlikely variety - you are telling me they are?

 

Your owner acted on incomplete information - owners do it all the time - this is not an extreme and unlikely scenario.

 

You didn't answer my question - if an owner picks up a kicker to cover his off week and finds out he could have won without making the move (i.e. with a zero from his kicker) will you allow him to reverse his move after the fact?

 

I get the distinct impression that YOU are Team A.

"Scoring adjustments ARE NOT of the extreme and unlikely variety - you are telling me they are?"[b][/b]

No, of course scoring adjustments are not rare. What is rare is that in this instance, before the scoring adjustment, the score was misrepresented as a tie. Oh yeah, and coincedentally, one of the affected teams happened to have posted a blank roster spot for the week. Yes, that is "extreme and unlikely".

 

You didn't answer my question - if an owner picks up a kicker to cover his off week and finds out he could have won without making the move (i.e. with a zero from his kicker) will you allow him to reverse his move after the fact?

Now who's being silly? You're kidding, right? What I am saying here is that if this owner made the move solely because of a posting error by the league administrator, and that it if is reasonable to assume that there is no way he would have otherwise made the move, it deserves reversal consideration. Your hypothetical is a simple WDIS decision failure, with no outside influences. (Can't believe I'm even answering this.)

 

I get the distinct impression that YOU are Team A

If you have read through the thread, I have mentioed a couple of times that Team A is a fellow owner in the league, and is a good friend of mine. He is also actively following this thread, is not a Huddle member. If it were me, I would have no reason or motivation to state otherwise, and it would not change my view..

Edited by SecondString
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your hypothetical is a simple WDIS decision failure, with no outside influences. (Can't believe I'm even answering this.)

You're completely missing the point when we explain hypotheticals like that. We're not arguing that special consideration should be made in those circumstances, we're making those examples to show you why your sitaution is not markedly different.

 

In both the case of the hypothetical and in this situation, the person asking for special treatment is only able to do so because of hindsight with scoring changes. That is not "ouside influence", it's not a "system error", it is what it is; an unoffical score that could change when things become official.

 

So unless you want to hire a reliable person to do the league scoring for you, then you live and die by the scoring changes, regardless of if they work in your favor or not. Since you agree that the person in that hypothetical deserves no special treatment for making a poor roster decision, I'm not sure how you can argue here that this person does deserve special treatment after the fact.

 

And as I said earlier, this is even a more nefarious case of someone seeking to work the system, so if you're willing to have it work in your favor for a win with a player you never intended on playing or keeping otherwise, then you reap both the benefits and the consequences when the scoring becomes official.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're completely missing the point when we explain hypotheticals like that. We're not arguing that special consideration should be made in those circumstances, we're making those examples to show you why your sitaution is not markedly different.

 

In both the case of the hypothetical and in this situation, the person asking for special treatment is only able to do so because of hindsight with scoring changes. That is not "ouside influence", it's not a "system error", it is what it is; an unoffical score that could change when things become official.

 

So unless you want to hire a reliable person to do the league scoring for you, then you live and die by the scoring changes, regardless of if they work in your favor or not. Since you agree that the person in that hypothetical deserves no special treatment for making a poor roster decision, I'm not sure how you can argue here that this person does deserve special treatment after the fact.

 

And as I said earlier, this is even a more nefarious case of someone seeking to work the system, so if you're willing to have it work in your favor for a win with a player you never intended on playing or keeping otherwise, then you reap both the benefits and the consequences when the scoring becomes official.

Well said, and that is the crux of the disagreement. I'm not missing your point at all, I just find it hard to believe that so few people believe that the league administrator's error should not be the cause of undue detriment on an owner who relied on the accuracy of the postings...which in this case is our scoreboard.

 

I'm not swaying many of you, and I'm pretty sure you can't convince me either, but it's quite cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said, and that is the crux of the disagreement. I'm not missing your point at all, I just find it hard to believe that so few people believe that the league administrator's error should not be the cause of undue detriment on an owner who relied on the accuracy of the postings...which in this case is our scoreboard.

 

I'm not swaying many of you, and I'm pretty sure you can't convince me either, but it's quite cool.

So how's it fair to the team who had the tie taken away because of "error", but the guy who wins because of the correction gets an even bigger break because of that correction? It's simply not consistent to say that corrections later in the week can affect the outcome of the game, unless you picked up a player because of the error, and then you get a free pass.

 

And again, the reason you're not convincing anyone is because it's not an unforeseen error. It's completely laid out by them that this can and will happen:

Scoring Corrections

It is possible that over the course of the fantasy football season some scoring plays and player statistics may be recorded incorrectly. The deadline for all weekly scoring or stat corrections made by the system is the Saturday following the week of the game in question, during the season. Any changes entered in the system will automatically reflect in both your Box Score and your Standing's pages.

 

So if it's laid out beforehand that scores may not be official until as late as the next Saturday, then you have treat the preliminary scoring as unofficial until the time that NFL puts out their official scoring.

 

It is a convenience that ESPN allows you to see estimates of scores as they happen (just ask the old-timers who used to do it by hand), but the NFL has the final say on what's ruled as what, not ESPN, hence why they have that disclaimer that scores can and will change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how's it fair to the team who had the tie taken away because of "error", but the guy who wins because of the correction gets an even bigger break because of that correction? It's simply not consistent to say that corrections later in the week can affect the outcome of the game, unless you picked up a player because of the error, and then you get a free pass.

 

And again, the reason you're not convincing anyone is because it's not an unforeseen error. It's completely laid out by them that this can and will happen:

 

 

So if it's laid out beforehand that scores may not be official until as late as the next Saturday, then you have treat the preliminary scoring as unofficial until the time that NFL puts out their official scoring.

 

It is a convenience that ESPN allows you to see estimates of scores as they happen (just ask the old-timers who used to do it by hand), but the NFL has the final say on what's ruled as what, not ESPN, hence why they have that disclaimer that scores can and will change.

 

Wow...so on we go. The reason I keep going on this is because i have yet to hear an arguement to convince me. Here you go:

 

"So how's it fair to the team who had the tie taken away because of "error", but the guy who wins because of the correction gets an even bigger break because of that correction?"

The second owner involved in the tie game had already posted all of his players, had no chance to make any changes, was not affected. You can disagree that roster changes should be allowed after the first game kicks off at 1:00 on Sunday, but that's not the topic here. And as it turned out, "Owner B" had lost anyway, and was not slighted in any way. Weak arguement.

 

"And again, the reason you're not convincing anyone is because it's not an unforeseen error."

So you're saying that if this owner is tied hours before the kicoff of MNF, and he knows all he has to do is to post a player who will give him one point to get the win, and if he sits idle he gets the loss, he's supposed to go through the thought process of anticipating/hoping that there will be a scoring adjustment????? That's basically what you are saying here, because it is "forseen". Come on.

 

"It is a convenience that ESPN allows you to see estimates of scores as they happen (just ask the old-timers who used to do it by hand), but the NFL has the final say on what's ruled as what, not ESPN, hence why they have that disclaimer that scores can and will change."

Understood, and it was agreed on earlier in the thread that he should have waited until at least Monday afternoon before making his move to allow for this. However, he had to make his move before kickoff Monday night. This is what the debate is based on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Scoring adjustments ARE NOT of the extreme and unlikely variety - you are telling me they are?"[b][/b]

No, of course scoring adjustments are not rare. What is rare is that in this instance, before the scoring adjustment, the score was misrepresented as a tie. Oh yeah, and coincedentally, one of the affected teams happened to have posted a blank roster spot for the week. Yes, that is "extreme and unlikely".

 

You didn't answer my question - if an owner picks up a kicker to cover his off week and finds out he could have won without making the move (i.e. with a zero from his kicker) will you allow him to reverse his move after the fact?

Now who's being silly? You're kidding, right? What I am saying here is that if this owner made the move solely because of a posting error by the league administrator, and that it is reasonable to assume that there is no way he would have otherwise made the move, it deserves reversal consideration. Your hypothetical is a simple WDIS decision failure, with no outside influences. (Can't believe I'm even answering this.)

 

I get the distinct impression that YOU are Team A

If you have read through the thread, I have mentioed a couple of times that Team A is a fellow owner in the league, and is a good friend of mine. He is also actively following this thread, is not a Huddle member. If it were me, I would have no reason or motivation to state otherwise, and it would not change my view..

 

Scores represented in the software before the conclusion of the week are PRELIMINARY. In fact most leagues have rules that state games are only final with the kick of the games THE FOLLOWING WEEK.

 

It is irrelevant what was reflected by the PRELIMINARY SCORE. You ... err your friend ... elected to make a roster move based on PRELIMINARY information. He can't have a do over after seeing that his move was unnecessary.

 

It sounds more and more like I'd never want to be in a league with you or your "friend".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the ACTUAL score adjustment that was made? Which player, and what was incorrect? Did the system just simply fail to reflect an accurate score, or was there a scoring change after the fact?

 

Again - irrelevant.

 

Unless all owners are allowed to reverse moves that don't work out as they anticipated no owners should be allowed to reverse moves that don't work out as anticipated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scores represented in the software before the conclusion of the week are PRELIMINARY. In fact most leagues have rules that state games are only final with the kick of the games THE FOLLOWING WEEK.

 

It is irrelevant what was reflected by the PRELIMINARY SCORE. You ... err your friend ... elected to make a roster move based on PRELIMINARY information. He can't have a do over after seeing that his move was unnecessary.

 

It sounds more and more like I'd never want to be in a league with you or your "friend".

No need to make it personal...just having a discussion. The points you make above have been hashed & rehashed in this thread...maybe catch up on the thread before jumping in and echoing earlier points, representing as if they were new thoughts??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the ACTUAL score adjustment that was made? Which player, and what was incorrect? Did the system just simply fail to reflect an accurate score, or was there a scoring change after the fact?

Team B had a deduction of 6 points, not sure why. The adjustment was made Sunday evening late, while the Sunday night game was in progress, but both teams' posted players had already played. So to answer your question, it was a "scoring change after the fact".

 

It has been conceded that Owner A should have waited until Monday afternoon to make his roster move to allow for potential adjustments. The debate has now become, if he had done so, should he be entitled to having the player replaced on his roster, since he certainly would not have made the roster move absent the posting inaccuracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information