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 This theme may be out of date.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.]]

I need some advice ?


HutOne
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here is the situation. In my league the owners can use different types of line ups.

Here are the ones they can use : QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, TE, K, DEF

QB, RB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, K, DEF

QB, RB, WR, WR, WR, WR, TE K DEF

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, TE, K, DEF

 

I had an owner put in an invalid line up (QB, RB, WR, WR, WR, TE, TE, K, DEF) I was out for most of yesterday and finally caught it when I got home midway through the late games. What is a fair way to resolve the situation since the person he is playing is fighting for a playoff spot. The person who put in the wrong line up his bench players that I could substitute did better than his starters.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that's a doozy.

 

If I'm reading this correctly, his lineup could be corrected by either substituting a RB for a WR, or a RB/WR for one of the TEs... So basically, it's almost impossible to say which player or position he should have started another position/player at.

 

Assuming there's nothing in the rules to address this, if it was my call as commish, I'd say that he has to go with his last legal lineup submitted from last week. Even though he may take a hit for being forced to start bye-week players, it's much more fair than what seems to be your only other alternative of forcing him to take a zero for submitting an illegal lineup.

 

Anything beyond that, and I think you're asking for a real mess on your hands.

 

 

(ETA: and I'd mention that if you had more traditional lineup choices, then the system shouldn't allow it, so all you're doing is making the correction that the system would have caught, but was on the owners to abide by in lieu of it.. Or I assume that the multiple options is why the system doesn't catch it for you. Either way, you should vote on a rule to address this in the offseason if illegal lineups are able to be submitted)

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

Wow, that's a doozy.

 

If I'm reading this correctly, his lineup could be corrected by either substituting a RB for a WR, or a RB/WR for one of the TEs... So basically, it's almost impossible to say which player or position he should have started another position/player at.

 

Assuming there's nothing in the rules to address this, if it was my call as commish, I'd say that he has to go with his last legal lineup submitted from last week. Even though he may take a hit for being forced to start bye-week players, it's much more fair than what seems to be your only other alternative of forcing him to take a zero for submitting an illegal lineup.

 

Anything beyond that, and I think you're asking for a real mess on your hands.

 

 

(ETA: and I'd mention that if you had more traditional lineup choices, then the system shouldn't allow it, so all you're doing is making the correction that the system would have caught, but was on the owners to abide by in lieu of it.. Or I assume that the multiple options is why the system doesn't catch it for you. Either way, you should vote on a rule to address this in the offseason if illegal lineups are able to be submitted)

that just made me wonder...what rule do you have in place if a team doesn't submit a lineup at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that's a doozy.

 

If I'm reading this correctly, his lineup could be corrected by either substituting a RB for a WR, or a RB/WR for one of the TEs... So basically, it's almost impossible to say which player or position he should have started another position/player at.

 

Assuming there's nothing in the rules to address this, if it was my call as commish, I'd say that he has to go with his last legal lineup submitted from last week. Even though he may take a hit for being forced to start bye-week players, it's much more fair than what seems to be your only other alternative of forcing him to take a zero for submitting an illegal lineup.

 

Anything beyond that, and I think you're asking for a real mess on your hands.

 

 

(ETA: and I'd mention that if you had more traditional lineup choices, then the system shouldn't allow it, so all you're doing is making the correction that the system would have caught, but was on the owners to abide by in lieu of it.. Or I assume that the multiple options is why the system doesn't catch it for you. Either way, you should vote on a rule to address this in the offseason if illegal lineups are able to be submitted)

The way I set it up in myfantasyleague.com is when you set up your line ups its has a min. start for each position and a max start for each position. This way it worked out for using multiple line ups but the one he used was accepted but wasn't in the rules of the league.I know some people are saying about using last weeks line up but with byes and dropped /picked up and also injured players (Adrian Peterson) he doesn't have all the players that he used last week. Sometimes being commisioner sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I set it up in myfantasyleague.com is when you set up your line ups its has a min. start for each position and a max start for each position. This way it worked out for using multiple line ups but the one he used was accepted but wasn't in the rules of the league.I know some people are saying about using last weeks line up but with byes and dropped /picked up and also injured players (Adrian Peterson) he doesn't have all the players that he used last week. Sometimes being commisioner sucks.

 

Do you trust the guy? Just ask him what his lineup would have been and set it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The site myfantasyleague automatically submits one.

based on last week? if that is the case then I think that is what you do...since technically he didn't submit a lineup since it was invalid

 

by the way there is a way to set it up at MFL so that an invalid lineup isn't accepted....

 

IE: in ATAP we can start the following and MFL will NOT allow an invalid lineup to be submitted.

Total Starters: 20

Number of Starting QBs: 1

Number of Starting RBs: 0-3

Number of Starting WRs: 0-5

Number of Starting TEs: 1-3

Number of Starting PKs: 1

Number of Starting PNs: 1

Number of Starting DTs: 1-3

Number of Starting DEs: 2

Number of Starting LBs: 1-4

Number of Starting CBs: 2-3

Number of Starting Ss: 1-3

Edited by keggerz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I set it up in myfantasyleague.com is when you set up your line ups its has a min. start for each position and a max start for each position. This way it worked out for using multiple line ups but the one he used was accepted but wasn't in the rules of the league.I know some people are saying about using last weeks line up but with byes and dropped /picked up and also injured players (Adrian Peterson) he doesn't have all the players that he used last week. Sometimes being commisioner sucks.

I figured as much... For a while we had one extra roster spot, as a placeholder for people to make a taxi squad pickup, since you can't place them there initally. We had to get rid of it though, because I got tired of policing it when the system should be. The honor system sucks.

 

But I do not think it is unfair in the slightest to use his lineup from last week. Any other way you try to resolve it will be completely debateable because of the flexible position limits, except for the harsher penalty of giving him a zero for the week. Other than those 2 possiblities, then there's not going to be another fair way to resolve it in hindsight.

 

With there being no rule in place to address it (there needs to be for next year though), and your set-up doesn't allow the system to catch it, then your obligation is to do what the system should have in the first place, not allowing it and using the previous weeks. It would be much more unfair to do anything less or more than that.

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

I have made rulings like this and never been questioned before. It's usually caught right away, and it's usually not submitting a full lineup.

 

As a commish, you have the right to make the "Lineup Intent" call - use it as you will...but the intent must be clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

based on last week? if that is the case then I think that is what you do...since technically he didn't submit a lineup since it was invalid

 

by the way there is a way to set it up at MFL so that an invalid lineup isn't accepted....

 

IE: in ATAP we can start the following and MFL will NOT allow an invalid lineup to be submitted.

Total Starters: 20

Number of Starting QBs: 1

Number of Starting RBs: 0-3

Number of Starting WRs: 0-5

Number of Starting TEs: 1-3

Number of Starting PKs: 1

Number of Starting PNs: 1

Number of Starting DTs: 1-3

Number of Starting DEs: 2

Number of Starting LBs: 1-4

Number of Starting CBs: 2-3

Number of Starting Ss: 1-3

 

 

Keg -

 

If you look at his legal lineups and the lineup submitted, you'll see why there was no way for MFL to catch the error. Every position in the invalid lineup is within the legal limits of each position based on the allowed lineups.

 

 

As for how to solve this, you find yourself in quite a dilemma with no set rule in place. Part of me thinks you have to revert back to last week's lineup and if he dropped any starters from last week, he gets a 0 for that spot. Rough spot for sure, but it's really the only "fair" way to handle the situation unless your league will accept his word on who he would have started over who to make it a legal lineup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keg -

 

If you look at his legal lineups and the lineup submitted, you'll see why there was no way for MFL to catch the error. Every position in the invalid lineup is within the legal limits of each position based on the allowed lineups.

 

 

As for how to solve this, you find yourself in quite a dilemma with no set rule in place. Part of me thinks you have to revert back to last week's lineup and if he dropped any starters from last week, he gets a 0 for that spot. Rough spot for sure, but it's really the only "fair" way to handle the situation unless your league will accept his word on who he would have started over who to make it a legal lineup.

:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the situation. In my league the owners can use different types of line ups.

Here are the ones they can use : QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, TE, K, DEF

QB, RB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, K, DEF

QB, RB, WR, WR, WR, WR, TE K DEF

QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, TE, K, DEF

 

I had an owner put in an invalid line up (QB, RB, WR, WR, WR, TE, TE, K, DEF) I was out for most of yesterday and finally caught it when I got home midway through the late games. What is a fair way to resolve the situation since the person he is playing is fighting for a playoff spot. The person who put in the wrong line up his bench players that I could substitute did better than his starters.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

It seems to me that there is no real justification for not submitting that line up. Bottom line you should add this to your list of flex. The difference between a 2nd TE or a 4th WR or a 2nd RB is simply not significant and should be the owners call.

 

That said you should run it by the opponent and if he complains then take out the lowest scoring TE or the one he starts the least and then put in the lowest scoring RB or WR unless a player is playing this evening.

 

Next season you should simply add this configuration given you obviously have multiple flex options and my guess is you simply didn't think of this option.

 

The fact you set MFL that way and the fact MFL allowed it unfortunately falls on you since the system looked at this as a legal lineup.

 

Whatever ruling you make, be firm.

 

Me, I would allow the lineup as any owner could have set this lineup without issue. Not an easy call but based on your settings, the lineup is legal as MFL would have provided a warning message.

 

Unfortunately, you have some responsibility. If you don't allow it, then the worst TE out for the worst legal player in is penalty enough as this doesn't fall into forfeit situation unless your rules are very explicit. I would also re-read your rules. You really need language like these are the ONLY lineup requirements, and the penalty is X if you screw up.

 

Hopefully your ownership understands you have to make decisions that is best for the entire league. Sometimes the Commish has to take the bullet for the league.

 

Good Luck!

Edited by Ice1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you guys have the rules accessible, and everyone knows them, then he should have been more careful when submitting his lineup. Ask whose points he wants negated, the TE2 or the WR3?

Are you kidding? You absolutely cannot ask him which he'd prefer to start now, knowing the results of their games.

 

It seems to me that there is no real justification for not submitting that line up. Bottom line you should add this to your list of flex. The difference between a 2nd TE or a 4th WR is simply not significant.

 

That said you should run it by the opponent and if he complains then take out the lowest scoring TE or the one he starts the least and then put in the lowest scoring RB or WR unless a player is playing this evening.

 

Next season you should simply add this configuration given you obviously have multiple flex options and my guess is you simply didn't think of this option.

 

The fact you set MFL that way and the fact MFL allowed it unfortunately falls on you since the system looked at this as a legal lineup.

 

Whatever ruling you make, be firm.

 

Me, I would allow the lineup as any owner could have set this lineup without issue. Not an easy call but based on your settings, the lineup is legal as MFL would have provided a warning message.

 

Unfortunately, you have some responsibility. If you don't allow it, then the worst TE out for the worst legal player in is penalty enough as this doesn't fall into forfeit situation unless your rules are very explicit. I would also re-read your rules. You really need language like these are the ONLY lineup requirements, and the penalty is X if you screw up.

 

Hopefully your ownership understands you have to make decisions that is best for the entire league. Sometimes the Commish has to take the bullet for the league.

 

Good Luck!

Your solution might be alright if the league was okay with it, but the problem is that their requirements are funky to where he could have either started a RB for a WR, or it could have also a RB/WR for one of the TEs. It makes it muddled up enough to where you have to let the responsibility fall on that owner for not submitting a valid lineup, if you don't have a rule to address the situation beforehand. It's not fair to determine another solution after the fact with hindsight when its that complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you kidding? You absolutely cannot ask him which he'd prefer to start now, knowing the results of their games.

 

 

Your solution might be alright if the league was okay with it, but the problem is that their requirements are funky to where he could have either started a RB for a WR, or it could have also a RB/WR for one of the TEs. It makes it muddled up enough to where you have to let the responsibility fall on that owner for not submitting a valid lineup, if you don't have a rule to address the situation beforehand. It's not fair to determine another solution after the fact with hindsight when its that complicated.

 

Obviously, it is complicated but it doesn't sound like the rules are very clear and obviously as the Commish it is wise to check to and verify all settings. The way the settings are set MFL allows for the lineup setting so if the owner erred he should have received a warning.

 

Bottom line when you are a Commish, sometimes rulings must be made in the absence of clear and concise rules that deal with the rule and ramifications of not following them.

 

In this case, it is apparent the Commish needs some advice because the rules are not clear. If they were, he would not be asking.

 

Like I stated, I would allow the lineup however, subbing out the lowest TE or WR for the lowest legal player or player on the bench that hasn't played is probably the fairest for the league.

 

The reason for allowing it is easier for me for these reasons.

 

1) No owner or the Commish most likely ever caught or even considered this logical option

2) The settings allowed for it.

3) The system gave no warning message and of us that use MFL are very familiar with this error message as mistakes happen.

4) All year this was possible.

 

Regardless, a decision must be made so these are a few options for considerations.

 

Unless the rules of punishment are crystal clear then forfeit would not be an option as it falls under too bad a mistake was made but the reality is there are more then one mistake that was made.

 

Did ownership decide this was a horrible lineup option?

Did ownership even consider this option, ever?

If yes to either are their rules outlining the ramifications?

Did the Commish mess up the settings or inform the league that it could not be set this way without allowing this type lineup in the first place?

 

Not easy and completely understand if the Commish makes a different ruling. I would make it the way outlined without knowing the intricate rule detail because my guess is the Commish or ownership simply never thought of this simple extra flex option.

Edited by Ice1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, it is complicated but it doesn't sound like the rules are very clear and obviously as the Commish it is wise to check to and verify all settings. The way the settings are set MFL allows for the lineup setting so if the owner erred he should have received a warning.

 

Bottom line when you are a Commish, sometimes rulings must be made in the absence of clear and concise rules that deal with the rule and ramifications of not following them.

 

In this case, it is apparent the Commish needs some advice because the rules are not clear. If they were, he would not be asking.

 

Like I stated, I would allow the lineup however, subbing out the lowest TE or WR for the lowest legal player or player on the bench that hasn't played is probably the fairest for the league.

 

The reason for allowing it is easier for me for these reasons.

 

1) No owner or the Commish most likely ever caught or even considered this logical option

2) The settings allowed for it.

3) The system gave no warning message and of us that use MFL are very familiar with this error message as mistakes happen.

4) All year this was possible.

 

Regardless, a decision must be made so these are a few options for considerations.

 

Unless the rules of punishment are crystal clear then forfeit would not be an option as it falls under too bad a mistake was made but the reality is there are more then one mistake that was made.

 

Did ownership decide this was a horrible lineup option?

Did ownership even consider this option, ever?

If yes to either are their rules outlining the ramifications?

Did the Commish mess up the settings or inform the league that it could not be set this way without allowing this type lineup in the first place?

 

Not easy and completely understand if the Commish makes a different ruling. I would make it the way outlined without knowing the intricate rule detail because my guess is the Commish or ownership simply never thought of this simple extra flex option.

No, if it were a matter of the commish incorrectly setting lineup requirements or that he "simply never thought of this simple flex option" then that would be one thing. As he stated in another post, the way MFL is set up for maximum/minimus allowed for a lineup that was illegal per their rules. There was nothing he could have done differently with their available options. It is only the penalty that is not clearly defined. The rules for valid lineups were clearly defined in their rules. To me, that falls on the owner, though perhaps he should have warned them that MFL would not catch it.

 

This is why, absent a rule, you do what MFL should have done in the first place, just the same as if you hit submit and walk away from your computer before seeing the error message: not allow it, revert to the previous week, and start proposals to deal with it in the future.

 

What you're suggesting seems to be a very arbitrary way to settle it, when there are so many contingencies involved, to where the valid lineup is in now way clear-cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no issues with using last weeks lineup BTW. Bottom line, my guess is this option was simply not thought of but without actually reading the rules it is hard to determine intent.

 

My guess is intent was to have multiple flex options and while the line up submitted in the vast majority of cases would be the weakest it is a logical option as to the intent of rule allowing varying flex options.

 

I would have to read the specific rule language to best determine intent but on the surface, I can't think of any real logical reason why this set up would have been disallowed in the first place so I am assuming due to lack of information the league wanted multiple flex options even though most would not employ this particular lineup option.

 

BTW, if the system cannot avoid this option then no real reason to not allow it in my opinion.Obviously, it will be discussed next year.

 

No doubt when dealing with intent any solution will appear arbitrary. There could be problems with last weeks lineup as well given waivers, bye weeks and such so simply setting last weeks lineup may be an issue.

 

Anyway, just ideas to consider.

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