Grits and Shins Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 In one of my leagues free agency moves are only allowed in the playoffs for players listed as OUT on the injury report. 5 illegal free agency acquisitions were made this week, three to acquire starters Commissioner wasn't paying attention and allowed the moves ... As the games kick off today an owner points out that the moves are illegal ... The commissioner ruling: 1) Team 1 had ATL and DAL on their roster. Dropped ATL to acquire/start SD. Commissioner reversed the move and inserted DAL into the starting lineup. 2) Team 2 had OAK on their roster. Dropped Tynes to acquire/start JAX. Commissioner reversed the move and inserted OAK into the starting lineup. 3) Team 3 had BUF and TEN on their roster. Dropped BUF to acquire/start MIA. Commissioner reversed the move and inserted TEN into the starting lineup. All this happened after the kick off of today's games. Is this a fair commissioner ruling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infinity Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 I think its fair. Commissioner is doing his job by not allowing the breaking of rules. If people get sore about it so be it, rules are there for a reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 I think its fair. Commissioner is doing his job by not allowing the breaking of rules. If people get sore about it so be it, rules are there for a reason. yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Is this a fair commissioner ruling? Clearly it is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Fair - enforcing the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpholmes Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Should have caught it initially, but doing what he now to make it right. Been there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcmast Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Sounds good to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Looks good to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Only thing that's a bit of a bummer is that the Commish had to make the call as to which defense to start for two of the teams. But because they didn't know the rules and essentially tried to cheat the system...tough beans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Couch Potatoe Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 yep looks good to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 In my league, the teams that attempted the illegal pick-ups would still be charged for the illegal pickup, even though it was negated. They should know better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachBum Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Only thing that's a bit of a bummer is that the Commish had to make the call as to which defense to start for two of the teams. Wonder about this. What was the commish reasons for the choice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Only thing that's a bit of a bummer is that the Commish had to make the call as to which defense to start for two of the teams. But because they didn't know the rules and essentially tried to cheat the system...tough beans. Not really, he played the team that they weren't going to drop...would make sense that is who they would have played over the team they were dropping(unless they were keeping them for a play next week, but that wouldn't be a big % chance of that, or so I wouldn't think)...the other team it sounds like they only had one team Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 3) Team 3 had BUF and TEN on their roster. Dropped BUF to acquire/start MIA. Commissioner reversed the move and inserted TEN into the starting lineup. All this happened after the kick off of today's games. Is this a fair commissioner ruling? The only question is which D to force start - I would go with the last one the owner started. Other than that, it's totally legit. Compliance with rules are on the OWNERS, not the commish - it's just his job to clean up the Athena when they don't. Good job commish for having the balls to move instead of saying "well we didn't catch it right away so it stands". After a quick proofread I see the same issue for team 1 and reiterate that it should probably be the one they last started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 The only question is which D to force start - I would go with the last one the owner started. Other than that, it's totally legit. Compliance with rules are on the OWNERS, not the commish - it's just his job to clean up the Athena when they don't. Good job commish for having the balls to move instead of saying "well we didn't catch it right away so it stands". After a quick proofread I see the same issue for team 1 and reiterate that it should probably be the one they last started. That is the hard part of the decision - which defense to insert into the lineup. The decision was made to start the teams the owners chose to keep on their rosters versus the ones they chose to drop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 That is the hard part of the decision - which defense to insert into the lineup. The decision was made to start the teams the owners chose to keep on their rosters versus the ones they chose to drop. Which is why it isn't hard at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 That is the hard part of the decision - which defense to insert into the lineup. The decision was made to start the teams the owners chose to keep on their rosters versus the ones they chose to drop. basically seems like a slam dunk decision Which is why it isn't hard at all. seriously how can it even be a real issue...hel1 they should feel lucky they are even allowed to star a D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 (edited) Not really, he played the team that they weren't going to drop...would make sense that is who they would have played over the team they were dropping(unless they were keeping them for a play next week, but that wouldn't be a big % chance of that, or so I wouldn't think)...the other team it sounds like they only had one team Not necessarily. They might have been holding onto the other defense for a matchup later in the playoffs, and dropping the one they wanted to for a better matchup this week. For instance, I doubt the dude owning the Dallas defense wanted them started this week in what is sure to be a shootout....but probably wanted to keep them on his roster so he could use them next week versus Tampa Bay. Edited December 12, 2011 by i_am_the_swammi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Not necessarily. They might have been holding onto the other defense for a matchup later in the playoffs, and dropping the one they wanted to for a better matchup this week. For instance, I doubt the dude owning the Dallas defense wanted them started this week in what is sure to be a shootout....but probably wanted to keep them on his roster so he could use them next week versus Tampa Bay. If you read what you quoted of mine you see that I said that was a possibility Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 (edited) If you read what you quoted of mine you see that I said that was a possibility I think its more than a possibility....I think its a probability....or why else would he be keeping Dallas's defense at all? To start in Week 16 against Vick/mcCoy/Jackson/Maclin, a team that jacked them for 34 points a month ago? I doubt it. The only logical reason for even having them on their roster at all would be to use them next week. ETA: all that being said, I agree with you that that the owner's shouldn't complain...they didn't know the rules, and in some leagues, could have very well been given a "0" for their defenses....or worse, a "0" for the week for submitting an invalid lineup. Edited December 12, 2011 by i_am_the_swammi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Should have caught it initially, but doing what he now to make it right. Been there. This Not really, he played the team that they weren't going to drop...would make sense that is who they would have played over the team they were dropping(unless they were keeping them for a play next week, but that wouldn't be a big % chance of that, or so I wouldn't think)...the other team it sounds like they only had one team and this Really sucks though that the commish did not catch this beforehand. I know the commish is human, but needs to be more on top of things (assuming it was possible). We used to run roster moves in the playoffs in a similar way, but changed it to instead just allow any playoff team to make roster moves, regardless of player condition. But we have a couple of twists primarily because of it being a keeper league (don't want playoffs teams to have a chance at sudden hot players) - costs $5 to add a player (instead of normal 2) - moves are temporary, player is removed from your roster when you exit the playoffs (or when playoffs are over) - you only add, don't need to drop players (we expand roster size by an extra 2-3, more if needed, but its never happened) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Decision is fine. I would have reversed the transaction and left whomever the system placed into the starting role. In other words if the D that was dropped was starting it likely would have placed that D into the same starting place filler. Of course it depends on the website's workings if that happens. I don't think I would make a staring line-up decision after the deadline. If after the move was reversed neither D was slotted into the starting spot I might have left it as no D starting. If that created an illegal line-up and a ZERO than it would be a shame but or rules don't allow the commish to make a line-up decision that can result in points scored. Only a move to sub in a bye week or "out" player that will give them a legal line-up and avoid a zero and likely automatic win. D's aren't "out" and the byes have passed, so I guess by our rules they COULD get a zero for illegal line-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dug Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 As one of the owners mentioned, I think what Blitz did was the right call. I forgot about that rule and should not have placed the waiver. Even though he selected TEN over BUF (which I would have done also) I still won my match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.