Commish Ruling Advice

[Footballjoe]

Having a problem in a league I commish. What happened is that an owner accepted a trade but realized immediatley after accepting it he looked at it wrong. I know this because I was on the phone with him (my brother) when it happened. He notified the other owner about the mistake but that owner wants the trade to stand. I am giving them time to work it out but I do not think it will happen. I spoke to the co commish about the rules and we are not in complete agreement. The rules state:

 

Trading

 

10.1 Trades between teams are unlimited. However, if

any trades appear to be one-sided or otherwise unfair,

the league owners may be asked to vote whether or not

to approve the transaction.

 

10.2 Either of the 2 commissioners are the only one

who may call for such a vote. However, any owner is

free to bring any question regarding a trade to the

attention of the commissioners. If the commissioner

receives 3 requests by e-mail within 48 hours of the

trade to put a trade up for vote, we will submit the

trade to the 10 non-involved owners for a league-wide

vote, absent unusual circumstances. Vote must be 1

plus 50% who vote. Thus if everyone votes, leaving 10

non involved owners, 8 votes are required to Veto if a

vote is called. Obviously if only 10 people vote, then

only 6 votes are needed to veto. So to be heard, every

vote counts and is encouraged to be cast regardless of

your opinion of the trade, if a veto is called on by

the league....

 

10.3 The commissioners may veto any trade without

calling for a vote if its not in the best interest of

both teams or is detrimental to the league as a whole.

Both Commissioners must agree the trade is not

appropriate for rule 10.3 to be enforced

 

10.4 When a trade is made, BOTH owners must notify the

commissioner to make the trade official. The trade

will be approved or denied at the TUDL site. Owners

should have the trade in the system at TUDL prior to

posting a thread.

 

10.5 The trading deadline is 24 hours before the start

of the week 9 NFL games..

 

10.6 Trades will be put on hold for 24 hours from the

time of posting on the messageboard, to allow for

owner/commissioner inspection.

 

The problem seems to be in section 10.4. Does the way it is written allow for the owner who claims he misread the deal to nullify the trade by not posting in the forum?

[Shorttynaz]

Rules are rules.. Once you click that "Accept" or "Send" button - that's signing your name to it. As the commissioner, you approved it. If once I completed a trade and then either called it back or wanted the other manager to call it back and the commissioner did so (either way) - IMO he just abused his privileges..

 

Done deal. Either way someone's not gonna be happy - but it's a tough lesson to learn..

Edited September 14, 2012 by Shorttynaz

[buddahj]

This sounds vaguely familiar.

[Grits and Shins]

I think commissioners should pretty much NOT be in the business of regulating trades. Essentially a commissioners role in the trade is to push the button that allows it to happen.

 

Once two owners agree to a trade there should not be any buyer's remorse.

 

If both owners agreed to the trade (i.e. both said "I agree to the trade") then I don't believe the trade should be reversed.

[Sunday Couch Potatoe]

here we go again

[Footballjoe]

Appreciate the comments so far but I am not asking opinion of feeling. I am asking for interpertation of the way the rules are written.

[Shorttynaz]

ALL TRADES ARE FINAL ONCE APPROVED - that's the way I interpret it..

[theeohiostate]

your rule only states both owners notify the commish, not accept or deny the trade, if you were notified that a trade existed then it must be processed.

 

however, if you play in a league with family and have a co-commish that is impartial , then i would remove yourself from the situation and allow the co-commish to review and decide without interference

[delusions of grandeur]

Rules are rules.. Once you click that "Accept" or "Send" button - that's signing your name to it. As the commissioner, you approved it. If once I completed a trade and then either called it back or wanted the other manager to call it back and the commissioner did so (either way) - IMO he just abused his privileges..

 

Done deal. Either way someone's not gonna be happy - but it's a tough lesson to learn..

 

That's a site setting, not a rule.

 

The rules state that the trade is not"official" until both owners notify the commish to finalize it.

 

An easy way to look at it, is to ask, why would you have a rule that it has to be made official outside of the site? The most likely answer is that the intent of the rule is to ensure that the trade has in fact been agreed upon by both parties, and is not a mistake (or even an offer that an owner never got a chance to pull before a player got injured, is a frequent scenario).

 

Thus, if the trade isn't official until they both declare their intent to you, then that's a pretty strong leg to stand on. Plus it's kind of a dick move for the other owner to a trade that he immediately contacted to tell him he didn't mean to agree to.

[delusions of grandeur]

your rule only states both owners notify the commish, not accept or deny the trade, if you were notified that a trade existed then it must be processed.

 

however, if you play in a league with family and have a co-commish that is impartial , then i would remove yourself from the situation and allow the co-commish to review and decide without interference

 

Why would you have this rule in place, if the intent wasn't to make sure that both owners in fact agreed to the trade?

[Grits and Shins]

Appreciate the comments so far but I am not asking opinion of feeling. I am asking for interpertation of the way the rules are written.

 

 

If I agree to a trade with another owner and then he tries to use a ticky-tacky rules interpretation to get out of the trade that we already agreed to ... it will certainly be the last trade I make with that particular owner and might even be my last year in the league.

[flemingd]

Lemme guess, the trade involved someone with a recent news update or directly impacted by one. Jennings?

[Footballjoe]

That's a site setting, not a rule.

 

The rules state that the trade is not"official" until both owners notify the commish to finalize it.

 

An easy way to look at it, is to ask, why would you have a rule that it has to be made official outside of the site? The most likely answer is that the intent of the rule is to ensure that the trade has in fact been agreed upon by both parties, and is not a mistake (or even an offer that an owner never got a chance to pull before a player got injured, is a frequent scenario).

 

Thus, if the trade isn't official until they both declare their intent to you, then that's a pretty strong leg to stand on. Plus it's kind of a dick move for the other owner to a trade that he immediately contacted to tell him he didn't mean to agree to.

 

 

Thats exactly how i see it but didn't have the know to say it that way.

[delusions of grandeur]

If I agree to a trade with another owner and then he tries to use a ticky-tacky rules interpretation to get out of the trade that we already agreed to ... it will certainly be the last trade I make with that particular owner and might even be my last year in the league.

 

I would never play in a league with you either if I accidentally clicked a button, immediately told you and the commish I didn't mean to make the trade, had rules that could be interpreted in my favor, and have you still demand that the trade stand.

[Shorttynaz]

I would never play in a league with you either if I accidentally clicked a button, immediately told you and the commish I didn't mean to make the trade, had rules that could be interpreted in my favor, and have you still demand that the trade stand.

 

Re-read the original scenario. It NEVER says anything about accidentally clicking accept. It says he looked at it wrong. I guess I'd want more clarification about "looking at it wrong". What did you see between accepting the trade and then having buyers remorse??

 

In your phantom scenario, if I or another owner accidentally clicks accept (has happened before and both managers re-traded the same players) - that's a COMPLETELY different story.

[skhyatt]

That's a site setting, not a rule.

 

The rules state that the trade is not"official" until both owners notify the commish to finalize it.

 

An easy way to look at it, is to ask, why would you have a rule that it has to be made official outside of the site? The most likely answer is that the intent of the rule is to ensure that the trade has in fact been agreed upon by both parties, and is not a mistake (or even an offer that an owner never got a chance to pull before a player got injured, is a frequent scenario).

 

Thus, if the trade isn't official until they both declare their intent to you, then that's a pretty strong leg to stand on. Plus it's kind of a dick move for the other owner to a trade that he immediately contacted to tell him he didn't mean to agree to.

 

 

Pretty much agree with this statement. Why have that rule if that's not the purpose? The fact that both commissioners don't agree will be a problem though.

Edited September 14, 2012 by skhyatt

[flemingd]

Appreciate the comments so far but I am not asking opinion of feeling. I am asking for interpertation of the way the rules are written.

 

Why would you want us to interpret what is plainly spelt out? Clearly your brother notified you, probably by yelling "oh CHIPS AHOY!" into the phone. If the other owner has notified a commish, it's done. You don't say they have to reaffirm acceptance of the trade, just that you have to be notified of it. Do you not feel notified?

 

Two points have been made that bear combining:

1. The trade was already accepted. Both owners clicked some sort of "accept" button.

2. The intent of the rule needs to be decided so you can write it properly, If the intent is to give owners a chance to bail out once buyer's remorse sets in, then word the rule this way. If it's not, why have the rule?

[delusions of grandeur]

Re-read the original scenario. It NEVER says anything about accidentally clicking accept. It says he looked at it wrong. I guess I'd want more clarification about "looking at it wrong". What did you see between accepting the trade and then having buyers remorse??

 

In your phantom scenario, if I or another owner accidentally clicks accept (has happened before and both managers re-traded the same players) - that's a COMPLETELY different story.

 

Looked at it wrong is slang for misread, which means thought he was agreeing to something different. He immediately noticed his mistake and tried to rectify it.

 

All this lawyering to say no backsies is precisely why so many rules have to be so explicitly stated in America. It's as if people need rules to have common sense and decency.

Edited September 14, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[Shorttynaz]

Keep it simple! One owner = SEND, another owner = ACCEPT. Commish = APPROVE. It's that simple..

 

I guess in this case, when you make it so difficult to process a trade - then you get what you ask for. If I were in this league, and I had to vote - I'd vote for trade stands. I think the fact that the guy who's asking for you to reverse this trade is your brother - it's clouding your judgement - at least that's the feeling I'm starting to get. How do you think the other managers are gonna feel?

 

If you can't make a decision (which shouldn't be a difficult one) because 10.4 is a stupid rule/setting, then go back to stupid rule/setting 10.2 and put it to a league vote.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Shorttynaz

[euphy]

Rules are rules.. Once you click that "Accept" or "Send" button - that's signing your name to it. As the commissioner, you approved it. If once I completed a trade and then either called it back or wanted the other manager to call it back and the commissioner did so (either way) - IMO he just abused his privileges..

 

Done deal. Either way someone's not gonna be happy - but it's a tough lesson to learn..

 

 

What this guy said. You hit send, that's on you.

[The Wolf]

It's unfortunate but the rule is clear. Both owners accepted and in doing so, the commish was notified. By rule the trade stands. NOW, the other owner could have allowed the trade to be canceled but because he didnt, it has to stand. Tough lesson for your bro, FBJ but the rule is clear.

[Footballjoe]

Why would you want us to interpret what is plainly spelt out? Clearly your brother notified you, probably by yelling "oh CHIPS AHOY!" into the phone. If the other owner has notified a commish, it's done. You don't say they have to reaffirm acceptance of the trade, just that you have to be notified of it. Do you not feel notified?

 

Two points have been made that bear combining:

1. The trade was already accepted. Both owners clicked some sort of "accept" button.

2. The intent of the rule needs to be decided so you can write it properly, If the intent is to give owners a chance to bail out once buyer's remorse sets in, then word the rule this way. If it's not, why have the rule?

 

 

Actually one owner offer the trade and the other clicks accept. It does notify you that you are about to accept.

 

To give a little more backround. Most of us in the league play in 2 leagues together: TINO and TINO2. He got his players / leagues mixed up thinking he was getting Britt and giving away DJax. He owns DJax in the other league. We were discussing the value of each and he clearly thought he was getting Britt. Just as soon he click accept and the trade showed up he dropped the F bomb. He then realized what had happened and notified the other owner.

 

I can see why the rules were written in the way they were; to allow for such errors.

[Shorttynaz]

Looked at it wrong is slang for misread, which means thought he was agreeing to something different. He immediately noticed his mistake and tried to rectify it.

 

All this lawyering to say no backsies is precisely why so many rules have to be so explicitly stated in America. It's as if people need rules to have common sense and decency.

 

I know you're not the commish, but again the only way to come to a conclusion would be to know who the players involved are. How can you look at a trade wrong? Did he trade future picks? Did he trade jersey numbers? Not that these were the players involved, but Kevin Smith for Dwayne Bowe doesn't really leave a lot to be misread. I still stand firm in saying let the trade stand.

[delusions of grandeur]

I know you're not the commish, but again the only way to come to a conclusion would be to know who the players involved are. How can you look at a trade wrong? Did he trade future picks? Did he trade jersey numbers? Not that these were the players involved, but Kevin Smith for Dwayne Bowe doesn't really leave a lot to be misread. I still stand firm in saying let the trade stand.

 

Might wanna read the post above yours.

 

A poorly written rule (and I agree somewhat ill-conceived as I've been burned by a similar rule before and lobbied to change it) does not make the intent any less clear. This is the exact reason why that rule was even included, to ensure both parties actually agree.

[Grits and Shins]

Actually one owner offer the trade and the other clicks accept. It does notify you that you are about to accept.

 

To give a little more backround. Most of us in the league play in 2 leagues together: TINO and TINO2. He got his players / leagues mixed up thinking he was getting Britt and giving away DJax. He owns DJax in the other league. We were discussing the value of each and he clearly thought he was getting Britt. Just as soon he click accept and the trade showed up he dropped the F bomb. He then realized what had happened and notified the other owner.

 

I can see why the rules were written in the way they were; to allow for such errors.

 

 

If this trade is reversed because an owner accepted the trade before he was certain what he was doing; i.e. he "misread" the trade then you have to reverse every other trade where an owner claims he misread the trade ... is that path you want to start down?