Commish Ruling Advice

[Shorttynaz]

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.

 

Well then - in this case, how's it the other guy's fault? What if the other guy doesn't play in both leagues? How it's his fault if he sent an offer and the other guy accepted? Trade was sent, trade was accepted. How that happened, it doesn't matter. It's not your responsibility to fix an error that an irresponsible manager made for himself. If I were the other guy (not your brother) and you reversed this - I'd ask for my money back and it'd be the last time I played in this league..

 

But that's just me...

[Footballjoe]

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?

 

 

I want to follow the rules the way they were written whether I agree with them or not. If the rules state both owners must notify the commish in the forum for a trade to stand then thats what should take place. I wonder why most all leagues do that anyhow if its not just for this reason. The league can always change the rules later.

[Grits and Shins]

I want to follow the rules the way they were written whether I agree with them or not. If the rules state both owners must notify the commish in the forum for a trade to stand then thats what should take place. I wonder why most all leagues do that anyhow if its not just for this reason. The league can always change the rules later.

 

 

Lets consider the facts ... we have two owners, owner A and owner B

 

Owner A proposes a trade to Owner B

Owner B accepts the trade

Owner A notifies the commissioner/league that he has agreed to a trade with owner B

Owner B also notifies the commissioner/league that he has agreed to a trade with owner A ... BUT he didn't mean to.

 

Did I get any of those facts wrong?

 

Isn't the trade "official" when Owner B said he agreed to the trade? Where in your rules does it allow for one owner to exercise a "but I didn't mean to" escape clause?

Edited September 14, 2012 by Grits and Shins

[i_am_the_swammi]

I think most here fail to remember that this is a game...no wonder the world is what it is: there are a bunch of people with some sticks pretty far burried in the rectal cavity.

 

Dude made a mistake in accepting a trade, notified the person he traded with and the commish immediately....and the rules state the trade isn't official until all parties agree OUTSIDE of the site. One party is not agreeing to it...thus, the trade is not consummated.

 

Man, I would hate to be in a league with some of you geeks.

[skhyatt]

Lets consider the facts ... we have two owners, owner A and owner B

 

Owner A proposes a trade to Owner B

Owner B accepts the trade

Owner A notifies the commissioner/league that he has agreed to a trade with owner B

Owner B also notifies the commissioner/league that he has agreed to a trade with owner A ... BUT he didn't mean to.

 

Did I get any of those facts wrong?

 

Isn't the trade "official" when Owner B said he agreed to the trade? Where in your rules does it allow for one owner to exercise and "but I didn't mean to" escape clause?

 

 

I'm not sure that owner B officially accepted according to this league's rule? I think he was on the phone with the commish and dropped the "F" bomb. Is that in the rules as accepting??

[Grits and Shins]

I'm not sure that owner B officially accepted according to this league's rule? I think he was on the phone with the commish and dropped the "F" bomb. Is that in the rules as accepting??

 

 

He had obviously considered the trade and hit the "accept" button. Then immediately decided he had made a mistake.

 

Here is another question ... could he have decided he made a mistake the next day? Say he clicks the accept button ... then goes to bed. When he gets up the next morning he looks at the trade and says "oh crap" and notifies the commissioner he made a mistake. Does he get the same consideration as if he realizes his mistake immediately?

[Shorttynaz]

I think most here fail to remember that this is a game...no wonder the world is what it is: there are a bunch of people with some sticks pretty far burried in the rectal cavity.

 

Dude made a mistake in accepting a trade, notified the person he traded with and the commish immediately....and the rules state the trade isn't official until all parties agree OUTSIDE of the site. One party is not agreeing to it...thus, the trade is not consummated.

 

Man, I would hate to be in a league with some of you geeks.

 

I don't know why this is getting to me - but it is.. I could care less what the final outcome is. Once again - there are two brothers that are in a bind cause one guy made a stupid mistake and didn't check to see what team/league he was accepting a trade in. Again, the rules state:

 

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.

 

Where in this rule does it state an agreement has to be made outside the site? If the commissioner FOLLOWED THE RULE, then he MUST have been notified "OUTSIDE the site" or he wouldn't have approved it. Am I not correct in this assessment??? Isn't the commissioners approval the last understood process in the rule? If you want to avoid this in the future, then add:

 

10.6: After a trade is accepted and processed, you can go back to the commissioner and ask for a reversal immediately after it's processed if you misread the offer.

 

You're adamant about wanting to stick to the rules, then stick to the rules! Seems to me that this guy wants people to tell him it's ok to reverse the trade, and all I'm saying is per the rules, it's not warranted - therefore the trade should stand.

[TripleW64]

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

 

The rules say that the owners must "notify" the commish. This was done. It does not say the owner must AGREE to the trade in the notifcation. THe owner could very well say" Oh crap, I just accepted a bad trade." That serves as notification. The commish should not be the police for this type of mistake IMO.

 

In this case, Owner A gave Britt for DeSean Jackson. Owner A mistakenly thought he was getting Britt for Jackson.

[theprofessor]

10.1 needs to be eliminated. You should NEVER let other owners decide to veto a trade because they deem it one-sided or unfair. Trades should stand unless there is obvious collusion.

[Shorttynaz]

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

 

The rules say that the owners must "notify" the commish. This was done. It does not say the owner must AGREE to the trade in the notifcation. THe owner could very well say" Oh crap, I just accepted a bad trade." That serves as notification. The commish should not be the police for this type of mistake IMO.

 

In this case, Owner A gave Britt for DeSean Jackson. Owner A mistakenly thought he was getting Britt for Jackson.

 

You forgot the single MOST important piece of this rule "notify this owner commissioner TO MAKE THE TRADE OFFICIAL."

 

IF THIS WAS NOT DONE, THEN WHY DID THE COMMISSIONER APPROVE IT?

 

IF IT WAS DONE - WELL THEN SUCKS FOR THE DUDE WHO WANTS IT REVERSED..

Edited September 14, 2012 by Shorttynaz

[flemingd]

You forgot the single MOST important piece of this rule "notify this owner TO MAKE THE TRADE OFFICIAL."

Commissioner, not owner.

 

IF THIS WAS NOT DONE, THEN WHY DID THE COMMISSIONER APPROVE IT?

Nowhere does it say the commissioner approved it.

 

IF IT WAS DONE - WELL THEN SUCKS FOR THE DUDE WHO WANTS IT REVERSED..

You're arguing with a guy that's agreeing with you. gg.

[Shorttynaz]

Commissioner, not owner. FIXED

 

 

Nowhere does it say the commissioner approved it. THEN WHY DOES HE HAVE TO REVERSE IT?

 

 

You're arguing with a guy that's agreeing with you. gg.

 

[theeohiostate]

I want to follow the rules the way they were written whether I agree with them or not. If the rules state both owners must notify the commish in the forum for a trade to stand then thats what should take place. I wonder why most all leagues do that anyhow if its not just for this reason. The league can always change the rules later.

 

 

 

Here is the rule

 

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.

 

Where does it state the owners must post in the forum for the trade to be granted? Only says the trade is APPROVED on your forums, i'm guessing a post made the commish himself, not either owner. Seems pretty clear your trying to read something into the rules, that are clearly not there for the sake of your brothers benefit. Since i commish multiple leagues with family members and friends intertwined with huddlers, there is NO WAY IN HECK, i would ever even consider trying to fight against this....

Edited September 14, 2012 by theeohiostate

[Footballjoe]

You forgot the single MOST important piece of this rule "notify this owner commissioner TO MAKE THE TRADE OFFICIAL."

 

IF THIS WAS NOT DONE, THEN WHY DID THE COMMISSIONER APPROVE IT?

 

IF IT WAS DONE - WELL THEN SUCKS FOR THE DUDE WHO WANTS IT REVERSED..

 

 

Actually I have not approved or processed the trade because one owner did not post he accepted the trade. We'll get it worked out tomorrow. Appreciate everyone thoughts. Just shows you the rules need to be written well and as someone mentioned we need to remember its a game. Have fun.

[Shorttynaz]

Actually I have not approved or processed the trade because one owner did not post he accepted the trade. We'll get it worked out tomorrow. Appreciate everyone thoughts. Just shows you the rules need to be written well and as someone mentioned we need to remember its a game. Have fun.

 

 

Ugh.. What a waste of time..

[flemingd]

I want to follow the rules the way they were written whether I agree with them or not. If the rules state both owners must notify the commish in the forum for a trade to stand then thats what should take place. I wonder why most all leagues do that anyhow if its not just for this reason. The league can always change the rules later.

 

Well see now poorly written rules are making your case worse. It doesn't say must notify by posting, it says notify. The post reference comes later. So either way your owners are going to lawyer you to death. You were notified, clearly, since you are here asking about it, but there was no post notifying you of it. Your rules don't help you from the slicers and dicers.

 

Only your members know the intent of why that rule was written. Go with the intent.

 

"Guys, the purpose of the rule to post is to ensure the trade was indeed intended to be accepted and not a mistake. One was made, we're all adults here and would all appreciate the benefit of the doubt in this case. I'm going to disallow the trade and here is our new rule wording."

 

or

 

"The rule to notify the commissioners wasn't about being able to reverse a mistake, it was to make sure we knew about it ASAP and processed it. The trade was accepted on the site, the commissioners were notified of the trade, it's done." We can vote to change the rule next year if it needs fixed."

[Grits and Shins]

 

"Guys, the purpose of the rule to post is to ensure the trade was indeed intended to be accepted and not a mistake. One was made, we're all adults here and would all appreciate the benefit of the doubt in this case. I'm going to disallow the trade and here is our new rule wording."

 

 

 

Actually I suspect the intent of the commissioner approval is to allow the commissioner to bring the trade to a vote if 1 or more owners feel like the trade is inequitable (hurts their feelings). I don't think the commissioner is arguing that the trade in this case is inequitable ... rather the argument is the owner wants to back out.

[delusions of grandeur]

Actually I suspect the intent of the commissioner approval is to allow the commissioner to bring the trade to a vote if 1 or more owners feel like the trade is inequitable (hurts their feelings). I don't think the commissioner is arguing that the trade in this case is inequitable ... rather the argument is the owner wants to back out.

 

That doesn't make any sense. They have another rule entirely that deals with bringing a trade up for veto.

 

And seriously, "notifying" does not mean screaming into your phone SNICKERS because you accidentally clicked accept for the wrong league while you were on the phone, and immediately realizing your innocent mistake and contacting all involved (you talk about the contingencies of where you draw the line. I'd say if you don't immediately, then it draws into serious question if it was in fact a mistake. Since he did do it immediately, then that makes that consideration moot in this case, and merely something to consider for the future). The intent of the rule is clear, to notify the commish of your intent, or else it would only require 1 owner to notify the commish.

 

Because it requires both owners to "notify", then you simply cannot make the case that the intent was merely to inform the commish like 1 owner could have done, or to allow for a veto that this rule is entirely irrelevant to.

[Grits and Shins]

That doesn't make any sense. They have another rule entirely that deals with bringing a trade up for veto.

 

And seriously, "notifying" does not mean screaming into your phone SNICKERS because you accidentally clicked accept for the wrong league while you were on the phone, and immediately realizing your innocent mistake and contacting all involved (you talk about the contingencies of where you draw the line. I'd say if you don't immediately, then it draws into serious question if it was in fact a mistake. Since he did do it immediately, then that makes that consideration moot in this case, and merely something to consider for the future). The intent of the rule is clear, to notify the commish of your intent, or else it would only require 1 owner to notify the commish.

 

Because it requires both owners to "notify", then you simply cannot make the case that the intent was merely to inform the commish like 1 owner could have done, or to allow for a veto that this rule is entirely irrelevant to.

 

 

I disagree with you ... it looks like this league is concerned that owners might make "unfair" trades and have some poorly written rules that causes the trades to go through a process before they are finalized. Thus the commissioner is notified so that he can decide if he thinks it is fair or not (at which point he can call for a league vote), if it passes his smell test then anybody in the league has a period of time to petition for a league vote because they think it is unfair. Only after everybody in the league decides that the trade is "fair" does the trade go through.

 

I asked earlier ... does it matter WHEN the commissioner is notified? Say owner B clicks the accept button and goes to bed before notifying the commissioner/league. Meanwhile, owner A notifies the league/commissioner. The next day is a busy day for owner B and he finally checks the trade out that evening, say 30 hours after he clicked the accept button. At that time he gets the "oh crap" and notifies the commissioner that he made a mistake. Does he get the same consideration as if he had notified the commissioner immediately of his mistake? If not, why not?

[delusions of grandeur]

I disagree with you ... it looks like this league is concerned that owners might make "unfair" trades and have some poorly written rules that causes the trades to go through a process before they are finalized. Thus the commissioner is notified so that he can decide if he thinks it is fair or not (at which point he can call for a league vote), if it passes his smell test then anybody in the league has a period of time to petition for a league vote because they think it is unfair. Only after everybody in the league decides that the trade is "fair" does the trade go through.

 

I asked earlier ... does it matter WHEN the commissioner is notified? Say owner B clicks the accept button and goes to bed before notifying the commissioner/league. Meanwhile, owner A notifies the league/commissioner. The next day is a busy day for owner B and he finally checks the trade out that evening, say 30 hours after he clicked the accept button. At that time he gets the "oh crap" and notifies the commissioner that he made a mistake. Does he get the same consideration as if he had notified the commissioner immediately of his mistake? If not, why not?

 

The rule is for sure poorly written, but obviously it has to be a clear mistake, or obviously the commish cannot overturn on that basis. This falls under clear mistake, so I think it's total D-bag to use rules that could just as easily be interpreted the other way to punish a leaguemate for an innocent mistake that they tried to rectify IMMEDIATELY.

 

As for your interpretation that this is simply so the commishes can decide to veto, then why does it say that a trade is not "official" until both owners notify the commish? This very clearly has to do with making it official, when the commish can call for a veto at any time after it is. It has absolutely nothing to do with vetoes, that were covered earlier in the rules.

Edited September 14, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[KOKIDKOKID]

Am I the only one getting a migraine reading these rules - especially 10.1 and 10.2? Don't those rules contradict each other and doesn't 10.2 contradict itself within the first 3 sentences?

 

Poorly written section to be sure...but to your question....he made a trade and accepted it....yeah it is kind of locking your car keys in your car....did you intend to lock your car? Yes....did you mean to lock your keys in the car...no...but the door is locked anyway...you always know you locked your keys in the car the second you shut that door don't you? Did he intend to make this exact trade? Probably not but he had accepted it...even if he later realized his blunder...no matter when he noticed the error (keys locked in car) it is too late.

 

KO'd

[Grits and Shins]

The rule is for sure poorly written, but obviously it has to be a clear mistake, or obviously the commish cannot overturn on that basis. This falls under clear mistake, so I think it's total D-bag to use rules that could just as easily be interpreted the other way to punish a leaguemate for an innocent mistake that they tried to rectify IMMEDIATELY.

 

As for your interpretation that this is simply so the commishes can decide to veto, then why does it say that a trade is not "official" until both owners notify the commish? This very clearly has to do with making it official, when the commish can call for a veto at any time after it is. It has absolutely nothing to do with vetoes, that were covered earlier in the rules.

 

 

10.1 ... says owners may be asked to vote whether or not to approve the trade

 

10.2 ...says only commissioners can call for a vote, but owners have 48 hours to petition for a vote

 

10.3 ... says commissioners can veto a trade without a vote

 

10.4 ... says owners have to notify commissioners to make trade official, then the trade will be approved/denied at the TDL site ... you will note that approval/denial comes AFTER the trade is official

 

10.6 ... says trades are put on hold for 24 hours to allow for owner/commissioner inspection

 

 

And you are telling me that this league is not overly concerned with preventing "unfair trades". The whole point of the commissioner notification appears to be to initiate the approval of the commissioners/owners - not to correct mistakes.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Grits and Shins

[euphy]

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.

 

 

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

 

Player 1 hit send, player 2 hit accept, commish approve.

 

It's not that hard to figure out.

 

You hit send, that's on you. Blame yourself. Don't blame the other guy for accepting, don't blame the commish for approving.

 

Turn the page.

[delusions of grandeur]

10.1 ... says owners may be asked to vote whether or not to approve the trade

 

10.2 ...says only commissioners can call for a vote, but owners have 48 hours to petition for a vote

 

10.3 ... says commissioners can veto a trade without a vote

 

10.4 ... says owners have to notify commissioners to make trade official, then the trade will be approved/denied at the TDL site ... you will note that approval/denial comes AFTER the trade is official

 

10.6 ... says trades are put on hold for 24 hours to allow for owner/commissioner inspection

 

 

And you are telling me that this league is not overly concerned with preventing "unfair trades". The whole point of the commissioner notification appears to be to initiate the approval of the commissioners/owners - not to correct mistakes.

 

So because the league has rules about what they consider unfair trades, with rules 10.1,2,3,6 and a section not in question in 10.4 that address that, that means that the sentence in question in 10.04 necessarily relates to that, even though it mentions vetoes nowhere except AFTER that process is completed? And you can't see what a giant leap that is to make?

 

The veto process takes place after the trade is official, so I have no idea why that's relevant to making it official. What part of "not official until" do people not understand?

 

That actually gives them way more leeway, as I've had this same rule screw me with another owner that backed out, so I actually think he's taking the conservative route to only make the exception because it was a clear mistake, when he really could drop the hammer and say that nothing is official until they both notify them of their intent.

[Grits and Shins]

Oh, actually I didn't even notice the most telling sentence in the rule in question, "The trade

will be approved or denied at the TUDL site". This actually does give the owners far mroe leeway than is even being argued in this thread. That pretty clearly implies that the trade can still be denied.

 

This obviously is talking about the owners, because the commishes can only call a veto, not approve or deny.

 

(sorry for the bold, it won't let me change it)

 

 

The trade can be denied by a vote of the owners ... this happens when either the commissioners or 3+ owners feel like the trade is unfair. I have not heard anybody claim that the trade is unfair. Where in the rules does it say the commissioner or the owners can reject the trade when one of the owners involved in the trade (a non-voting owner in this case) wants to back out of the trade?