Commish Ruling Advice

[delusions of grandeur]

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?

 

I deleted that because I read it wrong, but that is not what it is saying.

 

Yes, it is saying that the trade will either be confirmed or dnied once the parties contacts the commish. It does not say that the trade will be confrimed or denied if there's a veto. That's what other rules say.

 

Notice in every other case, they use the owrd veto. In this case, they use the language confirm or deny. I think ther'es a damn obvious reason for that, especially when taken in context that is really tough to take any other wya, when notifying commisioner is not consequential at all to vetoing procedure. That takes place afterwards.

Edited September 14, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[delfamdelfam]

Rules were meant to be broken.

 

Once you hit send on a trade it's a binding contract, not the other owners fault he accepted it. Deal with it.

[stevegrab]

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.

 

 

 

Something like that happened with me one year (I am co-commish), it was late I was reviewing a trade, decided to decline, typed in a comment like "nope, have to decline that, what about something like...", then I clicked accept instead of decline button. I immediately emailed he other owner and my co-commish "Ooops, clicked the wrong button, obviously my comment shows I intended to decline the offer." Co-commish and other owner understood and the trade was not approved/finalized.

[stevegrab]

I agree that the rules are confusing, but it sounds like outside of the league site trade system, both owners need to notify the commish that the trade is official and accepted before the commish can approve it. (Then we have the whole veto process, or putting it up for a vote, seemingly after the commish approves the trade.)

[flemingd]

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.

Which is why I both added an "or" in there plus made specific mention to the fact that the only way to resolve this is for THEM to decide what their intent was when the rule was created.

[Footballjoe]

Just to update if anyone cares. This morning my brother went on the site an accepted the trade. I have processed it. I will now work on rewriting the rules so that this will not happen again. Thanks for your comments.

[Furd]

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?

 

I can make an argument that it's unfair to enforce that trade. The owner made a mistake, he quickly tried to rectify the mistake and no one would be prejudiced if the trade was unwound.

 

Unfair isn't defined and it doesn't appear that there is any type of standard for a voter to follow.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Furd

[stevegrab]

Just to update if anyone cares. This morning my brother went on the site an accepted the trade. I have processed it. I will now work on rewriting the rules so that this will not happen again. Thanks for your comments.

 

Can you clarify for us, is this what your league requires

• owner A offers a trade
  
• owner B accepts trade
  
• owners A & B both need to notify the commish (outside their offer and accept of trade) that the trade is a official and can now be approved by the commish. If either one fails to do that the trade is on hold until they do. (the 10.4 section of rules).
  

As others have said, that seems strange and not very common. Working to get that clarified and include the intent of the rule ,so that going forward it can be inforced properly. Hopefully the intent of this rule can be clarified, because otherwise it sounds like an easy way to back out of any trade that you offer/accept.

[delfamdelfam]

can you tell us what the trade was?

[Whiskey Pimp]

can you tell us what the trade was?

 

 

It was Britt for Desean Jackson.

[Gopher]

Technically speaking, the trade should go through, unless both owners agree to reverse it. In other words, if the other owner acknowledged an obvious mistake (such as a piece of the trade being left out by accident, etc.), it would be simple... Reverse it, and process again (correctly). Since they don't agree, though, you're in a tough spot. I commish a few leagues, and here are my thoughts....

 

First (and this is just my opinion), it doesn't make sense to have a rule stating that both parties must notify a commish, unless it is assumed that their notification is for the purpose of acknowledging their approval. I can't speak for your league, but every BOTH league that I've been a part of (that has such a rule) has the rule for that purpose. In other words, people make mistakes (clicking the wrong button on MFL, for example)... To avoid a trade going through that wasn't agreed to by both parties (but where one owner or the other may have clicked "Accept" by accident), those leagues require notification/acknowledgement (in most cases, in the form of a post in the league's forum), essentially sealing the deal. Again, I don't know what the purpose of the notification rule is in your league, but in the leagues I'm in (the ones I commish, as well as the leagues where I'm just an owner), that's the purpose of the rule.

 

It's not that simple, though... First, he's your brother. Secondly, and maybe most importantly, he didn't dispute the trade in writing. In other words, it's his word (and yours) against the other owner's. What your brother probably should have done is email the entire league (or at the very least, the commishes and other owner involved), immediately after realizing his mistake, and let everyone know that he didn't intend to accept the trade as it was written. Not doing so is/was probably his downfall, in my opinion. But, again, if the other owner disagrees, then I'm not sure how your brother can claim that there was a mistake in the first place. Bad judgement on his part? Maybe. But, it doesn't seem like the "error" was a matter of the trade being incorrect, but rather that he reconsidered.

 

In cases like this, I find that it's best to follow the rules as they are written. The only other thing you have to go by is whether any precedent has been set in the past. Have other trades been reversed/disputed in this manner? If not, I say you go by the rules, process the trade, and let it be a lesson to your brother, unfortunately. The lesson could be a few things... Read trades more carefully, don't get your leagues mixed up, don't trade with the other owner in question (if it was an honest mistake, and the other owner is simply taking advantage of the situation), email anybody and everybody ASAP the next time something like this happens, etc.

 

Good luck.

[Atlanta Cracker]

I can't imagine demanding that a trade I proposed stand when an owner tells me they were confusing it with another league and read it wrong.

[stevegrab]

Gopher,

 

According to the original post the owner who accepted the trade notified both the commish and the other owner

 

"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."

 

Further since the rules appear (still looking for clarification) to require both owners in a trade to not only offer/accept the trade on the web site, but notify the commish, from 10.4 in the first post

BOTH owners must notify the commissioner to make the trade official.

 

You probably also missed some of the posts in the thread where it was explained how the owner accepting the trade was confused. He thought he was getting Britt for DJax, but it was the other way around (confused what league this was). It isn't a case of buyer's remorse.

 

This is the first I've heard of such a rule, and I'm having trouble understanding its intent.

[stevegrab]

I can't imagine demanding that a trade I proposed stand when an owner tells me they were confusing it with another league and read it wrong.

 

 

You're simply not ruthless enough, this is war son! (according to some who'll even try to stretch/bend the rules to win a game).

[delusions of grandeur]

Gopher, how do you deal with it in your BoTH leagues, because the rules that I think we adopted from another BoTH league have allowed for another owner to back out of a trade with me, and I've since lobbied to change for that reason. But where in the rules does it allow you that type of discretion to decide whether just accepting at the site is enough for it to be binding? You kind of contradict yourself between this statement:

 

it doesn't make sense to have a rule stating that both parties must notify a commish, unless it is assumed that their notification is for the purpose of acknowledging their approval. I can't speak for your league, but every BOTH league that I've been a part of (that has such a rule) has the rule for that purpose.

 

 

Which I agree with, and what you say in the rest of the thread. According to their rules, it doesn't say anything about the trade being "approved or denied" based on it being a mistake or not (even though it clearly was). The rule seems to say that the trade will be approved or denied once the 2 owners notify the commish (notice it says 2 owners, so obviously this is to determine intent not just to notify the commishes so they can begin the veto process if they so choose. That would only require 1 owner to confirm if it was official once you accepted on site, but if course it says it's not official until both do).

 

And as stevegrab said above, does it make a difference that the owner realized the mistake immediately and contacted the other owner along with the commish? You don't even really need rules to realize that it's a dick move to force the trade to stand when he clearly made a mistake and never intended to make the trade.

Edited September 14, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[delusions of grandeur]

This is the first I've heard of such a rule, and I'm having trouble understanding its intent.

 

There are plenty of various mistakes that can happen (though absent a clear mistake, the rule should be written that it's official once accepted at the site, no buyer's remorse, but to still allow it to be rectified if it's found to be a mistake or one of the players involved is injured).

 

It's a common possibility that an owner has a trade offer sent out to another, and when it's found out that a player is injured, they accept immediately before the offer can be pulled.

 

The rule for sure has it's problems that need to be addressed, but the purpose of the rule is that two owners cannot meet face-to-face to hash out the deal, so they're at the mercy of dealing with a computer system where you might end up bound to a trade you never intended to make. That is who it is out to protect. My only issue is the sheistiness it could allow for without proper clarifications of what is grounds to reject afterwards (for example, I don't like the idea that owner can float out a trade offer, and then pull it if they see that I was likely to pay more, as I tip my hand to the league).

 

But what's clear is the intent of this rule, IMO. There is simply no other way to interpret it.

Edited September 14, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[stevegrab]

DOG

 

Thanks for elaborating. I was going to say before, regardless of what you think the intent is, in this scenario I don't see how it does NOT give the owner accepting the trade an out for his mistake. (This was a trade he really didn't mean to accept since he was confused about players/league.)

 

But I would hope that a league doesn't need such a rule, which opens up holes for other shady behavior. Absent such a rule, if this happend in our league, and another owner contacted my (co-commish) and the other owner involved in the trade we simply not approve/process the trade. Of course if the other owner who offered the trade doesn't want to back down, and push the issue we may have a problem. But our league isn't as cut throat as some here must be, where people treat it like war (anything goes).

Edited September 14, 2012 by stevegrab

[Gopher]

Gopher,

 

According to the original post the owner who accepted the trade notified both the commish and the other owner

 

"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."

 

Further since the rules appear (still looking for clarification) to require both owners in a trade to not only offer/accept the trade on the web site, but notify the commish, from 10.4 in the first post

BOTH owners must notify the commissioner to make the trade official.

 

You probably also missed some of the posts in the thread where it was explained how the owner accepting the trade was confused. He thought he was getting Britt for DJax, but it was the other way around (confused what league this was). It isn't a case of buyer's remorse.

 

This is the first I've heard of such a rule, and I'm having trouble understanding its intent.

 

No, I read through pretty much this entire thread. It didn't say how he notified the owner, which was sort of my point. He talked to his brother on the phone, and notified the other owner (although we're not sure exactly how he notified him). All I'm saying is that, if I'm in the brother's position, and I realize that I made a mistake, I'm going to make sure that I notify everyone who needs to know IMMEDIATELY, and do so in such a way that it can be time-stamped (email, for example). Making a phone call or two isn't good enough, in my opinion, unless you know who you are dealing with (and trust them). Clearly, if the other owner isn't on the same page as the brother, an email/text might have been a better option.

 

As for the intent of the rule, to me, it's pretty obvious, but as I stated before, I can only speak for the leagues that I participate in. In those leagues, notify equates to acknowledging acceptance of, and it doesn't have to be spelled out exactly as such, for that to be understood.

[delusions of grandeur]

No, I read through pretty much this entire thread. It didn't say how he notified the owner, which was sort of my point. He talked to his brother on the phone, and notified the other owner (although we're not sure exactly how he notified him). All I'm saying is that, if I'm in the brother's position, and I realize that I made a mistake, I'm going to make sure that I notify everyone who needs to know IMMEDIATELY, and do so in such a way that it can be time-stamped (email, for example). Making a phone call or two isn't good enough, in my opinion, unless you know who you are dealing with (and trust them). Clearly, if the other owner isn't on the same page as the brother, an email/text might have been a better option.

 

As for the intent of the rule, to me, it's pretty obvious, but as I stated before, I can only speak for the leagues that I participate in. In those leagues, notify equates to acknowledging acceptance of, and it doesn't have to be spelled out exactly as such, for that to be understood.

 

Yes, for accountability's sake it would be better to contact by email with a timestamp, and we don't know that he didn't do that.

 

But the more I think about it, the less I think this has to do with rules, and the more it has to do with this other owner being selfish and creating an issue because he wants the trade to stand, not because it's right.

 

I really would be gone from that league, or at very least never trade with that owner again if I contacted him in any manner immediately to let him know it was a mistake, and he demanded a trade that I didn't agree to stand... And of course I do think there is no other possible way to interpret the rules than for this to be the reason they both have to "notify".

[Gopher]

Gopher, how do you deal with it in your BoTH leagues, because the rules that I think we adopted from another BoTH league have allowed for another owner to back out of a trade with me, and I've since lobbied to change for that reason. But where in the rules does it allow you that type of discretion to decide whether just accepting at the site is enough for it to be binding? You kind of contradict yourself between this statement:

 

I can't say that I've ever actually had it happen, in the four BOTH/Huddle leagues that I commish (or help commish). But, if a trade is accepted in MFL, I would get an email notification. I would then go to the league forum, and see if it had been posted/accepted by both owners. Until it has been, it doesn't get processed. If an owner were to post in the forum that he/she had made a mistake, I would simply deny the trade. It's understood (by everyone in the leagues) that both parties must post that they accept, for a trade to be processed. For that reason, we often have owners reminding other owners to accept in the forums, so that trades are not delayed, etc.

 

In another local league that I run, we don't require any second form of acceptance. Everyone knows me, and as far as I know, they trust my judgement. In that league, if an owner were to email me, stating that he screwed up and accepted a trade in error, I would honor that (and not process the trade), as long as the timeframe is reasonable (pretty much needs to be immediate notification). That's where my judgement would come into play (what is considered immediate), but again, everyone trusts my judgement. If said owner calls me, and says that they messed up, I would ask them to email me, and copy in the other owner(s) involved, so that it's on "paper." If the other owner is OK with it, trade gets reversed. If the other owner has a problem with it, the trade would probably stand (since that league doesn't require a second form of approval). But, again, if it's an obvious mistake, both parties are likely to be on the same page in that league. If they're not, it's probably not very clear whether or not it was an obvious mistake, in which case I'm probably not going to reverse anything.

 

I will say this... In that local league, we have had an instance or two where the wrong player was picked in the Live Draft Room. As long as the owner notifies me immediately, I have no problem reversing the pick. If they notify me hours later, too bad... they're stuck with it. Not exactly the same scenario, but my point is that mistakes do happen, especially on MFL (which can be overwhelming/confusing to new users in particular).

 

As for me contradicting myself, I think I was stating what I would do (in my leagues), versus what I would do in his position. Unfortunately, since not only the other owner disagrees, but also the other commissioner, I don't think he's in a position to reverse the trade, based on their rules as they are written (in a literal sense). It's unfortunate, but there's obviously a reason why not everyone is in agreement on the issue. For that reason, whatever it may be, I think their trade should probably stand. Most importantly, their league should revisit what the intent of the rule is (the rule that requires them to "notify" the commish), and likely reword the rule so that it is more clear... Is notification all that is required, or are they actually putting their final stamp of approval on the trade? Like I said, it's clear to me why such a rule would be in place, but I can't speak for their league.

[Gopher]

I really would be gone from that league, or at very least never trade with that owner again if I contacted him in any manner immediately to let him know it was a mistake, and he demanded a trade that I didn't agree to stand... And of course I do think there is no other possible way to interpret the rules than for this to be the reason they both have to "notify".

 

I agree... If there's not more to the story (remember, we're only hearing one side of it), it's a dlck move, in my opinion. The only thing that leads me to believe that there could possibly be more to it, or that it's not simply a dlck move, is because it's not like the other owner is the only one who disagrees with reversing the trade... The other commish does as well. I'm not sure how you can reverse it, given that it's a split decision.

 

That said, if it's simply that (a dlck move by two buddies), you move on. Who wants to be in a league (much less co-commish a league) with somebody you can't trust?

[Footballjoe]

There is a lot here. The intent of the rule IMO to notify the commish was to be done in the forum which was never done by my brother. To say I was notified because I was speaking to him on the phone could be an argument but there was always an understanding the notification is to be done in the forum.

[Joessfl]

Question that might help clarify what it really the situation...

 

The trade was made, and the players were already switched and on the new rosters on the site?

[kcmast]

Learn from your mistake and move on. It is only FF and Britt for DJax for crying out loud. Our life is so easy that something as meaningless as this gets us worked up.

[Shorttynaz]

There is a lot here. The intent of the rule IMO to notify the commish was to be done in the forum which was never done by my brother. To say I was notified because I was speaking to him on the phone could be an argument but there was always an understanding the notification is to be done in the forum.

 

Maybe I'm old school - but I still fail to see the purpose of Proposing a trade or Accepting a trade offer - then having to post a message confirming that you did actually Send or Accept the trade? Why the unnecessary 2nd step? Aren't you agreeing to it when you click "Send" or "Accept"?

 

It's things like that that open up loop holes and then create unnecessary issues such as the one you have on your hands.. If you agree to a trade by sending or accepting, there should be no reason to have to agree to it again regardless of how you have to do it - cause you've already done it...

Edited September 14, 2012 by Shorttynaz