Grits and Shins Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 In my local we allow IR. We have quite a few stipulations about player eligibility and when players must be activated or lost, i won't go into them all. BUT, one of the rules we have is that a player cannot be acquired and placed on IR within the same fantasy week - this is to prevent an owner from picking up and stashing IR players (we allow unlimited IR slots). Saturday (Oct 11) a long time owner (since 1992) picked up Jonathan Stewart in a valid transaction. Sunday (Oct 12) he put Jonathan Stewart on IR and reactivated Eric Decker from IR ... normally a valid IR transaction except that he had acquired Jonathan Stewart in the same fantasy week. He inserted Eric Decker into is starting lineup for 17.40 points. If I catch this before any game has been played I simply reverse the move; i.e. put Decker back on IR and put Jonathan Stewart back on the active roster. The move to activate Decker was not legal. But now that games have played, Eric's 17.40 points are "questionable". I have told the owner that he has until tomorrow morning to drop a player from active roster that was NOT in his starting lineup this week and to reactivate Jonathan Stewart to his active roster. If he does not comply I will reverse his transaction and remove Eric Decker and his 17.40 points from his week 6 starting lineup and insert Jonathan Stewart's 0 points into his starting lineup. Does this sound reasonable? I only ask because he is in my division. With Decker he already has his game won. Without Decker he needs 13 points from Gore to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) Does the IR rule in this case require that Decker had to be activated in order to make room for Stewart on IR? What does the rulebook say happens if someone violates this rule? Or do the rules only state that this can't be done, not how to handle it if someone does it anyway and it isn't caught before lineups are set and points have been earned? Assuming the answer to the first question is yes, the fairest thing seems like it would be to just drop Stewart so that activating Decker becomes legal. ETA: I guess my logic is flawed in that last bit, but since Stewart's rostering was the only change to the roster, it seems like just undoing that part is fairest (and teaches him a lesson). Edited October 13, 2014 by MTSuper7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeductiveNun Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 If I catch this before any game has been played I simply reverse the move; i.e. put Decker back on IR and put Jonathan Stewart back on the active roster. The move to activate Decker was not legal. But now that games have played, Eric's 17.40 points are "questionable". I have told the owner that he has until tomorrow morning to drop a player from active roster that was NOT in his starting lineup this week and to reactivate Jonathan Stewart to his active roster. If he does not comply I will reverse his transaction and remove Eric Decker and his 17.40 points from his week 6 starting lineup and insert Jonathan Stewart's 0 points into his starting lineup. Without knowing all the subtleties of your IR rules, it looks like you're being inconsistent on what you would normally do. You stated that if you caught this before the games started, you would reverse the IR move, thusly causing Decker to go back on IR (and then be unable to be used in a starting lineup) and leaving Stewart on the active roster. I get that if you did this before the games started, then said owner could also then have the time to drop a different player to make room for Decker on his roster. Now since you didn't catch it, you're still giving the owner (who made the mistake and went against the rules in the first place - rules he obviously should have known having been in the league as long as he has been) a break and a chance to keep Decker's points. Seems to me that even though he made the initial rules violation, he still gets to benefit by keeping Decker's points. Just seems kind of wrong to me. It's unfortunate that your league software (assuming you're using an online site) doesn't allow you to set up roster/IR moves to accomodate the way your league uses IR, but even as commissioner - when you fail to catch a flagrant rules violation you should enforce it at the point of the violation and not let the owner wiggle out of it by being allowed to play an ineligible player. They were both human errors, but it seems like you're taking on too much of the responsibility of it yourself as the commish and absolving the owner of any wrongdoing by giving him the chance to keep those points. In my opinion, he should not get those points regardless and the transaction should be reversed (the IR activation/deactivation that is). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorcher Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 Does the IR rule in this case require that Decker had to be activated in order to make room for Stewart on IR? What does the rulebook say happens if someone violates this rule? Or do the rules only state that this can't be done, not how to handle it if someone does it anyway and it isn't caught before lineups are set and points have been earned? Assuming the answer to the first question is yes, the fairest thing seems like it would be to just drop Stewart so that activating Decker becomes legal. ETA: I guess my logic is flawed in that last bit, but since Stewart's rostering was the only change to the roster, it seems like just undoing that part is fairest (and teaches him a lesson). He said IR slots are unlimited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 13, 2014 Author Share Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) IR slots are unlimited so Decker did not have to be reactivated to make room for Stewart. Players are required to be activated from IR in the week after they have accumulated fantasy stats. So in this case there was no requirement to activate Eric Decker (but would be one this week). There was some open question on whether or not Decker would be able to play and when the owner reached the conclusion that Decker would play he activated him (rightly so) to insert him into his lineup. Edited October 13, 2014 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorcher Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) From what I can tell the Decker move doesn't really make any difference. The transgression was grabbing Stewart and placing him on IR in the same week he picked him up.Your offer to give him the choice of dropping some one else or lose Stewart is more than generous considering he has been in the league for 22 years and I guess that rule has been in effect the whole time? If you just went ahead and cut Stewart I would see no problem with that considering he broke a rule that has been in your bylaws for a considerable amount of time.; unless this is a recent rule change.In one of my leagues we have IR and are having issues with owners putting suspended players on IR. (ie Petersen, Rice ) it is yet to be resolved. Edited October 13, 2014 by Scorcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorcher Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) Without knowing all the subtleties of your IR rules, it looks like you're being inconsistent on what you would normally do. You stated that if you caught this before the games started, you would reverse the IR move, thusly causing Decker to go back on IR (and then be unable to be used in a starting lineup) and leaving Stewart on the active roster. I get that if you did this before the games started, then said owner could also then have the time to drop a different player to make room for Decker on his roster. Now since you didn't catch it, you're still giving the owner (who made the mistake and went against the rules in the first place - rules he obviously should have known having been in the league as long as he has been) a break and a chance to keep Decker's points. Seems to me that even though he made the initial rules violation, he still gets to benefit by keeping Decker's points. Just seems kind of wrong to me. It's unfortunate that your league software (assuming you're using an online site) doesn't allow you to set up roster/IR moves to accomodate the way your league uses IR, but even as commissioner - when you fail to catch a flagrant rules violation you should enforce it at the point of the violation and not let the owner wiggle out of it by being allowed to play an ineligible player. They were both human errors, but it seems like you're taking on too much of the responsibility of it yourself as the commish and absolving the owner of any wrongdoing by giving him the chance to keep those points. In my opinion, he should not get those points regardless and the transaction should be reversed (the IR activation/deactivation that is). Based on the original post the owner didn't break any rules when he activated Decker. He should be able to keep the points. The rule he broke was picking up a player and putting him on IR the same week he picked the player up. Activating Decker has nothing to do with that. Edited October 13, 2014 by Scorcher 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 13, 2014 Author Share Posted October 13, 2014 Without knowing all the subtleties of your IR rules, it looks like you're being inconsistent on what you would normally do. You stated that if you caught this before the games started, you would reverse the IR move, thusly causing Decker to go back on IR (and then be unable to be used in a starting lineup) and leaving Stewart on the active roster. I get that if you did this before the games started, then said owner could also then have the time to drop a different player to make room for Decker on his roster. Now since you didn't catch it, you're still giving the owner (who made the mistake and went against the rules in the first place - rules he obviously should have known having been in the league as long as he has been) a break and a chance to keep Decker's points. Seems to me that even though he made the initial rules violation, he still gets to benefit by keeping Decker's points. Just seems kind of wrong to me. It's unfortunate that your league software (assuming you're using an online site) doesn't allow you to set up roster/IR moves to accomodate the way your league uses IR, but even as commissioner - when you fail to catch a flagrant rules violation you should enforce it at the point of the violation and not let the owner wiggle out of it by being allowed to play an ineligible player. They were both human errors, but it seems like you're taking on too much of the responsibility of it yourself as the commish and absolving the owner of any wrongdoing by giving him the chance to keep those points. In my opinion, he should not get those points regardless and the transaction should be reversed (the IR activation/deactivation that is). I am not looking to apply punitive measures. I believe the intention of this owner to start Decker is clear and I see no reason to remove Decker from his starting lineup UNLESS he fails to bring his roster into compliance. I do not care which player on his active roster he chooses to cut as long as that player did not start this weekend. I also do not care if he cuts Jonathan Stewart to come into compliance. I see no reason to also require that he NOT start Decker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 13, 2014 Author Share Posted October 13, 2014 So I have emended my email to this owner (and the league). If this owner takes no action I will simply cut Jonathan Stewart from his IR squad. So instead of this transaction history; Pick up Stewart, put Stewart on IR, activate Decker I will change the transaction history to: Pick up Stewart, cut Stewart, activate Decker This is the least painful solution. The owner's intention to start Decker is clear and I see no reason to remove Decker from the starting lineup. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 In my local we allow IR. We have quite a few stipulations about player eligibility and when players must be activated or lost, i won't go into them all. BUT, one of the rules we have is that a player cannot be acquired and placed on IR within the same fantasy week - this is to prevent an owner from picking up and stashing IR players (we allow unlimited IR slots). Saturday (Oct 11) a long time owner (since 1992) picked up Jonathan Stewart in a valid transaction. Sunday (Oct 12) he put Jonathan Stewart on IR and reactivated Eric Decker from IR ... normally a valid IR transaction except that he had acquired Jonathan Stewart in the same fantasy week. He inserted Eric Decker into is starting lineup for 17.40 points. If I catch this before any game has been played I simply reverse the move; i.e. put Decker back on IR and put Jonathan Stewart back on the active roster. The move to activate Decker was not legal. But now that games have played, Eric's 17.40 points are "questionable". I have told the owner that he has until tomorrow morning to drop a player from active roster that was NOT in his starting lineup this week and to reactivate Jonathan Stewart to his active roster. If he does not comply I will reverse his transaction and remove Eric Decker and his 17.40 points from his week 6 starting lineup and insert Jonathan Stewart's 0 points into his starting lineup. Does this sound reasonable? I only ask because he is in my division. With Decker he already has his game won. Without Decker he needs 13 points from Gore to win. I would reverse his move. Put Decker on IR, drop Stewart, and go put whoever he last started at WR in. The legal action never happened. Our rules very clearly spell this out, so I have a little bit better ground to stand on, but "the commish not babysitting lineups Sunday morning and not catching it in time" is NOT a reason to get away with illegal transactions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 13, 2014 Author Share Posted October 13, 2014 I would reverse his move. Put Decker on IR, drop Stewart, and go put whoever he last started at WR in. The legal action never happened. Our rules very clearly spell this out, so I have a little bit better ground to stand on, but "the commish not babysitting lineups Sunday morning and not catching it in time" is NOT a reason to get away with illegal transactions. I do not think he was trying to "get away with anything". I have decided his intention to activate and start Decker is clear ... the only issue was putting Stewart on IR. So in that light I will disallow him from putting Stewart on IR and cut Stewart from his squad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 I am not looking to apply punitive measures. I believe the intention of this owner to start Decker is clear and I see no reason to remove Decker from his starting lineup UNLESS he fails to bring his roster into compliance. I do not care which player on his active roster he chooses to cut as long as that player did not start this weekend. I also do not care if he cuts Jonathan Stewart to come into compliance. I see no reason to also require that he NOT start Decker. So I have emended my email to this owner (and the league). If this owner takes no action I will simply cut Jonathan Stewart from his IR squad. So instead of this transaction history; Pick up Stewart, put Stewart on IR, activate Decker I will change the transaction history to: Pick up Stewart, cut Stewart, activate Decker This is the least painful solution. The owner's intention to start Decker is clear and I see no reason to remove Decker from the starting lineup. I don't think the intentions matter one bit, but I do agree that since he could have activated Decker regardless of the Stewart resolution, this is also an appropriate response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 I would ask him to drop a player to create room for Jstew or lose Jstew. I don't see how losing Deckers points would be relevant because there are unlimited IR slots... If there was only 1 IR slot...I still couldn't see any reason for him lodging Deckers points.... Just my .02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeductiveNun Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 I am not looking to apply punitive measures. I believe the intention of this owner to start Decker is clear and I see no reason to remove Decker from his starting lineup UNLESS he fails to bring his roster into compliance. I do not care which player on his active roster he chooses to cut as long as that player did not start this weekend. I also do not care if he cuts Jonathan Stewart to come into compliance. I see no reason to also require that he NOT start Decker. Maybe I read something into the situation that wasn't there. I was under the impression that after he picked up Stewart he had a full roster, and needed to clear out a spot to activate Decker (e.g. 16 of 16 spots were now filled and placing Stewart on IR would get him to 15 making room for Decker). If that's not the case then I can see more clearly of where you're coming from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 13, 2014 Author Share Posted October 13, 2014 Maybe I read something into the situation that wasn't there. I was under the impression that after he picked up Stewart he had a full roster, and needed to clear out a spot to activate Decker (e.g. 16 of 16 spots were now filled and placing Stewart on IR would get him to 15 making room for Decker). If that's not the case then I can see more clearly of where you're coming from. Yes he needed to clear a spot to activate Decker. He chose an illegal transaction to do that - deactivating Stewart. So my response will be to make that transaction legal by cutting Stewart from his squad. Illegal move = deactivating Stewart to activate Decker Legal move = cutting Stewart to activate Decker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trojanmojo Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 In my local we allow IR. We have quite a few stipulations about player eligibility and when players must be activated or lost, i won't go into them all. BUT, one of the rules we have is that a player cannot be acquired and placed on IR within the same fantasy week - this is to prevent an owner from picking up and stashing IR players (we allow unlimited IR slots). Saturday (Oct 11) a long time owner (since 1992) picked up Jonathan Stewart in a valid transaction. Sunday (Oct 12) he put Jonathan Stewart on IR and reactivated Eric Decker from IR ... normally a valid IR transaction except that he had acquired Jonathan Stewart in the same fantasy week. He inserted Eric Decker into is starting lineup for 17.40 points. If I catch this before any game has been played I simply reverse the move; i.e. put Decker back on IR and put Jonathan Stewart back on the active roster. The move to activate Decker was not legal. But now that games have played, Eric's 17.40 points are "questionable". I have told the owner that he has until tomorrow morning to drop a player from active roster that was NOT in his starting lineup this week and to reactivate Jonathan Stewart to his active roster. If he does not comply I will reverse his transaction and remove Eric Decker and his 17.40 points from his week 6 starting lineup and insert Jonathan Stewart's 0 points into his starting lineup. Does this sound reasonable? I only ask because he is in my division. With Decker he already has his game won. Without Decker he needs 13 points from Gore to win. Seems reasonable to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebelarch86 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) No. You missed something. That's on you. You can't retro actively go back and call shenanigans. There should be a window for you to deal with things like this. Once you miss it, it's your job to apologize to any disgruntled players and take the blame for it. Edited October 14, 2014 by Rebelarch86 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 14, 2014 Author Share Posted October 14, 2014 No. You missed something. That's on you. You can't retro actively go back and call she shenanigans. This should be a window for you to deal with things like this. Once you miss it, it's your job to apologize to any disgruntled players and take the blame for it. Bullsh*t ... I am not going to sit on my computer all weekend babysitting the league. The rules are published and distributed each year and have not changed in several years. Owners are responsible for knowing and following the rules. If the league expects me to verify all lineups prior to the start of every game then one of them can be commissioner. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 No. You missed something. That's on you. You can't retro actively go back and call shenanigans. There should be a window for you to deal with things like this. Once you miss it, it's your job to apologize to any disgruntled players and take the blame for it. Couldn't disagree more. It's not the commish's job to police everyone's roster every day. I think the solution of dropping Stew is most reasonable. I do not think he should lose Decker's points. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin_Akie Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Bullsh*t ... I am not going to sit on my computer all weekend babysitting the league. The rules are published and distributed each year and have not changed in several years. Owners are responsible for knowing and following the rules. If the league expects me to verify all lineups prior to the start of every game then one of them can be commissioner. Agree, if the rules are only applicable if the Commish spots it before the games start then everyone will just break the rules on a weekend when they know you are away or busy. That would be a very bad precedent to set. The Decker move was legal so points should count but I think Stewart should be released from his roster because there's no space for him on the active roster with Decker on it and its an illegal move to IR him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 better question is why anyone is wasting their time and roster space on J. Stewart? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn5033 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I agree with the others. Take Stewart off his team. Then if the owner still wants Stewart he will have to correctly add him back to his team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin_Akie Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 better question is why anyone is wasting their time and roster space on J. Stewart? I guess if he's on your infinite IR list then its not costing you anything to carry him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I guess if he's on your infinite IR list then its not costing you anything to carry him. I guess. He's kind of like those business cards handed out on the strip in Vegas. they look good on paper but what shows up is never the same as advertised 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 No. You missed something. That's on you. You can't retro actively go back and call shenanigans. There should be a window for you to deal with things like this. Once you miss it, it's your job to apologize to any disgruntled players and take the blame for it. That's moronic. Did you even read the OP? 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.