Can't imagine this ever happening with 100th of points calculations, but . . . .

rules state:



1. Shouldn't MFL have a place to put in 'tie-breaker- players? (They do in another league I'm in). What do we do?
2. Is the tie-break the total of the 3 players, or do we compare them one at a time - 1st TB player vs 1st TBP; if still tied, then 2nd TBP vs 2nd; etc?
3. "If a tie still exists" means if all these players have tied, then we use "Total points"? What points? Total points for the week would have already been used to start this whole mess! Guess we mean Total points for the season between the 2 teams?
4. Then if is still a tie, the higher seeded team wins. Hey, this one is ckear!

Just wondering. This set of rules is not too precise!

You should list your three TBP in the comments section when you set your lineup. I'm not sure if we go one player at a tme to break ties or if we use the total of all three. Commish? Also, can we use any 3 subs, including multiple QBs?

Hope that solves the issues.

Since we didn't submit tiebreakers last week, do i get a do over?

Actually not. I don't imagine it will ever make a difference, BUT it bothers me that the rules are so ambiguous.

THE RULES don't say what 3 players to use. THE RULES don't say how the points from those players are to be counted. THE RULES don't say what actually happens if the tie break players are even. So, there are still issues.

If we need to I will go before the Almighty HAG Supreme Court and plead my case!

Otherwise, let's go on with the playoffs!

Believe me you DON'T want to claim ambiguity! But, if you want to draft a re-write, I'll propose it.
Commish involvement in HAG this season has been sketchy at best. Ursa, CN, me, and an occasional BLB. We need a major infusing of new people in the lower (est) levels. Gen Lost seems strong (2 at least on the waiting list), PT is OK but had enough room for NVN members this year, thus the 3 league HAG Royale, but NVN who should be the strongest based on the Huddles age distribution is the weakest and needs the major infusion. We have one on HOT's waiting list.
Frankly what we need is a conference call. Emails, PM's, posts, etc. are not working well. We could slove a multitude of things w/ an hour call, but I don't see that happening. *sigh*

Beach, i don't see a rule clarification here being difficult, but "kid gloves" are the uniform of the day.
Keep it as brief as possible and I may edit, return for approval, and then submit it.
How does that sound? Let me know!

To all,
BTW...who's the commish for 2009 gonna be??

If you're not going to continue in that capacity, I vote for Ursa.

I know the memory is the first thing to go but all you need for clarification of the tiebreaker rule is a look back at last year. Just checked the old posts and there it was. 3 players chosen, starters or bench and are compared by rank (#1 against #1, ect). No need for a rule change. Technically since it was done that way last year it should just be added to the rules now for clarification purposes.

My vote is to retain our current commish who does one hell of a job

My vote is to retain our current commish who does one hell of a job
[/quote]
+1