Cunning Runt Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Does this apply to all situations. What if said owner was merely unavailable unexpectedly and did not change his lineup. Same scenario you state, that he has had Chris Johnson in every week up until last. Should the owner then be allowed to retroactively insert Chris Johnson into his lineup because he had started him each week before then. What if CJ was hurt on the first play and put up a goose egg. Should the owner be forced to start him, because he had done so every week prior, and probably would have had he set a lineup? You are walking on a beyond slippery slope with the argument you are presenting here. There are a couple things we don't know - mainly, what were the specific instructions to the commish from the Johnson owner concerning his lineup(s) during those times he was unavailable. Also - did he in fact play Johnson every other week except his bye week, which was last week. I have to think Johnson is/was an every week starter and as such would be in his lineup every week - good or bad. Commish made a mistake and now his opponent wants a cheap win. That's how I'm reading this whole situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 (edited) I'll agree to disagree but can do no better than that. Did the guy have Chris Johnson in his lineup every other week except his bye week , which was last week? If so, that's all I'd need to know. I don't believe that "Rules are Rules" and therefore we may never ever break them. I believe that "Rules are Rules" but with the caveat that common sense should overtrump the written rule if something happens along these lines. I think that's what you have here. I'm a longtime commish and run the league based on common sense first, then the written rule, not the other way around. The commish made a human error and did not fulfill a responsibility he agreed to take on. I'm thinking the guy that was playing against Johnson knows he should take the loss but is trying to hang his hat on the commish's human error to take a cheap and undeserved win. Dangerous One man's common sense can be another man's "what the heck?" Rules need to be established and enforced or you really run the risk of opening all kinds of cans of worms and ending up with a big ol mess. In any event, I think we'd need to know who all is on this roster to even listen to the idea that Chris Johnson would automatically be just common sense as you are implying. What if the guy's other RB(s) had a decent matchup, too? If CJ got injured on the first carry and posted no points, still easy to say its common sense? ETA: ground already covered. must post faster Edited November 2, 2009 by Delicious_bass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal Mania Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Players should be "required" to set their lineups on tuesday afternoon, if for no other reason than to get the "bye week" players on the bench. If smart waiver wire pickups or updated injury news causes you to update your lineup, then good for you. Failure to update for bye weeks is my biggest pet peeve, followed only a little bit by those who don't watch for injury updates. Sunday late scratches is a tough call, because sometimes there is a couples shower you have to go to, but even then, you should have a contingency plan. (I would at least consider a leage rule that allows a player to "declare" a contingency start on the condition that a player is DECLARED inactive for the game.......something along the lines of "Player x is gametime decision.........if he is declared INACTIVE prior to game, then substitue Player Y.....but if he dresses, he goes). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Certainly ... I think we should all set our lineups after the games have been played. This allows us to maximize our lineups. This is the right answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Dangerous One man's common sense can be another man's "what the heck?" Rules need to be established and enforced or you really run the risk of opening all kinds of cans of worms and ending up with a big ol mess. In any event, I think we'd need to know who all is on this roster to even listen to the idea that Chris Johnson would automatically be just common sense as you are implying. What if the guy's other RB(s) had a decent matchup, too? If CJ got injured on the first carry and posted no points, still easy to say its common sense? ETA: ground already covered. must post faster Well, I'm gonna have to kind of agree to disagree here as well. I don't unilaterally impose my definition of "common sense" upon the league. If there's a deviation from the rules based on what I believe to be common sense we certainly have open discussion with all the league owners who choose to chime in. If there is clear consensus, we do deviate. If there isn't, we vote. But I definitely do not consider the rules as written to be an absolute bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Well, I'm gonna have to kind of agree to disagree here as well. I don't unilaterally impose my definition of "common sense" upon the league. If there's a deviation from the rules based on what I believe to be common sense we certainly have open discussion with all the league owners who choose to chime in. If there is clear consensus, we do deviate. If there isn't, we vote. But I definitely do not consider the rules as written to be an absolute bible. Forgive me if I am misunderstanding, but aren't you essentially contradicting yourself with the statements I have bolded? Seems to me you're basically saying the rules are the rules unless you see a situation where they should be broken. Obviously, unless you play with a bunch of clones of yourself, there is not likely to be unanimous agreement on what is "common sense" and/or what qualifies as an exception to the rules. Taking this Chris Johnson situation into account, maybe he is an every week starter for the owner and it would be a no-brainer that he would have started him. Maybe he's got at least one other RB that has a nice matchup, too, though. Maybe its no slam-dunk that CJ is the one the owner would have played nor would all the other owners agree in a vote that CJ is the one who would have been played. See where I am going with this? Its a very slippery slope if you start opening up rules to exceptions based on what someone believes is common sense. Rules need to be absolute or you're just asking for trouble IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Forgive me if I am misunderstanding, but aren't you essentially contradicting yourself with the statements I have bolded? Seems to me you're basically saying the rules are the rules unless you see a situation where they should be broken. Obviously, unless you play with a bunch of clones of yourself, there is not likely to be unanimous agreement on what is "common sense" and/or what qualifies as an exception to the rules. Taking this Chris Johnson situation into account, maybe he is an every week starter for the owner and it would be a no-brainer that he would have started him. Maybe he's got at least one other RB that has a nice matchup, too, though. Maybe its no slam-dunk that CJ is the one the owner would have played nor would all the other owners agree in a vote that CJ is the one who would have been played. See where I am going with this? Its a very slippery slope if you start opening up rules to exceptions based on what someone believes is common sense. Rules need to be absolute or you're just asking for trouble IMO I hear what you're saying, but I don't think I'm contradicting myself at all. The reason we have the discussion/vote is to determine if what I view as common sense is a feeling shared by the league. I totally recognize that I could be wrong in my take of what equals common sense and would definitely NOT impose my will on the league against their wishes. I honestly think the league prefers the flexibility this approach offers. I believe that when you take the position of "absolutes", you paint yourself into a corner if something comes up that necessitates a deviation of the rules. See, I believe that for almost every rule that is written, you could come up with a scenario that wasn't considered that requires common sense to prevail over that rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 the commish skrewed up. too bad for him and his buddy. cant change after the game, thats f'ing crazy. 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.