No Rule Disclosure: Allow Players Returning From Injury To Be Kept On IR?

[the lone star]

So let's say a league allowed owners to keep non-injured players on the IR in previous seasons. However, last season, the commish and vice commish agreed to not allow such a tactic. Although they decided on this, they did not disclose a rule change to the owners. Instead, a new rule for designating a player to return from IR actually implied that the owner had a choice to keep a non-injured player on IR or not. This is because the commish explicitly stated that "you can activate an injured player off of IR, if you want."

A few weeks had already been played at the time, so players wound up on IR. Yet, the commish wanted to enforce IR rules in accordance with how he and the vice-commish intended. If the commish did this though, teams that have already placed players on IR would be forced to cut someone and take a cap penalty as well.   

Given The Facts, Should The Commish Have Allowed Players Returning From Injury On IR? Why or why not?

Edited May 16, 2018 by the lone star

[Big Country]

I'd say the 50+ responses from the other site you posted this same question to a few days ago, just like your other threads, should suffice, don't you think? Many of the people here are on that site as well, so you're essentially asking the same people. Maybe you'll get different answers I suppose.

 

But, much like that other thread, rule was poorly written, should be revised.

[the lone star]

4 hours ago, Big Country said:

I'd say the 50+ responses from the other site you posted this same question to a few days ago, just like your other threads, should suffice, don't you think? Many of the people here are on that site as well, so you're essentially asking the same people. Maybe you'll get different answers I suppose.

 

But, much like that other thread, rule was poorly written, should be revised.

 

I gotcha, thanks. I wrote the explanation poorly too, so I cleaned it up and posted here. Although this place seems dead right now.