Sign in to follow this  
the lone star

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

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

2 members have voted

  1. 1. Should The Commish Have Allowed Owners To Keep Players Returning From Injury On IR?

    • Yes. If No Disclosure, Then No Official Rule Change. Players Returning From Injury Can Stay On IR.
      2
    • No. Activate Newly Healthy Players Regardless Of Rule Disclosure Or Retroactive Effects.
      1
    • Other (Specify Below).
      0


Recommended Posts

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 by the lone star

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.