Ramhock Posted November 28, 2004 Share Posted November 28, 2004 It probably only works in those pot smoking hippy leagues that Ramhock undoubtely is in. My bad, for not adding this disclaimer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kryptonite Posted November 28, 2004 Share Posted November 28, 2004 Blitz, I appear to be in the minority....it is / was Thanksgiving...it is tough to get a hold of folks, especially if you do not know the owner....yes, rules are rules, but even in our beloved NFL, some calls are not made, some are missed, some are flat out wrong....if you know the owner, cut him some slack....Stokley had a monster game, but 7 minutes into it was not that big a deal....as objective we want to be, our lens' are normally subjective.... Here you have a chance to the put the human factor into the game...if you choose... IF the owner had Stokley in last week, let him carry over. My question is, why did he not roll over automatically? OR did the owner start someone else....if locked out....then let him have him... Bottomline, do you trust the owner? Just my .02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted November 28, 2004 Share Posted November 28, 2004 Blitz, I appear to be in the minority....it is / was Thanksgiving...it is tough to get a hold of folks, especially if you do not know the owner....yes, rules are rules, but even in our beloved NFL, some calls are not made, some are missed, some are flat out wrong....if you know the owner, cut him some slack....Stokley had a monster game, but 7 minutes into it was not that big a deal....as objective we want to be, our lens' are normally subjective.... Here you have a chance to the put the human factor into the game...if you choose... IF the owner had Stokley in last week, let him carry over. My question is, why did he not roll over automatically? OR did the owner start someone else....if locked out....then let him have him... Bottomline, do you trust the owner? Just my .02 578624[/snapback] You just can't do this when money is on the line. The owner has to take responsibility, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raymond7765 Posted November 28, 2004 Share Posted November 28, 2004 Owner 2 is SOL. I sat Stokely this week after his 1 catch for 7 yards last week so it is hard to justify the I would have started him defense after he blows up and he appeared to have only started him sporadically at best in the previous weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 28, 2004 Author Share Posted November 28, 2004 This is my ruling: Okay ... I have conversed with Jerry and we believe that the intent of our rules is that any player's status as a starter / non-starter from the previous week is locked if they are in the early games after the early game kickoff. So in this case because Marvin and Stokley were started last week and because they were in the early game and because Walking Sideways and Spastic Amoebas did not submit their lineups until after the Indy game kicked off .. these players should be locked in as starters. I will be addressing this problem with MFL to prevent things like this from happening in the future. The other option we could consider is that any owner that does not get a line up in before the start of the first game forfeit's his game. Lineups can be entered at any time for any game not played. It's ugly. "Jerry" is the owner against Walking Sideways ... but Spastic Amoebas is in a big game against EPW ... these teams are in a 3 way tie for their division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted November 28, 2004 Share Posted November 28, 2004 Blitz, Although you handled it differently than I would have, I give you props for trying to do the right thing. I hope that it works out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted November 28, 2004 Share Posted November 28, 2004 Blitz, Although you handled it differently than I would have, I give you props for trying to do the right thing. I hope that it works out. 578672[/snapback] What he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooomsday Posted November 28, 2004 Share Posted November 28, 2004 I think its clear. He started Taylor, and want to "fall back" on the rules conveniently. No way!!!!! Team one is a non issue. Everything done/not done there is still by the book- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 29, 2004 Author Share Posted November 29, 2004 UPDATE: I was looking at week 13 matchups ... as it turns out the team with Marvin was playing the team with Stokley this week. In my mind that simplified the whole thing ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Funny how we all commish differently. I would give team A Marvin & team B Stokely. Team B didn't submit a lineup, and started Stokely the week before, therefore, IMO, he gets Stokely. Once the game started, and the owner hadn't taken out Stokely, that, right there, locks in Stokely. It seems to me, many commishes and owners alike, can't wait to scream "Na, na. . .you fu(ked up!" :violin: As a commish, I make decisions based on "what common sense says I should do, as opposed to what the rules tell me I must do". When all the owners have a commish they trust to be consistent with the few decisions that need to be made, the league runs very smoothly. Don't get me wrong, I will take opinions, but the owners, pretty much know the answer I will give before they call me. 578546[/snapback] Could not have said that better myself. Rules are more a guideline than anything else. I agree completely that the common sense aspect should rule. Example: We also run a pool where each owner picks 5 games against the spread. Rule says the pix must be submitted prior to kickoff of the first game of the week. Well, I received a bunch on Friday. According to the rules they should be invalid. According to common sense, so long as they didn't pick any of the Thursday games, it's ok by me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 29, 2004 Author Share Posted November 29, 2004 I always bend over backwards in an attempt to be fair ... good thing Schleprock isn't our commissioner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gspot Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Oops. Neither's lineup from last week should carry over. I'd like to agree with Ramhock, but I think that once you start interpreting an owners intent, of what he meant to or would have done, you're going down a slippery slope. It probably only works in those pot smoking hippy leagues that Ramhock undoubtely is in. 578615[/snapback] I agree with him too! Since both owners attempted to submit line-ups AFTER the deadline, per the league rules, both teams should have had the previous week's line-up by default. The fact that one owner went in and changed after the deadline means nothing, as that is against the rules. Therefore, since they bost missed the deadline, both should have the identical line-up from the week before. I just don't understand the position some are taking indicating team #2 should be SOL. He changed the line-up after the game had started, which should not have been allowed by the site. Seems simple to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 I agree with him too! Since both owners attempted to submit line-ups AFTER the deadline, per the league rules, both teams should have had the previous week's line-up by default. The fact that one owner went in and changed after the deadline means nothing, as that is against the rules. Therefore, since they bost missed the deadline, both should have the identical line-up from the week before. 580973[/snapback] That is not what the rule says: If an owner fails to submit a lineup before the last game of the week kicks off (usually Monday night), his lineup from the previous week will be used. They both submitted lineups before the last game of the week. Therefore, the prior-week-default rule was not activated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzarvell Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 It is strange how we've all handled these in the past in our own ways. In my league, at 11:30AM and 1 second if the owner(s) did not (various ways) REMOVE Stokely and Harrison from their lineups (because they were starting in the previous week) they would automatically be starting. It works for us - so, I'd have to say that since both the owners had them starting the week before, at 11:31 without any word one way or another they would be starting again. I suppose it gets murky when they are allowed to change lineups throughout the weekend if the player's games haven't started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkirc Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 (edited) I think the rules are clear and should have been followed. If neither one submitted a lineup before Thursday's games started, then the players involved in those games should have been locked into Starter/non-starter status. They can make any other changes they want with players not involved in the Thurday game and it appears both did. Stokley and Harrison should have been locked into the starter/non-starter status from the previous week. If i understand the original post, then Harrison should have been locked into starter position and Stockley should have been locked into non-starter position. The Stokley owner played you a bit I think.... EDIT: I just read the original post and it appears to me that the only way that Stokley could have been locked as a non-starter was if the owner took him out of his lineup sometime between week 11 and the start of Thursday's game. Otherwise he would have been locked as a starter. you may be able to verify this on MFL. If he changed his lineup sometime that week and removed Stokley, then he should have to live with his actions. Edited November 29, 2004 by lkirc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 29, 2004 Author Share Posted November 29, 2004 I think the rules are clear and should have been followed. If neither one submitted a lineup before Thursday's games started, then the players involved in those games should have been locked into Starter/non-starter status. They can make any other changes they want with players not involved in the Thurday game and it appears both did. Stokley and Harrison should have been locked into the starter/non-starter status from the previous week. If i understand the original post, then Harrison should have been locked into starter position and Stockley should have been locked into non-starter position. The Stokley owner played you a bit I think.... EDIT: I just read the original post and it appears to me that the only way that Stokley could have been locked as a non-starter was if the owner took him out of his lineup sometime between week 11 and the start of Thursday's game. Otherwise he would have been locked as a starter. you may be able to verify this on MFL. If he changed his lineup sometime that week and removed Stokley, then he should have to live with his actions. 581037[/snapback] Both Harrison and Stokley were started by their respective owners in week 11. Both owners did not attempt to enter a lineup until after the start of the Indy game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzarvell Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Both Harrison and Stokley were started by their respective owners in week 11. Both owners did not attempt to enter a lineup until after the start of the Indy game. 581067[/snapback] I think that makes it easier for you. Throwing out what the players did or didn't do during the game, they should have become automatic starters when the game started. It also helps that both had equally good games canceling each other out. As for another poster saying "It was only seven minutes into the game..." well, it shouldn't matter but Stokely had already scored 4 minutes into the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 mfl does not hold your lineup week after week. you have to select who you want... 578463[/snapback] They do copy your lineup every week. it's just that the copying does not happen until either preliminary game stats are in (ie, end of the day Thursday this week) or final stats are in (end of Monday game) and it is an option selected by the commissioner, who may also select to NOT copy over previous week's lineups. This creates an issue though when gametime decisions are allowed and games are in progress, as is illustrated by the Stokley issue. Stokley was a locked non-starter when he went in during the game as his lineup had not copied over yet because preliminary stats had not been issued, but Stokley's game had begun, thus preventing him from being considered for the current week's lineup submission. For what it's worth, Kevin at MFL has said that for next year, they will be implementing a way to have the lineup copy over at the first kickoff of the week. But, back to the issue at hand, you have a dilemma though wit hthe Stokley owner... how do you know who he would not have started had Stokley been locked in? While based on your rules I think Stokley should be forced to be a starter, can you easily and reliably determine who the owner would have benched to keep him in there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 29, 2004 Author Share Posted November 29, 2004 The Stokley owner inserted Travis Taylor when he thought he couldn't go with Stokley. The Harrison owner would have to play Lloyd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 The Stokley owner inserted Travis Taylor when he thought he couldn't go with Stokley. The Harrison owner would have to play Lloyd. 581408[/snapback] That's what I would have done, Blitz. But that's just me. I give you props for getting advice from others and trying to make the best decision. When faced with particularly difficult decisions, I sometimes would resort to a league vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffplayer302 Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 In our league, our rules state that the status of each individual player is locked to the previous week's status if a lineup is not submitted before that player's game time. Other positions may be changed, so long as BOTH the starter from last week AND the player you want to put in instead have not started their games yet. This does not allow for any "wait and see" about whether to submit a lineup or not, since the outcome for that position would be the same either way. In the case of your situation, both players would have been stuck with Harrison and Stokely, whether they wanted them or not, on the basis that they had started them the previous week. This would not stop them from making OTHER changes to their roster, but those positions would be locked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 In our league, our rules state that the status of each individual player is locked to the previous week's status if a lineup is not submitted before that player's game time. Other positions may be changed, so long as BOTH the starter from last week AND the player you want to put in instead have not started their games yet. This does not allow for any "wait and see" about whether to submit a lineup or not, since the outcome for that position would be the same either way. In the case of your situation, both players would have been stuck with Harrison and Stokely, whether they wanted them or not, on the basis that they had started them the previous week. This would not stop them from making OTHER changes to their roster, but those positions would be locked. 582071[/snapback] The only problem with this is that the software does not support this. If you have not entered any starting lineup then after the inception of the first game you can not enter those players ... at this point you have two options 1) Don't enter any lineup because you want to carry forward the good scores from the early games 2) Enter a lineup without the previous starters that should have been locked. 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.