League controversy!

[Gunther]

Put me down as another who thinks it is a dumb rule, but really there is no controversy.  Rules state what should happen.

 

1093302[/snapback]

 

 

 

Simply put and I agree.

[Slusy]

Put me down as another who thinks it is a dumb rule, but really there is no controversy.  Rules state what should happen.

 

1093302[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Exactly. I don't think the validity of the rule is in question, because the owner in question had the opportunity to read the rules before he signed up, and now he has to live with them. It sucks, but there's no point of setting up the rules if you're going to make exceptions every time they're invoked.

[boat_hacked]

Published Mon Oct 17 3:29:00 p.m. PT 2005

(Rotoworld) Drew Bennett is out at least two weeks after undergoing thumb surgery Monday.

Impact: The Titans say Bennett is out "an indefinite period of time," but coach Jeff Fisher did not sound optimistic it would be soon. Tyrone Calico will likely move up to a starting role opposite rookie Brandon Jones. Fellow rookies Roydell Williams and Courtney Roby will help out. The Titans will rely on their two tight end sets.

 

This was taken from my league's MFL site. If yours has the articles below it was there on Monday!! How early did the guy set his lineup?? Sunday night?? Monday morning?? I,too, have Bennett on my FF team. The above article posted on MFL doesn't leave much to guess if playing when it states OUT at least 2 weeks. Plus if he watched any football programs this week, they all listed him OUT, at least the ones I saw thsi past week.

[Grits and Shins]

I understand the desire to punish owners who are not active, really I do. But the rule you have in place is just ludicrous and I wouldn't play in a league with that rule. One thing that makes the rule ludicrous is the fact that the penalty may have implications to OTHER owners in the league. Taking points from the team that was deemed to have an inactive player could change a win to a loss and could have playoff implications for other teams. That stinks.

 

Nope ... it would be my last year in that inane league.

[Fenokee]

the planets were truly out of line for this owner in Week 7. However, taking points away seems more than harsh, it seems counter-productive to me.

 

The whole reason to keep owners active is to ensure competitive games, and to avoid non active owners handing wins out to other owners. By wiping out points oif the highest scorer hands wins out like candy on Halloween.

 

In our league, WW transactions cost $$$. If an owner starts a player that is out or on a bye, they are charged $10. I've seen alot of teams win in FF with a guy out or on a bye, but to penalize that owner more points pretty much ensures a loss. Rules are rules, but sometimes rules need to be tweaked. Maybe this is one of those times.

[clownshoe]

Does not sound as if the owner is question is really all that "active" if:

 

1. He didn't know Bennett was hurt.

2. Was not aware that the KCC-MIA game was moved to Friday nite.

3. Missed a league email noting the WW window change.

 

...sux to lose a game due to the "bye player" rule that your league has, but IMO, the guy is out of luck ... he should not get the points from Portis.

 

1093107[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Agreed

 

 

Rule is rule.  Play on.  Harsh rule, but it's a rule.

 

1093122[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

A rule is a rule and it should stand. You start bending rules for one owner then you better start bending them for all owners.

 

 

 

This is an easy one to call - at what point was Drew Bennett officially listed as out?  Therein lies your answer.

 

1093137[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Didn’t Bennett have surgery on Monday? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that he wouldn’t be playing in the coming week.

[Sharpie]

Rules are rules no matter how strange or poor in design.

 

This rule sounds clear and the player should be penalized the Portis points. Like stated before, if you bend or change a rule you're opening up a big can of worms. It shouldn't go to vote either because the rule is clear regardless of mother nature. Taking things to vote that are in the rules is about as bad as bending the rule itself. You just open up the chance for everything to "go to vote".

 

BTW- I'd consider changing the rule. On MFL, everyone can see when a coach is logging into the site to determine whether they are active or not. This can be an issue late in the season as coaches lose interest after they are knocked out of the playoffs. To date, we have not made any changes to the rules but have considered it.

[Hat Trick]

Was Bennett list as OUT on Wednesday or Friday?

 

It's a stupid rule and I agree with RussMan.

1093148[/snapback]

 

Ditto

[Fatman]

Its a dumb rule imo.  If he doesnt play a guy that is going to be inactive he already gets a zero... how does taking more points away help?  It just helps the other guy get a victory even easier.  If I was another team I wouldnt want my competition getting an ez win becuause of some slappy.. and then the rules making it even easier for someone to win if someone makes a mistake.  I think that compounds the problem.

 

You are going about it the wrong way. 

 

If its a mistake then let it go.  His loss should be punishment enough..  If its a real problem, then can the guy after a warning, then if necessary  take over the team in the spirit of competitiveness and fair play.

 

1093134[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Probably the dumbest rule i've ever seen.  I understand the fact of wanting to keep active owners but late minute inactives/scratches could affect a team, also, what the hells wrong with setting your line up a few days in advance? Then getting penealized because a player is out, i understand active, but that rule may be TOO excessive 

 

If i were the owner, i play by the dumb rule put in place and not join next year  , This is a game and if you have to forfeit points cause you take you family to dinner then piss on that.

 

1093144[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Guess I'll pile on with everyone else - Russman hit it on the head. One of the most poorly conceived rules I've heard of, but that's your system. An issue like this should not come as a surprise...