Playoff dispute

[MikesVikes]

There are two setup options that will effect how a player's status is determined for the games

 

Under For Commissioners > Setup > Transactions Setup > Weekly Lineup Setup

Under For Commissioners > Setup > Players and Rosters > Starting Lineup Setup

The first setup option determines whether a players status can be changed, regardless of whether he is in or out of a lineup.

 

The second option determines if an automatic lineup will be submitted and if so, when.

 

The combination of these rules makes all the difference. You have already said that you have the first item set to Early. If I had to take an educated guess I'd say you are definately not using "As soon as the previous Week's results are final".

 

The result of that combination is that you have a team that did not submit a lineup before Thursday's game. Since the system does not carry the lineup over, any players who were in the Thursday game become locked and can not be used when a lineup is finally submitted.

 

If you want players from the previous weeks lineup to be autmatically carried over change the option to "As soon as the previous Week's results are final" With the option set this way, Gore would have been locked into the starting lineup once his game started. This would give you a setup that more closely emulates what CBS, Yahoo, ESPN do with an "active" and "bench" players.

 

 

That's a good point and I've seen this at the MFL setup regarding copying the previous weeks lineup in for the current one. It's something we need to discuss but in all fairness, I think it would create more new problems than solve old ones. But it is an option that we will talk about.

[Furd]

but in all fairness, I think it would create more new problems than solve old ones.

 

I would have to disagree with you there Mike. It eliminates the issue that you had and it is easy to understand.

 

If you have lineups carry over after the Monday night game, the entire lineup is carried over. If a player in that lineup is still in the lineup at the start of his game that week, he's locked into the lineup. If he is not in the lineup at the start of his game that week, he's locked out. There's no debate.

[Grits and Shins]

I would have to disagree with you there Mike. It eliminates the issue that you had and it is easy to understand.

 

If you have lineups carry over after the Monday night game, the entire lineup is carried over. If a player in that lineup is still in the lineup at the start of his game that week, he's locked into the lineup. If he is not in the lineup at the start of his game that week, he's locked out. There's no debate.

 

 

I agree.

[Big Country]

I would have to disagree with you there Mike. It eliminates the issue that you had and it is easy to understand.

 

If you have lineups carry over after the Monday night game, the entire lineup is carried over. If a player in that lineup is still in the lineup at the start of his game that week, he's locked into the lineup. If he is not in the lineup at the start of his game that week, he's locked out. There's no debate.

 

 

Gotta agree with this. It is how I have now setup all of my leagues and it makes things a lot easier.. there can be no controversy, as you are currently experiencing

[Cunning Runt]

Not that this really matters, but to an extent, I think you need to consider an owner's intent. Do you really think he wanted to play Dillon instead of Gore? Seriously? That's all I'm saying....

[Furd]

Not that this really matters, but to an extent, I think you need to consider an owner's intent. Do you really think he wanted to play Dillon instead of Gore? Seriously? That's all I'm saying....

 

 

 

Problem with considering intent is that its a slippery slope, and you are setting precedent. What if it happens again with another owner, but the 2 players involved are practically a coin flip?

[Judge Smales]

Wow, I have to agree with whomever stated if he is in the playoffs and "forgot" the rules or to submit his lineup he deserves what he got. Maybe I'm biased since we had some issues this year with what I'll call "inactive owners". Sorry he'll get no sympathy here, you are either active and on top of your team or you are not.

He managed to follow the rules for 15 weeks and now he doesn't understand them??

IMO he's trying to pull a fast one and needs to accept defeat gracefully.

[The Wolf]

Problem with considering intent is that its a slippery slope, and you are setting precedent. What if it happens again with another owner, but the 2 players involved are practically a coin flip?

 

 

+1

 

Although Cunning Runt makes a great point using common sense, the fact is, as commissioner, intent will get you in a whole lot of hot water. Furd is right in that it creates a bad precedent. Bottom line is, after four months of setting lineups, how can an owner allow this to happen? He's gotta take this one on his shoulders and know he screwed up.

Edited December 29, 2006 by The Wolf

[Donutrun Jellies]

+1

 

Although Cunning Runt makes a great point using common sense, the fact is, as commissioner, intent will get you in a whole lot of water. Furd is right in that it creates a bad precedent. Bottom line is, after four months of setting lineups, how can an owner allow this to happen? He's gotta take this one on his shoulders and know he screwed up.

 

Agreed. Personal responsibility is a great thing.