Danny Zuko Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 In our league teams are not allowed to play with an illegal lineup. I would think that only applies to players on bye weeks or players out for the year. If a player is hurt (such as Deon Branch) is that team's lineup considered "illegal?" What about a team with a player that is listed as "doubtful" on the injury report? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 It depends on what the league rules state. If someone wants to start an injured player, then there should be no problem unless there is some off league rule. If a team wants to play someone who is on bye or clearly out, that too should be covered in the rules but if it is because they are intetionally tanking a game for some reason, then as a commish I would step in to maintain the integrity of the league. It just needs to be spelled out in the league rules though and failing that, brought up for a quick vote if shenanigans are afoot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Including injured players in that opens a can of worms. I pay more attention to this sort of thing than anyone in my league and started a guy this week who was inactive: Santonio Holmes. I set my line-up that morning and left. Where do you draw the line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 (edited) If the definition of "illegal" is not spelled out, I would take it as being something in the line of incorrect lineup positions, such as starting 3 WRs if the rules only allow for 2 starting WRs. Starting a bye-week or injured player would not fall into being "illegal",. Edited October 10, 2007 by Big John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMF Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Including injured players in that opens a can of worms. I pay more attention to this sort of thing than anyone in my league and started a guy this week who was inactive: Santonio Holmes. I set my line-up that morning and left. Where do you draw the line? +1 So if there is a gametime injury and you chose wrong you do not get points for the entire team??? Does not seem fair to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Zuko Posted October 10, 2007 Author Share Posted October 10, 2007 The rule: >>>>Lineup Requirements During weeks 1-13 no team is allowed to have a non-active player in their starting lineup. If any team has an obvious hole in their lineup (this includes hurt, bye week, or a player who does not play) and does not pick up an active player, the council will vote on who should be added to their roster prior to the game and I will override their lineup and charge the team the transaction fee.<<< The problem is a guy like Jamal Lewis. If he is put in the lineup and doesn't play, then the league AUTOMATICALLY finds a substitute for him. Does that make any sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 If the definition of "illegal" is not spelled out, I would take it as being something in the line of incorrect lineup positions, such as starting 3 WRs if the rules only allow for 2 starting WRs. Starting a bye-week or injured player would not fall into being "illegal",. what he said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMF Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 (edited) The rule: >>>>Lineup Requirements During weeks 1-13 no team is allowed to have a non-active player in their starting lineup. If any team has an obvious hole in their lineup (this includes hurt, bye week, or a player who does not play) and does not pick up an active player, the council will vote on who should be added to their roster prior to the game and I will override their lineup and charge the team the transaction fee.<<< The problem is a guy like Jamal Lewis. If he is put in the lineup and doesn't play, then the league AUTOMATICALLY finds a substitute for him. Does that make any sense? So the league fixed someone's mistake? Edited October 10, 2007 by SMF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 The rule: >>>>Lineup Requirements During weeks 1-13 no team is allowed to have a non-active player in their starting lineup. If any team has an obvious hole in their lineup (this includes hurt, bye week, or a player who does not play) and does not pick up an active player, the council will vote on who should be added to their roster prior to the game and I will override their lineup and charge the team the transaction fee.<<< The problem is a guy like Jamal Lewis. If he is put in the lineup and doesn't play, then the league AUTOMATICALLY finds a substitute for him. Does that make any sense? Sounds like a pretty ridiculous rule to me - way over the top insofar as making sure owners stay on top of things. What happens if you intentionally want to leave a slot open b/c you don't have anyone worth dropping and think you can win your game that week playing a man short? The "council" forces you to drop someone? Foolish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Zuko Posted October 10, 2007 Author Share Posted October 10, 2007 Can we at least agree it is a bad rule? The problem stems when a team out of playoff contention does not make moves anymore moves. Yes, it's in bad taste, but in leagues where there are transaction fees, is it fair to force someone pay for something they don't need? Conversely, while teams battle for playoff positioning, is it fair for teams to have much easier matchups because someone is too cheap to spend the money on a transaction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Can we at least agree it is a bad rule? The problem stems when a team out of playoff contention does not make moves anymore moves. Yes, it's in bad taste, but in leagues where there are transaction fees, is it fair to force someone pay for something they don't need? Conversely, while teams battle for playoff positioning, is it fair for teams to have much easier matchups because someone is too cheap to spend the money on a transaction? I think it is fair to require players to find replacements for all players either on a bye week or deemed inactive by the time injury reports come out on Friday. After that, they need to let it go. Once again, someone should not be penalized because they actually have a life and can't comb the web on Sunday morning to see who's a last minute scratch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 (edited) You can't expect all owners to sit in front of the TV every week to wait for last minute game time decisions to be made. Unless the player is clearly ruled OUT of the game, starting a questionable player should be allowed. You shouldn't force an owner to make roster changes to pick up a player to insert just in case your starter doesn't play. Edited October 10, 2007 by Hugh 0ne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomfin2000 Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Ignoring the multitude of issues that ridiculous rule must create on a weekly basis, I would interpret it to mean players who are either on bye weeks, listed as "OUT" on the NFL's official injury report, or not currently on a NFL team's roster. An owner should not be penalized for having a player listed as "Doubtful" in his or her starting lineup as there is still some question, however small, as to whether or not that player will actually play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 The rule: >>>>Lineup Requirements During weeks 1-13 no team is allowed to have a non-active player in their starting lineup. If any team has an obvious hole in their lineup (this includes hurt, bye week, or a player who does not play) and does not pick up an active player, the council will vote on who should be added to their roster prior to the game and I will override their lineup and charge the team the transaction fee.<<< The problem is a guy like Jamal Lewis. If he is put in the lineup and doesn't play, then the league AUTOMATICALLY finds a substitute for him. Does that make any sense? That's a terrible rule - in both content and intent. What is an "obvious hole?" When do you make the determination that there is an obvious hole in the lineup? What parameters are there, if any, concerning the "council vote." When does the council vote - 12:55? It kinda boggles the mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 (edited) The rule: >>>>Lineup Requirements During weeks 1-13 no team is allowed to have a non-active player in their starting lineup. If any team has an obvious hole in their lineup (this includes hurt, bye week, or a player who does not play) and does not pick up an active player, the council will vote on who should be added to their roster prior to the game and I will override their lineup and charge the team the transaction fee.<<< The problem is a guy like Jamal Lewis. If he is put in the lineup and doesn't play, then the league AUTOMATICALLY finds a substitute for him. Does that make any sense? No, that doesn't make any sense. So if a player is a game-time decision, you are forced to know if a new player is a scratch. And 5 minutes before kickoff the commish is obligated to add a player for you since you didn't know what you were doing? That's just bs. Edited October 10, 2007 by MikesVikes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Bad rule. Let owners manage their teams. As others have noted, there are times where a team may not want to drop a player from their roster and would prefer to head into a game a man short in their lineup. Also, regarding your concern about teams eliminated from the playoffs not making moves... when yo ucharge per transaction, can you blame them. If I was out of contention, I would not make any moves that cost actual money. In my leagues that do not charge per transaction, I do so that I can put out the best possible team each week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 If the definition of "illegal" is not spelled out, I would take it as being something in the line of incorrect lineup positions, such as starting 3 WRs if the rules only allow for 2 starting WRs. Starting a bye-week or injured player would not fall into being "illegal",. +1 you can't penalize a team for starting a "bye-week" player, if thats all they have on their roster...this week, suppose a team had Walker, Williams, Wayne and Harrisonl on their team. You can't make them drop a stud player or two just so they can field a team of lesser players who aren't on the bye. In fact, some gurus believe it strategic to draft players who all are on the bye the same week...that way, you only have to deal with bye-week issues once a season. Big Johns definition above is exactly as it should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 The rule: >>>>Lineup Requirements During weeks 1-13 no team is allowed to have a non-active player in their starting lineup. If any team has an obvious hole in their lineup (this includes hurt, bye week, or a player who does not play) and does not pick up an active player, the council will vote on who should be added to their roster prior to the game and I will override their lineup and charge the team the transaction fee.<<< The problem is a guy like Jamal Lewis. If he is put in the lineup and doesn't play, then the league AUTOMATICALLY finds a substitute for him. Does that make any sense? this may be the dumbest rule I have ever read...and I have been playing FF since 1991. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 +1 you can't penalize a team for starting a "bye-week" player, if thats all they have on their roster...this week, suppose a team had Walker, Williams, Wayne and Harrisonl on their team. You can't make them drop a stud player or two just so they can field a team of lesser players who aren't on the bye. In fact, some gurus believe it strategic to draft players who all are on the bye the same week...that way, you only have to deal with bye-week issues once a season. Big Johns definition above is exactly as it should be. That's a really good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#1 Niners Fan Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 I know someone mentioned it already, but Santonio Holmes from this week is a perfect example...there was no buildup to him not playing because his injury happened in warmups...I set my lineup the night before because I knew I was leaving early Sunday to play golf then go to the Angels playoff game (dont ask!!!) and I knew I wouldnt see anything until after the games were done. Should I be penalized because I was not sitting at my computer ten minutes before the games started to know that (other than taking a zero for Holmes of course)... Horrible rule, and I, like the majority, agree with Big John... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 I know someone mentioned it already, but Santonio Holmes from this week is a perfect example...there was no buildup to him not playing because his injury happened in warmups...I set my lineup the night before because I knew I was leaving early Sunday to play golf then go to the Angels playoff game (dont ask!!!) and I knew I wouldnt see anything until after the games were done. Should I be penalized because I was not sitting at my computer ten minutes before the games started to know that (other than taking a zero for Holmes of course)... Horrible rule, and I, like the majority, agree with Big John... Ahh.. but the "Council" would have picked someone up that did play for you so you would have scored more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxfactor Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 The rule: >>>>Lineup Requirements During weeks 1-13 no team is allowed to have a non-active player in their starting lineup. If any team has an obvious hole in their lineup (this includes hurt, bye week, or a player who does not play) and does not pick up an active player, the council will vote on who should be added to their roster prior to the game and I will override their lineup and charge the team the transaction fee.<<< The problem is a guy like Jamal Lewis. If he is put in the lineup and doesn't play, then the league AUTOMATICALLY finds a substitute for him. Does that make any sense? Absolute rediculous rule. Man, I imagine this league has all kinds of problems Thanksgiving weekend when alot of people are travelling. Not everyone owns a laptop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 the council will vote on who should be added to their roster prior to the game and I will override their lineup and charge the team the transaction fee Does that make any sense? No, that does not make any sense. When did the Nazis start playing FF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#1 Niners Fan Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Ahh.. but the "Council" would have picked someone up that did play for you so you would have scored more Oh okay...kind of started skimming at the end, so I didnt catch the official rule until now...I thought it meant that your whole week was disqualified... So then the "council" would vote on who I should drop to get a player to play in place of Holmes? I would have a problem with that, since they may vote to drop a player I want to hold onto for reasons that are not obviuos to the rest of the league. And how would that be fair to the person I am playing? I lost this week, by about 10, so it was dumb luck on my part this week, but those are the breaks. If I were the guy playing a team like this, I would be TICKED... either way, ridiculous rule... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunther Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 +1 you can't penalize a team for starting a "bye-week" player, if thats all they have on their roster...this week, suppose a team had Walker, Williams, Wayne and Harrisonl on their team. You can't make them drop a stud player or two just so they can field a team of lesser players who aren't on the bye. In fact, some gurus believe it strategic to draft players who all are on the bye the same week...that way, you only have to deal with bye-week issues once a season. Big Johns definition above is exactly as it should be. I agree with this, good points raised, especially the part about dropping a stud or two. When the roster is illegal and the "council" forces an add, I assume they also force a drop. Do they reverse this transaction after the week's game is over giving the owner of the illegal roster his dropped players back? What a mess. 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.