Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Stanley Morgan penalty discussion


fuz
 Share

Recommended Posts

The way the rules are written, Stanley Morgan should be fined 25 credits per player (3) - 75 credits - for the duration that the bids were left unresolved.  For background purposes, Stanley bid on 3 new players last Tuesday.  He obtained them 48 hours later on Thursday, but the roster limit was exceeded by any or all of the players acquired.  Player cuts to bring the number of players on his team back to 20 were not announce until yesterday - 5 days later.  The way the rules are written, 5 credits are assessed for every 24 hours that the situation remains unresolved.  This would mean that there would be a 25 credit fine per player - and since there are 3 - would be 75 credits in total.  This seems excessive.  I would like others thoughts on this situation as this is an extraordinary situation that needs fair resolution.

Here is rule 5.1.3 that is enacting this penalty for quick reference: A team may, at no time during the season, exceed the roster player or contract year cap limits except to resolve newly acquired players.  Owners have 24 hours to resolve newly acquired players.  After 24 hours, the team will be fined 5 credits immediately and an additional 5 credits per day until the player cap or contract year caps are resolved. (added mid-season 2018)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yikes. I think 5 credits immediately should stay as is, for all bids in violation. after that, it can either be:

- 5 credits per day for first bid in violation, and a lower credit amount per day for additional bids in violation.

or 

- lower credit amount per day for all bids in violation. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I read it, the rules do not specify a per-player penalty. Whether he acquire one player of three players on that same day and didn't address the player cap, he was over the limit. It shouldn't matter if he was over by one or three players. I think he should be penalized 5 for the immediate part and 5 daily - 25 total  - because he cured the player cap infringement at the same time.

If we focus on the penalty in terms of time (number of days), we don't need to worry by how much the cap was exceeded (by number of players) and do not need to adjust any rules mid season.

 

BTW, another lesson for all of us is to not make bids for new players and then head out of the country with unresolved transactions hanging out there! 😛

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in agreeance with Icarus. If another team owner really wanted to bid on one of the FA's that wasn't officially signed to a roster, they could have posted something which may have reminded Stanley Morgan to take care of his roster moves. It's not other team owner's job to take care of his roster moves, but I don't think it affected any other team during those 5 days. 

Given that, I think the 25 credit (5 credit per day) total approach is fair. 

Edited by JP2006
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2022 at 8:58 AM, Icarus said:

The way I read it, the rules do not specify a per-player penalty. Whether he acquire one player of three players on that same day and didn't address the player cap, he was over the limit. It shouldn't matter if he was over by one or three players. I think he should be penalized 5 for the immediate part and 5 daily - 25 total  - because he cured the player cap infringement at the same time.

 

I will retract my previous stance. The rules do not specify a per player penalty, hence no need to be penalized per player since all three bids were in the same time period. 

 

Now we could look at making a rule change down the line, no need to do it in season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Any other thoughts?  I have reduced the penalty on the contract spreadsheet to reflect everyone's thoughts on the matter thus far.  I still think that 25 credits may be too steep (even though it is currently in the rules).  That's a whole year's worth of credits on a bunch of guys that no one else was interested in...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree that per the rules 25 credits is correct. 

Logically, that seems a little steep to me. If we were to change the rules or if the commissioner made an executive order, I would say 5 credits for the initial violation plus 1 credit per day would be adequate. I think that would be a total of 9 credits in this case, which seems more fitting to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Josh Siel said:

I would agree that per the rules 25 credits is correct. 

Logically, that seems a little steep to me. If we were to change the rules or if the commissioner made an executive order, I would say 5 credits for the initial violation plus 1 credit per day would be adequate. I think that would be a total of 9 credits in this case, which seems more fitting to me.

Josh - you read my mind.  This was where my line of thought was going - 5 or 10 for the initial violation and 1 per day thereafter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was with Tim. I though 25 credits was a bit steep also, but wanted to wait to speak up.

 

It feels more reasonable to me to fine 1 credit per day after the initial violation for a total of 9 credits.  I could give my vote for Josh & Tim's assessment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rules have been in place since I joined the league three years ago. I don't think it's fair to rewrite them in the middle of the season. 

We've already interpreted the rules in a way that benefits the team owner, even though it's not how the rule is technically written. 

I think the ruling and credit dock that has been issued to this point is fair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have clarified. I would not vote for a change for this case, in the middle of the season. I'm not sure if that was the intent. Changing rules mid season is a slippery slope. Adding rules for situations not address is a different thing, as we made rules to handle the COVID situations very well mid season. 

I don't think this is a situation where we rewrite rules for this season. But in the offseason, I would vote to modify it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information