2023 Rules Review

[Tford]

Items that I have on my list:

- Coming up with rules language that deals with handling of cancelled games.

- Either another review of IR rules or consequences if active roster players are on IR when lineups are submitted

- Lineup requirements (do we add another flex or defensive flex? Last year we voted to keep kickers)

[HarleyKR07]

I'm for removing kickers and adding another offense spot. Most just use 1 year on kickers anyway. Would change RFA and strategy during the week. Kickers get cut too much to make it a viable position. 

[darin3]

On 1/29/2023 at 2:19 PM, HarleyKR07 said:

I'm for removing kickers and adding another offense spot. Most just use 1 year on kickers anyway. Would change RFA and strategy during the week. Kickers get cut too much to make it a viable position. 

I'm open to discussion on kickers.  I like them, but then sometimes I realize they're super up-and-down.

That said, I don't know about another offensive position.... what I DO want is to allow for up to 4 LBs.  So another IDP spot.

[flemingd]

On 1/23/2023 at 5:21 PM, Tford said:

Items that I have on my list:

- Coming up with rules language that deals with handling of cancelled games.

- Either another review of IR rules or consequences if active roster players are on IR when lineups are submitted

- Lineup requirements (do we add another flex or defensive flex? Last year we voted to keep kickers)

This needs to be answered quickly so I know if I'm in or out.  I don't play in leagues where I'm forced to make transactions with my roster.  FF owners should have full control over their teams.

Removing kickers is silly.  All positions have luck involved and all positions can swing weekly scores wildly.  Managing cuts and dead years is an integral part of these leagues.  If it's a big issue either raise the cap a couple of years or go to Team PK.

[terminader55]

I'm in favor of another review of the IR. I say you have the option to bring back two players from IR during the year or something along those lines.

As far as cancelled games I think it would be either you would use the next player replacement who is ranked higher or use player whos game got cancelled season average if they don't have a replacement. 

[Tford]

I'd like some people to weigh in with some specifics on what they would and would not like to see for IR rules as my offerings in years' past have not yielded anything. Doesn't make sense to me to offer the same change and expect a different vote.

[flemingd]

The bullmanure that this rule creates is that owners may have made moves in response to the player going on IR knowing we have no control over if the team ever brings him back, so when they do we may have already allocated the roster/year to another need.  This can be offset if we give owners two passes on mandatory activation.  If not chosen, the owner can instead cut either the player on IR or someone on active roster to make room with no dead year. 

[Tford]

15 hours ago, flemingd said:

The bullmanure that this rule creates is that owners may have made moves in response to the player going on IR knowing we have no control over if the team ever brings him back, so when they do we may have already allocated the roster/year to another need.  This can be offset if we give owners two passes on mandatory activation.  If not chosen, the owner can instead cut either the player on IR or someone on active roster to make room with no dead year. 

I don't disagree at all. My issue is that we voted on that twice without any change getting approved.

 

Unless we have a different option to vote on, I will still bring it forward for vote. But I'd hoped for either more vocal support for the old idea or a new idea to vote on.

[Allen Stephey]

I am all for being able to bring players back off the IR onto the active roster.  I would say that team owners can bring back up to three players off the IR to Active roster.

No need to remove kickers from the rosters. 

 

 

[flemingd]

4 hours ago, Tford said:

I don't disagree at all. My issue is that we voted on that twice without any change getting approved.

 

Unless we have a different option to vote on, I will still bring it forward for vote. But I'd hoped for either more vocal support for the old idea or a new idea to vote on.

We didn't vote on a limited return option, nor on the option of mandatory return but with the dead-free cut/replacement cut

[Tford]

I thought this vote was for limited return. 

 

 

But reading it now, it's more the reverse of what you are suggesting yes? What was voted on having the option of being allowed 2 players to be brought back from IR. You are suggesting being allowed 2 players to be kept on IR regardless of status? Just want to make sure that I have this clear when we get to the vote stage so that there is no confusion.

 

The dead year free idea I don't like as much personally. My feeling is that it would be primarily used as a tactic to avoid a dead year. At least that's what I would try to do with it. Don't have a problem voting on it, but I view these as not necessarily being mutually inclusive. I think that we could have the one without the other or both. Thoughts?

[flemingd]

8 hours ago, Tford said:

The dead year free idea I don't like as much personally. My feeling is that it would be primarily used as a tactic to avoid a dead year. At least that's what I would try to do with it. Don't have a problem voting on it, but I view these as not necessarily being mutually inclusive. I think that we could have the one without the other or both. Thoughts?

That's the whole point.  I have no control over when a team activates the player.  I can't wait forever for a TE so I have to go out and replace him.  NFL teams aren't required to activate guys, they can wait and do it at their leisure or when they have another convenient roster spot open but we can't, we get forced into something that fits their schedule.  We shouldn't get punished for that.  It's bad enough we'd have to cut someone we might prefer to keep to make room, the least we can do is not compound that with a dead year penalty too.  Twice last year I had 40 guys on roster and cap space was limited because I didn't sit around hoping the NFL GM decided my DE was more important than their backup PK I ended up having to cut someone I had a plan for.

I was suggesting 2 chances to just leave the guy on IR.  Reading that vote again, it didn't fully accomplish what I though the intent was.  It would have given owners a one-time shot to re-activate immediately or never again - but it still would be better than current, because at least I would have the option once and wouldn't be forced to make a cut/dead year by the NFL team waiting until their timing was perfect and mine was not.