What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

White Elephant rules (1 Viewer)

How to penalize illegal steals

  • Charge a steal, and must pick from player pool

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Player pool repick only

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
renesauz

renesauz

IBL Representative
renesauz said:
renesauz said:
RULES:

1. You may never steal a player who WAS FIRST DRAFTED (was a fesh player pool pick) before your last pick.

2. You may steal ONLY an owners last pick.

3. 8 hour clock applies to fresh picks/steals. NO CLOCK applies to re-picks taken from the player pool, or a steal to replace a stolen pick. NOTE: A replacement pick must be made before your next pick.

4. For re-picks, you may not steal anyone drafted before your original pick.

5. For original draft position purposes, a player taken from the player pool on a repick is to be considered as the SAME DRAFT SLOT AS THE the person currently on the clock.

6. Five steal limit for the draft.

7. If a player times out on his turn, "player X" will be inserted as the pick (A hypothetical player nobody would wish to steal.) The timed out owner may, at any time, pick from the player pool for a real player, as if it were a repick, with the Steal Test left intact.

8. If a steal is made that is later deemed to be illegal, the stolen pick will immediately revert back to it's last owner. In addition, the owner attempting the illegal steal is charged for a steal anyway, and MUST make the pick up from the player pool.

9. Standard WSL roster limits, and scoring rules.

STEAL TEST:

A PLAYER MAY BE STOLEN IF AND ONLY IF IT PASSES THIS TEST:

1. Is it that owner's last pick taken? If yes....

2. Have I made a pick (of any type...steal, original, or repick) since this player was FIRST DRAFTED FROM THE PLAYER POOL....if no, then....

3. Did I have the opportunity to steal this player before (while I was on the clock)...if no....then

4. Have I ever owned this player before? If no, then...

You can steal him.

EDITED FOR CLARITY AND SPELLING..not for content
Click to expand...
Where exactly does it say you have to use the word "steal" when stealing a player? By LHUCKS logic and argument, Jeff didn't steal last round (when he made the same mistake, but on a player that was actually stealable.) Since Jeff did not mean to excercise a steal, should we simply revert that player back to it's first owner? Since it WAS a legal steal For Jeff, how were we to know? By the rules as they are written, there really is no choice but to charge LHUCKS with one steal. With that said, I agree with Radballs that it may not be strictly necessary to charge a steal on an illegal steal. Everyone in this draft is common to FBG's, and I believe everyone here has participated in FBG's surviver pools. In a money league, no way I'd propose changing a rule mid-way....but this is far from a money league, it's an experiment.

Let's put it to a vote. To put it clearly, the vote is to leave the rule as written, or to amend it so that the only penalty is that no steal may be used for that pick (it must be a fresh player pool player). SEE VOTE THREAD!
Click to expand...
Since LHUCKS, and Ruffrodys have a personal stake in the outcome, they should refrain from this vote, as will I. That leaves 11 voters.NOTE: If you aren't part of the white elphant draft, please do not vote here! (althugh commentary is welcome!)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I voted not to penalize, believing his stated intent.

I am quite confident that an owner making a steal would boldly proclaim that in his post.

 
Personally since this is a bit of a casual draft, with the first time these rules are being used, I think people should get passes on stuff like this. I didn't bring it up, because ultimately I think whoever was running the draft should get final say. As OldMilwaukee stated above though, I don't have a reason to doubt his intent.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
this is a rather democratic way of resolving our minor dispute. :shrug:

BTW, what is the vote at, since I can't vote I can't see the results.

 
I think the Survivor League rules cover picked players already picked. The team owner makes up the pick as soon as he can.

The steal is the wrinkle. I think requiring the word steal for a steal would reveal intent. Maybe next time.

It will be interesting to see when steals run out for each draft position. If five is about right or...

I digress. The question is whether or not to subtract a steal or not in addition to loss of the ability to steal when making up the pick.

I'll use my Jury Duty Selection answer: Burn them, Burn them!

on the other hand, since they were just a victim of the system they're learning, forgiveness.

 
I voted for charge a steal, though it seems that a better way to make sure is to put ion a rules stating that in order to steal, one must use the word steal.

In LHUCKS's case, I think there should be no steal penalized as he did not state steal. Versus RuffRody who did.

 
You owe me Lhucks, you got hosed on the steal charge.

PS: Explaining it to you like you're Bass a LAC10 grad, null vote and you can see the results.

 
As the poll is worded, I say "charge a steal if an illegal steal is attempted".

However, if the question was asked - "does picking a player that has been already selected without declaring that pick to be a steal attempt automatically count as a steal attempt", I'd vote NO.

It the definition of an illegal steal attempt. If you iron out "how to make an official steal attempt", this should be covered.

The player who makes a "bad" steal attempt should be skipped (just like a person picking a previously picked player in WSL would) and the draft moves on. He gets to backfill when he notices he messed up.

Assuming a steal attempt when the player isn't able to be stolen or was just recently picked and missed, that should put the draft on hold and the intention verified as it is a big problem. Hold the draft for a full clock, if needed, and then move on as if they didn't pick at all - unless that gives an advantage. Don't hold the draft forever, or just make it that after 8 hours they CANNOT steal at that draft spot but can pick a player at any time (like usual) to clean it up). That way they have 8 hours to declare a real steal or just re-pick.

 
Jeff Pasquino said:
Assuming a steal attempt when the player isn't able to be stolen or was just recently picked and missed, that should put the draft on hold and the intention verified as it is a big problem. Hold the draft for a full clock, if needed, and then move on as if they didn't pick at all - unless that gives an advantage. Don't hold the draft forever, or just make it that after 8 hours they CANNOT steal at that draft spot but can pick a player at any time (like usual) to clean it up). That way they have 8 hours to declare a real steal or just re-pick.
Click to expand...
:confused: :unsure: I think you just said you agreed to the second option?

Either way, we'll add it to the rules that you must clearly state a "Steal".

I disagree with putting the draft on hold though. If you mess up, then the draft shouldn't be halted for you. BUT...that would be a good spot to use the "player X" notation (as if you'd timed out).

If I read you correctly, you're saying that if you use "steal" and it's illegal...you get charged (Like Ruffrody's illegal steal)? If you don't use word "steal", and that player is picked (whether stealable or not), then your pick is simply no good?

 
Another possible solution, and maybe the best. Simply reply in the thread if you like this, since I don't want to clutter the forum with another poll/vote:

Edit the rules to read:

You must clearly state the intent to steal in order for a steal to occur. If you do not do so, and the player has already been drafted, then the pick is null. "Player X" will be inserted as your "pick", to be replaced at any time by a fresh player pool pick.

Under that scenario, LHUCKS would get his steal back. Ruffrodys would not. Since it isn't even close to conveniant to back the draft all the way to Pasquino's mistake, BUT Jeff gained no significant advantage (his "steal" was re-stolen very shortly after), I could easily justify giving Jeff one steal back also.

I think that solution would make most happy, although I personally like it better as it is now. Right now, my interpretation would be that if the player is already drafted, it's a steal attempt, legal or not. I don't personally have a ton of patience for guys who can't check availability properly in a draft (although this draft is certainly a bit harder then most!)

 
renesauz said:
Another possible solution, and maybe the best. Simply reply in the thread if you like this, since I don't want to clutter the forum with another poll/vote:

Edit the rules to read:

You must clearly state the intent to steal in order for a steal to occur. If you do not do so, and the player has already been drafted, then the pick is null. "Player X" will be inserted as your "pick", to be replaced at any time by a fresh player pool pick.
Click to expand...
I'd concur with that solution.
 
It doesn't really matter to me either way, but I'd be in favor of as many good steals to be in play as possible the first time we go through this to see some different strategy plays. Dropping a steal by a mistake defeats that purpose.

Obviously if $ was in play this wouldn't be the call.

I can live with either decision, but I'd prefer a bunch of steals for this first effort. Who knows if 4, 5, 6, or whatever is the right number to have.

 
renesauz said:
Since LHUCKS, and Ruffrodys have a personal stake in the outcome, they should refrain from this vote, as will I. That leaves 11 voters.
Click to expand...
I did not see this, as I did not scroll down before voting. I probably would have voted and posted even if I had. I voted to lose a steal. I knew the rules enough to know that it was my responsibility to look around and see if my selection would be a legal steal. It was LHUCKS also. Jeff just got lucky, but it was his responsibility also, like everyone else. I feel ignorance is not a real good reason to alter rules at the beginnning of the 4th round of a draft.It does not personally matter to me either way the vote goes. Choose to accept or disregard my vote as deemed appropriate. Figured everyone should know I voted.

 
Ruffrodys05 said:
renesauz said:
Since LHUCKS, and Ruffrodys have a personal stake in the outcome, they should refrain from this vote, as will I. That leaves 11 voters.
Click to expand...
I did not see this, as I did not scroll down before voting. I probably would have voted and posted even if I had. I voted to lose a steal. I knew the rules enough to know that it was my responsibility to look around and see if my selection would be a legal steal. It was LHUCKS also. Jeff just got lucky, but it was his responsibility also, like everyone else. I feel ignorance is not a real good reason to alter rules at the beginnning of the 4th round of a draft.It does not personally matter to me either way the vote goes. Choose to accept or disregard my vote as deemed appropriate. Figured everyone should know I voted.
Click to expand...
The way I saw it..... Even if Lhucks didn't actually Proclaim to make a STEAL.... The player he chose was a player that needed to be obtained by a STEAL... So, STEAL rules were in effect and LHUCKS therefore made an illegal Steal attempt.

Or something like that.

 
Vote is surprisingly close. Only 2 people haven't voted, and if you throw out Rodys vote, the change the rule option is only ahead by a single vote.

No comments on the third option I laid out in the middle of the thread? Should we keep that third option as a change to the next White Elephant draft (if there is one)?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have not voted in this poll b/c I don;t have an option that fits my liking. I would like the future rule to be charged a steal but in this case since we are all still learning how this format works, I would like to a free pass to be given.

This bizzare concept draft. whomever thought of it up is a genius I might add, still needs some wrinkles ironed out and I wouldn't be suprised if we hit a couple more snaggs, which I think is a good thing.

 
Fullback Fro said:
I have not voted in this poll b/c I don;t have an option that fits my liking. I would like the future rule to be charged a steal but in this case since we are all still learning how this format works, I would like to a free pass to be given.

This bizzare concept draft. whomever thought of it up is a genius I might add, still needs some wrinkles ironed out and I wouldn't be suprised if we hit a couple more snaggs, which I think is a good thing.
Click to expand...
:shock: :bye: To give credit where it's due...this was a great idea fro!

Because it is the first White Elephant draft, and because the vote is 5 - 4 (Rodys didn't count) in favor of returning the steals after everyone has long had a chance to read this, the steals will be returned to all 3 people. (I'm including Pasquino...he didn't mean to steal either, and got no benefit out of it.)

I would expect in the future, to keep the penalty in some form, either as the rule is written now, or like the alternate rule I wrote earlier in this thread...but we can talk about that later.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Is Draft Dominator broke?
Replies
0
Views
382
hit4dough
H
BassNBrew
2023 WSL Sign-Up Thread
Replies
9
Views
1K
bicycle_seat_sniffer
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Anarchy99
2023 Anarchy Leagues???
Replies
16
Views
664
Biabreakable
Biabreakable

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top