the lone star
Footballguy
So let's say a league allowed owners to keep players returning from injury on the IR in previous seasons. However, last season, the commish and vice commish agreed to not allow such a tactic. Although they decided on this, they did not disclose a rule change to the owners, nor was it updated in the bylaws. That is, nobody else knew of such a rule change. Instead, a new rule for designating a player to return from IR actually implied that the owner had a choice to keep a non-injured player on IR or not. This is because the commish explicitly stated that "you can activate an injured player off of IR, if you want."
A few weeks had already been played at the time, so players wound up on IR. Yet, the commish wanted to enforce IR rules in accordance with how he and the vice-commish intended. If the commish did this though, teams that have already placed players on IR would be forced to cut someone and take a cap penalty as well.
Given The Facts, Should The Commish Have Allowed Owners To Keep Players Returning From Injury On IR? Why or why not?
A few weeks had already been played at the time, so players wound up on IR. Yet, the commish wanted to enforce IR rules in accordance with how he and the vice-commish intended. If the commish did this though, teams that have already placed players on IR would be forced to cut someone and take a cap penalty as well.
Given The Facts, Should The Commish Have Allowed Owners To Keep Players Returning From Injury On IR? Why or why not?
Last edited by a moderator: