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.

No Rule Disclosure: Allow Players Returning From Injury To Be Kept On IR? (1 Viewer)

Given The Facts, Should The Commish Have Allowed Owners To Keep Players Returning From Injury On IR?

  • Yes. If There Was No Rule Disclosure, Then The Rule Hasn't Officially Changed. Allow Players Returni

    Votes: 4 15.4%
  • No. Regardless Of Rule Disclosure, Players Returning From Injury Should Be Activated..

    Votes: 17 65.4%
  • Other (Specify Below).

    Votes: 5 19.2%

  • Total voters
    26

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?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why would it be an IR if non-injured players can be placed there?

anew rule for designating a player to return from IR would imply that the owner has a choice to keep a non-injured player on IR or not.



Why would a rule like this “imply” that non-injured players can be stashed on the IR?  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The commish and vice commish screwed up by allowing players who were no longer injured to remain on IR (I am in 10 leagues with IR and all require that once the player is officially removed from IR designation, he must be returned to the active roster or dropped from the team).

It would have been best to announce this change in policy which may not have been an actual rule (ambiguous from reading the OP) but it never should have been allowed to begin with as it expands the roster for those who have players who no longer are on IR).

 
IR = injured reserve

If your league wants to allow owners to put non injured players on a different part of the roster, have a practice squad.

 
It sounds like people got away with something in the past and expect to in the future.

Simple solution.

Increase bench size instead of violating IR rule.

I would also increase size of IR and strictly enforce the IR rule so that teams who suffer undue amount of legitimate injuries are not unjustly penalized.

That 'should' make everyone happy.

 
It's May. This would be the time to disclose rule changes like this. So yeah, if the intent of IR is not to have non-injured players on there, that should be enforced. 

 
IR = injured reserve

If your league wants to allow owners to put non injured players on a different part of the roster, have a practice squad.
If MFL supported different lists this would be a reasonable position but they don't.  It's an entirely different concept to want to stash suspended/retired/whatever veteran players than to hold rookies/young guys until they are "ready" to be activated.

That said, I can't believe OP is still posting this stuff.  How many time can one ask "should the commish be allowed to change rules on the fly to support his personal ambition" before the correct answer sinks in?  At this point I think he's just thinking of how many ways he can screw over his owners and just checking with us to see how many he can get away with before being lynched.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: blk
The commish and vice commish screwed up by allowing players who were no longer injured to remain on IR (I am in 10 leagues with IR and all require that once the player is officially removed from IR designation, he must be returned to the active roster or dropped from the team).

It would have been best to announce this change in policy which may not have been an actual rule (ambiguous from reading the OP) but it never should have been allowed to begin with as it expands the roster for those who have players who no longer are on IR).
That's fair. For a guy like me, if something hasn't been disclosed, and if it hasn't been updated in the rules, then it can't possibly be a rule just yet.

 
My bad. Changed the tenses just now. Thanks.
I can't wait until your next poll/thread that discusses how your commissioner wronged you years ago.

Any preview? Maybe he offered you the "other Adrian Peterson" in a trade and then refused to over-turn it after you realized it was the guy on the Bears and not the one on the Vikings?

 
I can't wait until your next poll/thread that discusses how your commissioner wronged you years ago.

Any preview? Maybe he offered you the "other Adrian Peterson" in a trade and then refused to over-turn it after you realized it was the guy on the Bears and not the one on the Vikings?
Thanks man. I appreciate that insight. Good analysis.

 
I can't wait until your next poll/thread that discusses how your commissioner wronged you years ago.

Any preview? Maybe he offered you the "other Adrian Peterson" in a trade and then refused to over-turn it after you realized it was the guy on the Bears and not the one on the Vikings?
Lol. Or maybe he gets Mike Williams in a trade and finds out it isn't the one from the Chargers, but either the one that busted with the Lions or in Tampa Bay. 

 
It's May. This would be the time to disclose rule changes like this. So yeah, if the intent of IR is not to have non-injured players on there, that should be enforced. 
My bad. This happened during the most recent fantasy season. Was writing this in a hurry before I had to get to class and then work.

 
If MFL supported different lists this would be a reasonable position but they don't.  It's an entirely different concept to want to stash Fails to meet parameters./retired/whatever veteran players than to hold rookies/young guys until they are "ready" to be activated.

That said, I can't believe OP is still posting this stuff.  How many time can one ask "should the commish be allowed to change rules on the fly to support his personal ambition" before the correct answer sinks in?  At this point I think he's just thinking of how many ways he can screw over his owners and just checking with us to see how many he can get away with before being lynched.
MFL does allow separate IR and Taxi Squads...

 
But anyway, definitely not trying to screw over owners. But it seems like positions change depending on the subject matter. Case-in-point here, more people are saying that the lack of a disclosure doesn't matter.

 
But anyway, definitely not trying to screw over owners. But it seems like positions change depending on the subject matter. Case-in-point here, more people are saying that the lack of a disclosure doesn't matter.
It's a standard rule.  In this case the opposite (allowing you to put a non injured player on IR) should be in the rules if that's the intent. 

 
But anyway, definitely not trying to screw over owners. But it seems like positions change depending on the subject matter. Case-in-point here, more people are saying that the lack of a disclosure doesn't matter.


Huh.  You mean people make decisions on a case by case basis dependant upon the circumstances?  Who could have guessed?

Last time I’ll bother with one of your posts.  Put that in your thesis.

 
Huh.  You mean people make decisions on a case by case basis dependant upon the circumstances?  Who could have guessed?

Last time I’ll bother with one of your posts.  Put that in your thesis.
I was talking about the results of the poll. This one had a similar underlying issue as another poll, yet the results are inconsistent with that one. Seems like the position of those here on the forum (or at least those that voted) has changed due to the actual subject matter and content of the change.

 
It's a standard rule.  In this case the opposite (allowing you to put a non injured player on IR) should be in the rules if that's the intent. 


I agree with that sentiment. Seems like we are in the minority though.
One of us is confused. 

UnInjured players should not be allowed on the IR unless specifically allowed. (Default is to not allow) . 12/16 appear to agree.  

 
One of us is confused. 

UnInjured players should not be allowed on the IR unless specifically allowed. (Default is to not allow) . 12/16 appear to agree.  
That's not what he's asking.  He's asking if the commish should have changed the rule on the fly.

 
One of us is confused. 

UnInjured players should not be allowed on the IR unless specifically allowed. (Default is to not allow) . 12/16 appear to agree.  
lol my bad. I misread that. 

I agree that non-injured players should not be allowed to be placed onto IR. But this issue isn't quite that, as the players are still initially IR eligible (have the "I" next to their name on MFL). This is just a matter of activating or not. 

If the rule was never disclosed, then I'd just err on the side of caution, go with status quo, and then make sure to fully implement and disclose next year. Heck, maybe announce the rule change immediately and just put it in the rules ASAP so that it's not forgotten again. Obviously don't implement on a retroactive basis though.

 
Hankmoody said:
That's not what he's asking.  He's asking if the commish should have changed the rule on the fly.


the lone star said:


I agree that non-injured players should not be allowed to be placed onto IR. But this issue isn't quite that, as the players are still initially IR eligible (have the "I" next to their name on MFL). This is just a matter of activating or not. 
Gotcha. Misunderstood. Then, no. Because it isn't clear and while some leagues force you to activate others don't allow you to activate while others let you choose. Therefore you need a rule. 

 
Are you one of those guys who tries to find every loophole in the rules to exploit? Maybe some leagues let you keep a player on iIR after they are healthy but i havent seen it. I think from a sportsmanship standpoint it’s a questionable move to keep healthy players stashed even if the rules are ambiguious,  but not everyone has the same outlook on competition. I think if it happened once and the commish changed the rule I would understand, maybe there’s a loophole but that isnt what IR is intended for, sorry about your luck. If it’s something that’s been allowed and exploited for years and he suddenly has a problem with it and changes mid season then he should wait until the offseason and make the new rule (I’d usually say vote on a rule change, but in this case I’d defer to the commish). 

I don’t know if these are just situations that have happened in your leagues or if they all pertain to you, but it seems like you want to slant it a certain way again, as if you were wronged. I suggest visiting some of the many other discussions and gain the knowledge you need to win rather than scour the rules for a way to cheat. 

 
If it is MFL there is a setting in the league setup as to whether to allow players on IR that are not injured.

If that setting is on, then that's the way the league is set up; if it isn't then I would assume the league was set up to allow it.

Seems like the sort of thing that should be left alone till an offseason then voted on.  But for the commish to make a change on the fly midseason to a league setting is something I generally consider taboo.

 
This is simple.  If not on the NFL IR, not on the fantasy IR.  Or in some cases leagues allow players designated as OUT to be on IR.  Common sense should tell you that if a player isn't injured he shouldn't be allowed on the IR. Instead of looking for a loop hole with the way the rules are written you should probably side with the "spirit of the rule" and common sense.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If it is MFL there is a setting in the league setup as to whether to allow players on IR that are not injured.

If that setting is on, then that's the way the league is set up; if it isn't then I would assume the league was set up to allow it.
I don't use that setting because we also allow players that are on the PUP to be placed on IR so that would not work. Of course with PUP players as well as short termed IR players once they are activated by their NFL team they need to be activated or dropped by the fantasy owner.

 
Your commish is still terrible *part 4*. It's time to find a new league. One where the commish tells everyone the rules, and then abides by them until the next season, unless a rule change is discussed and chosen unanimously. If anyone disagrees then tough #######, you all knew the rules as stated and should abide by them. If you don't like how your commish has done something, again, and find another thing to nit pick, just leave the league already.

 
The bottom line is that rules should not typically be changed mid-season.  There are times where something unforeseen may come up and everyone in the league agrees to an immediate change to find a solution to the unforeseen circumstance that must be taken care of right away.  Typically anything that comes up mid season should be noted and voted on/changed in the off season. 

However, you seem to be looking for loopholes in the majority of posts to circumvent the intent of the rules.  This is a very frustrating owner to deal with in leagues because sometimes the intent of the rule is difficult to put into words to avoid every single loophole possible.  In these cases the Commish may be frustrated that the intent is being circumvented and needs to put his foot down on the loophole seekers.  Its very hard to decipher which is the case in your scenarios because of the slants you use to explain what is going on.  We are only getting one side of the story.

 
I don't use that setting because we also allow players that are on the PUP to be placed on IR so that would not work. Of course with PUP players as well as short termed IR players once they are activated by their NFL team they need to be activated or dropped by the fantasy owner.
MFL treats PUP as status (I) so they are eligible under those rules.

 
Your commish is still terrible *part 4*. It's time to find a new league. One where the commish tells everyone the rules, and then abides by them until the next season, unless a rule change is discussed and chosen unanimously. If anyone disagrees then tough #######, you all knew the rules as stated and should abide by them. If you don't like how your commish has done something, again, and find another thing to nit pick, just leave the league already.
I thought I mentioned this in another thread, but I'm in a lot of leagues. Not all are dynasty though. I like redraft and keeper. REALLY trying to get into a free or low-pay league that has punters and coaches though. Just to try it out.

But yes, this isn't all about the same commish.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top