"Benching" Players for MNF if already ahead (1 Viewer)

[Doug B]

The objective here is to win and any move (or lack there of) that increases a team's chances of losing opposed to winning is outside the spirit of game. I strongly believe starting these players tonight would be unethical and inquiries would have to be made regarding collusion. Starting these players can only result in said team losing and the only motive for starting these players would be to potentially 'throw the game'.

I know you're being sarcastic, but ...The objective as I see it is to win the game given the same initial conditions as you opponent. Slightly different to what you are thinking.

 

[BlueOnion]

he may not know if he will need it but he may know that he "can" use it if neccessary so it might make a difference on what team/players he chooses to play in a given week....In his league because of the way the rules are set up.....this is an example of how having players/teams playing on Monday night might be an advantage.....and why you may or may not play a player/team that week......so knowing the schedule and managing your draft/roster moves/WW pick ups etc.....an arguement could be made that planning ahead of time might allow you to use this rule to your advantage if needed, which in fact he can now do this week....is it blind luck.....maybe....maybe notyou made it seem that is was just dumb luck because of the NFL schedule, when in fact there may have been some strategy involved...

Getting MNF players is big on my list as well for a couple of reasons:1) If I have a late game scratch for 1:00, 4:00 or 8:00, I have a fall back player on Monday Night.2) Playing on Monday night means players for said week have an extra day to let injuries heal.

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

The idea is that both teams in head-to-head competition should hold to the same initial conditions (e.g. number of starters, etc.) that determine results. If the actual results end up differing, that is not unfairness so long as the initial conditions are the same for both teams.

lol at the idea that having your RB's face a second-string DL while your opponent's RB faces a first-string DL isn't an instance of different "initial conditions".

 

[BlueOnion]

I know you're being sarcastic, but ...The objective as I see it is to win the game given the same initial conditions as you opponent. Slightly different to what you are thinking.

Not be all that sarcastic...but the same initial conditions did exist did they not? Didn't both owners have equal shot at aquiring tonight's players?

 

[Doug B]

You made it seem that is was just dumb luck because of the NFL schedule, when in fact there may have been some strategy involved.

It is dumb luck, IMHO, because uncontrollable conditions have to occur for the strategy of MNF benching to come into play.This is beside the point, anyway. Even if it's not dumb luck, MNF benching allows one team a different set of initial conditions from the conditions the opponent was obligated to meet. That's my problem with it -- opponents not playing by the same rules in a given match-up.

 

[Doug B]

The idea is that both teams in head-to-head competition should hold to the same initial conditions (e.g. number of starters, etc.) that determine results. If the actual results end up differing, that is not unfairness so long as the initial conditions are the same for both teams.

lol at the idea that having your RB's face a second-string DL while your opponent's RB faces a first-string DL isn't an instance of different "initial conditions".

You won't convince me otherwise -- the outcomes are not known ahead of time.Otherwise, why bother to play the FF games? Just look at the matchups on Friday, and determine the winners.Initial conditions are things like scoring rules, roster sizes, starting lineup specifications, and fundamental aspects such as number of opponents per week.

 

[Doug B]

I know you're being sarcastic, but ...The objective as I see it is to win the game given the same initial conditions as you opponent. Slightly different to what you are thinking.

Not be all that sarcastic...but the same initial conditions did exist did they not? Didn't both owners have equal shot at aquiring tonight's players?

No, conditions of the game itself. See above:"Initial conditions are things like scoring rules, roster sizes, starting lineup specifications, and fundamental aspects such as number of opponents per week."

 

[Doug B]

In his league because of the way the rules are set up.....this is an example of how having players/teams playing on Monday night might be an advantage.

Why should an owner get any kind of advantage because they've got a player on Monday night? They shouldn't have any more ability to change their roster than an owner with an all-Sunday lineup.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Sounds to me like you would be playing within the rules of the league. What's the problem with that?

 

[Doug B]

lol at the idea that having your RB's face a second-string DL while your opponent's RB faces a first-string DL isn't an instance of different "initial conditions".

Another way to say it -- assumptions about results are not the same as initial conditions.

 

[Crazy8s]

Hey Doug...your argument doesnt really hold water. If roster need to be locked at say 12:45 - thats not fair to everybody. Example below:

Your Team has all your players playing at 1:00.

My Team has everybody at either 4:00 or 8:30 and even Monday night.

Now how is it fair that you will know before your 1:00 games who is playing and who is inactive on your team due to pregame and internet sites. While my guys arent even warming up yet to see if they can play or even have a TV analyst on site yet.

Game time moves at any hour is the solution. And it enhances strategy.

My .02

 

[Doug B]

Now how is it fair that you will know before your 1:00 games who is playing and who is inactive on your team due to pregame and internet sites?

The situation you bring up is contrived to make point, though still possible.I just say "tough noogies". That situation is not likely enough to happen to have to have rules covering it. However, as it happens, in my money leagues, if you had all your players in the late games, you can, in fact, call your lineup in late. You just can't play someone who's already played in the early Sunday games.In any case, you are thinking of starting players who are GTDs. I am thinking of a situation where someone is benching MNF players because they don't want to risk a small lead.

 

[Doug B]

Game time moves at any hour is the solution. And it enhances strategy.

I want to make sure I understand something:If you started someone who stunk it up in an early Sunday game, are you allowed to replace the stinker with a Sunday night player?

 

[Crazy8s]

If you started someone who stunk it up in an early Sunday game, are you allowed to replace the stinker with a Sunday night player?

Nope!But i do have Michael Clayton and Holt on my team. And I can STILL pick which one I want in.

 

[jwvdcw]

Absolutely unethical. Lineups should be frozen after a given point, such as kickoff of the early Sunday games.

ok, maybe lineups should be frozen at the start of the first game. but in a lot of leagues they're not. if they're not -- if your league rules allow you to make these kinds of changes -- why is it unethical?personally, i see no problem with it. it seems like good strategy to me.

It is unethical because the MNF bencher is not assuming the same risks as the player who had to start a full roster just because he didn't happen to have a MNF player.I look at it as akin to letting one team substitute in their highest-scoring bench player after all scores are known, and not letting the other team do the same. IMHO, both teams should assume exactly the same risks with their rosters.

If it's legal in other people's leagues ... hey that's great for them. But I'll never consider it ethical.

No, you're wrong. Both players had the same chances.Both fantasy teams knew beforehand that they could make changes to the MNF roster. Therefore, both teams knew beforehand that they could do this. Therefore, both teams had the opportunity to draft a lot of players with MNF games on their schedules in order to take advantage of this.

I realize that most players probably didn't think of this, but thats what separates the sharks from the average players.

 

[Doug B]

If you started someone who stunk it up in an early Sunday game, are you allowed to replace the stinker with a Sunday night player?

Nope!But i do have Michael Clayton and Holt on my team. And I can STILL pick which one I want in.

We can, too. Maybe we are misunderstanding each other.In my leagues, if you have two guys at the same position on Monday night, you can wait until game time to pick one.

 

[jwvdcw]

To those who say it is unethical, what is the ethical principle that is being violated? Please don't say it's unfair to take advantage of dumb luck because luck happens.To me, this is substantially similar to two other hypos:-College football, team A gets ball first in overtime; team B intercepts pass and runs for TD. Should team B be allowed to just kneel on their possession, or should they have to make a serious attempt to score since team A did?-Fantasy football, you are up by 15. Your opponent has Clayton left, and you can start either Griese or Bulger. You expect Bulger to outscore Griese, but you know that the likelihood of Clayton outscoring Bulger by > 15 is greater than the likelihood of Clayton outscoring Griese by > 15. In otherwords, starting Griese does NOT maximize your expected score, but it DOES maximize your likelihood of winning. Should you have to start Bulger?People seem to be confusing a rule system that they don't like with unethical conduct.nEDIT: changed players in second hypo. Forgot who Griese was playing for.

Wow your college football analogy is perfect!Those who are saying that this is unethical, do you also think his analogy is unethical because the team taking the knee is not taking the 'same risks' as the first team did?

 

[jwvdcw]

To those who say it is unethical, what is the ethical principle that is being violated? Please don't say it's unfair to take advantage of dumb luck because luck happens.To me, this is substantially similar to two other hypos:-College football, team A gets ball first in overtime; team B intercepts pass and runs for TD. Should team B be allowed to just kneel on their possession, or should they have to make a serious attempt to score since team A did?-Fantasy football, you are up by 15. Your opponent has Clayton left, and you can start either Griese or Bulger. You expect Bulger to outscore Griese, but you know that the likelihood of Clayton outscoring Bulger by > 15 is greater than the likelihood of Clayton outscoring Griese by > 15. In otherwords, starting Griese does NOT maximize your expected score, but it DOES maximize your likelihood of winning. Should you have to start Bulger?People seem to be confusing a rule system that they don't like with unethical conduct.nEDIT: changed players in second hypo. Forgot who Griese was playing for.

Better edit the first hypo too, because the game ends on the INT return.

I realize this(and I think he did too). It obviously ends because they would obviously just kneel on the ball and not try to score if that happened. Well in the same light, shouldn't the fantasy football matchup end when one player is in this situation because he will just 'take a knee' by benching his remaining starter?

 

[jwvdcw]

The ability to start a quantitatively different lineup from one's opponent is a far bigger advantage, IMHO, than a MNF game-time-decision is a disadvantage.

No question, it's an advantage? But so what? In fantasy football you get advantages over the opponent all the time.Your starting RB gets injured; theirs doesn't.Your RB's opposing DL gets decimated by injuries; theirs doesn't.Your QB has a perfect pass bobbled by a normally reliable receiver and then intercepted; those doesn't.In what way is gaining an advantage over your opponent by dumb luck unethical? I'm in a league where I got Reuben Droughns over another guy by a coin flip. Can I still start him?

It is not an unfair advantage! The MNF schedule was out way before any league had their draft...every team had a chance to draft players that had a lot of MNF games!

 

[Crazy8s]

Maybe we are. You don't think it right if I'am up by .1 and still have Holt. And I decide to bench him for nobody. Correct?What if I pick up McCardell (Which some leagues you can still make pickups) or any 5th WR on the Rams or TB and start him over HOLT. Its kinda the same thing....isnt it?

 

[jwvdcw]

I remember a thread from days gone by where someone had used this strategy only to find out the Live Scoring that had him ahead by 1 pt (or whatever the number was) was incorrect - he was actually BEHIND by 1 pt. Unfortunately he didn't find out about that little problem until Tuesday morning. :rotflmao: He was trying to drum up support for his argument that since Live Scoring was wrong, and he had relied on it, he ought to be able to re-activate the player he had benched. What a maroon.I have no problem with the strategy as long as it's legal under your leagues rules. Just be careful!

Wow..thats tough. I feel bad for him and don't really thik hes a 'maroon'. I might have decided to let him play his guy.

 

[jwvdcw]

he may not know if he will need it but he may know that he "can" use it if neccessary so it might make a difference on what team/players he chooses to play in a given week....In his league because of the way the rules are set up.....this is an example of how having players/teams playing on Monday night might be an advantage.....and why you may or may not play a player/team that week......so knowing the schedule and managing your draft/roster moves/WW pick ups etc.....an arguement could be made that planning ahead of time might allow you to use this rule to your advantage if needed, which in fact he can now do this week....is it blind luck.....maybe....maybe notyou made it seem that is was just dumb luck because of the NFL schedule, when in fact there may have been some strategy involved...

Getting MNF players is big on my list as well for a couple of reasons:1) If I have a late game scratch for 1:00, 4:00 or 8:00, I have a fall back player on Monday Night.2) Playing on Monday night means players for said week have an extra day to let injuries heal.

It looks like you guys beat me to this point....Thats the thing: Both players have an equal opportunity to draft MNF players. Its the same thing as drafting based on SOS imo.

 

[Doug B]

Absolutely unethical. Lineups should be frozen after a given point, such as kickoff of the early Sunday games.

ok, maybe lineups should be frozen at the start of the first game. but in a lot of leagues they're not. if they're not -- if your league rules allow you to make these kinds of changes -- why is it unethical?personally, i see no problem with it. it seems like good strategy to me.

It is unethical because the MNF bencher is not assuming the same risks as the player who had to start a full roster just because he didn't happen to have a MNF player.I look at it as akin to letting one team substitute in their highest-scoring bench player after all scores are known, and not letting the other team do the same. IMHO, both teams should assume exactly the same risks with their rosters.

If it's legal in other people's leagues ... hey that's great for them. But I'll never consider it ethical.

No, you're wrong. Both players had the same chances.Both fantasy teams knew beforehand that they could make changes to the MNF roster. Therefore, both teams knew beforehand that they could do this. Therefore, both teams had the opportunity to draft a lot of players with MNF games on their schedules in order to take advantage of this.

I realize that most players probably didn't think of this, but thats what separates the sharks from the average players.

The draft has nothing to do with it. I'm not talking about exploiting league rules -- I'm making an ethical argument against the existence of that rule. There's no cut-and-dried right and wrong on this issue -- it depends upon the conditions of any individual league. If you played in my leagues, you couldn't bench Monday-nighters -- you couldn't just say "you're wrong" and get to do what you wanted. You'd be required to play within the league rules.I am saying that both opponents should have the same size starting lineup throughout the fantasy matchup in any given week. That's my ethical stance. Any argument not addressing that stance is window dressing.

 

[jwvdcw]

It is dumb luck, IMHO, because uncontrollable conditions have to occur for the strategy of MNF benching to come into play.

Ok...I have a question for you then.Lets say I'm about to pick a defense and I have 2 defenses ranked equally. I look at the schedule and see that one of them has 2 MNF games and I pick them over the other team, specifically for this scenario. So then its not 'dumb luck.' I specifically did this on purpose. Then am I allowed to bench them if I have a lead?IN A LEAGUE THAT PENALIZES DEFENSES A LOT FOR GIVING UP POINTS, TAKING A TEAM THAT PLAYS 2 OR MORE MNF GAMES IS A GREAT GREAT STRATEGY JUST FOR THIS VERY THING.Its definitely not 'dumb luck.'

 

[jwvdcw]

In his league because of the way the rules are set up.....this is an example of how having players/teams playing on Monday night might be an advantage.

Why should an owner get any kind of advantage because they've got a player on Monday night? They shouldn't have any more ability to change their roster than an owner with an all-Sunday lineup.

I'm not saying they 'should.' You may argue that the league rules shouldn't allow this. But if the league rules do allow it, and I draft a defense that has a lot of MNF games just for it, then I don't see how you can claim its unethical.

 

[jwvdcw]

Absolutely unethical. Lineups should be frozen after a given point, such as kickoff of the early Sunday games.

ok, maybe lineups should be frozen at the start of the first game. but in a lot of leagues they're not. if they're not -- if your league rules allow you to make these kinds of changes -- why is it unethical?personally, i see no problem with it. it seems like good strategy to me.

It is unethical because the MNF bencher is not assuming the same risks as the player who had to start a full roster just because he didn't happen to have a MNF player.I look at it as akin to letting one team substitute in their highest-scoring bench player after all scores are known, and not letting the other team do the same. IMHO, both teams should assume exactly the same risks with their rosters.

If it's legal in other people's leagues ... hey that's great for them. But I'll never consider it ethical.

No, you're wrong. Both players had the same chances.Both fantasy teams knew beforehand that they could make changes to the MNF roster. Therefore, both teams knew beforehand that they could do this. Therefore, both teams had the opportunity to draft a lot of players with MNF games on their schedules in order to take advantage of this.

I realize that most players probably didn't think of this, but thats what separates the sharks from the average players.

The draft has nothing to do with it. I'm not talking about exploiting league rules -- I'm making an ethical argument against the existence of that rule. There's no cut-and-dried right and wrong on this issue -- it depends upon the conditions of any individual league. If you played in my leagues, you couldn't bench Monday-nighters -- you couldn't just say "you're wrong" and get to do what you wanted. You'd be required to play within the league rules.I am saying that both opponents should have the same size starting lineup throughout the fantasy matchup in any given week. That's my ethical stance. Any argument not addressing that stance is window dressing.

I understand what you think the league rules should be- and I actually agree with you on that.However, if the league rules do allow this, then drafting MNF defenses and taking advantage of it is not unethical in any way imho.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

In his league because of the way the rules are set up.....this is an example of how having players/teams playing on Monday night might be an advantage.

Why should an owner get any kind of advantage because they've got a player on Monday night? They shouldn't have any more ability to change their roster than an owner with an all-Sunday lineup.

if the entire league knows that these are the rules before the draft and after the schedule comes out....then every owner has the opportunity to look at the schedule and decide what players to draft....dumb luck factor eliminated....it now becomes part of an owner's potential strategy..........is it conceivable that an owner looks at how many games a team/player has on Sunday night/Monday Night and uses that to decide who they draft....might be unlikely that this factors in, but possible....playing on SNF or MNF is looked at often when owners try to decide who to play any given week....

 

[Doug B]

What if I pick up McCardell (Which some leagues you can still make pickups) or any 5th WR on the Rams or TB and start him over HOLT. Its kinda the same thing....isnt it?

I don't know ... it's hard to make the comparison. You can't pick up players at that time in my leagues, nor do you risk negative points when playing someone.If Dane Looker (or heck -- Tim Brown) were on your roster, and you made the change before game time, then all is cool. Why? The outcome is not predetermined -- you still risk losing. You've minimized your risk, but you're still risking the loss.Starting a known out player is out-of-bounds, IMHO....All of this is a huge can of worms that make me glad we don't have negative points to worry about.

 

[Doug B]

It is dumb luck, IMHO, because uncontrollable conditions have to occur for the strategy of MNF benching to come into play.

Ok...I have a question for you then.Lets say I'm about to pick a defense and I have 2 defenses ranked equally. I look at the schedule and see that one of them has 2 MNF games and I pick them over the other team, specifically for this scenario. So then its not 'dumb luck.' I specifically did this on purpose. Then am I allowed to bench them if I have a lead?

IN A LEAGUE THAT PENALIZES DEFENSES A LOT FOR GIVING UP POINTS, TAKING A TEAM THAT PLAYS 2 OR MORE MNF GAMES IS A GREAT GREAT STRATEGY JUST FOR THIS VERY THING.

Its definitely not 'dumb luck.'

Wait, you are talking about two different things.Taking the defense that has MNF games in not dumb luck.

Being ahead by one on the exact week that your D plays on MNF is dumb luck.

And then you still have the thing that everyone is ignoring -- starting lineups should be the same size.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Doug, I think we all agree that the rule should be changed, but that is not the point of this post.....he is not asking about changing the rule.....he is asking if it is unethical to use the rules to his advantage.....and the answer is no, because he is playing within the rules and is not even really using the rules to his advantage, he is just playing within the rules.....and Blue Onion has a point in that he should actually be questioned more for playing them instead of pulling them.....his ethical obligation is to try to win every game.....by playing TB defense tonight he is actually giving his team a chance to lose....which he should not be doingbut they should change the rule

 

[Doug B]

I'm not saying they 'should.' You may argue that the league rules shouldn't allow this.

I am making a case for exactly that. I hate to say "arguing" because I don't have any real stake in what other league's are doing. This debate, for me, is purely philosophical.

But if the league rules do allow it, and I draft a defense that has a lot of MNF games just for it, then I don't see how you can claim its unethical.

It's not unethical to draft MNF defenses. It's unethical to me to bench them after Sunday results are known.But if it's legal in your league, go for it.

 

[Wilk]

The poll is flawed."Should this be allowed." Do you mean should people be able to do it this season or should you change the rule for next year?It should be allowed this season because that is what the rules state you can do. It should not be allowed next season because you should close a loophole that defeats the fairness of starting similar lineups.To your point...Yes, it should be allowed because the letter of the law in your league doesn't prevent it.

 

[Doug B]

In his league because of the way the rules are set up.....this is an example of how having players/teams playing on Monday night might be an advantage.

Why should an owner get any kind of advantage because they've got a player on Monday night? They shouldn't have any more ability to change their roster than an owner with an all-Sunday lineup.

if the entire league knows that these are the rules before the draft and after the schedule comes out....then every owner has the opportunity to look at the schedule and decide what players to draft....dumb luck factor eliminated....it now becomes part of an owner's potential strategy..........is it conceivable that an owner looks at how many games a team/player has on Sunday night/Monday Night and uses that to decide who they draft....might be unlikely that this factors in, but possible....

playing on SNF or MNF is looked at often when owners try to decide who to play any given week....

This is all fine and good, but I'm not talking about any of that. If you've got league rules in place already that allow MNF benching, then more power to you. That's not what I am debating about.The debate point is this:

Is MNF benching ethical, as opposed to legal?

So we need not question the allowability of MNF benching -- that's beside the debate point.

My stance on the debate point is this:

It is not ethical, because it causes individual matchups to take place between teams with de facto different starting requirements.

 

[Doug B]

Doug, I think we all agree that the rule should be changed, but that is not the point of this post.....he is not asking about changing the rule.....he is asking if it is unethical to use the rules to his advantage.....and the answer is no, because he is playing within the rules and is not even really using the rules to his advantage, he is just playing within the rules.

I never said anywhere that the rule should be changed in Yudkin's league. I am debating philosophy here -- not trying to dictate what others should do.To me, something can be both unethical and within the rules (much like in all of life). You will also note that nowhere in this thread have I said that someone else shouldn't take advantage of league rules that allow MNF benching.

 

[Pittsburgh P]

Most sports allow a team to compete with less than the maximum number of players without penalty, including football, while exceeding the maximum does incur a penalty.And yes, I do realize that fantasy football is not reality, but this has some bearing IMHO...

 

[Stinkin Ref]

FF is a game...so the only thing that could be unethical would be cheating of some sort...collusion, commish changing points or lineups, etc.......if you are playing within the rules dictated by your society (your fantasy league) what you do cannot be considered unethical....

 

[Doug B]

And yes, I do realize that fantasy football is not reality, but this has some bearing IMHO...

I don't agree.Nothing about actual athletic competion is comparable. In actual football, for instance, never does playing with 10 players give a competitive advantage.FF is a stats-driven game. It doesn't even come close to simulating an actual game. I can't apply arguments based on what happens in actual football to fantasy football.

 

[Doug B]

If you are playing within the rules dictated by your society (your fantasy league) what you do cannot be considered unethical....

Not to hijack this thread ... but think about that for a bit as applied to all of society.Laws and ethics are quite separate entities.

 

[t0h0]

If I can swing it I TRY to start Monday players since in Yahoo leagues you can't drop a player that has played in the week. If I have a #3 WR playing monday night, am already up enough to guarantee a win and there's some nice free agent pickup not only will I not start that WR but I'll drop him Sunday or Monday to snag that free agent.duh.

 

[Cixelsyd]

In our league you could do this only if you have another player to activate in it's place for that game. Say you have Torry Holt and Dane Looker. You could still bench Holt before the start of the game and play looker. Of course, our league gives a prize for most points scored, so I wouldn't do this.Who cares if it's ethical or unethcal if he already won. He won. He shouldn't be able to submit an illegal lineup... I'm sure you have starting requirements. Now, if he was losing by 1 point, and changed his lineup, I'd look for collusion... find out why... I hate rosters being frozed at the start of the 1st game... so much can happen that morning before the night game or MNF game...

 

[BlueOnion]

He shouldn't be able to submit an illegal lineup... I'm sure you have starting requirements.

Read the example. There are no starting lineup requirements.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

In our league you could do this only if you have another player to activate in it's place for that game. Say you have Torry Holt and Dane Looker. You could still bench Holt before the start of the game and play looker. Of course, our league gives a prize for most points scored, so I wouldn't do this.Who cares if it's ethical or unethcal if he already won. He won. He shouldn't be able to submit an illegal lineup... I'm sure you have starting requirements. Now, if he was losing by 1 point, and changed his lineup, I'd look for collusion... find out why... I hate rosters being frozed at the start of the 1st game... so much can happen that morning before the night game or MNF game...

Your missing the point of the thread....

In our league you could do this only if you have another player to activate in it's place for that game.

Its not a matter of putting in another player....its taking one out (TBD)without subbing for them....so there is no chance of him get any negaitive points tonight from TBD

He shouldn't be able to submit an illegal lineup... I'm sure you have starting requirements. 

By his league rules.....he is not submitting an illegal lineup

Now, if he was losing by 1 point, and changed his lineup, I'd look for collusion...  find out why... 

he is not in collusion with anybody.....he is acting on his own and trying to assure a victory

 

[BigActionMike]

Now we I know how the federal govenment feels when people "intepret" tax laws..... Unethical would be doing something underhanded or dirty in order to win...signedMIKE- owner of the dubios distinction of the "sleazy loophole trade" mastermind

 

[cstu]

Wait, there are ethics involved in FF? As long as I'm not breaking any rules I'll do what I can to win. This isn't real life folks, just a game, so if the rules allow it then you should do it. If you don't like the rules then change them.

 

[BlueOnion]

Wait, there are ethics involved in FF? As long as I'm not breaking any rules I'll do what I can to win. This isn't real life folks, just a game, so if the rules allow it then you should do it. If you don't like the rules then change them.

Its a game with winners and losers..."Oh, you landed on boardwalk mom? That sucks cause I own it, with a hotel. That will be $2,000 dollars and I will not be taking that in Saturday morning flap-jack payments."

 

[BigActionMike]

Wait, there are ethics involved in FF? As long as I'm not breaking any rules I'll do what I can to win. This isn't real life folks, just a game, so if the rules allow it then you should do it. If you don't like the rules then change them.

Its a game with winners and losers..."Oh, you landed on boardwalk mom? That sucks cause I own it, with a hotel. That will be $2,000 dollars and I will not be taking that in Saturday morning flap-jack payments."

that is the dividing line between winning and losing...

 

[PAO]

Wait, there are ethics involved in FF? As long as I'm not breaking any rules I'll do what I can to win. This isn't real life folks, just a game, so if the rules allow it then you should do it. If you don't like the rules then change them.

Its a game with winners and losers..."Oh, you landed on boardwalk mom? That sucks cause I own it, with a hotel. That will be $2,000 dollars and I will not be taking that in Saturday morning flap-jack payments."

Using your example, you wouldn't find it unethical, during the course of a Monopoly game, to curse, swear and berate your fellow players until they decide to just get up and leave? There isn't a rule against it so if they quite you win.I would really hate to play in a league with a bunch of wannabe lawyers. Having to spell out every rule in tiny detail is insane. You submit a line-up each week, and if you drafted well, and get s a few breaks during Sunday and Monday evening, you win. You don't need to wait till the end of the season to clarify a rule because somebody found a stupid loophole and they're trying to get an unfair advantage over their rival. If somebody is trying to do something that is against the "spirit of the game," a discussion should ensue and a decision made.Maybe I just play with sensible people, who try their best to win, but don't try to bend the rules to their advantage each week. FF is supposed to be a fun game, not a painful search through the rule book with a magnifying glass.

 

[nimsowner]

I voted yes.But does your league penalize you for not starting someone at a position?Or do you have another defense that is on a bye week to replace them with and that is allowed by your rules?

 

[ravnzfan]

our leagues address this by "fining" any owner who submits an illegal lineup....(guy on bye week, no TE, etc)if your league allows you to do it.....then you would be stupid not too

because we have tight rosters, I played BALT-D this week, on a bye---I didn't want to cut anyone to pick up a D that would have resulted in a L anywayour league requires:1-a minimum starting lineup is carried on the roster (ie, you can't 'not' have a TE on the roster)2-that minimum lineup needs to be started---you can not 'not' start a positionso...if you have a D on bye, you could have started them, but you could not take a '0'...obviously, you could not switch out the TB-D for the bye week D nowwhile it seems to be w/in the letter of the law, you know as well as I that is not w/in the spirit in which we play this game

 

[CobaltCruisin']

At this point, its 74-32 in favor of the LEGAL strategy.If they don't like it , pass a rule for next season.for those that don't like it,