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.

Closing a League loophole before someone tries to pick up West today, Chiefs already played (1 Viewer)

JohnnyU

Footballguy
Because we allow add/drops right up until the Monday game, but we don't allow adds of players who's team's game has already played, there is the potential of owners picking up Charcandrick West after he signed with the Chiefs, who's game has already played, and before all players are locked after tonight's game starts.

No one in my leagues have picked up West, so I closed this loophole before it happens.  Any player signed after their team's game has played and before the waiver process has started, must go to the waiver process.

I decided to make this decision before someone attempted to pick up West and we will use this decision for the remainder of this season, but anyone can challenge to a vote in the off-season.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

BigBlue_RI

Footballguy
My league rules are set to prohibit pick up of players whose team already played this week. On CBS, West actually is showing he's a member of the Jets!

 

Football Jones

Footballguy
Because we allow add/drops right up until the Monday game, but we don't allow adds of players who's team's game has already played, there is the potential of owners picking up Charcandrick West after he signed with the Chiefs, who's game has already played, and before all players are locked after tonight's game starts.

No one in my leagues have picked up West, so I closed this loophole before it happens.  Any player signed after their team's game has played and before the waiver process has started, must go to the waiver process.

I decided to make this decision before someone attempted to pick up West and we will use this decision for the remainder of this season, but anyone can challenge to a vote in the off-season.  
It's the right move, although, if somebody picked him up when the rumor came out before KC signed him, that would be totally legit.

 

[scooter]

Footballguy
Because we allow add/drops right up until the Monday game, but we don't allow adds of players who's team's game has already played, there is the potential of owners picking up Charcandrick West after he signed with the Chiefs, who's game has already played, and before all players are locked after tonight's game starts.

No one in my leagues have picked up West, so I closed this loophole before it happens. 
West was not part of the Chiefs when they played on Sunday. Therefore it is wrong to retroactively link him to a game in which he did not play.

You are misinterpreting your own rules and acting in a way that should be considered grounds for removal as Commissioner.

 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
West was not part of the Chiefs when they played on Sunday. Therefore it is wrong to retroactively link him to a game in which he did not play.

You are misinterpreting your own rules and acting in a way that should be considered grounds for removal as Commissioner.
it's not a matter of whether he was with them on Sunday, but whether someone signs a player who's team he is on has played already.  I made the decision for the remainder of this year and the league can call a vote in the off-season.  I did this before anyone attempted a pick up.

As for your grounds for removal BS, I would love to give up the job.  I'm tired of it anyway.   14 years is enough.  Also, no one attempted a pick up of West.  I could have beaten everyone to the punch but decided not to and instead issue this decision. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

[scooter]

Footballguy
West was not part of the Chiefs when they played on Sunday. Therefore it is wrong to retroactively link him to a game in which he did not play.

You are misinterpreting your own rules and acting in a way that should be considered grounds for removal as Commissioner.
it's not a matter of whether he was with them on Sunday, but whether someone signs a player who's team he is on has played already.  I made the decision for the remainder of this year and the league can call a vote in the off-season.  I did this before anyone attempted a pick up.
Unless this exact situation is specifically covered in your rules, then you were wrong to make a unilateral decision without approval from the rest of your league.

It's wrong to treat West as if he was a member of the Chiefs on Sunday.

 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
i encourage someone in 12 or less team leagues to use a roster spot on shark west
I can't imagine anyone is < 12 teams having any interest in him.  I can't see anyone not owning Ware having any interest in him.

 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
Unless this exact situation is specifically covered in your rules, then you were wrong to make a unilateral decision without approval from the rest of your league.

It's wrong to treat West as if he was a member of the Chiefs on Sunday.
I'm not treating him as if he was a member of the Chiefs on Sunday, I'm treating him as a member of the Chiefs on Monday.  The rules do say that if a team's game has already played you cannot pick up a member of that team.   That is about as literal as it gets.  I know it's a gray area because on Sunday he wasn't a member, but he is on Monday and their game has played.  I told the league that a vote can be called in the off-season on it,, but I made this decision for now based upon our current rules.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

[scooter]

Footballguy
Unless this exact situation is specifically covered in your rules, then you were wrong to make a unilateral decision without approval from the rest of your league.

It's wrong to treat West as if he was a member of the Chiefs on Sunday.
I'm not treating him as if he was a member of the Chiefs on Sunday, I'm treating him as a member of the Chiefs on Monday.  The rules do say that if a team's game has already played you cannot pick up a member of that team.  
Right. And West was not a member of that team. He's a member of the current team. Teams can change from week to week just like they change from year to year. No one would say that Saquon Barkley is a member of the 2017 New York Giants, right? So why are you trying to say that West was a member of the Week 13 Chiefs?

 

Football Jones

Footballguy
West was not part of the Chiefs when they played on Sunday. Therefore it is wrong to retroactively link him to a game in which he did not play.

You are misinterpreting your own rules and acting in a way that should be considered grounds for removal as Commissioner.
I agree with JU, but I'm assuming his rule reads much like my dynasty league where you can't pick a player up from a team that has already played.

Like I said, though, if somebody picked West up before he actually signed, that would be legit.

 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
I agree with JU, but I'm assuming his rule reads much like my dynasty league where you can't pick a player up from a team that has already played.

Like I said, though, if somebody picked West up before he actually signed, that would be legit.
Our rules says exactly that.

Also, yest, if someone had picked up West before signing with the Chiefs it would have been perfectly fine within our rules.

 

tangfoot

Living Slackmaster
Our rules say that we defer to our league management system for player status.  He's STILL listed as a free agent on MFL, therefore a valid waiver pickup.

 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
Our rules say that we defer to our league management system for player status.  He's STILL listed as a free agent on MFL, therefore a valid waiver pickup.
I made the decision based upon our current rules.  If anyone in the league wants to call a vote in the off-season to be more specific I'll welcome it.  But for now this is what we will do.

 

mbuehner

Footballguy
I made the decision based upon our current rules.  If anyone in the league wants to call a vote in the off-season to be more specific I'll welcome it.  But for now this is what we will do.
Comishes gotta make tough calls sometimes. Anybody that pipes up about how black and white everything is (or should be) hasn't done the job... or hasnt done it as well as they probably think they have.

 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
Comishes gotta make tough calls sometimes. Anybody that pipes up about how black and white everything is (or should be) hasn't done the job... or hasnt done it as well as they probably think they have.
Not to mention I could have owned him in every league I commish if I wanted to because no one else attempted to pick him up before I made this decision. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Arodin

Footballguy
I'm not treating him as if he was a member of the Chiefs on Sunday, I'm treating him as a member of the Chiefs on Monday.  The rules do say that if a team's game has already played you cannot pick up a member of that team.   That is about as literal as it gets.  I know it's a gray area because on Sunday he wasn't a member, but he is on Monday and their game has played.  I told the league that a vote can be called in the off-season on it,, but I made this decision for now based upon our current rules.
As a longtime commish I hold the principle that (barring outrageous gaffes) whatever the rules say is what you run with, and make changes in the offseason.  In this case, I agree with your interpretation.  The rules are pretty clear that "being on a team" is the determining factor, if the wording is exactly "a team's game has already played."

I think you made the right call that West could have been signed before he signed with the Chiefs, but not after.

 

wakelawyer

Footballguy
Not to mention I could have owned him in every league I commish if I wanted to because no one else attempted to pick him up before I made this decision. 
You've been around this game long enough that I would be surprised if your league rules didn't have a best interest of the league provision.  So I would actually applaud you for closing the loophole rather than exploiting it.  While some may say it needs to go to a vote, the fact that you were on the site and made the change before he was picked up makes it clear that, at least in leagues where you have a scrub Eagles or Redskins' player you could have picked him up. So the truly "aggrieved" party, if any, would be you.

 

Tanner9919

Footballguy
Because we allow add/drops right up until the Monday game, but we don't allow adds of players who's team's game has already played, there is the potential of owners picking up Charcandrick West after he signed with the Chiefs, who's game has already played, and before all players are locked after tonight's game starts.

No one in my leagues have picked up West, so I closed this loophole before it happens.  Any player signed after their team's game has played and before the waiver process has started, must go to the waiver process.

I decided to make this decision before someone attempted to pick up West and we will use this decision for the remainder of this season, but anyone can challenge to a vote in the off-season.  
we disallow any waivers after 1pm sunday. waivers start wed night. you can pick up tnf players until next week.

 why would you ever want to allow waivers to run during sundays/mondays?! dance with who brung ya until the next waiver period.

 

Dezbelief

Footballguy
Right. And West was not a member of that team. He's a member of the current team. Teams can change from week to week just like they change from year to year. No one would say that Saquon Barkley is a member of the 2017 New York Giants, right? So why are you trying to say that West was a member of the Week 13 Chiefs?
I believe the NFL week starts on Tuesday. 

 

wakelawyer

Footballguy
we disallow any waivers after 1pm sunday. waivers start wed night. you can pick up tnf players until next week.

 why would you ever want to allow waivers to run during sundays/mondays?! dance with who brung ya until the next waiver period.
I mainly allow waivers up until Monday in case there is a late scratch for a Monday night game.  For me the downside in keeping it open is outweighed by the upside of allowing people a chance to field a complete lineup.

 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
I doubt anyone in your league cares enough to snag him immediately anyhow, but I think you handled this poorly. 
Several in this thread disagrees with you.   As a matter of fact, one guy in another league posted, "I just assumed that since he was signed by the Chiefs he was locked.".

ETA:  Your solution?  I don't claim to always do the right thing but I've done a damn good job for the last 14 years.  I saw a loophole and made a decision before anyone attempted to pick him up.  If wrong, we can have a vote in the off-season.  As I stated before, I could have picked him up in all the leagues I commish but didn't.  Also, in the 3 leagues I commish there has been one complaint only, from a guy that said he would have picked him up had I not posted my decision on West.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hilts

Footballguy
Several in this thread disagrees with you.  
OK. So what? Others in this thread disagree with you. 

Why did you start this thread? Did you think you would receive absolutely zero pushback and everyone would dance around and sing your praises for saving their leagues from dealing with the horrors of Charcandrick West? I get it - commissioners sometimes have to make judgement calls. Not everyone will agree, but sometimes they need to be made. But you changed the letter of the law to accommodate what you believe is the spirit of the law. Others in your league may not agree that's the spirit of the law (yes even if you wrote the initial bylaws, as anything not explicitly written can be easily interpreted differently by varying parties).

 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
OK. So what? Others in this thread disagree with you. 

Why did you start this thread? Did you think you would receive absolutely zero pushback and everyone would dance around and sing your praises for saving their leagues from dealing with the horrors of Charcandrick West? I get it - commissioners sometimes have to make judgement calls. Not everyone will agree, but sometimes they need to be made. But you changed the letter of the law to accommodate what you believe is the spirit of the law. Others in your league may not agree that's the spirit of the law (yes even if you wrote the initial bylaws, as anything not explicitly written can be easily interpreted differently by varying parties).
Actually I didn't change the letter of the law, I went exactly by it.  The law says that no member of a team can be picked up if their game has already started / played.  As of today he is a member of the Chiefs and the Chiefs have already played this week.   I also said had anyone picked him up before signing with the Chiefs that would have been fine.  That also applies to our rules..   I agree we will need to have a vote in the off-season to further clarify the rule regarding newly signed players to a team that has already played for the current week.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

wakelawyer

Footballguy
The key for me is that no one tried to pick him up before the rule was put in place.  And at a time that the commish could have picked him up, although there are questions as to whether there would have been an available spot.  Had another owner picked up West and then the rule was put in place, that would require a deeper dive into the rules including the language cited by JohnnyU and any provisions concerning deferring to MFL designations.

 

Short Corner

Footballguy
The key for me is that no one tried to pick him up before the rule was put in place.  And at a time that the commish could have picked him up, although there are questions as to whether there would have been an available spot.  Had another owner picked up West and then the rule was put in place, that would require a deeper dive into the rules including the language cited by JohnnyU and any provisions concerning deferring to MFL designations.
Yes but he could also be using it as a ####-block without having to burn a roster spot.

 

zftcg

Footballguy
IMO, here's what this issue boils down to: You took a unilateral action to resolve a situation where the rules were open to interpretation. In that case, I would ask three questions to determine if it was appropriate:

  1. Was there a need to act quickly?
  2. Was your action reasonable?
  3. Was it biased (or did it even offer the appearance of bias)?
In this case, there was clearly a need to do something before West got picked up (and potentially launched a league-wide argument). I think both interpretations of West's status for Week 13 (that he was a member of the Chiefs and that he wasn't) are reasonable. And while I suppose it's possible that you might benefit from this decision in a very indirect way, in general I would say that it's not at all clear who this move would benefit. (Actually, given that West is a replacement-level RB who will almost assuredly have no impact on the fantasy season, I'm not sure there is any "benefit" to be had.)

I remember a few years ago there was a thread where a commish announced that, after Peterson's child-abuse scandal, he had made the unilateral decision to prevent any team in his league from picking him up. That seemed like gratuitous grandstanding to me. By contrast, this seems more limited and reasonable.

 

wakelawyer

Footballguy
Yes but he could also be using it as a ####-block without having to burn a roster spot.
True, he could.  But I can only go off what I know of the commish.  And he doesn't seem to be that type of person from what I've seen him post over the years -- even back to the yellow board days I think.

And his league owners know him better and should be doing a similar analysis.  If the commish has taken questionable steps in the past there would be a reason for concern.  If not, I think that you give him the benefit of the doubt and take him at his word.

 

Short Corner

Footballguy
True, he could.  But I can only go off what I know of the commish.  And he doesn't seem to be that type of person from what I've seen him post over the years -- even back to the yellow board days I think.

And his league owners know him better and should be doing a similar analysis.  If the commish has taken questionable steps in the past there would be a reason for concern.  If not, I think that you give him the benefit of the doubt and take him at his word.
Yeah, was just pointing out that the action in and of itself doesn't necessarily rule out a possibly self serving motive.

 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
Yeah, was just pointing out that the action in and of itself doesn't necessarily rule out a possibly self serving motive.
No motive, the only team complaining is a non-playoff team.  I'm a non-playoff team as well and have no interest in picking up West when waivers run.  The Ware owner is a playoff team however, but that has nothing to do with my motives.  My motives were based on the letter of the law that no player can be picked up if their team has already played.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boone22

Footballguy
True, he could.  But I can only go off what I know of the commish.  And he doesn't seem to be that type of person from what I've seen him post over the years -- even back to the yellow board days I think.

And his league owners know him better and should be doing a similar analysis.  If the commish has taken questionable steps in the past there would be a reason for concern.  If not, I think that you give him the benefit of the doubt and take him at his word.
Well as an owner in that league since it’s inception, I didn’t even think twice when JohnnyU locked West and posting his reasoning on the league message board. 

I understand folks comments in this thread but I guess I always assume the roster locking was based on the team playing for the week.  Not whether the individual was on the roster at the time the team played.  Maybe a bad assumption on my part but I don’t have any issue with his actions. 

 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
Well as an owner in that league since it’s inception, I didn’t even think twice when JohnnyU locked West and posting his reasoning on the league message board. 

I understand folks comments in this thread but I guess I always assume the roster locking was based on the team playing for the week.  Not whether the individual was on the roster at the time the team played.  Maybe a bad assumption on my part but I don’t have any issue with his actions. 
Actually this is in FLL2, not FLL1.  I applied the same change to 3 leagues before anyone attempted a pick up of West.  Only 1 owner in 3 leagues have complained so far.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

beerbuff

Footballguy
LOL, If someone really wanted West that bad they should be able to get him. The guy is bench fodder with Ware and Damien ahead of him.

 

-OZ-

Footballguy
No motive, the only team complaining is a non-playoff team.  I'm a non-playoff team as well and have no interest in picking up West when waivers run.  The Ware owner is a playoff team however, but that has nothing to do with my motives.  My motives were based on the letter of the law that no player can be picked up if their team has already played.


Actually this is in FLL2, not FLL1.  I applied the same change to 3 leagues before anyone attempted a pick up of West.  Only 1 owner in 3 leagues have complained so far.
Pretty sure I'm in the third league. No complaint at all, as an attorney I'd have done the same and construe the rule as such. He's on a team that already played, this isn't difficult. The person arguing that the team on the 3rd is a different team than on the 2nd is being entirely too creative with this situation.

 

Gally

Footballguy
OK. So what? Others in this thread disagree with you. 

Why did you start this thread? Did you think you would receive absolutely zero pushback and everyone would dance around and sing your praises for saving their leagues from dealing with the horrors of Charcandrick West? I get it - commissioners sometimes have to make judgement calls. Not everyone will agree, but sometimes they need to be made. But you changed the letter of the law to accommodate what you believe is the spirit of the law. Others in your league may not agree that's the spirit of the law (yes even if you wrote the initial bylaws, as anything not explicitly written can be easily interpreted differently by varying parties).
The bolded is the exact reason you have a Commish.  That is the biggest portion of his job.   Owners that try to exploit loopholes that circumvent the intent of a rule is very frustrating as a Commish.  You try and construct the by-laws to close up any loopholes to circumvent the intent of the rules but there are always owners that think they are smart and try and go around the intent of the rules by then using the letter of the law to justify their actions.  As a Commish your job is to enforce the letter of the law as well as the intent of the law. 

This was an example of a Commish doing his due diligence in identifying a possible loophole and closing it to meet the intent of the rules in place (as well as the letter of the law of the rules in place).  It was well done and should be commended by his leagues. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top