Comish wants to drop a benched player whos already played for one who (1 Viewer)

[boots11234]

Our comish is asking for us to vote because our website will not let him drop one of his benched players who already played for a player who will play tonight. I am going to vote no but want others opinions about this.

IE: So trying to drop a WR that I had beched to pick up a K.

If it matters right now the comish is leading his game 137 to 68 with the other team having ryan and rogers going tonight.

 

[SacramentoBob]

No.

 

[Amused to Death]

No.

There's a reason the website won't let him do it. If he circumvents the website, I'd raise a stink (vote or not).

 

[Koya]

No. Once a player has played they are locked until the next week. Can't be added or dropped unless you have very quirky add/drop rules ie allow mid game adds etc.

 

[12punch]

Site won't let him

/thread

 

[habsfan]

If your commish thinks this is a vote worthy issue, you need a new commish.

 

[boots11234]

i appreciate all the feedback but was hoping to get a little bit of an explination from one of you as to why No is the correct answer. More then just 'the site wont do it for a reason'.

My feeling is he now has had one more week to evaluate his players and can drop the worst of his benched players. Does that make sense?

 

[Shutout]

IF you are using MFL, this is infamously known as the "plus1 roster" rule and it is a violation to do this.

In effect, forget about the "well, what happens if that player had been dropped and made available to other teams" and all that and just remember that it essentially gives the person carrying it out an additional roster space (hence the "plus 1 roster") and that is unfair.

 

[fruity pebbles]

He's essentially getting an extra player for the week

 

[Long Ball Larry]

If your commish thinks this is a vote worthy issue, you need a new commish.

seriously, this seems insane.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

i appreciate all the feedback but was hoping to get a little bit of an explination from one of you as to why No is the correct answer. More then just 'the site wont do it for a reason'.

My feeling is he now has had one more week to evaluate his players and can drop the worst of his benched players. Does that make sense?

I don't care what it is, he is trying to gain an advantage that no one else has had all season, and make the change on the spur of the moment. If you don't have official bylaws, then the rules of the site become the de facto bylaws.

And, in my mind, a commissioner should be held to even higher scrutiny when it comes to trying to make changes during the season. Any sense of impropriety is doubly problematic for him.

 

[Shutout]

i appreciate all the feedback but was hoping to get a little bit of an explination from one of you as to why No is the correct answer. More then just 'the site wont do it for a reason'.

My feeling is he now has had one more week to evaluate his players and can drop the worst of his benched players. Does that make sense?

Didn't see your latest post asking for a deeper explanation. Check my answer above and I'll elaborate a bit.

Your line of thinking is correct. Also, you have to consider the advantage he keeps by holding the player from other teams (what if he had 4 kickers and an owner had none to start and the drop would have given the other owner a chance to pick up and use a kicker, had it been done in the proper timeline?).

But first and foremost, it basically boils down to the fact that it gives the offending party a resource no one else has (an extra roster spot). I have seen this 100 times over the years. They will argue that they don't have an advantage, they weren't going to play a guy, etc but the reality is they held something with a roster spot that they shouldn't have and that affects everyone else. And, if nothing else, like the guys said above "there is a reason why MFL won't allow it."

If you are using MFL and your league is still having trouble deciding fairness, simply send a support ticket and mention "+1 Roster rule" and they will respond telling you it's wrong.

 

[habsfan]

i appreciate all the feedback but was hoping to get a little bit of an explination from one of you as to why No is the correct answer. More then just 'the site wont do it for a reason'.

My feeling is he now has had one more week to evaluate his players and can drop the worst of his benched players. Does that make sense?

Yes. He is operating with the advantage of hindsight and arguing that the hindsight wasn't impactful or helpful (because he was benched).

You need to make binding decisions on your players before they are locked down for the week. He decided (passively or otherwise) to bench that WR (in your example) and decided to keep him through this week's games. If he wanted a kicker, he needed to do that before the WR was locked down. If he has another Jet or Falcon on his roster, he can likely drop them and get a kicker...

 

[FDC]

He's essentially getting an extra player for the week

this

if this was allowed I (and others) would never roster a kicker if a monday night kicker was available. That would cause all sorts of headaches and problems.

 

[boots11234]

Thanks all for the feedback.

i appreciate all the feedback but was hoping to get a little bit of an explination from one of you as to why No is the correct answer. More then just 'the site wont do it for a reason'.

My feeling is he now has had one more week to evaluate his players and can drop the worst of his benched players. Does that make sense?

Didn't see your latest post asking for a deeper explanation. Check my answer above and I'll elaborate a bit.

Your line of thinking is correct. Also, you have to consider the advantage he keeps by holding the player from other teams (what if he had 4 kickers and an owner had none to start and the drop would have given the other owner a chance to pick up and use a kicker, had it been done in the proper timeline?).

But first and foremost, it basically boils down to the fact that it gives the offending party a resource no one else has (an extra roster spot). I have seen this 100 times over the years. They will argue that they don't have an advantage, they weren't going to play a guy, etc but the reality is they held something with a roster spot that they shouldn't have and that affects everyone else. And, if nothing else, like the guys said above "there is a reason why MFL won't allow it."

If you are using MFL and your league is still having trouble deciding fairness, simply send a support ticket and mention "+1 Roster rule" and they will respond telling you it's wrong.

Yup MFL. Thank you so much for your response. I am basically going to cut and paste it to the league and vote no.

 

[Ghost Rider]

If your commish thinks this is a vote worthy issue, you need a new commish.

Absolutely, this.

 

[TheGreatInTraining]

Drop the Commish and grab a new one off the wire.

 

[Godsbrother]

Thanks all for the feedback.

i appreciate all the feedback but was hoping to get a little bit of an explination from one of you as to why No is the correct answer. More then just 'the site wont do it for a reason'.

My feeling is he now has had one more week to evaluate his players and can drop the worst of his benched players. Does that make sense?

Didn't see your latest post asking for a deeper explanation. Check my answer above and I'll elaborate a bit.

Your line of thinking is correct. Also, you have to consider the advantage he keeps by holding the player from other teams (what if he had 4 kickers and an owner had none to start and the drop would have given the other owner a chance to pick up and use a kicker, had it been done in the proper timeline?).

But first and foremost, it basically boils down to the fact that it gives the offending party a resource no one else has (an extra roster spot). I have seen this 100 times over the years. They will argue that they don't have an advantage, they weren't going to play a guy, etc but the reality is they held something with a roster spot that they shouldn't have and that affects everyone else. And, if nothing else, like the guys said above "there is a reason why MFL won't allow it."

If you are using MFL and your league is still having trouble deciding fairness, simply send a support ticket and mention "+1 Roster rule" and they will respond telling you it's wrong.

Yup MFL. Thank you so much for your response. I am basically going to cut and paste it to the league and vote no.

You should also provide a link to this thread. Commish is wrong in even asking for a league vote.

 

[boots11234]

Thanks all for the feedback.

i appreciate all the feedback but was hoping to get a little bit of an explination from one of you as to why No is the correct answer. More then just 'the site wont do it for a reason'.

My feeling is he now has had one more week to evaluate his players and can drop the worst of his benched players. Does that make sense?

Didn't see your latest post asking for a deeper explanation. Check my answer above and I'll elaborate a bit.Your line of thinking is correct. Also, you have to consider the advantage he keeps by holding the player from other teams (what if he had 4 kickers and an owner had none to start and the drop would have given the other owner a chance to pick up and use a kicker, had it been done in the proper timeline?).

But first and foremost, it basically boils down to the fact that it gives the offending party a resource no one else has (an extra roster spot). I have seen this 100 times over the years. They will argue that they don't have an advantage, they weren't going to play a guy, etc but the reality is they held something with a roster spot that they shouldn't have and that affects everyone else. And, if nothing else, like the guys said above "there is a reason why MFL won't allow it."

If you are using MFL and your league is still having trouble deciding fairness, simply send a support ticket and mention "+1 Roster rule" and they will respond telling you it's wrong.

Yup MFL. Thank you so much for your response. I am basically going to cut and paste it to the league and vote no.

You should also provide a link to this thread. Commish is wrong in even asking for a league vote.

Sadly, I can't do that. I am 5-0 because of DD and this site. I just beat the only other undefeated team who had manning and decker going. The whole league wants to know where I get my info from and I'm not telling them.

Rg3/Eili Charles/Bush/Bell/Jackson graham/gates and nicks/Johnson/Wallace/brown/ vjax and last but not least Pratter who won the game for me last night.

 

[duece2626]

Are there people out there that really don't know about FBG by now? Good lord, lol

 

[collective]

So boots, what is your league number at MFL? I like looking at other MFL websites.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Thanks all for the feedback.

i appreciate all the feedback but was hoping to get a little bit of an explination from one of you as to why No is the correct answer. More then just 'the site wont do it for a reason'.

My feeling is he now has had one more week to evaluate his players and can drop the worst of his benched players. Does that make sense?

Didn't see your latest post asking for a deeper explanation. Check my answer above and I'll elaborate a bit.Your line of thinking is correct. Also, you have to consider the advantage he keeps by holding the player from other teams (what if he had 4 kickers and an owner had none to start and the drop would have given the other owner a chance to pick up and use a kicker, had it been done in the proper timeline?).

But first and foremost, it basically boils down to the fact that it gives the offending party a resource no one else has (an extra roster spot). I have seen this 100 times over the years. They will argue that they don't have an advantage, they weren't going to play a guy, etc but the reality is they held something with a roster spot that they shouldn't have and that affects everyone else. And, if nothing else, like the guys said above "there is a reason why MFL won't allow it."

If you are using MFL and your league is still having trouble deciding fairness, simply send a support ticket and mention "+1 Roster rule" and they will respond telling you it's wrong.

Yup MFL. Thank you so much for your response. I am basically going to cut and paste it to the league and vote no.

You should also provide a link to this thread. Commish is wrong in even asking for a league vote.

Sadly, I can't do that. I am 5-0 because of DD and this site. I just beat the only other undefeated team who had manning and decker going. The whole league wants to know where I get my info from and I'm not telling them.

Rg3/Eili Charles/Bush/Bell/Jackson graham/gates and nicks/Johnson/Wallace/brown/ vjax and last but not least Pratter who won the game for me last night.

This website is not a secret.

 

[Wilfredo Ledezma]

How does this even have this many responses? wth?

 

[boots11234]

To suburban dad's in a neighborhood league it is. Got 2 divisions with a total of 20 teams at 90 bucks a team so 1st place pays a lot of dough.

 

[Sarnoff]

Site won't let him

/thread

Site will let him on some hosts. CBS, for example, he can use his commish powers to make a roster move. Sometimes, that's just kind of a perk for being commish. You have to put up with all sorts of BS from the whiners in the league, but, it makes up for it when the commish is granted special powers. It's the only way the job is worthwhile.

 

[moviedude25]

If this wasn't the commissioner asking would anyone listen? Your commissioner needs to be replaced.

 

[Legion of Doom]

To suburban dad's in a neighborhood league it is. Got 2 divisions with a total of 20 teams at 90 bucks a team so 1st place pays a lot of dough.

There is a link inside every mfl league site for FBG,.lol For your sake,I hope the commish is not the head of the neighborhood watch patrol.........cuz nothing would get past them

 

[HughHoney]

No

 

[Ballstein]

Are there people out there that really don't know about FBG by now? Good lord, lol

what is that?

 

[Amused to Death]

Site won't let him

/thread

Site will let him on some hosts. CBS, for example, he can use his commish powers to make a roster move. Sometimes, that's just kind of a perk for being commish. You have to put up with all sorts of BS from the whiners in the league, but, it makes up for it when the commish is granted special powers. It's the only way the job is worthwhile.

Seriously? Hopefully this is sarcasm. That's a db move and cause for removal.

 

[Max Power]

hmm, I did something similar this week without even thinking about it. In a dynasty I had Bobby Rainey rostered. I dropped him on Friday after reading the box score. I filled the roster spot with another player (who I didn't start) before kickoff on Sunday.

This is an MFL league and the site let me do it. Didn't cross my mind it would be frowned upon.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

hmm, I did something similar this week without even thinking about it. In a dynasty I had Bobby Rainey rostered. I dropped him on Friday after reading the box score. I filled the roster spot with another player (who I didn't start) before kickoff on Sunday.

This is an MFL league and the site let me do it. Didn't cross my mind it would be frowned upon.

completely missing the point. in that case, the same option was presumably available to everyone. no problem.

 

[FUBAR]

hmm, I did something similar this week without even thinking about it. In a dynasty I had Bobby Rainey rostered. I dropped him on Friday after reading the box score. I filled the roster spot with another player (who I didn't start) before kickoff on Sunday.

This is an MFL league and the site let me do it. Didn't cross my mind it would be frowned upon.

I wouldn't allow the move but at least you didn't start him.

 

[FUBAR]

hmm, I did something similar this week without even thinking about it. In a dynasty I had Bobby Rainey rostered. I dropped him on Friday after reading the box score. I filled the roster spot with another player (who I didn't start) before kickoff on Sunday.

This is an MFL league and the site let me do it. Didn't cross my mind it would be frowned upon.

completely missing the point. in that case, the same option was presumably available to everyone. no problem.

Don't see much of a difference.

 

[TheAssassin]

You shouldn't change rules in the middle of a season but absolutely NEVER in the middle of a week.

 

[bleachercreacher]

I have a league that this is allowed, but everyone knows that going in so it's fair. Our waivers lock on Sunday at 1, so the only time it even comes into play is with Thursday games. If your league wants to vote and allow this, I see no problem with it, as long as everyone knows the rule going in. However, as others have said, the vote needs to occur after the season, and certainly not in the middle of a week.