Conditional start/sit based on GTD (1 Viewer)

[Dez]

So if I play against a guy who had AJ yesterday and he put in Mike Thomas as his back up and Thomas put up 22 pts I would actually now be praying AJ played ?

Too much rigmarole here you 1st have to root against 1 player then root against another player again if he plays or root for him to play against you if the 1st guy does good or root for him to sit out if the other player does bad ?

No thanks.

 

[DropKick]

weak idea..with today's technology and hand held devices to make changes, I'm not buying that people aren't able to make changes. As someone posted, those that follow it closely should have the advantage..just like everything else in the world. Sounds like a nice liberal idea..another entitlement?

Just as I'm about to remove someone's spleen, I'll just yell "stop the press... I need to check my line-up".

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

This would basically be applied retroactively by me (the commissioner) after the active/inactive decision is made. That means even if your GTD was playing at 4pm and your replacement was playing at 1pm, you could still list the 1pm player as your replacement so long as you list him prior to the start time of his game. From there, if the 4pm player is ruled inactive, I would put the 1pm player into that team's lineup even if he has already played.

This would be a terrible idea if it extended to Thursday/Saturday/Monday games.Suppose someone names a "replacement" who plays in a Thursday night game, and blows up for 150 yards and three TDs. What's to stop the owner from declaring the "starter" to be some scrub who happens to be questionable, just so he can get the points from this "replacement" into his starting lineup? Most of us allow lineup changes until kickoff time, so the owner never needs to risk having this scrub officially starting -- if it turns out that the scrub is active for the game, he can just swap in his regular starter before gametime.Pretty soon everyone with a player on Thursday night will officially "start" some Sunday questionable and declare the TNF guy as a "replacement". If the TNF guy doesn't have a good game, or if the questionable guys actually plays, they can just put in their regular starting lineup later. But if everything works out, they can maneuver their Thursday points into the lineup even if he would never have been a starter normally.

Your reading comprehension is lacking. I suggest you reread the first post.

I suggest you re-read mine. Or be a little more specific.

I think I understand what you're saying. If you like the "replacement" number you could change your starter to someone who definitely won't play in order to benefit. But if the replacement number is terrible, you've really put yourself in a bind. You'll have to start someone else who will definitely play. But I can see how it could be abused. The "What do you need Monday night" thread could get thinner if you could plug in yesterday's great performance and get yourself a win by changing the "starter" to someone who isn't going to play (assuming you had someone like that on your roster in that game).I'd say the plan is good but I'd make it so the replacement player has to be playing at the same time or after the starter. No sneak peek at your scores.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

So if I play against a guy who had AJ yesterday and he put in Mike Thomas as his back up and Thomas put up 22 pts I would actually now be praying AJ played ?

Too much rigmarole here you 1st have to root against 1 player then root against another player again if he plays or root for him to play against you if the 1st guy does good or root for him to sit out if the other player does bad ?

No thanks.

Quick hijack to recognize correct spelling for a word that gets butchered way too often.

 

[theplayer11]

LOL at corrected to dummed...too funny.

Anyway, I guess there are leagues for all types and what they prefer. It still amazes me how I still see posts on Sundays after an injury that someone was able to grab the back up....no waiver process..are you kidding me?

 

[DropKick]

basically, people want an easy "out" if they don't watch it closely..sorry, that's part of the game.

like someone said above, they want best ball. FF players that want this should just play in FBG's subscriber contest. a rule like this only benefits the owner that do not follow it closely

No. A rule like this benefits owners who aren't able to follow it closely from 12:30 to 12:55 on Sunday afternoons.

valid point -

however, for me it's still part of the game. I know a lot of people are probably at church sometimes during that timeframe, and that may hurt - but I am betting that most have trustworthyfriends that can step in and do a last minute sub if necessary. I have been stuck like that several times, and I made a calculated decision between starting a questionable/doubtful starter over a lesser player guaranteed to put up some points. For me it just adds to the challenge . . .

I've seen a lot of weird statements over the years, but not accepting a formal and consistent method of player substitution under the rational that trust worthy friends should be available to set your line-up is top ten strange.

 

[Phantom Knight]

If a player is listed on the injury report as Questionable or Doubtful, owners may declare an alternate starter to take that player's place if the player is ruled inactive.

We do this in our league. Message must be posted on site before game starts. Commish adjusts roster if necessary.

 

[Phantom Knight]

Suppose someone names a "replacement" who plays in a Thursday night game, and blows up for 150 yards and three TDs. What's to stop the owner from declaring the "starter" to be some scrub who happens to be questionable, just so he can get the points from this "replacement" into his starting lineup?

The named replacement would be one specific player for another specific player (by name). Rotating the specified gtd out of your lineup would invalidate your conditional substitution. If the conditional substitution's game had already started, he could not then be added to a new conditional substituiton - the owner would be stuck without the blowup from the bench player. So if the bench player blows up, the owner would have to wait and hope his starter was made inactive.

 

[duaneok66]

basically, people want an easy "out" if they don't watch it closely..sorry, that's part of the game.

like someone said above, they want best ball. FF players that want this should just play in FBG's subscriber contest. a rule like this only benefits the owner that do not follow it closely

No. A rule like this benefits owners who aren't able to follow it closely from 12:30 to 12:55 on Sunday afternoons.

valid point -

however, for me it's still part of the game. I know a lot of people are probably at church sometimes during that timeframe, and that may hurt - but I am betting that most have trustworthyfriends that can step in and do a last minute sub if necessary. I have been stuck like that several times, and I made a calculated decision between starting a questionable/doubtful starter over a lesser player guaranteed to put up some points. For me it just adds to the challenge . . .

I've seen a lot of weird statements over the years, but not accepting a formal and consistent method of player substitution under the rational that trust worthy friends should be available to set your line-up is top ten strange.

let me clarify -

I've never had a friend sub for me, I play the game as is even if sometimes I cant be here sunday at noon et. some other people prefer to let a friend make a last minute change. Whatever works . . .

I don't like these conditional substitutions . . .

 

[gianmarco]

This would basically be applied retroactively by me (the commissioner) after the active/inactive decision is made. That means even if your GTD was playing at 4pm and your replacement was playing at 1pm, you could still list the 1pm player as your replacement so long as you list him prior to the start time of his game. From there, if the 4pm player is ruled inactive, I would put the 1pm player into that team's lineup even if he has already played.

This would be a terrible idea if it extended to Thursday/Saturday/Monday games.Suppose someone names a "replacement" who plays in a Thursday night game, and blows up for 150 yards and three TDs. What's to stop the owner from declaring the "starter" to be some scrub who happens to be questionable, just so he can get the points from this "replacement" into his starting lineup?

Most of us allow lineup changes until kickoff time, so the owner never needs to risk having this scrub officially starting -- if it turns out that the scrub is active for the game, he can just swap in his regular starter before gametime.

Pretty soon everyone with a player on Thursday night will officially "start" some Sunday questionable and declare the TNF guy as a "replacement". If the TNF guy doesn't have a good game, or if the questionable guys actually plays, they can just put in their regular starting lineup later. But if everything works out, they can maneuver their Thursday points into the lineup even if he would never have been a starter normally.

Your reading comprehension is lacking. I suggest you reread the first post.

I suggest you re-read mine. Or be a little more specific.

Oh, I read yours perfectly.Your post is wrong on 2 counts.

1) You don't get to list a player as a sub AFTER his game is played. So your example of plugging in a Thursday game player makes no sense

2) You don't get to sub a player if your original lineup guy is listed as active. So once again, your example doesn't make sense by just plugging in a "questionable" guy because you can't make a change unless he's listed as inactive.

As I said, go back and reread the OP clearly. In fact, the relevant parts are already in italics there:

If a player is listed on the injury report as Questionable or Doubtful, owners may declare an alternate starter to take that player's place if the player is ruled inactive.

That means even if your GTD was playing at 4pm and your replacement was playing at 1pm, you could still list the 1pm player as your replacement so long as you list him prior to the start time of his game.

So, based on those 2 MAJOR points, your entire post is flawed as you wouldn't be able to abuse or change anything as you suggested.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

This would basically be applied retroactively by me (the commissioner) after the active/inactive decision is made. That means even if your GTD was playing at 4pm and your replacement was playing at 1pm, you could still list the 1pm player as your replacement so long as you list him prior to the start time of his game. From there, if the 4pm player is ruled inactive, I would put the 1pm player into that team's lineup even if he has already played.

This would be a terrible idea if it extended to Thursday/Saturday/Monday games.Suppose someone names a "replacement" who plays in a Thursday night game, and blows up for 150 yards and three TDs. What's to stop the owner from declaring the "starter" to be some scrub who happens to be questionable, just so he can get the points from this "replacement" into his starting lineup?

Most of us allow lineup changes until kickoff time, so the owner never needs to risk having this scrub officially starting -- if it turns out that the scrub is active for the game, he can just swap in his regular starter before gametime.

Pretty soon everyone with a player on Thursday night will officially "start" some Sunday questionable and declare the TNF guy as a "replacement". If the TNF guy doesn't have a good game, or if the questionable guys actually plays, they can just put in their regular starting lineup later. But if everything works out, they can maneuver their Thursday points into the lineup even if he would never have been a starter normally.

Your reading comprehension is lacking. I suggest you reread the first post.

I suggest you re-read mine. Or be a little more specific.

Oh, I read yours perfectly.Your post is wrong on 2 counts.

1) You don't get to list a player as a sub AFTER his game is played. So your example of plugging in a Thursday game player makes no sense

2) You don't get to sub a player if your original lineup guy is listed as active. So once again, your example doesn't make sense by just plugging in a "questionable" guy because you can't make a change unless he's listed as inactive.

As I said, go back and reread the OP clearly. In fact, the relevant parts are already in italics there:

If a player is listed on the injury report as Questionable or Doubtful, owners may declare an alternate starter to take that player's place if the player is ruled inactive.

That means even if your GTD was playing at 4pm and your replacement was playing at 1pm, you could still list the 1pm player as your replacement so long as you list him prior to the start time of his game.

So, based on those 2 MAJOR points, your entire post is flawed as you wouldn't be able to abuse or change anything as you suggested.

I think where people got confused (including me) is it wasn't specified that you couldn't change the "starter" once you name a replacement. Example: I name Mike Wallace this past week as my "replacement" for my starter, who is Roddy White. With Wallace's numbers, I win my Super Bowl so I'd rather just keep his performance. So I change my starter from White to Andre Johnson so he won't play and I get Wallace's numbers. If I keep White he might play and not do as well, costing me the title.

Sounds like I wouldn't be able to do that (which is great) but I didn't see that specified. You might have it in your rules.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Just adds more luck to it.

If you meant exactly the opposite of this, you're correct.

 

[DropKick]

let me clarify -

I've never had a friend sub for me, I play the game as is even if sometimes I cant be here sunday at noon et. some other people prefer to let a friend make a last minute change. Whatever works . . .

I don't like these conditional substitutions . . .

Hey, it's your right to play the way you want to play! I don't think it is as bad as you fear... Typically, you're naming a "lesser" bench player anyway... And it's an opportunity that both teams have - so it can work for or against you. I just prefer to play with (and against) a full team. And may the best team win!

 

[Topes]

This would basically be applied retroactively by me (the commissioner) after the active/inactive decision is made. That means even if your GTD was playing at 4pm and your replacement was playing at 1pm, you could still list the 1pm player as your replacement so long as you list him prior to the start time of his game. From there, if the 4pm player is ruled inactive, I would put the 1pm player into that team's lineup even if he has already played.

This would be a terrible idea if it extended to Thursday/Saturday/Monday games.Suppose someone names a "replacement" who plays in a Thursday night game, and blows up for 150 yards and three TDs. What's to stop the owner from declaring the "starter" to be some scrub who happens to be questionable, just so he can get the points from this "replacement" into his starting lineup?

Most of us allow lineup changes until kickoff time, so the owner never needs to risk having this scrub officially starting -- if it turns out that the scrub is active for the game, he can just swap in his regular starter before gametime.

Pretty soon everyone with a player on Thursday night will officially "start" some Sunday questionable and declare the TNF guy as a "replacement". If the TNF guy doesn't have a good game, or if the questionable guys actually plays, they can just put in their regular starting lineup later. But if everything works out, they can maneuver their Thursday points into the lineup even if he would never have been a starter normally.

That's the catch. There has to be a lot of forethought. I am in a league which had a rule which would allow the exact scenario you describe to occur.

(Since the 90s, said league has allowed an owner to name ONE sub per week, provided the sub is named prior to first kickoff of the week.)

Yet, I have never noticed it happen that way, over several years. Nobody's raised a stink.

To play the backup switcheroo successfully, an owner needs to first have an early game player with sufficient upside.

He also needs to have a player in a later slot who stands a reasonable chance of being ruled OUT.

For the stud sub to get into the lineup, that starter needs to be OUT.

That's a lot of ducks to line up.

Yet, as you state later on, a perfect solution to this would be to lock the starter/sub players into their starter/sub roles.

In said league, where we have this rule, that exact rule has been proposed. And shot down.

Thus, commish (me) occasionally has to deal with some issues with the rule.

The following email was sent to me at noon this past Sunday.

Question:

Tony Tigre put Harvin as his injury backup to Andre Johnson. He then put Harvin in his lineup. If Johnson doesn't play, is he allowed to choose another player(Branch for example) to fill the roster spot or does the rule force him to keep his injury backup out of his active lineup?

Thanks,

Kenny

I did not get to read it until close to kickoff, and was not able to complete my reply until well after kickoff.

The way I have always enforced it is this:

The injury backup will be put into the starting lineup IF:

1) The player for whom the backup was named does not play a down.

(Does not have to be OUT. Just can't play a down.)

2) The player for whom the backup was named is locked in the owner's starting lineup.

3) The backup is not locked in the owner's starting lineup.

So long as those conditions are met, the backup is subbed in.

If Johnson doesn't play, is he allowed to choose another player(Branch for example) to fill the roster spot or does the rule force him to keep his injury backup out of his active lineup?

That question kind of forks, with answers dependent on conditions.

Second part first. does the rule force him to keep his injury backup out of his active lineup?

No. But if the injury backup is locked into owner's active lineup at his kickoff time, the injury backup designation is ignored wholesale. Can't sub in a started player. An owner may start an injury backup at his discretion; but it nullifies the injury backup designation. (It has been suggested in the past that players be locked by the injury backup designation. But it has never been made a rule.)

If Johnson doesn't play, is he allowed to choose another player(Branch for example) to fill the roster spot

So long as he removes Andre Johnson from his starting lineup by Andre Johnson's lock time AND he inserts said player into his starting lineup by that player's lineup deadline, he's all set. Branch and Cotchery would not be eligible unless subbed in by their respective lock times, which have passed.

Alternately, should Andre Johnson not play AND AJ is locked in his starting lineup, Tony Tigre could sub in either Lance Moore or Jeremy Shockey for HARVIN (prior to their MNF kickoffs). So long as AJ is locked in his starting lineup and Harvin is locked on his bench, the injury backup is valid.

Is it possible for an owner to gain a competitive advantage because of this? Yes. Say, an owner's backup plays Thursday night and stinks it up, and is locked on that owner's bench. The starter is ruled OUT nice and early on Saturday or Sunday. Said owner now knows that player's performance, and can keep him from his starting lineup simply by placing a different bench player into his starting lineup, in the place of the starter. Has this ever happened? I do not know.

This moment, I am subbing in Fred's backup (Lynch for MJD). I am doing so now (prior to Lynch kickoff) because it is known that MJD is OUT and it is impossible for Fred to enter Lynch into his starting lineup. Thus it is necessarily so that the conditions will be met which trigger the backup.

That's an awful lot of clarification to have to dispense during the playoffs. That is how I have always enforced the rule. That is how (IIRC) I have always explained enforcement of the rule.Again, as you say, locking the players into their starter/sub roles mitigates such a loophole. But, unless that is clearly stated, there exists room for some horseplay. This should be taken into consideration by any league thinking of implementing such a rule.

As said above said league has allowed an owner to name ONE sub per week, provided the sub is named prior to first kickoff of the week.

Yet, there are still folks who think that's not enough. They want to be able to name them after first kickoff (not totally against) AND to be able to name more than one (not sold on that one). An owner attempted to name an injury backup on Sunday morning of week fifteen; as Thursday Night Football had already played, I had to inform him that it was not allowed. Sure, I could have issued a fiat, allowing such a move, as it seems only fair. BUT doing so would have been unfair to any other owner in the same season who could have benefited from the rule change, yet never thought to make such an illegal declaration, as he knew it was not allowed.

In this day and age, I like that the league site handles most of the league management. Though I am not against this rule, it's enforcement is really the main administration duty I have during the fantasy season. Ideally, a commish shouldn't be deciding, decoding and instructing in-season. While it's a commish's job to be consistent and impartial and rule on issues that may arise, an environment which does engenders fewest such issues is best.

Thus, should you be looking to implement such a rule, I strongly suggest you work out the kinks ahead of time.

Stipulating that the starter and sub are LOCKED into those roles at some juncture (first kickoff or first kickoff in which either player is involved come to mind.) is a very good start.

Drawbacks (differing levels and types of inflexibility) to such a stipulation exist for the owner making the designation. I'd counter that those drawbacks are the price he pays for taking advantage of such a swell rule.

One other scenario which might need to be spelled out: What happens in instanced where the substitution would result in an illegal lineup?

An owner might name a player from a different position as a backup, for a flex spot. Then, he might change his lineup on hosting site. Such changes could result in a scenario where the injury backup's substitution would result in an illegal lineup. While it seems obvious (to me) that an injury backup designation would be ignored in such cases, it might be best to spell that out. I could definitely envision a case where an owner has an injury backup disqualified for exactly this and purports to have some common sense vision of the most reasonably fair scenario which everybody and his brother would reasonably expect should happen, that the lineup should be rolled back to where it was before the post-designation substitution, and I can't believe the commish can't reasonably see that this is obviously what he intended and it is only fair, after all. (I read a lot of funny stuff on these boards.)

So, those are my two cents. It's not a bad rule to have, but it should be clearly written to account for some likely scenarios. Having a reminder within the rule that the commish can adjust the rule on the fly - if need be (because something was not spelled out, leading to confusion) - would be a good thing, as well.

Good Luck!

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Whether you like being able to replace an inactive player or not, there is no way in the world an inactive player should be replaced by a player that has already played. The whole idea seems to be helping someone who is not by his computer right before kickoff and since he can't make that decision if he is by his computer, he should not be allowed to if he is away from his computer.

 

[belljr]

Whether you like being able to replace an inactive player or not, there is no way in the world an inactive player should be replaced by a player that has already played. The whole idea seems to be helping someone who is not by his computer right before kickoff and since he can't make that decision if he is by his computer, he should not be allowed to if he is away from his computer.

Explain why you feel he should not be able to replace an already played player if you establish who the "sub" is before anyone plays.For example - I have Peterson. Where is the "harm" if Sunday at Noon I post/email/text whatever you deem to be the appropriate act, that " Start Peterson if he is inactive then start Best".You can't change your lineup after that and you already determined your intentions, so why does it matter when someone played when it was announced prior to anyone playing on your roster I personally am undecided on the issue. I like it and don't like it. I implement it in the playoffs in my league and don't think it's ever actually been needed or an issue. I can also see the point about making it a sub only for a player in that game but is that any different than just manually switching it before the game But I also could argue that making the "tough" coaching decision is part of the game also.Now one league I quit was the commish deemed that if a guy didn't play then the next "obvious" player should have been subbed in after the fact, this caused many arguments and headaches because it was based on who he deemed "next obvious", but that is a story for another time.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Whether you like being able to replace an inactive player or not, there is no way in the world an inactive player should be replaced by a player that has already played. The whole idea seems to be helping someone who is not by his computer right before kickoff and since he can't make that decision if he is by his computer, he should not be allowed to if he is away from his computer.

Explain why you feel he should not be able to replace an already played player if you establish who the "sub" is before anyone plays.

Because the whole point of doing something like this is in case someone can't be in front of his computer at 1230pm or so. Why allow using players that have already played? It takes away from strategy and tough lineup decisions (aka questionable player that plays Sunday). Also, as has been previously mentioned, what's to stop someone from changing their lineup after knowing what the player did who already played (aka change from one questionable player to another)? At some point strategy gets thrown out the window and in my opinion, the above is one of those points.

 

[belljr]

Whether you like being able to replace an inactive player or not, there is no way in the world an inactive player should be replaced by a player that has already played. The whole idea seems to be helping someone who is not by his computer right before kickoff and since he can't make that decision if he is by his computer, he should not be allowed to if he is away from his computer.

Explain why you feel he should not be able to replace an already played player if you establish who the "sub" is before anyone plays.

Because the whole point of doing something like this is in case someone can't be in front of his computer at 1230pm or so. Why allow using players that have already played? It takes away from strategy and tough lineup decisions (aka questionable player that plays Sunday). Also, as has been previously mentioned, what's to stop someone from changing their lineup after knowing what the player did who already played (aka change from one questionable player to another)? At some point strategy gets thrown out the window and in my opinion, the above is one of those points.

Because you can't change it once you establish your sub and starters I don't understand what you mean change from one questionable player to another. Before ANYONE plays you must submit that condition, if a player plays then YES you can't change your mind but if you establish Thursday night if Peterson is INACTIVE Monday night I want Mendehall to start, how is that questionable? You establish prior to any players playing. Once a player plays you are locked into your GTD "sub" scenario.I don't see the "problems". I can see why people don't like it or want to use it but don't see the gray area.

 

[OrangeCurtain]

"Game-time decisions" are getting kind of out of control in the world of fantasy football. While we're all huge into fantasy football, requiring that we be around with undistracted accessed to the internet every Sunday from 12:30-12:55 can strain even the most committed FFer. Even worse, the most important week of the year (championship week) takes place right smack-dab in the middle of the holidays where people are often not able to track things as closely as they usually do.

Coaches are throwing the GTD label around on anyone and everyone nowadays. It's pretty ridiculous that a guy who's a GTD one week misses not only that game but the next one AFTER that as well. If he wasn't going to be ready for two weeks, did they really think he was going to be ready in a few hours? Then we have the competing websites all looking to get a jump on the competition and be the first to report if a player is playing or not and delivering the wrong information (and really, these clowns need to start being held accountable for this kind of stuff). In the end it just ends up being a giant mess for those rare Sundays where we aren't able to put our friends and family second.

It seems about time that the major FF websites start incorporating something into their lineup submissions that allow people to use a conditional alternate starter for questionable players that are deemed inactive. Since the websites are unlikely to do this any time soon, here is the new rule I'm going to propose to me league in the offseason:

If a player is listed on the injury report as Questionable or Doubtful, owners may declare an alternate starter to take that player's place if the player is ruled inactive.

This would basically be applied retroactively by me (the commissioner) after the active/inactive decision is made. That means even if your GTD was playing at 4pm and your replacement was playing at 1pm, you could still list the 1pm player as your replacement so long as you list him prior to the start time of his game. From there, if the 4pm player is ruled inactive, I would put the 1pm player into that team's lineup even if he has already played.

So, what are your thoughts? Obviously this wouldn't cover everything (for instance some guys are listed as active as an emergency QB or something, in which case they'd still be stuck in the lineup with 0pts since they're not inactive), but it's a start. The only downside that I can see to it is that it's going to screw up live scoring a bit if the commish is slow to plug in the replacement manually.

Our league calls it the John Elway rule after his sorry ### was a GTD for like half a season back in the day. You designate backups at positions where you have more than one bench player (if you only have one he's the backup by default), and if one of your players does not post any official stats, then your backup is inserted. Sure it has flaws, WRs that play all game but don't get a catch, guys who come in for one play and then bolt, but we felt this was what gave us the best balance of fielding a competitive team each week and not allowing shenanigans.So far it has worked very well for us, and reduces the frustration of GTD. As an example, I played the owner with All Day last week, and he was able to insert his backup when AD was declared inactive rather than just taking the zero because it was Monday night (I still won and am up 19 with McCoy left, facing Vick).

I heartily endorse the John Elway rule.

Whether you like being able to replace an inactive player or not, there is no way in the world an inactive player should be replaced by a player that has already played. The whole idea seems to be helping someone who is not by his computer right before kickoff and since he can't make that decision if he is by his computer, he should not be allowed to if he is away from his computer.

Explain why you feel he should not be able to replace an already played player if you establish who the "sub" is before anyone plays.

Because the whole point of doing something like this is in case someone can't be in front of his computer at 1230pm or so. Why allow using players that have already played? It takes away from strategy and tough lineup decisions (aka questionable player that plays Sunday). Also, as has been previously mentioned, what's to stop someone from changing their lineup after knowing what the player did who already played (aka change from one questionable player to another)? At some point strategy gets thrown out the window and in my opinion, the above is one of those points.

All of our backup designations must be made before any of the affected players have started, so it eliminates the confusion and potential shenanigans above.

 

[Topes]

Whether you like being able to replace an inactive player or not, there is no way in the world an inactive player should be replaced by a player that has already played. The whole idea seems to be helping someone who is not by his computer right before kickoff and since he can't make that decision if he is by his computer, he should not be allowed to if he is away from his computer.

Explain why you feel he should not be able to replace an already played player if you establish who the "sub" is before anyone plays.

Because the whole point of doing something like this is in case someone can't be in front of his computer at 1230pm or so.

As stated above, I am in a league which has this rule. The reason for the rule is NOT to assist somebody who can't be near his computer at any juncture. The rule predates the league going on-line.

The reason for the rule is to assist owners in dealing with GTDs and other late scratches.

 

[oukurt]

Love this idea. If you use MFL then go the survey and make this suggestion.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

what's to stop someone from changing their lineup after knowing what the player did who already played (aka change from one questionable player to another)?

This has been covered several times. This is the line of the OP you're looking for...

you could still list the 1pm player as your replacement so long as you list him prior to the start time of his game.

You cannot make a decision to start someone who has already played after they've already started playing. The scenario is that it's Saturday night and you know you've got a busy day or a funeral or an open heart surgery to perform on Sunday so you declare your backup ahead of time.So Andre Johnson is playing at 4pm on Sunday and Jahvid Best is playing at 1pm. Why should that matter? It's Saturday night, neither has started playing yet, so you say you want to start AJ, and if he's inactive then Best will take his place. Best wouldn't be subbed in until after AJ is listed as inactive, which may be at 3:30, after Best's game has already started. But that is based on a decision you made BEFORE Best played.You can't decide you want to put in Best after he's in the 3rd quarter of his game and he's scored 2 touchdowns. The rule (as it is written) prevents that. You're not deciding to sub him in after he's already started playing. You decided to sub him in before he started playing, it's just that the action wasn't carried out by the software (or commish in the absence of software) until after he started.

 

[DangerMonkey]

basically, people want an easy "out" if they don't watch it closely..sorry, that's part of the game.

like someone said above, they want best ball. FF players that want this should just play in FBG's subscriber contest. a rule like this only benefits the owner that do not follow it closely

It's certainly not "best ball" because if the injured player plays at all, you get his stats, regardless of what your bench guy did.We used to have teams set their "depth chart" before the start of the first game of the week. You had to make "the tough choice" before anyone played. Then if one of your starters didn't play that week, it was simply next man up.The trick was that everyone had to make ALL their choices before the start of the first game. Don't see how that is an "easy out"

 

[fsufan]

basically, people want an easy "out" if they don't watch it closely..sorry, that's part of the game.

like someone said above, they want best ball. FF players that want this should just play in FBG's subscriber contest. a rule like this only benefits the owner that do not follow it closely

It's certainly not "best ball" because if the injured player plays at all, you get his stats, regardless of what your bench guy did.We used to have teams set their "depth chart" before the start of the first game of the week. You had to make "the tough choice" before anyone played. Then if one of your starters didn't play that week, it was simply next man up.The trick was that everyone had to make ALL their choices before the start of the first game. Don't see how that is an "easy out"

then why not just set up your league like FGB's subscriber contest. top player for each starting position plays, no need to set any line up. worst idea in the history of FF

 

[DangerMonkey]

basically, people want an easy "out" if they don't watch it closely..sorry, that's part of the game.

like someone said above, they want best ball. FF players that want this should just play in FBG's subscriber contest. a rule like this only benefits the owner that do not follow it closely

It's certainly not "best ball" because if the injured player plays at all, you get his stats, regardless of what your bench guy did.We used to have teams set their "depth chart" before the start of the first game of the week. You had to make "the tough choice" before anyone played. Then if one of your starters didn't play that week, it was simply next man up.The trick was that everyone had to make ALL their choices before the start of the first game. Don't see how that is an "easy out"

then why not just set up your league like FGB's subscriber contest. top player for each starting position plays, no need to set any line up. worst idea in the history of FF

Because you still have to decide who you want to play each week. That, after all, is the challenge element we're talking about here. You don't automatically get the best player. You set your players in order of prefernece, and if one of them doesn't play a single down in the game, you get the next guy. I personally don't believe in all this, sub players in and out up until kickoff of their game. I feel like your game starts at the kickoff of the first game of the week, and just like in the NFL you need to have a complete lineup of players before your game starts.