Ever heard of such a rule? (1 Viewer)

[Routilla]

In a nutshell, an owner in my league wanted to sub in Pitta for Gates if Gates was inactive. Pitta played early Sunday and Gates late of course. Some other league members said it was not FF if you can do this, and I wholeheartedly agree. The owner then acknowledged as much and put Gates back in. Another tenured league member said it was a rule they had played with before. There is no such rule in the Constitution. Am I crazy or do other leagues allow owners to change players if someone is inactive? I thought this was part of FF and required gauging the risk of playing guys that were dinged up, realizing they could only play a few plays and give you a goose egg. Thanks for any input.

 

[kardplayer]

In a nutshell, an owner in my league wanted to sub in Pitta for Gates if Gates was inactive. Pitta played early Sunday and Gates late of course. Some other league members said it was not FF if you can do this, and I wholeheartedly agree. The owner then acknowledged as much and put Gates back in. Another tenured league member said it was a rule they had played with before. There is no such rule in the Constitution. Am I crazy or do other leagues allow owners to change players if someone is inactive? I thought this was part of FF and required gauging the risk of playing guys that were dinged up, realizing they could only play a few plays and give you a goose egg. Thanks for any input.

We have this rule in all my leagues. It is controversial, but it has been agreed upon across all of my leagues (in some leagues by a 7-5 margin, in others 11-1). We created it for a few reasons:1. Most of my leaguemates are late 30's/early 40's with kids and wives. Our ability to be glued to NFL news on Sunday mornings is not what it once was - especially if we want to be present with our families.2. The cat and mouse games played by coaches about injuries reached the point of absurdity (although it feels better now). The haters of this rule say that if you avoid Shanahan, Belichick, and a couple others you could largely avoid this.3. The spreading of the NFL calendar first to Sunday nights and then to Thursdays created too much luck - having a Game Time Decision on Sunday while your 4th best receiver plays on Thursday night seemed inherently not right.The proponents of the rule say its all about who can put together the best team and make the best choices of who of those guys will score each week amongst those that play.The opponents say it's a p**** rule because it strays from what FFL was when we started playing.I'm a strong proponent and feel like it rewards the best owners.

 

[otb_lifer]

Either ...

A) Play Best Ball format

or,

B) scrap that existing rule and let each manager be responsible for his team. No over riding allowed.

 

[Chazzhawk]

It needs to be clearly stated in the bylaws. I have no problem with the rule because each person plays fantasy football differently. If your league allows it the make it cleqr to all members

 

[Mario Kart]

This kind of rule should be more common place than not. Why penalize a team for playing an injured person if that person is a game time decision? Makes no sense.

Have one slot per week where this type of rule can be used. If player X does not play, player Y plays. It is either or of those two players. I see no issue with this type of thing.

 

[flranger]

We play this rule and it works fine. Post has to be on the message board, prior to the start of the game. There is one very important factor in this however, the player that is "replacing" has to play in either the same time slot or a later game. In your scenario it would not have been allowed. This keeps some shennanigans from occurring.

Also, the player must be on the teams roster at the time of the post and remain on the roster until next weeks drop/add. Important little nugget there as well.

We go so far as to state that not only inactive, but if the player does not play a single snap on the field. NFL gamebook will tell you this for certain. We call it the Corey Dillon rule.

All in all it works great, allows people to place their best roster and still have a life on Sunday.

 

[belljr]

We have this rule for the playoffs only and it has to be posted on the message board prior to 1pm games (minus Thursday) players.

Our reasoning was now we are in the playoffs - we want the "best" team to win and not on some technicality. I'd say most of the time though if a player is a GTD they rarely get played in our league anyway.

I am the commissioner and we put this rule in back when there was not constant news about guys playing (early 90's) and it has just carried over. We probably should get rid of it, I think it's been used maybe 3 times in 18 years.

I don't like the rule personally..

 

[Routilla]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I guess I can see why it might be used. I've only been in this league for 4 years and have not heard of it until this week. The fact that it is not in the Constitution also made it seem questionable. Thanks again for your time and input.

 

[Godsbrother]

We don't have a rule like this and would not be in favor of it. It is easy enough to avoid players that are GTD. If you want to roll the dice and play one then go ahead but don't expect a bailout if the guy doesn't play.

 

[kardplayer]

We play this rule and it works fine. Post has to be on the message board, prior to the start of the game. There is one very important factor in this however, the player that is "replacing" has to play in either the same time slot or a later game. In your scenario it would not have been allowed. This keeps some shennanigans from occurring.Also, the player must be on the teams roster at the time of the post and remain on the roster until next weeks drop/add. Important little nugget there as well.We go so far as to state that not only inactive, but if the player does not play a single snap on the field. NFL gamebook will tell you this for certain. We call it the Corey Dillon rule.All in all it works great, allows people to place their best roster and still have a life on Sunday.

Corey Dillon was the inspiration for ours as well. We morphed it from the Corey Dillon rule to the Soccer Dad rule.When we created it, there was no NFL.com/inactives (or if there was, we didn't know about it) and there were no smartphones either. At that time, you basically had to watch ESPN from 11-1 - which was causing massive strain on the homefronts.Also, now on CBS Sports, you can pay $5 for an App that does almost exactly this for you - except that you can only replace players in later games.In terms of shenanigans, it has to be posted before the first impacted player, and then both players are locked. So that eliminates shenanigans that way. For example, you have Player A at 1pm, Player B Sunday Night and Player C Monday Night. At noon, you put in the rule that if B doesn't play, start A. Even if A goes out and has a dud, Player B is locked into the starting lineup, so it's not like you could replace B with C anyway.

 

[belljr]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I guess I can see why it might be used. I've only been in this league for 4 years and have not heard of it until this week. The fact that it is not in the Constitution also made it seem questionable. Thanks again for your time and input.

I wanted to ammend my post but I'll just post here.I quit a league because of something like this because the commish did not handle it correctly. The problem was I am a long time friend and helped him start the league.Anyway - this was the issue, there was some mysterious rule like you said that injured/bye weeks guys could be replaced. Fine I said but it had to be posted, and what happens people would go through the lineups and he would replace guys with who was the likely starter. That ended quick and he changed it to lowest bench scorer for that position.Things were fine for a while then one season this pipes up again and 3 weeks after the fact, he goes back and says so-so started a guy that was out, is other QB is this guy. Subs him in and I end up with a LOSS. WTF!!! I argued that - they made a rule it had to be posted - and there was no more arguments after that. I was bitter and quit soon after that, I couldn't enjoy that league anymore.The main reason I stayed was a we are long time friends and b) It was a keeper league and was easy money, Think I won cash almost every year but it was poorly run with the ridiculousness of the "rules". I had enough, I would have quit well before that if I was a friend of a friend type thing

 

[Hoss Style]

We don't have a rule like this and would not be in favor of it. It is easy enough to avoid players that are GTD. If you want to roll the dice and play one then go ahead but don't expect a bailout if the guy doesn't play.

Agree.

 

[Quibbler]

We don't have a rule like this in either of my leagues, but I'm going to suggest adding it next year. It's an excellent idea, I think.

IMO, it's similar to waivers--i.e. leveling the playing field between the people with kids and/or commitments on Sundays and those without.

 

[meyerj31]

What if he had 4 TEs on his roster? Could he just pick the best one that performed in an early game to "sub" in for the injured guy? Slippery slope.

There's no way I would allow this in my leagues. Plenty of guys get injured early in the game (Hernandez with zero points) and the rest of the owners deal with it.

 

[belljr]

What if he had 4 TEs on his roster? Could he just pick the best one that performed in an early game to "sub" in for the injured guy? Slippery slope. There's no way I would allow this in my leagues. Plenty of guys get injured early in the game (Hernandez with zero points) and the rest of the owners deal with it.

There is no slippery slope if you post at 12:30 pm If Gates plays start him if not then Pitta.But yes after the fact is just asking for trouble.

 

[craxie]

The fact that it is not in the Constitution also made it seem questionable.

debate ends right hereIf there is no rule that covers this, then you can't do it.

If the league wants to change the rules to allow it in the FUTURE, fine, but that doesn't impact what's already happened

 

[Donsmith753]

As commish I wouldn't do this. Only thing I'd do is allow someone to sub someone from an early game for a late one.

E.g. A guy has pitta in his lineup but won't have access to change it before the games kick off. If pitta is out I'd change it to the guy going later, assuming of course he'd clearly stated this on the league site.

You can't sub players playing in early games for those in late games.

 

[kardplayer]

What if he had 4 TEs on his roster? Could he just pick the best one that performed in an early game to "sub" in for the injured guy? Slippery slope. There's no way I would allow this in my leagues. Plenty of guys get injured early in the game (Hernandez with zero points) and the rest of the owners deal with it.

There is no slippery slope if you post at 12:30 pm If Gates plays start him if not then Pitta.But yes after the fact is just asking for trouble.

Exactly. All decisions have to be made before any of the impacted players have played. Doing it after the fact isn't a slippery slope - it's absurd right from the beginning.

 

[cheese]

What if he had 4 TEs on his roster? Could he just pick the best one that performed in an early game to "sub" in for the injured guy? Slippery slope. There's no way I would allow this in my leagues. Plenty of guys get injured early in the game (Hernandez with zero points) and the rest of the owners deal with it.

There is no slippery slope if you post at 12:30 pm If Gates plays start him if not then Pitta.But yes after the fact is just asking for trouble.

Exactly. All decisions have to be made before any of the impacted players have played. Doing it after the fact isn't a slippery slope - it's absurd right from the beginning.

The decision is made. He wants Gates if he plays, Pitta if he doesn't. It has nothing to do with how well Pitta does or doesn't do.

 

[bagger]

In a nutshell, an owner in my league wanted to sub in Pitta for Gates if Gates was inactive. Pitta played early Sunday and Gates late of course. Some other league members said it was not FF if you can do this, and I wholeheartedly agree. The owner then acknowledged as much and put Gates back in. Another tenured league member said it was a rule they had played with before. There is no such rule in the Constitution. Am I crazy or do other leagues allow owners to change players if someone is inactive? I thought this was part of FF and required gauging the risk of playing guys that were dinged up, realizing they could only play a few plays and give you a goose egg. Thanks for any input.

no way. you have to figure out your lineup ahead of time. what happens if he had two backups? gets into situations of gaming knowing what points your players have.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

When a player gets hurt for an NFL team they aren't allowed to substitute a different player for him. Why should FF owners?

 

[Cunk]

I've been playing FF for a long time now and this is the first year we've instituted this rule. At first many balked but when you really think about it it makes a lot of sense. It worked for me this weekend. Had Gates in my starting lineup figuring he was going to play but posted on our message board that I wanted Chandler in if Gates doesn't play.

This rule allows me to relax on a Sunday and head out with the woman to do stuff before the games without checking my phone for info or having it on my mind. Also, it just doesn't make sense if a team has someone on their roster, they get scratched, and they get a zero. In the nfl if someone is a scratch, the backup plays. They don't have to just go on without their TE. Is it really fair that team A wins because team B was at a birthday party and didn't know someone was scratched? Should team B have been forced to play an inferior player simply because they were going to a birthday party and wouldn't be privy to info?

 

[Lobary]

I voted that it was common in ff, not because I necessarily believe this but because I think it should be. This is a sound rule that I've pushed for in my league to no avail. I think it's unfair and illogical to let our ff games commonly be determined by NFL start times. Consider this: you have two managers with one stud starter questionable to play on each side. Team A's questionable has a noon kicoff, whereas Team B's questionable doesn't kickoff until 3:15 PM. Both guys have average backups at those respective positions, but Team B's backups all have noon kickoffs.

In this scenario, all factors are equal for both managers except the times their injured players kickoff. Team A has a decided advantage because he gets the benefit of actionable injury information that the other guy doesn't get. Team A knows whether or not his questionable player is active or inactive for the game and he can adjust his lineup accordingly. Team B, however, has to wait until 3 PM or so when that injury information gets released by the team to find out whether to start his player or bench him. If that player isn't playing, he has to take a goose egg because his ff backup has already played.

How is that fair? I think the easy, fair solution is to allow that owner to make one replacement move in the event his intended starter doesn't play. The obvious caveat is that he must make his intent known prior to the noon kickoffs. "IF X player doesn't play, I want Y player in his place."

I really don't see how anyone can have a problem with this. I don't want to beat guys because they were forced to take a goose egg at a key position due to incomplete injury information.

 

[Captain Hook]

Bottom line is that lots of leagues use some variation of this rule

I used to play in a league where if you had a player get injured in the game or scratched before the game you could sub in a player at the same position from the SAME team - BUT you would get charged for it (helped grow the pot)

So if you had Gates and Denario and started Gates, Denario would automatically be subbed in and your account charged. Different than an announced sub but still viable especially for small friendly leagues

 

[Lobary]

Bottom line is that lots of leagues use some variation of this ruleI used to play in a league where if you had a player get injured in the game or scratched before the game you could sub in a player at the same position from the SAME team - BUT you would get charged for it (helped grow the pot)So if you had Gates and Denario and started Gates, Denario would automatically be subbed in and your account charged. Different than an announced sub but still viable especially for small friendly leagues

Huh? What if that NFL team's sub was already rostered by another ff manager?

 

[Joe Summer]

I used to play in a league where you could substitute a player's backup if he was declared inactive before a game. This was in the pre-internet days when you had to submit your starting lineup by 6 p.m. Friday night.

 

[da_budman]

The poll is flawed since its both uncommon and yes I have heard of it. As long as its in your bylaws nothing wrong with it and the rule has some merit. Ive personally never played in a league with such a rule but that particular rule would not prevent me from joining a league.

Its not like the guy gets to chose which player scored more after the fact. One other variation that is not as radical that solves this problem in some cases is to allow each player to be started up till kickoff of his particular game instead of a 1pm Sunday lock in. That wouldnt help much if you dont have another available player at that position though.

Bottom line no problem with the rule but no way can you decide to retroactively allow someone to start a player that has already played without a rule in place that allows it in your leagues constitution.

 

[renesauz]

I've used such a rule in one of my leagues, but that was years ago when information on players wasn't as easy to obtain and 3/4 of the league didn't even have a PC yet.

In that case: we let someone post ONE provisional player: a guy who would be subbed in for another player at the same position if the player didn't play.

So your rule isn't exactly unique, but it's definately uncommon these days.

 

[renesauz]

Nothing wrong with a substitution rule...but it has to be clear, and the sub and parameters need to be announced BEFORE any player plays.

 

[roadkill1292]

No, I don't believe it's a common rule but it's been brought up for a vote in my old home league more than once. I think the only reason it failed was because we couldn't figure out exactly how to word the rule and then administer it so there were no gray areas.

I would think, however, that it would go without saying that the contingency player should have to be named prior to his own game starting.

 

[JamesTheScot]

<br>In a nutshell, an owner in my league wanted to sub in Pitta for Gates if Gates was inactive. Pitta played early Sunday and Gates late of course. Some other league members said it was not FF if you can do this, and I wholeheartedly agree. The owner then acknowledged as much and put Gates back in. Another tenured league member said it was a rule they had played with before. There is no such rule in the Constitution. Am I crazy or do other leagues allow owners to change players if someone is inactive? I thought this was part of FF and required gauging the risk of playing guys that were dinged up, realizing they could only play a few plays and give you a goose egg. Thanks for any input.<br>

<br><br>Dude, it's a hobby that includes "fantasy" in the name.  Why do people treat it like some sacred cow where there's a right and a wrong way to do it?<br><br>Is it common?  I'd say no just because it's only been used in a minority of leagues I've been in.  But "common" can mean different things to different people.<br><br>Is it a good rule?  I think so.  The owner isn't getting to choose to start Pitta after he sees what Pitta did. He has to declare Pitta as the alternate BEFORE Pitta's game starts.  At least that's how it happens in the versions of the rules I have seen.  He's locked in to Pitta and has no say in it anymore after he Baltimore game starts.  IF Gates is inactive, THEN Pitta gets subbed in.  He can't wait till the SD game starts and then say he wants Pitta as a sub.  Nor could he see Pitta have a 0 catch game and then decide he wants to roll the dice with Dreesen on Monday night.  He's locked in to Pitta as the sub just as if Pitta had been his start in the first place.  So there's no more owner involvement after the declaration is made.  Everything happens automatically.<br><br>If it's done that way, there is no unfair advantage.  You are just declaring ahead of time (and are locked into that call) your intended substitution if a certain condition is met.  It just recognizes that while news does stream 24/7, that doesn't mean everyone has access to that news 24/7 or can take advantage of it.  <br><br>I don't know how old some of you are or what your life is like, but Sunday afternoons aren't always a wide open reserved time for watching football in my world.  I'm married with kids and am active in a church and often work long hours during the week.  So religious activity and family time get a lot of my weekend hours, not to mention things like mowing the lawn, fixing bicycles or installing a new kitchen faucet that the wife bought last week.  So I don't always have the luxury of being able to monitor GTD's and make a last second substitutions in real time.  This type of rule allows someone like me to remain competitive with the single guy who can plop down in front of the TV all Sunday afternoon or can zone out with his smart phone at the mall while the GF tries on clothes.<br><br>I give props and allow the natural advantage that comes from being smart and/or working hard.  But maintaining an advantage for someone simply because they don't have a family, significant other or church doesn't seem all that important to me.  But I certainly carry a bias into that issue.<br>

 

[AB in DC]

Frankly I wouldn't mind adding a "we all have lives" rule like this to my ff leagues.

But this is the kind of thing that needs to be decided before the season.

 

[Sarnoff]

I've heard of this. I don't think it's used in more than half the leagues out there so it may not be "common", but it is "common sense". Name a sub if a later start-time player is declared "inactive". "Inactive" only, declared by the team, before kickoff. Not that he doesn't play much, not that he doesn't record any stats, nothing like that. Officially declared inactive, and the FF owner has already named a sub before both relevant games start. Easy as that.

 

[Captain Hook]

Bottom line is that lots of leagues use some variation of this rule

I used to play in a league where if you had a player get injured in the game or scratched before the game you could sub in a player at the same position from the SAME team - BUT you would get charged for it (helped grow the pot)

So if you had Gates and Denario and started Gates, Denario would automatically be subbed in and your account charged. Different than an announced sub but still viable especially for small friendly leagues

Huh? What if that NFL team's sub was already rostered by another ff manager?

Duh! then you wouldn't be able to sub him would you - the player has to be on your roster - see what I said above!But say I have Gates and Rosario and you have McMichael - you of course don't start McMichael (unless truly desperate after you hear Gates out) but I would then sub in Rosario when Gates OUT, collect the points and pay the change fee.

 

[Mario Kart]

This rule would have been nice this week for those looking to play Torrey Smith or Greg Jennings.

 

[krsone21]

I played in a redraft league a while back that allowed this. This was back in the day when scoring was done with paper and pencil. But if a owner communicated ahead of time that he wanted to substitute a backup TE for say Gates if Gates was a no go during his game. It had to be agreed upon by both teams and commuciated to the commissioner before the games started.