League rule question (1 Viewer)

[starting over]

In our league two teams played this past weekend. One of the teams was 0-11, and the other was 7-4.

We have rules that state "each team must make an attempt to play their best players to ensure a legitimate outcome"

Owner of the 0-11 team has traded some key parts, but it is keeper league, so his trades are above board.

0-11 owner was on vacation this past week in Atlanta, and had Big Ben in his lineup instead of his backup Alex Smith.

surprise, surprise, the difference between Alex Smith and Big Ben was the difference between a win and a loss this week. The 0-11 guy doesn't care because his draft spot in 2010 is already locked up, but the other guys in the league that are in contention with the 7-4 team believe Alex Smith should be inserted retroactively on the argument that if the owner was in contention, he would have paid more attention and played Smith instead, and this constitutes an oversight by a player who doesn't care anymore.

Does this seem fair to you?

Any slippery slope concerns about managing team's rosters?

* I have no horse in this race, as I've locked up my playoff spot already.

 

[belljr]

When was it announced Ben was out?

 

[Velcro]

I think you need to change it. As you have quoted from the rules, I don't think the 0-11 team made "an attempt to play their best players to ensure a legitimate outcome."

For what it's worth, I would feel differently if that was Kurt Warner, who was not necessarily declared out until Sunday. A reasonable owner would have known that Ben was out on Sat.

 

[starting over]

When was it announced Ben was out?

I believe mid-day Saturday.

 

[Pooh Tong and Nemo]

In our league two teams played this past weekend. One of the teams was 0-11, and the other was 7-4. We have rules that state "each team must make an attempt to play their best players to ensure a legitimate outcome"Owner of the 0-11 team has traded some key parts, but it is keeper league, so his trades are above board.0-11 owner was on vacation this past week in Atlanta, and had Big Ben in his lineup instead of his backup Alex Smith.surprise, surprise, the difference between Alex Smith and Big Ben was the difference between a win and a loss this week. The 0-11 guy doesn't care because his draft spot in 2010 is already locked up, but the other guys in the league that are in contention with the 7-4 team believe Alex Smith should be inserted retroactively on the argument that if the owner was in contention, he would have paid more attention and played Smith instead, and this constitutes an oversight by a player who doesn't care anymore.Does this seem fair to you?Any slippery slope concerns about managing team's rosters?* I have no horse in this race, as I've locked up my playoff spot already.

Big Ben was a game time decision. The guy that I played this weekend rolled the the dice and started him for a big fat zero. GTD's on late games are always a risk. The owners complaining should be worrying about thier own teams, not a 0-11 team.On a side note,....Who the hell vacations in Atlanta?

 

[starting over]

In our league two teams played this past weekend. One of the teams was 0-11, and the other was 7-4. We have rules that state "each team must make an attempt to play their best players to ensure a legitimate outcome"Owner of the 0-11 team has traded some key parts, but it is keeper league, so his trades are above board.0-11 owner was on vacation this past week in Atlanta, and had Big Ben in his lineup instead of his backup Alex Smith.surprise, surprise, the difference between Alex Smith and Big Ben was the difference between a win and a loss this week. The 0-11 guy doesn't care because his draft spot in 2010 is already locked up, but the other guys in the league that are in contention with the 7-4 team believe Alex Smith should be inserted retroactively on the argument that if the owner was in contention, he would have paid more attention and played Smith instead, and this constitutes an oversight by a player who doesn't care anymore.Does this seem fair to you?Any slippery slope concerns about managing team's rosters?* I have no horse in this race, as I've locked up my playoff spot already.

Big Ben was a game time decision. The guy that I played this weekend rolled the the dice and started him for a big fat zero. GTD's on late games are always a risk. The owners complaining should be worrying about thier own teams, not a 0-11 team.On a side note,....Who the hell vacations in Atlanta?

He was visiting family...I included Atlanta to make it clear he was in the US, as compared to a safari in Africa where he had no internet access.

 

[TommyGilmore]

What is the official penalty for failing to "make an attempt to play their best players to ensure a legitimate outcome"?

Is the penalty, "The Commish will step in and retroactively change your lineup"? Or is there nothing defined? Because unless you've specifically designated a penalty for this scenario, then I don't think you should change anything retroactively. You should have stepped in before Sunday night.

 

[Please See Mine]

Seems like a strangely worded rule to me. Is there any precedent for adjusting the roster after the game?

I think that you need to specify the contingencies in your rules. I also think that if you want adjust rosters, it must be done prior to the players playing.

If you have never adjusted a roster after a game before, I would not start now. What if I want to go back and make some argument about something that happened in week 8? Where is the line?

I would re-write the rules more clearly in the off-season.

 

[gonzobill5]

What is the official penalty for failing to "make an attempt to play their best players to ensure a legitimate outcome"?

Is the penalty, "The Commish will step in and retroactively change your lineup"? Or is there nothing defined? Because unless you've specifically designated a penalty for this scenario, then I don't think you should change anything retroactively. You should have stepped in before Sunday night.

I think the penalty should be some type of fine for the player that doesn't insert the complete lineup. You shouldn't retroactively penalize a team because his opponent didn't do what he was supposed to do. Unless that is the way it is written in the rules.

 

[Amused to Death]

The game was played. I think you have to let it stand as-is. Would you change the lineup if the outcome was the same? Probably not. So you'd only be stepping in as commish because someone's team was affect by a bad lineup. As someone else mentioned, the time to change it was prior to kickoff. I don't think you can start stepping in to change a lineup retroactively because someone else didn't like the outcome.

 

[starting over]

What is the official penalty for failing to "make an attempt to play their best players to ensure a legitimate outcome"?Is the penalty, "The Commish will step in and retroactively change your lineup"? Or is there nothing defined? Because unless you've specifically designated a penalty for this scenario, then I don't think you should change anything retroactively. You should have stepped in before Sunday night.

The "penalty" is picking last in every round in the draft, but it has never been enforced because it is fairly Draconian.The purpose the rule was created was because several years ago people began purposefully tanking to get a better pick.Nobody thinks that this guy is tanking, or had a bad motive, so nobody is looking to penalize the owner for his inattentiveness. The purpose was more, "if you have AP and Chester Taylor healthy, and you play Taylor" then you should be penalized

 

[Sammy Traveller]

he was clear he was visiting. he was on vacation. he did make an effort to play the best players, considering his own schedule and that he had family commitments. so he put Big Ben in the starting lineup and then flew off to Atlanta for a long-planned family visit. he gave notice of that before he left.

who was to know that Big Ben was going to be benched? Very few people expected it before Saturday. He went along with the prevailing assumption at tha ttime.

too bad, but he lost. the 7-4 team is now 8-4.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Big Ben was a game time decision.

Jay Glazer reported him out on Saturday morning, and he was officially declared inactive 90 minutes prior to gametime. So he definitely was not a GTD.

 

[starting over]

A lot of debate on the league message boards.

The general theory being advanced is that if I (a team in first place) made the same error that I would be SOL, but that because the team in question is 0-1, then the roster should be changed for the best interests of the league.

 

[gonzobill5]

A lot of debate on the league message boards.The general theory being advanced is that if I (a team in first place) made the same error that I would be SOL, but that because the team in question is 0-1, then the roster should be changed for the best interests of the league.

Then what happens when its two teams that are battling for a playoff spot? Do you adjust it, citing that its not fair for the one team to get an easy win, or not adjust it saying the team who made the mistake is SOL. In my opinion, making retroactive changes is a dangerous road to go down. I would institute a lighter penalty to the 0-11 team instead of last pick in each round. Perhaps say that if tanking is suspected you get the last pick in each round. If the team was just not paying enough attention, they pay a $X fine.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I believe Big Ben was never declared out, he was the "emergency" QB. Even so, you can't babysit owners, you have to let it stand.

It would be a terrible decision to retroactively change it.

 

[Mr.Pack]

too bad, but he lost. the 7-4 team is now 8-4.

 

[MIMN]

I think he submitted a lineup to the best of his knowledge. All indications were that Ben was going to play. The lineup was submitted according to all the information he had available. The final stands.

For those that want a fine. It is ridiculous to fine an owner when a player has been listed as probable all week. Not everyone can be on the Internet all day Sat and all Sun morning waiting for word on this. That move would have me immediately drop out of the league. Every league seems to have at least one person that wants to fine everyone for everything they don't agree with.

 

[Godsbrother]

he was clear he was visiting. he was on vacation. he did make an effort to play the best players, considering his own schedule and that he had family commitments. so he put Big Ben in the starting lineup and then flew off to Atlanta for a long-planned family visit. he gave notice of that before he left.

who was to know that Big Ben was going to be benched? Very few people expected it before Saturday. He went along with the prevailing assumption at tha ttime.

too bad, but he lost. the 7-4 team is now 8-4.

At the time he submitted his roster he played his best lineup, end of story. Plus Ben did suit up and was NOT declared inactive, he was the emergency QB. Of course very unlikely but there was a chance Ben could have come in and thrown a TD pass or two. Just because he didn't doesn't mean the lineup is invalid.

 

[red]

do you guys analyze everyone else's roster who is out of contention and play monday morning quarterback determining who they "should've played?" sounds like sour grapes to me to those who are affected by mr. 7-4 going to 8-4...let the original roster stand and if people are all bent out of shape because one owner didn't check the internet while vacationing with family on a holiday weekend, create a rule. you can even call it: The Sub-in Alex Smith Retroactively if it Helps My Playoff Chances Rule, or something like that. i suspect given what you've said above, the league has a great deal of integrity about competing and being excellent to one another...whatever you do, don't F that up.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

What is the official penalty for failing to "make an attempt to play their best players to ensure a legitimate outcome"?

Is the penalty, "The Commish will step in and retroactively change your lineup"? Or is there nothing defined? Because unless you've specifically designated a penalty for this scenario, then I don't think you should change anything retroactively. You should have stepped in before Sunday night.

The "penalty" is picking last in every round in the draft, but it has never been enforced because it is fairly Draconian.The purpose the rule was created was because several years ago people began purposefully tanking to get a better pick.

Nobody thinks that this guy is tanking, or had a bad motive, so nobody is looking to penalize the owner for his inattentiveness. The purpose was more, "if you have AP and Chester Taylor healthy, and you play Taylor" then you should be penalized

Would have been a good play this week in my league.

 

[rvmblack]

This is the commish's fault and no one else's. Without a defined rule and consequence, you cannot do anything. Saying "Must make an attempt" means nothing if there is no end result like "If rule is violate, backup is inserted by commish"

Nothing you can do

 

[starting over]

This is the commish's fault and no one else's. Without a defined rule and consequence, you cannot do anything. Saying "Must make an attempt" means nothing if there is no end result like "If rule is violate, backup is inserted by commish"Nothing you can do

The commissioner is the guy who was playing Mr. 0-11, and SHOCKER, he didn't bring this fact to anyone's attention earlier (he's a standup guy, but didn't think to say anything)

 

[Art_VanDalay]

We avoid these last minute lineup problems by having every team assign a backup to their three key positions QB, RB and WR. If both don't play than you are SOL but at least it eliminates most of these issues!

 

[GregR_2]

If he submitted a valid lineup that week... and if it was a starting lineup that it was reasonable for him to believe was his best starting lineup at the time he submitted it... then he did in fact make an attempt to play his best players.

That he didn't have an opportunity to make additional changes later doesn't change that he attempted to play his best players. So long as he submitted a lineup that week, and you don't think he submitted a lineup in an attempt to tank, I don't see any reason his lineup shouldn't stand.

 

[Dave Stauff]

Ask yourself and your league mates if they would have raised the issue if it happened Week 1? You're letting the fact that it's late in the season dictate your league's reaction to a situation that could happen any given week . . .

 

[Jersey35]

If he submitted a valid lineup that week... and if it was a starting lineup that it was reasonable for him to believe was his best starting lineup at the time he submitted it... then he did in fact make an attempt to play his best players. That he didn't have an opportunity to make additional changes later doesn't change that he attempted to play his best players. So long as he submitted a lineup that week, and you don't think he submitted a lineup in an attempt to tank, I don't see any reason his lineup shouldn't stand.

This is good logic and how I would rationalize the choice in my head if I was faced with this situation.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

U insert Smith. Ben was declared out sat and reconfirmed 90 mins before gametime (though this should have been done then)

Edit to add: The clear intent of this league rule is to make teams start their best teams in an attempt to avoid tanking and apathy. The teams that played this guy weeks 1-111 played his 'best' lineup, wk 12 should too. Under the circumstances I wouldn't punish for tanking, but this was clearly based on apathy, resulting in the other team getting a benefit they didn't deserve.

 

[Keepers]

If it had been the 7-4 team who was away and played a guy who was inactive, and you guys feel that he should be allowed to start A.Smith instead of Ben then yes the change should be made. But if the other league owners don't, then no can't make the change. Team record should have no bearing on an issue like this, if it is allowed to play guys retroactively when another player is inactive this applies for all teams.

 

[Please See Mine]

We avoid these last minute lineup problems by having every team assign a backup to their three key positions QB, RB and WR. If both don't play than you are SOL but at least it eliminates most of these issues!

I agree with this.You should create a clear rule that states that if any player is ruled out, a designated backup will be inserted.

 

[inca911]

We avoid these last minute lineup problems by having every team assign a backup to their three key positions QB, RB and WR. If both don't play than you are SOL but at least it eliminates most of these issues!

I agree with this.You should create a clear rule that states that if any player is ruled out, a designated backup will be inserted.

Even that proposed rule isn't clear. What if I only roster one QB this late in the season? What if I have 3 and don't specify which one is my reserve?Overall, selecting quality people for your league is the best way to prevent collusion, tanking, etc. Rules are no substitute for character. If someone wants to put in a poor lineup, that's their choice. Sometimes losing a game might be best for seeding to play a weaker playoff team. Rules that tell people how to run their team make no sense. That's for the owner to decide, not for the rulebook. If you have an owner who is deliberately losing to try and help only one other owner, then you use your rules to replace owners to fix that problem for next year.If I want to give up and not play anymore, that's my choice. If you don't like it, kick me out. It's my entry fee and how I choose to play is my decision to make.

 

[VaCatFan]

When did he submit his lineup? Was it before the Thursday night games? If so, he made his best attempt to put in players that would give him the best chance at victory (I don't think anyone would argue starting Smith over Rothlisberger al things being equal). It sounds like he notified people that he'd be out of town. While it was reported that Roth wouldn't play saturday, it wasn't confirmed until just before game time at which time Alex Smith has already played.

You leave it as it is. He made a legitimate attempt to start his best players before he left for vacation.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I still think it's a moot point as I do not believe Big Ben was ruled out. He was active as the emergency QB.

 

[Please See Mine]

We avoid these last minute lineup problems by having every team assign a backup to their three key positions QB, RB and WR. If both don't play than you are SOL but at least it eliminates most of these issues!

I agree with this.You should create a clear rule that states that if any player is ruled out, a designated backup will be inserted.

Even that proposed rule isn't clear. What if I only roster one QB this late in the season? What if I have 3 and don't specify which one is my reserve?

You would have to designate a backup (or the order of the backups) each week. If you only roster 1 QB, then there would be no one to insert.

 

[JAA]

that rule sux

 

[Ray_T]

In our league two teams played this past weekend. One of the teams was 0-11, and the other was 7-4. We have rules that state "each team must make an attempt to play their best players to ensure a legitimate outcome"Owner of the 0-11 team has traded some key parts, but it is keeper league, so his trades are above board.0-11 owner was on vacation this past week in Atlanta, and had Big Ben in his lineup instead of his backup Alex Smith.surprise, surprise, the difference between Alex Smith and Big Ben was the difference between a win and a loss this week. The 0-11 guy doesn't care because his draft spot in 2010 is already locked up, but the other guys in the league that are in contention with the 7-4 team believe Alex Smith should be inserted retroactively on the argument that if the owner was in contention, he would have paid more attention and played Smith instead, and this constitutes an oversight by a player who doesn't care anymore.Does this seem fair to you?Any slippery slope concerns about managing team's rosters?* I have no horse in this race, as I've locked up my playoff spot already.

QUOTE (belljr @ Dec 1 2009, 11:50 AM) When was it announced Ben was out?I believe mid-day Saturday. okay, using the two quotes above, it would appear that this guy did the best he could but was on vacation. I dont know about you guys, but when I am on vacation I check my email maybe once or twice during the whole time.if the rule is he is supposed to do the best he can, I'm not inclined to say he didnt do this because he may not have had access to a computer at the time it was announced Ben was out. With this being said, if it was known he was on vacation, and if the commish was on the ball and aware of this situation, he (or someone else in the league designated to look into these things) would have made the change on his behalf prior to gametime. With that being said, I dont think it's fair to retroactively take this win away from the other guy because of this. based on the info presented, I dont think there was any collusion or wrongdoing. Unless retroactive changes are the Norm and are accepted in your league, this is not reasonable.I'd say let it slide. and maybe develop a policy to deal with such situations in the future. As for those teams competing for a playoff, it's unfortunate, but it was just luck of the draw that this happened at this time.

 

[Ray_T]

I still think it's a moot point as I do not believe Big Ben was ruled out. He was active as the emergency QB.

this is also interesting.I ran into the same situation with Orton when he was not the starter. I started him anyways (as my other Qb was hurt) and he ended up getting me the win with his performance.even if he does not start, who is to say that he wouldnt be inserted into the lineup in event of an injury or gross ineffectiveness?

 

[TommyGilmore]

I still think it's a moot point as I do not believe Big Ben was ruled out. He was active as the emergency QB.

Roethlisberger was officially inactive. Even if he was the Third Quarterback (and NFL.com doesn't say so), he would still be technically "inactive" as per NFL rules.

 

[Godsbrother]

I still think it's a moot point as I do not believe Big Ben was ruled out. He was active as the emergency QB.

Roethlisberger was officially inactive. Even if he was the Third Quarterback (and NFL.com doesn't say so), he would still be technically "inactive" as per NFL rules.

I don't know if it matters or not but Roethlisberger was definitely the emergency QB last Sunday night. He dressed and Tomlin said that he would have played in the unlikely event that Dixon and Palko were injured.

 

[starting over]

There's been a vote and a final decision was to insert Smith in the lineup retroactively, there was alot of back and forth but the summary was this:

Regardless of whether it was intentional or not, (0-11 owner's) negligent failure to put the best product on the field should not be allowed to have an influence on the outcome of everyone else's season."

Ultimately I really disagree here, but the vote is what it is, with the league essentially creating a double standard for teams that are in the hunt, and those that are not.

 

[PosterNutBag]

There's been a vote and a final decision was to insert Smith in the lineup retroactively, there was alot of back and forth but the summary was this:Regardless of whether it was intentional or not, (0-11 owner's) negligent failure to put the best product on the field should not be allowed to have an influence on the outcome of everyone else's season."Ultimately I really disagree here, but the vote is what it is, with the league essentially creating a double standard for teams that are in the hunt, and those that are not.

I think this was the right decision based on what your league rules say and given the fact that it was widely reported that BigBen was out by early Saturday afternoon (if wasn't a last minute announcement). BigBen was also on the inactive list (emergency QB) so the Steelers would have had to have had 2 QBs injured (theoretically) before he could play. You league rules are indeed ambiguous and open to interpretation, but even though I think a rule like this is not a good one ... I have to say that this seems like the most reasonable interpretation of it and I am glad to see this is what happened given all the facts and circumstances.

 

[GregR_2]

There's been a vote and a final decision was to insert Smith in the lineup retroactively, there was alot of back and forth but the summary was this:Regardless of whether it was intentional or not, (0-11 owner's) negligent failure to put the best product on the field should not be allowed to have an influence on the outcome of everyone else's season."Ultimately I really disagree here, but the vote is what it is, with the league essentially creating a double standard for teams that are in the hunt, and those that are not.

If I were in the league, I'd be sure to tell everyone to save a copy of this decision. So that next season, when a player of mine like Sims-Walker is deactivated for violation of team rules, but he was in my lineup because I wasn't able to get the news and get to a computer, that I'll want one of my other players substituted in so it doesn't have an influence on the outcome of everyone else's season.ETA: Actually I wouldn't because I just wouldn't play in such a league again. Unless the owner was legitimately neglecting his team, such as not submitting a lineup at all, or submitting players who were known to be out at the time he submitted them... then this is a crock. Unless that was the case, this appears to have been about some owners trying to rules lawyer their way into the playoffs by tagging a loss on another team for something he wasn't even involved in. And that sucks. That's the kind of thing a good commish should be preventing.

 

[flranger]

The solution is easy:

We have what is known as the Corey Dillon/Steve McNair rule. As many of us are aware, those two used to play nasty tricks on us by being "active" but not actually playing in the game. We subsequently made the following rule:

Provided you make a posting on the league message board prior to the start of each players game, if you would like to name a replacement player in the event your starter does not play at all in the game after the week is over the replacement player results will be substituted in. You are not allowed to name a replacement that starts in an earlier game, they must start at the same time or later. Any edited message board post will be disallowed.

This has been a great rule for us as it keeps you from having to sit by the computer on our valuable weekends when you can relax not worrying about wheter or not your guy is going to actually play. When we first instituted the rule we used "inactive" but Belicheck quickly helped us to understand that funny games get played sometimes. You can retroactively check if they played a down on NFL.com/gamebook. If someone was active but did not play a down (or special teams) then they are listed as not having played.

 

[Mr.Pack]

There's been a vote and a final decision was to insert Smith in the lineup retroactively, there was alot of back and forth but the summary was this:Regardless of whether it was intentional or not, (0-11 owner's) negligent failure to put the best product on the field should not be allowed to have an influence on the outcome of everyone else's season."Ultimately I really disagree here, but the vote is what it is, with the league essentially creating a double standard for teams that are in the hunt, and those that are not.

Terrible, terrible decision. I would never have let this come to a vote and I would leave this league ASAP.just a horrible decision

 

[PosterNutBag]

There's been a vote and a final decision was to insert Smith in the lineup retroactively, there was alot of back and forth but the summary was this:Regardless of whether it was intentional or not, (0-11 owner's) negligent failure to put the best product on the field should not be allowed to have an influence on the outcome of everyone else's season."Ultimately I really disagree here, but the vote is what it is, with the league essentially creating a double standard for teams that are in the hunt, and those that are not.

If I were in the league, I'd be sure to tell everyone to save a copy of this decision. So that next season, when a player of mine like Sims-Walker is deactivated for violation of team rules, but he was in my lineup because I wasn't able to get the news and get to a computer, that I'll want one of my other players substituted in so it doesn't have an influence on the outcome of everyone else's season.ETA: Actually I wouldn't because I just wouldn't play in such a league again. Unless the owner was legitimately neglecting his team, such as not submitting a lineup at all, or submitting players who were known to be out at the time he submitted them... then this is a crock. Unless that was the case, this appears to have been about some owners trying to rules lawyer their way into the playoffs by tagging a loss on another team for something he wasn't even involved in. And that sucks. That's the kind of thing a good commish should be preventing.

I agree that this type of rule is stupid. But the situation with Sims-Walker is extremely different. BigBen was known to be out for the Sunday night game by mid-day on Saturday and it was speculated he might be out late in the day on Friday. I find it reasonable that anyone with BigBen on their team should have made that substitution in time. I don't find it reasonable that someone could make a Sims-Walker substitution in time given the first anyone heard about it was someone like 2:30-3:00 on Sunday afternoon.I think in the end in this particular situation with BigBen, the league decided that it was more than reasonable to assume that any owner properly managing his team should have been able to make a substitution for BigBen. There is no question that having a rule like this leaves too much open to interpretation since it's not clear where to draw the line.I would advise this league to either get rid of this rule or to write 1-2 pages of examples to make it perfectly clear what the league wants to do in all the possible situations it can think of.I agree with you that it smells like certain teams are trying to "rules lawyer" their way into the playoffs here, but since this rule is on their books it just feels to me like the most unbiased way to enforce this rule is to deem that any BigBen owner had plenty of warning that he wasn't going to play on Sunday night and should have been able to make the substitution in time.

 

[Mr.Pack]

There's been a vote and a final decision was to insert Smith in the lineup retroactively, there was alot of back and forth but the summary was this:Regardless of whether it was intentional or not, (0-11 owner's) negligent failure to put the best product on the field should not be allowed to have an influence on the outcome of everyone else's season."Ultimately I really disagree here, but the vote is what it is, with the league essentially creating a double standard for teams that are in the hunt, and those that are not.

If I were in the league, I'd be sure to tell everyone to save a copy of this decision. So that next season, when a player of mine like Sims-Walker is deactivated for violation of team rules, but he was in my lineup because I wasn't able to get the news and get to a computer, that I'll want one of my other players substituted in so it doesn't have an influence on the outcome of everyone else's season.ETA: Actually I wouldn't because I just wouldn't play in such a league again. Unless the owner was legitimately neglecting his team, such as not submitting a lineup at all, or submitting players who were known to be out at the time he submitted them... then this is a crock. Unless that was the case, this appears to have been about some owners trying to rules lawyer their way into the playoffs by tagging a loss on another team for something he wasn't even involved in. And that sucks. That's the kind of thing a good commish should be preventing.

I agree that this type of rule is stupid. But the situation with Sims-Walker is extremely different. BigBen was known to be out for the Sunday night game by mid-day on Saturday and it was speculated he might be out late in the day on Friday. I find it reasonable that anyone with BigBen on their team should have made that substitution in time. I don't find it reasonable that someone could make a Sims-Walker substitution in time given the first anyone heard about it was someone like 2:30-3:00 on Sunday afternoon.I think in the end in this particular situation with BigBen, the league decided that it was more than reasonable to assume that any owner properly managing his team should have been able to make a substitution for BigBen. There is no question that having a rule like this leaves too much open to interpretation since it's not clear where to draw the line.I would advise this league to either get rid of this rule or to write 1-2 pages of examples to make it perfectly clear what the league wants to do in all the possible situations it can think of.I agree with you that it smells like certain teams are trying to "rules lawyer" their way into the playoffs here, but since this rule is on their books it just feels to me like the most unbiased way to enforce this rule is to deem that any BigBen owner had plenty of warning that he wasn't going to play on Sunday night and should have been able to make the substitution in time.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. No chance in hell is the situation with Big Ben reasonable, he was the emergency QB and could have played.People that need a babysitting rule like this shouldn't be playing Fantasy Football.

 

[PosterNutBag]

There's been a vote and a final decision was to insert Smith in the lineup retroactively, there was alot of back and forth but the summary was this:Regardless of whether it was intentional or not, (0-11 owner's) negligent failure to put the best product on the field should not be allowed to have an influence on the outcome of everyone else's season."Ultimately I really disagree here, but the vote is what it is, with the league essentially creating a double standard for teams that are in the hunt, and those that are not.

If I were in the league, I'd be sure to tell everyone to save a copy of this decision. So that next season, when a player of mine like Sims-Walker is deactivated for violation of team rules, but he was in my lineup because I wasn't able to get the news and get to a computer, that I'll want one of my other players substituted in so it doesn't have an influence on the outcome of everyone else's season.ETA: Actually I wouldn't because I just wouldn't play in such a league again. Unless the owner was legitimately neglecting his team, such as not submitting a lineup at all, or submitting players who were known to be out at the time he submitted them... then this is a crock. Unless that was the case, this appears to have been about some owners trying to rules lawyer their way into the playoffs by tagging a loss on another team for something he wasn't even involved in. And that sucks. That's the kind of thing a good commish should be preventing.

I agree that this type of rule is stupid. But the situation with Sims-Walker is extremely different. BigBen was known to be out for the Sunday night game by mid-day on Saturday and it was speculated he might be out late in the day on Friday. I find it reasonable that anyone with BigBen on their team should have made that substitution in time. I don't find it reasonable that someone could make a Sims-Walker substitution in time given the first anyone heard about it was someone like 2:30-3:00 on Sunday afternoon.I think in the end in this particular situation with BigBen, the league decided that it was more than reasonable to assume that any owner properly managing his team should have been able to make a substitution for BigBen. There is no question that having a rule like this leaves too much open to interpretation since it's not clear where to draw the line.I would advise this league to either get rid of this rule or to write 1-2 pages of examples to make it perfectly clear what the league wants to do in all the possible situations it can think of.I agree with you that it smells like certain teams are trying to "rules lawyer" their way into the playoffs here, but since this rule is on their books it just feels to me like the most unbiased way to enforce this rule is to deem that any BigBen owner had plenty of warning that he wasn't going to play on Sunday night and should have been able to make the substitution in time.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. No chance in hell is the situation with Big Ben reasonable, he was the emergency QB and could have played.People that need a babysitting rule like this shouldn't be playing Fantasy Football.

I beg to differ. I was just showing that I agreed with some of his points but that ultimately when you sort through this whole mess that the most unbiased and reasonable interpretation is that the BigBen owner had plenty of notice that he was not going to play and should have made the substitution. He was ruled out around noon on Saturday. That is OUT in most people's books. Sure, they later listed him on the inactive list as the 3rd QB meaning that he could play if their first 2 QBs got hurt but that is an insurance policy at best.All I am saying is that this league for some stupid reason had a rule that was open to interpretation. It was widely reported that BigBen was OUT for a good 30+ hour before gametime. You can't tell me that if this was your team that you would have clinged to the hope that he would eventually be listed as the emergency QB and have the first 2 QBs get hurt so he would eventually play? Playing a QB listed as OUT is not making an attempt to play your best players to ensure a legitimate outcome. While I couldn't agree more that this is a stupid rule .... based on the way the rule was worded, I feel like the BigBen owner should have made the substitution given when the news was made available (he had plenty of time as it wasn't last minute).

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

There's been a vote and a final decision was to insert Smith in the lineup retroactively, there was alot of back and forth but the summary was this:Regardless of whether it was intentional or not, (0-11 owner's) negligent failure to put the best product on the field should not be allowed to have an influence on the outcome of everyone else's season."Ultimately I really disagree here, but the vote is what it is, with the league essentially creating a double standard for teams that are in the hunt, and those that are not.

Terrible, terrible decision. I would never have let this come to a vote and I would leave this league ASAP.just a horrible decision

wrong decision, but I think they have a great league. Everybody's active and serious about the integrity of it. I disagree with the decision, but I empathize with it. It would have been better if the changes were made BEFORE the games.