Need advice on handling illegal lineups (1 Viewer)

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

I know there have been threads on this, and perused a few where Commishes shared how they handled illegal lineups, the penalties, even a few good resources for league constitutions. Most of the "penalties" involved forfeiting the game and/or taking 0 points for the week.

Wanted to dive a little deeper into the collective wisdom here where the impact of not submitting a legal lineup goes beyond simply a guy being willing to lose a week.

We have a league with 14 teams, and fairly shallow benches. The impact of this is a fairly competitive waiver wire -- it's being extremely thin most weeks, and gets even more exacerbated during the stretch of bye weeks.

Forget about breakout performers and guys who get their shot due to injury -- if you are in the playoff hunt, it's hard to even get guys with a *hint* of potential like Ogbannaya, McCluster or Fleener.

We also don't have a formal rule about fielding an illegal lineup, though most understand impact and it has never been a problem.

Until this week.

A team who is very impacted by byes (has two open slots to fill -- flex WR/RB, K) is fielding a lineup that features blanks in this position.

Standard penalty I've seen for this is taking a loss/0 points. But this GM knows he is going to lose anyway and is fine with that. The point is that by not fielding a "legal" team, he is avoiding having to drop players on the wire to do so. This avoids forcing the GM to make the kinds of moves he would have needed to to field a legal lineup, avoids having some impact players available to lower prioritiy GMs in the next ww period, etc.

So in this case, simply losing a game doesn't exactly meet the intent of this rule keeping the league competitive. If someone is willing to lose any given game and gets to avoid dropping guys he would have otherwise kept, he is completely agnostic to the penalty of losing that week.

Has anyone thought of ways of addressing this?

 

[StrikeS2k]

I don't have a problem with that. As an owner, I shouldn't have to drop good players to pick up junk to cover their bye week. If I can afford to lose a week that should be my option. In the NFL teams rest their players in week 16/17 if they're already secured their position in the playoffs to avoid injuries. Should the NFL force them to play those players? As an owner, my goal is make the playoffs and do as well in those playoffs as I can. If losing a game during the regular season because I refuse to weaken my team to deal with a bye week for one of my players is the best way to achieve that, I will.

And, to be clear, it's not an "illegal" lineup as much as it is an "incomplete" lineup unless you've specifically said so in your league rules.

 

[ChromeWeasel]

Add more bench slots. You mention the bench is shallow. Your owner is already taking a loss. What else do you want him to do? He doesnt want to give up valuable players since you've got no room on the bench to deal with bye weeks.

 

[KingPrawn]

We have a fine for any player in your lineup that scores a 0 for the week. This includes non-active players, players on bye, and any player that puts up a 0 just because of bad luck.

 

[roim]

In my league I'll allow one or two starting roster slots (out of 20) to be inactive due to byes, if the owner clears it with me first. It's usually a minor position like K or DT. Failure to notify me more than once per season (or other displays of gross negligence / lack of competition) is grounds for being removed from the league at my convenience.

I agree with the other folks... you might want to expand the bench spots next season, as well as come up with a formal rule regarding inactive starter slots. On the positive side, it's not like this owner doesn't care about their team at all... they've just decided this is what's best for their team in the long run.

 

[Runnyb]

Too late now to do anything mid season, but next year I suggest make it so starting a player on bye is an illegal lineup and the entire team scores a zero. Total points for the season is a tiebreaker (after division and head to head records - which is common to be tied at season end), so taking a zero for the week hurts bad. Forces owners to make tough decisions on who to drop. Best of luck.

 

[DiStefano]

Would you force an NFL team to play its starting QB when the game is out of reach?

 

[Wooderson]

In my league I'll allow one or two starting roster slots (out of 20) to be inactive due to byes, if the owner clears it with me first. It's usually a minor position like K or DT. Failure to notify me more than once per season (or other displays of gross negligence / lack of competition) is grounds for being removed from the league at my convenience.

I agree with the other folks... you might want to expand the bench spots next season, as well as come up with a formal rule regarding inactive starter slots. On the positive side, it's not like this owner doesn't care about their team at all... they've just decided this is what's best for their team in the long run.

Clear it with you ? A commissioner shouldn't be involved in weekly lineup discussions.

 

[KingPrawn]

Would you force an NFL team to play its starting QB when the game is out of reach?

Not the same. An NFL team plays it's backup QB. The fantasy team in question isn't playing anyone at the position.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

Thanks for the thoughts so far.

@Strike -- point about "illegal" v "incomplete" is moot -- already stated that we don't have formal rules about this issue. More trying to think about how people handle the spirit and enforcement of the rule where it exists in their league.

A more applicable analogy, instead of yours of NFL teams resting players, is a team opting to put out 10 on the field instead of 11. And that's a penalty. The GM has a player he could slot into play who is on a bye. This fills the empty slot, but with a guy who cannot take the field.

Do you (and others) simply allow someone to start a guy on a bye? That technically fills the spot, and might be perfectly reasonable with the penalty of taking a loss and 0 points for the week. Just trying to understand the potential conflict between a rule that states a valid lineup must be fielded, and allowing that lineup to contain a guy who has no possibility of playing.

@ others who suggest more bench spots -- really like the suggestion, but one of the things that makes our league more competitive and fun is that the draft and careful inseason management is critical to success. This has fostered not just great competition but has kept GMs active and involved each and every week. Looking at how to strike that balance with one additional bench spot, or an inactive slot would be interesting.

 

[Wooderson]

We have a fine for any player in your lineup that scores a 0 for the week. This includes non-active players, players on bye, and any player that puts up a 0 just because of bad luck.

I like this. I like the fun of cheering for your crap WR3 to get one catch to avoid the fine.

 

[Utter Chaos]

If somebody starts a player on a bye instead of somebody on their bench that's playing then I agree, a penalty should occur.

If somebody doesn't want to drop bye players just to have somebody to start then I think that's their prerogative.

I've actually had drafts where, coincidentally, a few of my top picks had the same bye week so I kept picking players with the same bye week. I'd rather be full strength every week but one then missing a key player for 3 or 4 weeks.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Thanks for the thoughts so far.

@Strike -- point about "illegal" v "incomplete" is moot -- already stated that we don't have formal rules about this issue. More trying to think about how people handle the spirit and enforcement of the rule where it exists in their league.

A more applicable analogy, instead of yours of NFL teams resting players, is a team opting to put out 10 on the field instead of 11. And that's a penalty. The GM has a player he could slot into play who is on a bye. This fills the empty slot, but with a guy who cannot take the field.

Do you (and others) simply allow someone to start a guy on a bye? That technically fills the spot, and might be perfectly reasonable with the penalty of taking a loss and 0 points for the week. Just trying to understand the potential conflict between a rule that states a valid lineup must be fielded, and allowing that lineup to contain a guy who has no possibility of playing.

@ others who suggest more bench spots -- really like the suggestion, but one of the things that makes our league more competitive and fun is that the draft and careful inseason management is critical to success. This has fostered not just great competition but has kept GMs active and involved each and every week. Looking at how to strike that balance with one additional bench spot, or an inactive slot would be interesting.

Then change the rules. What are you going to do if a player gets injured and the owner doesn't know it? Again, my overall point is that an owner should not be forced to weaken their team in the long run to fill a position for one weak. You can disagree with that if you want but that's my problem with penalizing someone in this case.

 

[KingPrawn]

We have a fine for any player in your lineup that scores a 0 for the week. This includes non-active players, players on bye, and any player that puts up a 0 just because of bad luck.

I like this. I like the fun of cheering for your crap WR3 to get one catch to avoid the fine.

It does add a different element to the game and leads to more smack talk.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

We have a fine for any player in your lineup that scores a 0 for the week. This includes non-active players, players on bye, and any player that puts up a 0 just because of bad luck.

I like this. I like the fun of cheering for your crap WR3 to get one catch to avoid the fine.

It does add a different element to the game and leads to more smack talk.

What is the fine?

 

[da_budman]

Sounds like to me the guy is managing his overall team well. Its not his fault the benchs are so short that he is stuck in a position of either having to drop a very good player to field a complete lineup or take a zero. This is one of the perils of leagues over 12 teams. Make a roster size big enough to handle these situations and the waiver wire completely dries up.....Dont and you have issues like this. Id suggest increasing the bench by 1 though next year and deal with the shorter waiver wire pool.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

If somebody starts a player on a bye instead of somebody on their bench that's playing then I agree, a penalty should occur.

If somebody doesn't want to drop bye players just to have somebody to start then I think that's their prerogative.

I've actually had drafts where, coincidentally, a few of my top picks had the same bye week so I kept picking players with the same bye week. I'd rather be full strength every week but one then missing a key player for 3 or 4 weeks.

So to be clear, your suggestion is:

IF a GM starts a player on a bye AND there is someone on the bench who is not on a bye and could have played THEN GM gets 0 points for week/automatic loss.

IF a GM can't fill a roster spot because the only available players he has are on byes, THEN GM gets 0 points for week/automatic loss. The GM can opt to either drop a player on a bye for an active player, or take the penalty of 0 points/automatic loss.

For the avoidance of doubt, a GM is not obligated to drop a player on a bye and pick up a valid starting player.

Is this how it plays out in most leagues?

 

[Catbird]

In all four of my very diverse leagues, not having a player who can play a spot gives you a 0 for that spot. Its not an illegal lineup, which is playing an ineligible player for the spot he's listed in (and is always a loss with other far ranging points penalties). Not having an eligible warm body happens very rarely, but there is no automatic loss for not having an available player and no one ever has to give up a stud to field a 'complete' lineup. That's always the owner's choice.

 

[nightmare]

Let the guy run his team. Vote on rule changes next season.

 

[Cunk]

Can't he add the flex/k bye week players into his lineup so it isn't "illegal", while still giving him the opportunity to win? You could do that in CBS anyway.

On that note I wouldn't have a problem with someone starting someone on bye if they had a justifiable reason to do so. But they would have to do what I explained above.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Illegal lineups gets a zero.

 

[Ruffrodys05]

I don't have a problem with that. As an owner, I shouldn't have to drop good players to pick up junk to cover their bye week. If I can afford to lose a week that should be my option. In the NFL teams rest their players in week 16/17 if they're already secured their position in the playoffs to avoid injuries. Should the NFL force them to play those players? As an owner, my goal is make the playoffs and do as well in those playoffs as I can. If losing a game during the regular season because I refuse to weaken my team to deal with a bye week for one of my players is the best way to achieve that, I will.

And, to be clear, it's not an "illegal" lineup as much as it is an "incomplete" lineup unless you've specifically said so in your league rules.

Two good points here, well done StrikeS2k.

I agree on not forcing an owner to worsen his team. I also feel that league rules should make allowances so that an owner is not forced to do so. Slightly larger rosters, to accommodate bye week fillers on the bench would solve this.

My league has a number of rules in place to avoid lineup situations like you are experiencing:

• No tanking rule with harsh penalty.
• Large enough roster sizes.
• Must fill each roster slot each week (can still be a player on bye though).
• Affordable trade, waiver and free agent transaction fees (open "fee based" trading, waivers, free agents all season long, including playoffs....free off-season trading.)

There are many ways to keep the game fun and fair.

 

[Mile High]

Just because you get 0 in a few spots don't mean you will lose. You might have 3 guys who take off and cover.

 

[blake]

I don't have a problem with that. As an owner, I shouldn't have to drop good players to pick up junk to cover their bye week. If I can afford to lose a week that should be my option. In the NFL teams rest their players in week 16/17 if they're already secured their position in the playoffs to avoid injuries. Should the NFL force them to play those players? As an owner, my goal is make the playoffs and do as well in those playoffs as I can. If losing a game during the regular season because I refuse to weaken my team to deal with a bye week for one of my players is the best way to achieve that, I will.

And, to be clear, it's not an "illegal" lineup as much as it is an "incomplete" lineup unless you've specifically said so in your league rules.

I couldn't have stated it any better. No one should have to release a player that they count on usually for a crappy player simply to fill one week's lineup. This just happened last week as an owner who has a good team had both Mendenhall and Ronnie Hillman in their lineup even though they weren't going to play. As commissioner, I'll approach the person about it as I did in this case, and the owner was fully aware, but didn't want to drop anyone. That was good enough for me, as they are looking to try to make the playoffs, not just win one week, and most importantly, they are active and taking an interest in their team.

In my league I'll allow one or two starting roster slots (out of 20) to be inactive due to byes, if the owner clears it with me first. It's usually a minor position like K or DT. Failure to notify me more than once per season (or other displays of gross negligence / lack of competition) is grounds for being removed from the league at my convenience.

I agree with the other folks... you might want to expand the bench spots next season, as well as come up with a formal rule regarding inactive starter slots. On the positive side, it's not like this owner doesn't care about their team at all... they've just decided this is what's best for their team in the long run.

I also agree with the first point here. As commissioner, you should be on top of everyone else's roster regarding starting players on bye or injured players. Owners should clear it with you if they are starting a player on bye, because they shouldn't be doing that. And I fully agree with the fact that if an owner starts a player on bye week or an injured player more than once, and haven't responded in a timely fashion to an inquiry I've made about it, they will likely be removed from the league.

Regarding the 2nd point here, the OP has already addressed the fact that his league prefers short benches. That said, a formal rule regarding inactive starter slots is absolutely essential: this MUST be done. My league has pretty lax rules, but what I wrote before regarding starting bye week/injured players is definitely in the constitution. One time is a warning, two times is grounds for dismissal.

 

[KingPrawn]

We have a fine for any player in your lineup that scores a 0 for the week. This includes non-active players, players on bye, and any player that puts up a 0 just because of bad luck.

I like this. I like the fun of cheering for your crap WR3 to get one catch to avoid the fine.

It does add a different element to the game and leads to more smack talk.

What is the fine?

Depends on the league. We have it double the price of a player acquisition.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I have no problem with someone starting someone on a bye if they have too many players on a bye and don't wanna drop someone valuable for a one-week crappy fill-in.

However, someone who has given up on the season and doesn't bother putting in active players and leaves in players on byes...that is crap.

 

[nobiz]

The only leagues I've been in where something could be done was if an owner was absent/negligent to set his line-up, i.e. when he had players on his bench who were active and was starting byes. I once was in a league where an owner with a vested interest in the outcome could send an email to the commish asking the lineup be set in this instance.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

I have no problem with someone starting someone on a bye if they have too many players on a bye and don't wanna drop someone valuable for a one-week crappy fill-in.

However, someone who has given up on the season and doesn't bother putting in active players and leaves in players on byes...that is crap.

How do you reasonably tell one situation from the other? Is it OK to start someone on a bye only when you don't have available players who can play on your bench?

 

[Utter Chaos]

If somebody starts a player on a bye instead of somebody on their bench that's playing then I agree, a penalty should occur.

If somebody doesn't want to drop bye players just to have somebody to start then I think that's their prerogative.

I've actually had drafts where, coincidentally, a few of my top picks had the same bye week so I kept picking players with the same bye week. I'd rather be full strength every week but one then missing a key player for 3 or 4 weeks.

So to be clear, your suggestion is:

IF a GM starts a player on a bye AND there is someone on the bench who is not on a bye and could have played THEN GM gets 0 points for week/automatic loss.

IF a GM can't fill a roster spot because the only available players he has are on byes, THEN GM gets 0 points for week/automatic loss. The GM can opt to either drop a player on a bye for an active player, or take the penalty of 0 points/automatic loss.

For the avoidance of doubt, a GM is not obligated to drop a player on a bye and pick up a valid starting player.

Is this how it plays out in most leagues?

I think it should only be a automatic loss if the owner plays a bye week player over a non-bye week player. In the bolded scenario there may or may not be a fine but it shouldn't be an automatic loss. The owner is already at a disadvantage by getting a zero. By giving him an automatic loss benefits his opponent which may have playoff implications concerning other teams in the league that want the opponent to lose.

I play in two leagues and there is no penalty for illegal lineups. The cost to pick up a free agent is $5.00. If I"m 2 and 7 going into week 10 with no shot at the playoffs and have a starting player on a bye what sense does it make to spend $5 to pick somebody up.

 

[nastynate]

My main league starts 15 w/ idps and has a bench of 5. There are quite a few weeks where people won't start a CB or DL and still get a w.

I have no issue with this whatsoever. If this is how an owner chooses to manage his team, so be it. If they aren't willing to make a move and drop someone they think will be valuable down the road, not sure I blame them.

This league has been like this for 14 years and nobody has ever brought it up as a complaint. Surprised anyone is trying to dictate how an owner chooses to manage his team...

 

[Josh the FunkDOC]

i've never had a problem with lineups like these. heck, one year when we won the league title, we had 2 top QBs with the same bye week and won that week with no QB; i think that's a sign of good drafting/team management and should not be punished

 

[hines]

what is the reason for punishing them? I don't understand why there would be a penalty for a strategic move like this (taking a 0).

 

[Nemesis]

Another scenario that I've used: I'm leading my division and have locked up the playoffs before wk 12 and my TE has a bye during wk 12 and the FA deadline is also wk12. I'm NOT going to pick up a scrub TE for 1 wk b/c I can't drop him afterward. ( and I shouldn't have too)

Put me in the "let that owner manage his own team" crowd. (And I'm a commissioner too)

 

[Mr.Pack]

Illegal lineups gets a zero.

This is crap for the rest of the teams in that division vying for a playoff spot. The week he plays someone impacting a playoff spot he'll have a lineup and that screws other teams in that division.

The best way around this, is that the illegal team gets the average score of all the losing teams for that week, and the guy he's playing has to beat that score.

Why should any team get a free victory? It's not fair to the rest of the league

 

[blake]

Why should any team get a free victory? It's not fair to the rest of the league

I couldn't agree more with this. It is nice to talk tough about teams getting an automatic 0 in the situation that the OP posts about, or close to it. But it really doesn't hold up in a serious league, I've found. It does more harm than good with losing a semi-serious owner to a terrible rule and also ruining the competitive balance of the league by doing what you say - giving a team a free victory when maybe only one player was in a team's starting lineup that had a bye week.

 

[nastynate]

Why should any team get a free victory? It's not fair to the rest of the league

I couldn't agree more with this. It is nice to talk tough about teams getting an automatic 0 in the situation that the OP posts about, or close to it. But it really doesn't hold up in a serious league, I've found. It does more harm than good with losing a semi-serious owner to a terrible rule and also ruining the competitive balance of the league by doing what you say - giving a team a free victory when maybe only one player was in a team's starting lineup that had a bye week.

Who says it's a free pass? A team can still be competitive by leaving out one player.

If it's someone not setting their lineup, fine. If it's someone that makes a strategic move to hold a player on his bye, foregoing that spot, I don't see how you can make a rule against that.

Count me out of any league where the commissioner dictates how I manage my team and when I have to drop potentially core players.

 

[blake]

Why should any team get a free victory? It's not fair to the rest of the league

I couldn't agree more with this. It is nice to talk tough about teams getting an automatic 0 in the situation that the OP posts about, or close to it. But it really doesn't hold up in a serious league, I've found. It does more harm than good with losing a semi-serious owner to a terrible rule and also ruining the competitive balance of the league by doing what you say - giving a team a free victory when maybe only one player was in a team's starting lineup that had a bye week.

Who says it's a free pass? A team can still be competitive by leaving out one player.

If it's someone not setting their lineup, fine. If it's someone that makes a strategic move to hold a player on his bye, foregoing that spot, I don't see how you can make a rule against that.

Count me out of any league where the commissioner dictates how I manage my team and when I have to drop potentially core players.

You didn't read it in context, clearly. The post Mr. Pack and I were commenting on was regarding a penalty of 0 for the entire week, even if just one player was in a starting lineup because of a bye week or injury. Of course it is a free pass for a team getting a win if their opponent got a zero because of a rule technicality.

Also, I've stated at least once in this thread that I am not in favor of this kind of penalty, and if an owner is active, but chooses to start an injured/bye week player because he doesn't want to release anyone on his roster, then that is his prerogative. And like you say, a team can win even with one player getting a zero for their game. However, you most certainly can make a rule regarding this as many, many leagues do have this "0 for the week" rule if you leave an injured/bye week player in a lineup.

 

[The Jerk]

Sorry I'm a little late to this thread, but I want to add my thoughts to this matter of handling "illegal" lineups.

First off, I have a problem even with calling these lineups "illegal" in the first place. I'd think it's more accurate to refer to them as incomplete.

I am most bothered by the need of some leagues to adopt micromanagement rules, regardless of the intent of such rules. The goal for every team should be to win the championship, not to have complete or "legal" lineups every week. If an owner believes the best chance at a championship may be to have an open slot in a lineup, they should have the right to manage their roster accordingly.

If these complete lineup rules/penalties are in place to motivate deadbeat owners, my suggestion would be to address the problem of deadbeat owners another way. Negative reinforcement may work in terms of penalties for finishing last each week and last for the season. My preference is for positive reinforcement, in the form of weekly prizes to the the high weekly scorers. Give teams an alternate way to make up some or all of their league fee, even if they are 2-7 or 1-8 through Week 9. These weekly prizes should continue through at least Week 16 if not Week 17.

I can endorse the idea of fining teams if they have a healthy, active player on their bench and start someone on a bye or injured reserve. That's just lazy ownership. I would NOT give a 0 to that team for the week only because it allows their opponent to have a bye, which could affect league-wide competitive balance.

I was one of those teams who would have been deemed illegal under this rule this week. My weak spot is at RB, and I have chosen to carry only one tight end due to small benches in this league. My tight end is on a bye this week, and I didn't wish to drop any of my running backs for a one week plug-in at tight end. I felt confident that I could win because my opponent in Week 9 had Peyton Manning and two other Broncos out of his lineup. And even if I lost, I'm pretty sure whatever RB I dropped for the one week plug-in would be snatched up quickly by one of my competitors. So I took the 0 at tight end and with a half of MNF left, I'm winning my game by 43 points (average weekly scores in this league are 80-85 points).

I'm sure some owners are mailing it in or confused, but I'm sure there are at least as many owners who know exactly what they're doing when they submit incomplete lineups.

 

[msudaisy26]

Leagues with short benches that try to force teams to drop good players because of injuries or byes is just stupid.

 

[zftcg]

I don't have a problem with that. As an owner, I shouldn't have to drop good players to pick up junk to cover their bye week. If I can afford to lose a week that should be my option. In the NFL teams rest their players in week 16/17 if they're already secured their position in the playoffs to avoid injuries. Should the NFL force them to play those players?

No, that's the NBA's job.

 

[zftcg]

My league takes its inspiration from Jasper from "The Simpsons". Leave an inactive player in your starting line-up? That's a paddlin'.