Not starting a complete lineup (1 Viewer)

[VA703]

I have a player in my league that did not start a kicker last week. i warned him and said his waivers would be reset to last if it happend again. theres sitll tonights game to sub one in but he did it again so far this week. what other rules or actions should be done if he does it after his 2nd warning. its a work league so we all know each other. ill remind him today to drop someone for a kicker but for the future im looking for some rules to put in place for my league. any ideas?

so far theres the initial warning which has been given to everyone now

1st offense reset waivers to last

2nd offense?

3rd offense removal from league?

 

[DoubleG]

Idea #1: Have the rules in place already.

Idea #2: Tease him mercilessly - as publicly as possible. He'll either fix it or quit.

Idea #3: (Since Idea #1 clearly wasn't in place): Change the rule, using idea #2 as much as possible in promoting said rule change.

Idea #4: Swear at him... a lot. It won't fix the problem, but might make you feel better.

Of course, if he's playing your team, wait until after you've won, then do the above.

 

[Arizona Ron]

Let me guess, a free league?

 

[VA703]

Let me guess, a free league?

no 100 buyin

i had a rule in place last year after someone started a bye week player and mentioned the waiver reset. i cant find the post i made but i believe i said the next offense was removal from the league

im thinking first offense is a warning which everyone has now. 2nd is reset of waivers. 3rd is loss of a keeper for next season. 4th is removal

 

[Joe Summer]

If you don't have a rule that addresses this situation, then you can't just make up rules on the fly (e.g., changing his waiver order).

I say let him go without a kicker. Then remove him from the league at the end of the year.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

What's the big deal not filling a complete lineup?

If I'm winning/losing in a blowout come Monday, I pass on rostering/starting a kicker all the time.

And stop making up rules along the way. If you didn't have it before the season began, it doesn't exist.

 

[TheLurkerBelow]

What's the big deal not filling a complete lineup?

If I'm winning/losing in a blowout come Monday, I pass on rostering/starting a kicker all the time.

And stop making up rules along the way. If you didn't have it before the season began, it doesn't exist.

It's about league competitive balance. If someone isn't fielding a complete lineup they're giving an unfair advantage to their opponent that week,and that effects the entire league. If I'm chasing or trying to hold onto the lead in a division and my biggest competition gets an easy win because his opponent decided to leave in one or more players who are out that week, I'm going to be pissed.

It's the commissioner's job to ensure the league competition is maintained. You have a few options, but a first warning, and then removal from the league on second offense will get the job done. Optionally, you could cut a player (lowest ranked one according to whatever web site you use) from his team and add a kicker (highest ranked one available from whatever web site you use). You would still want to give the warning.

 

[SameSongNDance]

It's bush league but so is not having rules in place for the start of the season. There's not much you can do, IMO.

 

[mjr]

What isn't being addressed here is WHY he isn't starting a kicker.

Is it laziness? Collusion? Or does your league dish out quite a few negative points for every missed FG? In that case he might feel he is actually putting in a more competitive lineup without starting a kicker.... I'm in a league where we get -3 for a missed FG but only 4 pts for a QB TD and I've at least considered doing the same thing...

 

[FUBAR]

What's the big deal not filling a complete lineup?

If I'm winning/losing in a blowout come Monday, I pass on rostering/starting a kicker all the time.

And stop making up rules along the way. If you didn't have it before the season began, it doesn't exist.

It's about league competitive balance. If someone isn't fielding a complete lineup they're giving an unfair advantage to their opponent that week,and that effects the entire league. If I'm chasing or trying to hold onto the lead in a division and my biggest competition gets an easy win because his opponent decided to leave in one or more players who are out that week, I'm going to be pissed.

It's the commissioner's job to ensure the league competition is maintained. You have a few options, but a first warning, and then removal from the league on second offense will get the job done. Optionally, you could cut a player (lowest ranked one according to whatever web site you use) from his team and add a kicker (highest ranked one available from whatever web site you use). You would still want to give the warning.

No, it is not his job to ensure competition is maintained. It is his job to establish rules and enforce them fairly. It also is not his job to arbitrarily make rules up along the way.

He absolutely should not manage someone else's team.

 

[Joe Summer]

What's the big deal not filling a complete lineup?

If he's rostering an extra position player instead of a kicker, I can see how that could be considered unfair to the rest of the league.

(Personally, I don't think that's unfair at all. Let him have an extra RB. Then make fun of him when he loses by 2 points because he didn't start a kicker.)

 

[Wooderson]

My league rule is simple.

If you start a player on a bye, leave a spot open, start a player on IR. Any of these means you forfeit that week. If it happens twice a league vote will happen to see if you will be in the league next year.

As mentioned above it's all about competitive balance. Week 1 or Week 8 you should have to always have to play against a full squad. Also part of managing a team is to decide on which skill player to drop to pick up that Defense or Kicker that you may need.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

What's the big deal not filling a complete lineup?

If I'm winning/losing in a blowout come Monday, I pass on rostering/starting a kicker all the time.

And stop making up rules along the way. If you didn't have it before the season began, it doesn't exist.

It's about league competitive balance. If someone isn't fielding a complete lineup they're giving an unfair advantage to their opponent that week,and that effects the entire league. If I'm chasing or trying to hold onto the lead in a division and my biggest competition gets an easy win because his opponent decided to leave in one or more players who are out that week, I'm going to be pissed.

It's the commissioner's job to ensure the league competition is maintained. You have a few options, but a first warning, and then removal from the league on second offense will get the job done. Optionally, you could cut a player (lowest ranked one according to whatever web site you use) from his team and add a kicker (highest ranked one available from whatever web site you use). You would still want to give the warning.

No, it is not his job to ensure competition is maintained. It is his job to establish rules and enforce them fairly. It also is not his job to arbitrarily make rules up along the way.

He absolutely should not manage someone else's team.

Knew someone would go the competitive balance route. You invited the owner. They paid to manage their own team under the set rules. Nothing worse than a commish that makes stuff up along the way

As someone that makes a habit of punting K (and even Def) if I'm up/down big (by not picking one up), I'd be pissed if a commissioner made up something like this during the season.

 

[acarey50]

My league rule is simple.

If you start a player on a bye, leave a spot open, start a player on IR. Any of these means you forfeit that week. If it happens twice a league vote will happen to see if you will be in the league next year.

As mentioned above it's all about competitive balance. Week 1 or Week 8 you should have to always have to play against a full squad. Also part of managing a team is to decide on which skill player to drop to pick up that Defense or Kicker that you may need.

Giving them a forfeit seems to defeat the purpose of "competitve balance". What if they would have won with that bye/injured/open slot in their lineup? How is it fair to the rest of the league that their opponent got an undeserved win because of what could be a potentially innocent oversight?

 

[Joe Summer]

My league rule is simple.

If you start a player on a bye, leave a spot open, start a player on IR. Any of these means you forfeit that week. If it happens twice a league vote will happen to see if you will be in the league next year.

As mentioned above it's all about competitive balance. Week 1 or Week 8 you should have to always have to play against a full squad. Also part of managing a team is to decide on which skill player to drop to pick up that Defense or Kicker that you may need.

Giving them a forfeit seems to defeat the purpose of "competitve balance".

 

[ebsteelers]

i'd root for him to lose by 2.. then embrass him in front of everyone at work by posting pictures of kickalicious, all over his cube

 

[Wooderson]

My league rule is simple.

If you start a player on a bye, leave a spot open, start a player on IR. Any of these means you forfeit that week. If it happens twice a league vote will happen to see if you will be in the league next year.

As mentioned above it's all about competitive balance. Week 1 or Week 8 you should have to always have to play against a full squad. Also part of managing a team is to decide on which skill player to drop to pick up that Defense or Kicker that you may need.

Giving them a forfeit seems to defeat the purpose of "competitve balance".

I see your point. But if it happens a second time they will be out of the league.

Part of the skill of managing a team is to have to a full starting lineup every week. Yeah it's tough to drop a player to fill the roster with a kicker at times but that is part of the game IMO.

 

[Joe Summer]

Part of the skill of managing a team is to have to a full starting lineup every week.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Part of the skill of managing a team is to have to a full starting lineup every week.

I find the statement completely ridiculous, but if that's how he chooses to run his leagues (with those rules in place) that's his choice.

 

[Wooderson]

Part of the skill of managing a team is to have to a full starting lineup every week.

I find the statement completely ridiculous, but if that's how he chooses to run his leagues (with those rules in place) that's his choice.

Huh I must be missing something.

You have never had a situation like this for example: Crap my TE is on a bye but to pick up another TE I would need to drop that rookie WR that was my sleeper and has shown some promise.

It makes you think about ahead further to avoid this situation and also encourages more trades in the league.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

A lot would probably depend on league roster size. I can't think of the last rookie WR I owned in a redraft.

A made up scenario: 15 man roster (5 bench). Week 6 for example. I've got Harvin stashed on my bench and he's due back next week Week 7. Let's say Jason Witten on a bye. I'm not dropping Harvin to go pick say Brandon Pettigrew for a 1 week fill in. ...I'll wait til MNF and re-assess. If I need the points (up/down a small amount), I'll consider going to pick up a 1 week flier.

If we're talking 20 man rosters, I'd have much less of an issue dropping man #20 on my roster (let's say Michael Bush or similar).

 

[LittlePhatty]

We allow it in our Keeper IDP league. No way anyone would drop a player they might keep for 6 years just to pick up a one week fill-in Linebacker or Kicker. But the manager has to make their intentions clear - we still have an "abandonment" clause that says you're out if you obviously aren't making an effort to manage your team a second week in a row.

 

[Team ROFLCOPTERS]

Is this a dynasty? Does his team suck? Is he trying to "suck for Luck"?

I'm not big on addressing these issues if there is no league constitution. He paid in and should be allowed to play as lax or as intense as he wants so long as he is not breaking rules. He will play everyone in the league.

 

[msudaisy26]

My league rule is simple.

If you start a player on a bye, leave a spot open, start a player on IR. Any of these means you forfeit that week. If it happens twice a league vote will happen to see if you will be in the league next year.

As mentioned above it's all about competitive balance. Week 1 or Week 8 you should have to always have to play against a full squad. Also part of managing a team is to decide on which skill player to drop to pick up that Defense or Kicker that you may need.

That is crappy rule, so if the team is hurt by injuries or bye weeks he has to drop a player that will help him more in the future rather then not have a kicker that week.

 

[Annyong]

That's pretty smart actually. Maybe I'll just not roster a K on Sundays to free up a roster spot in hopes of picking up a guy that might possibly go off. Then Monday rolls around and I can drop the scrub if he doesn't become the next big thing and pick up a Monday night K.

Interesting idea, but still not cool.

 

[FUBAR]

That's pretty smart actually. Maybe I'll just not roster a K on Sundays to free up a roster spot in hopes of picking up a guy that might possibly go off. Then Monday rolls around and I can drop the scrub if he doesn't become the next big thing and pick up a Monday night K.

Interesting idea, but still not cool.

There should be weeks when the MNF kickers are taken.

 

[FUBAR]

Part of the skill of managing a team is to have to a full starting lineup every week.

I find the statement completely ridiculous, but if that's how he chooses to run his leagues (with those rules in place) that's his choice.

strategizing within the rules is part of the game and a skill. I don't like the rule, but its his league

 

[Wooderson]

My league rule is simple.

If you start a player on a bye, leave a spot open, start a player on IR. Any of these means you forfeit that week. If it happens twice a league vote will happen to see if you will be in the league next year.

As mentioned above it's all about competitive balance. Week 1 or Week 8 you should have to always have to play against a full squad. Also part of managing a team is to decide on which skill player to drop to pick up that Defense or Kicker that you may need.

That is crappy rule, so if the team is hurt by injuries or bye weeks he has to drop a player that will help him more in the future rather then not have a kicker that week.

Why even draft kickers then.

 

[msudaisy26]

My league rule is simple.

If you start a player on a bye, leave a spot open, start a player on IR. Any of these means you forfeit that week. If it happens twice a league vote will happen to see if you will be in the league next year.

As mentioned above it's all about competitive balance. Week 1 or Week 8 you should have to always have to play against a full squad. Also part of managing a team is to decide on which skill player to drop to pick up that Defense or Kicker that you may need.

That is crappy rule, so if the team is hurt by injuries or bye weeks he has to drop a player that will help him more in the future rather then not have a kicker that week.

Why even draft kickers then.

If an owner wants to run his team that way and they pay their money then let them

 

[renesauz]

That's pretty smart actually. Maybe I'll just not roster a K on Sundays to free up a roster spot in hopes of picking up a guy that might possibly go off. Then Monday rolls around and I can drop the scrub if he doesn't become the next big thing and pick up a Monday night K.

Interesting idea, but still not cool.

Not sure this idea would work in most leagues. Don't most leagues lock players onto your roster once their game is underway? I know mine do. Not only can you not add a player when their game has already started, but you can't drop him either.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

My league rule is simple.

If you start a player on a bye, leave a spot open, start a player on IR. Any of these means you forfeit that week. If it happens twice a league vote will happen to see if you will be in the league next year.

As mentioned above it's all about competitive balance. Week 1 or Week 8 you should have to always have to play against a full squad. Also part of managing a team is to decide on which skill player to drop to pick up that Defense or Kicker that you may need.

That is crappy rule, so if the team is hurt by injuries or bye weeks he has to drop a player that will help him more in the future rather then not have a kicker that week.

Why even draft kickers then.

Good question. On quite a few occasions I haven't. And never will in a league with preseason waivers.

I 100% agree with the post above. Let the owner run things how he sees fit. He paid entry fee based upon set rules.

If their isn't a rule inserted to start a full roster, then he doesn't have to. If their are rules/consequences inserted upon league formation about starting less than a full roster, then it's the league/commissioner right to enforce them.

If the rules need adjusted, that needs to be done in the following offseason.

 

[ebsteelers]

so did you embrass him at work today?

I dont really get why you wouldnt wanna start a kicker?.

Every point matters and hoping you strike gold with some guy on the bench could cost you the playoffs.

If you play your cards right with Kickers some of these guys are getting 7 + points and thats more than so guys are getting from their flex positions

I find that kickers dont matter seems to be a myth. As every point matters

 

[TheLurkerBelow]

What's the big deal not filling a complete lineup?

If I'm winning/losing in a blowout come Monday, I pass on rostering/starting a kicker all the time.

And stop making up rules along the way. If you didn't have it before the season began, it doesn't exist.

It's about league competitive balance. If someone isn't fielding a complete lineup they're giving an unfair advantage to their opponent that week,and that effects the entire league. If I'm chasing or trying to hold onto the lead in a division and my biggest competition gets an easy win because his opponent decided to leave in one or more players who are out that week, I'm going to be pissed.

It's the commissioner's job to ensure the league competition is maintained. You have a few options, but a first warning, and then removal from the league on second offense will get the job done. Optionally, you could cut a player (lowest ranked one according to whatever web site you use) from his team and add a kicker (highest ranked one available from whatever web site you use). You would still want to give the warning.

No, it is not his job to ensure competition is maintained. It is his job to establish rules and enforce them fairly. It also is not his job to arbitrarily make rules up along the way.

He absolutely should not manage someone else's team.

Knew someone would go the competitive balance route. You invited the owner. They paid to manage their own team under the set rules. Nothing worse than a commish that makes stuff up along the way

As someone that makes a habit of punting K (and even Def) if I'm up/down big (by not picking one up), I'd be pissed if a commissioner made up something like this during the season.

I'm glad you knew someone would talk competitive balance, because it's important when you're in a cutthroat league where everyone fights tooth and nail for even the smallest edge on their competition. The league I run would go ballistic if someone were allowed a free pass in a game because their opponent didn't field a complete competitive team. And yes, my rules do clearly state you must start a complete lineup, so my situation is a bit different than the original poster's.

Now, where I totally agree with you is in leagues where you have a very small roster size. I've played in those before and made decisions like you point out, where I'd rather keep my #3 or #4 WR than pick up a crappy bye week TE.

So I think where I'd leave this is that it's very league dependent, but I prefer to play in leagues that enforce rules that keep the competition level at its most challenging, and if you have at least 18 man roster sizes, that means fielding a complete lineup each week.

 

[VA703]

i have been talking with him back and forth he values the kicker as useless and would rather have an additional roster spot. his team is decent he was the 3rd pick in our 10 team and hes 1-1. i reset his waivers because that was a rule in place from last season and he kept saying he doesnt care if people are complaining this is all part of his strategy and if its a problem he wont rejoin next year... as some said here if its his money and he wants to throw it away so be it

 

[PhantomJB]

i have been talking with him back and forth he values the kicker as useless and would rather have an additional roster spot. his team is decent he was the 3rd pick in our 10 team and hes 1-1. i reset his waivers because that was a rule in place from last season and he kept saying he doesnt care if people are complaining this is all part of his strategy and if its a problem he wont rejoin next year... as some said here if its his money and he wants to throw it away so be it

It is one thing to not fill a starting lineup later in the season when a guy's out of it and quite another early in the season.

This is akin to dynasty when owners sacrifice the short-term for a longer term upside. Nothing wrong with that.

What if he's using the extra roster spot on high-upside guys like Josh Gordon, Joique Bell, etc.? Kickers don't score very much and are extremely random.

The guy is playing to win a championship, not win every week. Let it go.

 

[kingmalaki]

I have a different take. If I'm willing to accept zero points at a position so I can roster another player then why shouldn't that be allowed, assuming there is no rule saying you can't do it?

I took Gronk in a league where we have short benches (5 players). My bench players this weekend were Romo, F.Jax (I have Spiller), Deangelo Williams, Pierce and Golden Tate. All of those players should be rostered, so if I have a shot to win without getting points from a TE then why shouldn't I be allowed to try? It's better for my team to keep one of those players than to drop one for a TE who may not score much. It's a strategy like any other strategy.

 

[Resident A]

In my league, the rule states states you must field a complete lineup, and commish has the power to set lineup for you of you don't. even if games have started before anyone catches it. It even gives commish the power to pick up a player off waivers for you if that's the only way you could field a complete lineup. Starters & pickups would be picked by highest weekly rank from our site rankings.

The rule has been in place for 12 years, but only enforced once. Never had to go the waiver route though.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

What's the big deal not filling a complete lineup?

If I'm winning/losing in a blowout come Monday, I pass on rostering/starting a kicker all the time.

And stop making up rules along the way. If you didn't have it before the season began, it doesn't exist.

It's about league competitive balance. If someone isn't fielding a complete lineup they're giving an unfair advantage to their opponent that week,and that effects the entire league. If I'm chasing or trying to hold onto the lead in a division and my biggest competition gets an easy win because his opponent decided to leave in one or more players who are out that week, I'm going to be pissed.

It's the commissioner's job to ensure the league competition is maintained. You have a few options, but a first warning, and then removal from the league on second offense will get the job done. Optionally, you could cut a player (lowest ranked one according to whatever web site you use) from his team and add a kicker (highest ranked one available from whatever web site you use). You would still want to give the warning.

if you've got a guy throwing a game in week 2 you've got some issues in your league.

and your solution to this is to create a dead team for competitive balance?

lolz

 

[titusbramble]

so did you embrass him at work today?

I dont really get why you wouldnt wanna start a kicker?.

in one of my shallower leagues, i lost this week and won by more than my kicker scored in week 1. in hindsight, not picking up a kicker seconds before the sunday games in week 1 and dropping fred jackson in the process might have been a smarter move. obviously dropping hillman instead would have been genius, but it's perfectly possible that he thinks that he has more equity by holding onto a sleeper pick than the number of games he'll lose by 8-10 where a kicker might have saved him

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

so did you embrass him at work today?

I'd be curious as to how you would embarrass a guy at work for not using a kicker in fantasy football

 

[habsfan]

I have a different take. If I'm willing to accept zero points at a position so I can roster another player then why shouldn't that be allowed, assuming there is no rule saying you can't do it?

If there is no rule then obviously not.

For me, "fielding a complete line-up" does not require interpretation. You either started a kicker or you didn't.

I don't want to put myself in a situation where I have to "guess at" why a guy may have left a starting spot open. To Larry, he's probably not throwing a game in Week 2. Maybe he did it because he was up by 60 pts. That's okay I guess. But what if he does it again in Week 13 when play-off seedings are at issue? I don't want to start applying fuzzy rules like that as I go along...

 

[da_budman]

i have been talking with him back and forth he values the kicker as useless and would rather have an additional roster spot. his team is decent he was the 3rd pick in our 10 team and hes 1-1. i reset his waivers because that was a rule in place from last season and he kept saying he doesnt care if people are complaining this is all part of his strategy and if its a problem he wont rejoin next year... as some said here if its his money and he wants to throw it away so be it

This situation isnt as clear cut as it first may have seen to him but at the same time it really isnt fair to the league for some teams to face a full roster and others not.. Im not a big fan at all of making up new rulles/rulings on the spot but as comish I have a catch all rule that basically says that all contingencies cannot be foreseen and I can make a ruling based on what is best for the league. The only time I have ever used it was to decide what to do when a game got moved to a different week a few years ago. At this point since he is saying it is a strategy and not laziness I would consider making a ruling that he can encorporate that strategy as long as he doesnt start a kicker for the rest of the year ( to keep some teams from having to play against a full roster while other teams have to. Its a tough spot he puts the comish in here and I would think if he should be ok with that if he is truley does value kickers as useless.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I have a different take. If I'm willing to accept zero points at a position so I can roster another player then why shouldn't that be allowed, assuming there is no rule saying you can't do it?

If there is no rule then obviously not.

For me, "fielding a complete line-up" does not require interpretation. You either started a kicker or you didn't.

I don't want to put myself in a situation where I have to "guess at" why a guy may have left a starting spot open. To Larry, he's probably not throwing a game in Week 2. Maybe he did it because he was up by 60 pts. That's okay I guess. But what if he does it again in Week 13 when play-off seedings are at issue? I don't want to start applying fuzzy rules like that as I go along...

don't take this personal, or as an i-dig of some kind, but requiring people to start a full line up is the most useless and ######ed rule I can think of.

we currently just played week 2, not week 13.

if the guy is up by 60 pts then how is not fielding a k going to create an unfair advantage for his opponent, thus wrecking league competitive balance, as someone mentioned earlier?

if you've got a guy throwing games in any week you've got a bigger issue in your league, and if I want to throw a game while fielding a complete line up I just start ronnie hillman over adrian peterson.

it is a 100% pointless and meaningless rule that some type of people get wound about because that's who they are.

 

[ebsteelers]

so did you embrass him at work today?

I'd be curious as to how you would embarrass a guy at work for not using a kicker in fantasy football

by taping pictures of kickers all over his desk.. mainly kickalicious

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

so did you embrass him at work today?

I'd be curious as to how you would embarrass a guy at work for not using a kicker in fantasy football

by taping pictures of kickers all over his desk.. mainly kickalicious

is this your general strategy, or specifically for a guy who lost a close game because he didn't start a kicker?

 

[TheLurkerBelow]

What's the big deal not filling a complete lineup?

If I'm winning/losing in a blowout come Monday, I pass on rostering/starting a kicker all the time.

And stop making up rules along the way. If you didn't have it before the season began, it doesn't exist.

It's about league competitive balance. If someone isn't fielding a complete lineup they're giving an unfair advantage to their opponent that week,and that effects the entire league. If I'm chasing or trying to hold onto the lead in a division and my biggest competition gets an easy win because his opponent decided to leave in one or more players who are out that week, I'm going to be pissed.

It's the commissioner's job to ensure the league competition is maintained. You have a few options, but a first warning, and then removal from the league on second offense will get the job done. Optionally, you could cut a player (lowest ranked one according to whatever web site you use) from his team and add a kicker (highest ranked one available from whatever web site you use). You would still want to give the warning.

if you've got a guy throwing a game in week 2 you've got some issues in your league.

and your solution to this is to create a dead team for competitive balance?

lolz

I'm not sure you meant to reply to my post. No where when giving my opinion did I say anyone has ever thrown a game or that a dead team would ever be created. When I long ago had issue with people putting in complete lineups it was more about an owner being lazy and forgetful. Those owners were not invited back and I haven't had an issue like that in at least eight years.

 

[ebsteelers]

so did you embrass him at work today?

I'd be curious as to how you would embarrass a guy at work for not using a kicker in fantasy football

by taping pictures of kickers all over his desk.. mainly kickalicious

is this your general strategy, or specifically for a guy who lost a close game because he didn't start a kicker?

More so if you didnt start a kicker and lost a close game. But either way it gets the message across

 

[habsfan]

I have a different take. If I'm willing to accept zero points at a position so I can roster another player then why shouldn't that be allowed, assuming there is no rule saying you can't do it?

If there is no rule then obviously not.

For me, "fielding a complete line-up" does not require interpretation. You either started a kicker or you didn't.

I don't want to put myself in a situation where I have to "guess at" why a guy may have left a starting spot open. To Larry, he's probably not throwing a game in Week 2. Maybe he did it because he was up by 60 pts. That's okay I guess. But what if he does it again in Week 13 when play-off seedings are at issue? I don't want to start applying fuzzy rules like that as I go along...

don't take this personal, or as an i-dig of some kind, but requiring people to start a full line up is the most useless and ######ed rule I can think of.

we currently just played week 2, not week 13.

if the guy is up by 60 pts then how is not fielding a k going to create an unfair advantage for his opponent, thus wrecking league competitive balance, as someone mentioned earlier?

if you've got a guy throwing games in any week you've got a bigger issue in your league, and if I want to throw a game while fielding a complete line up I just start ronnie hillman over adrian peterson.

it is a 100% pointless and meaningless rule that some type of people get wound about because that's who they are.

Completely agree and no offense taken. It all comes down to having the right owners who are like-minded in terms of being "competitive" - whatever that level of competition may be. If you don't have that, 50 pages of rules won't help you.

When I see rules that make reference to "competitive balance", they are often roughly equivalent in meaning to "whatever the commish thinks is good/bad or right/wrong".

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

so did you embrass him at work today?

I'd be curious as to how you would embarrass a guy at work for not using a kicker in fantasy football

by taping pictures of kickers all over his desk.. mainly kickalicious

is this your general strategy, or specifically for a guy who lost a close game because he didn't start a kicker?

More so if you didnt start a kicker and lost a close game. But either way it gets the message across

I'm just trying to understand the process.

I left kicker empty and won by 30.

you tape pictures of kickalicious to my office door.

I'm embarrassed by not starting a kicker.

am I understanding this?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

if dude is paying attention and managing his roster leave him alone....part of this game is playing keep away from other owners....menaing "I'd rather have this guy on my bench then in someone ele's lineup"...

if he is doing it to prevent having to release a player that he knows will get snatched up by somebody else right away...it can be a good strategy....he is gambling on whether that kicker is worth it or not.....maybe he feels he can beat most teams without needing a kicker......and that roster spot (at this time) is more valuable to him elsewhere.....