Pulling a player Monday night to protect a win? (1 Viewer)

[Zowned]

Happened in a league I'm in last night. The owner was up .7 with Jay Feely left. Kickers get -5, -3, 1 (missed under 29, under 39, under 49) so the owner pulled Feely before the Monday night game leaving his lineup 1 player short so that he would protect his win.

Commish compared it to when an owner threw a game(took players out before Monday night) to get Tony Gonzalez off waivers with the #1 pick.

Thoughts? Is this a smart move or is it the same as the owner who threw the game to get Gonzo?

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Our league explicitly assesses a penalty for an owner who starts an illegal lineup. You might consider doing the same.

 

[The Commish]

Hard to say without knowing your league. If a kicker is required, then it's a problem. If a kicker isn't required and it's a legal lineup, go for it.

 

[Zowned]

Hard to say without knowing your league. If a kicker is required, then it's a problem. If a kicker isn't required and it's a legal lineup, go for it.

Was never brought up until week 1 when an owner took out players to try and get Gonzo and a rule will already be going into effect next year to penalize for starting an illegal lineup.

 

[Deranged Hermit]

Smart move in my opinion as long as he put in another kicker (like Gould, for example, who is on bye). If he did that in my league and didn't have someone in the kicker's spot he'd have an illegal lineup and get zero points for the week.

 

[Raging weasel]

I think it's a BS move If the team only had 1 K on his roster and that player was on a bye that would be different but you must plug in a starter at every position or you should lose by forfeit.

 

[blenderfrog]

If there's no rule against it, it's a smart move.

 

[Tau837]

Depends on other league rules and the nature of the league IMO.

In one of my leagues, we have only 6 bench spots. One owner who had a lot of bye issues last week had 4 starters out. He chose to leave a WR slot empty rather than cut players he considered more valuable. I think that should be his decision to make.

In another league this week, the owner of the best team was out of town and was unable to/forgot to set his lineup this week. He started 3 players on bye and had another slot empty due to a trade that went through right after the previous week's games. Amazingly, he still won. He wasn't trying to throw the game. IMO he should not have to forfeit his win.

So if examples like the above seem okay, then it is automatically okay for an owner to pull someone on Monday night to preserve a win. Smart move that should be allowed IMO.

 

[Harry Beanbag]

Unless there are rules in place about illegal rosters, I say smart move. I should have done this exact same manuever last week when I started Grossman vs. the Cardinals. I was already up by 6 points heaidng into MNF and the other owner was out of players. But noooooooo, I wanted to win by a big margin so I left Grossman in there. His fumbles and INTs totalled a -7. I lost by one.

Had I not had this happen to me I might think differently but the bottom line is if there are no rules explicitly stating you have to play a certain position, this was a shark move.

 

[trogg78]

Illegal lineups should get zero points. If its not in your rule than dude is a shark.

 

[Ozymandias]

I agree, if there is no rule against it, then it is a smart move. It is like kneeling in an NFL game so as to run out the clock and not run the risk of a fumble. Or to walk a dangerous hitter in baseball, with first base empty and a runner on second.

You are within the rules to make sure your team wins.

 

[inca911]

It's his team to run however he sees fit, within the rules of the league. Why penalize for someone starting fewer players, players on BYE, etc? If an owner feels a player is a detriment to success, let them start fewer players and bench the guy they don't like. It's their team.

 

[Bizkiteer]

Unless you have a rule in there for turning in incomplete lineups, it's a good move. Thus, your commish should try to push for an incomplete lineup infraction rule. Maybe -10 pts? Thus, everyone would want to make sure their players are in there. Problem with this rule is that do you enforce it if an owner turns in a lineup with a bye week player? These are the things that would need to be dicussed in detail, but if it's not in there for this year...commish can't do anything about it.

 

[ravnzfan]

Unless you have a rule in there for turning in incomplete lineups, it's a good move.

I voted shouldn't have been allowed, but if the rules don't account for it, then it was a good moveI don't have a specific rule in place in my dynasty leagues about allowing players on byes (we allow it), but you DO have to start a legit lineup each week and can't leave a vacant positionwe start 9 players and have 20 roster spots, so I don't make owners drop a player just to get a bye week K or D...that is a tight bench meaning active waivers every week, keeping people interested in what is happening in the league at all times

 

[delusional]

BS Move.

He knew what he was doing, he was trying to find a loophole & thought he had one.

If your commish wants to make a statement, give him 0 points on the week & a loss.

If he is not that bold, give him the points Feeley got & determine the outcome from that.

That owner was trying to find a loophole to win. Its an unwritten rule that you must have a full roster on a week otherwise it is considered an illegal lineup. If the option is there for the player to start then he starts. Plain & simple.

I would, since I am a commish, give him 0 points & the loss. Then find a new owner for next year.

 

[moleculo]

:herm: you play to win the game. :/herm:

Throwing a game to increase your WW position isn't horrible. If you think you are better off losing to increase your WW position, you pay the penalty of incurring a loss - with only 14 games per season, a loss is kind of a big deal. I say if you want to pay that penalty, he's yours. It's your blood. Yeah - there's no guarantee that you would have won if you played straight up, but there is also no guarantee that WW player won't bust his knee and be out for the season, or that he won't perform better than what you have on your roster anyhow.

If sitting someone guarantees a win for you, good deal. You played to win the game.

Where this becomes an issue is when guys aren't paying attention at the end of the season, and someone misses the playoffs because their opponent gets a cheap win becasue someone who is out of the race stops paying attention. That is not playing to win the game.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

He's not throwing a game, he's protecting a lead. As long as there's no rule against it, smart move.

 

[CA_7]

If there's no rule against it, it's a smart move.

Agreed. However, I would always be afraid of league or fantasy scoring changes that come down a day or two later.

 

[comfortably numb]

Very simple.

If he did not break a rule, good move.

It's always easy to go back and not like a move after the fact.

Leagues have to have rules in place BEFORE they occur.

 

[username]

if your commish makes a retroactive ruling against this owner I'd question his motives.

 

[ajninorp]

He's trying to win and not gaining an unfair advantage by not trying. I don't see the problem with this at all.

 

[Zowned]

Just checked the game and the Commish put Feely in his lineup sometime this morning (he scored 16 points). Now the owner did not play the guy and should not get those points. There have been times when tie-breakers at the end of the season come down to PF or H-2-H PF, etc. so I see that as a potential conflict down the line.

 

[moleculo]

Just checked the game and the Commish put Feely in his lineup sometime this morning (he scored 16 points). Now the owner did not play the guy and should not get those points. There have been times when tie-breakers at the end of the season come down to PF or H-2-H PF, etc. so I see that as a potential conflict down the line.

this is a bigger issue for me. commish should absolutely NOT muddle with this. If that was the owners decision, it's his right to make.

 

[T Man]

If a kicker is required for a legal lineup, and he pulled a kicker, then his team loses.

If a kicker or full lineup is not required, then it is a smart move. If he plays within the rules, its ok.

Adding the kicker after the fact is a not right. If he had no kicker, you can't just assume as a commish that he did.

 

[PatsWillWin]

If there's no rule against illega lineups, this is a great move - it's not at all like throwing a game. If your commish doesn't like it, he shoul have a rule against illegal lineups.

The commish changing the lineup the next day is total BS.

 

[posty]

Not a complete lineup = invalid lineup = forfeit...

 

[Zowned]

Each week you will start nine players, which consist of – six offensive players, one kicker, one offensive line (OL), and one defensive line (DL). The offensive line is considered a whole offensive team, while the defensive line is considered an entire defensive and special team unit of a given NFL team. Your nine starters can consist of any of the following combinations.

There have been countless times where an owner forgot to pick up an OL, DL, K etc. and have gone with 8 players in their lineup with no penalty. The case the commish is addressing here is pulling someone out before the Monday night game as 8-man lineups have been allowed before (I accidently did that this week )

 

[cstu]

This is a thread if there ever was one.

 

[delusional]

Each week you will start nine players, which consist of – six offensive players, one kicker, one offensive line (OL), and one defensive line (DL). The offensive line is considered a whole offensive team, while the defensive line is considered an entire defensive and special team unit of a given NFL team. Your nine starters can consist of any of the following combinations.

There have been countless times where an owner forgot to pick up an OL, DL, K etc. and have gone with 8 players in their lineup with no penalty. The case the commish is addressing here is pulling someone out before the Monday night game as 8-man lineups have been allowed before (I accidently did that this week )

This sounds like a shoddy league then. No offense but something like this is a big deal and should have been addressed a long time ago.

 

[Zowned]

Each week you will start nine players, which consist of – six offensive players, one kicker, one offensive line (OL), and one defensive line (DL). The offensive line is considered a whole offensive team, while the defensive line is considered an entire defensive and special team unit of a given NFL team. Your nine starters can consist of any of the following combinations.

There have been countless times where an owner forgot to pick up an OL, DL, K etc. and have gone with 8 players in their lineup with no penalty. The case the commish is addressing here is pulling someone out before the Monday night game as 8-man lineups have been allowed before (I accidently did that this week )

This sounds like a shoddy league then. No offense but something like this is a big deal and should have been addressed a long time ago.

It's a local league where owners have known each other for almost 10+ years and the accidental slips of lineups have happened and been allowed. This is the first year I think where teams withdrew players before Monday games though.

 

[Zowned]

This is a thread if there ever was one.

Not really. I am not in this game at all.

 

[Warhogs]

Your poll is flawed because the answer is both. If this is not against the rules it makes no sense to risk a potential loss when you have a guaranteed win. Your league rules should require a complete lineup though so he should not be allowed to do this unless he has another K who has not yet played a game this week.

 

[username]

This agression will not stand, man.

 

[Zowned]

Our league explicitly assesses a penalty for an owner who starts an illegal lineup. You might consider doing the same.

That will actually happen next year since an owner pulled players to get Gonzalez off waivers week 1. Was posted after that happened...so currently there is nothing in effect this season...

Failure to start a legal lineup of 9 players will result in you losing 10 points per player below the legal limit of 9. This means that if you only have 8 players in your lineup you will lose 10 points. Also if you start a player that is on a bye week you will lose 10 points for that player being in your starting lineup. I will then look into why you do not have a legal lineup and if I find any evidence that you submitted a bad lineup in an attempt to throw a game or help another team win a game you will be removed from the league. Starting next year you will have to be very careful with bye weeks and submitting your starting lineup. Even if you forget about the bye weeks you will be punished. So you will have to pay closer attention. I hate to put something like this in the rules but when owners are finding ways around the spirit of the league to help themselves something has to be done.

 

[Ozymandias]

What does the NFL do in week 17? They don't insist that a team which has qualified for the playoffs, play all their regular season starters.

Your Commissioner is a butthole.

 

[Zowned]

This agression will not stand, man.

 

[moleculo]

two weeks ago in my dynasty league I didn't play a TE because I didn't want to cut anybody for a backup TE. Perfectly allowable in league rules, as it should be. The whole notion of "illegal lineup" is complete and utter BS, IMO.

 

[thayman]

Just checked the game and the Commish put Feely in his lineup sometime this morning (he scored 16 points). Now the owner did not play the guy and should not get those points. There have been times when tie-breakers at the end of the season come down to PF or H-2-H PF, etc. so I see that as a potential conflict down the line.

this is a bigger issue for me. commish should absolutely NOT muddle with this. If that was the owners decision, it's his right to make.

I agree with this. Overall the owner is only hurting himself. Those 16 points that he missed out on could turn out to be pretty huge at the end of the year.

 

[Enderdog]

I went without a TE this past week with Heap and Colston both on a bye. We have a short bench and it'd be rediculous to have cut one of them to pick up a "scrub of the week" and hurt my team long term.

The best TE on the wire was Alex Smith, who would have really helped me with a nice zero.

 

[glock]

BS Move. He knew what he was doing, he was trying to find a loophole & thought he had one.If your commish wants to make a statement, give him 0 points on the week & a loss.If he is not that bold, give him the points Feeley got & determine the outcome from that. That owner was trying to find a loophole to win. Its an unwritten rule that you must have a full roster on a week otherwise it is considered an illegal lineup. If the option is there for the player to start then he starts. Plain & simple. I would, since I am a commish, give him 0 points & the loss. Then find a new owner for next year.

You are indeed...delusional. He didn't THINK he found a loophole- he found one. If the rules don't dictate that a full lineup is required, he done good. In my $ league we only have 2 FA move each for the season. Partial lineups are not uncommon.Oh- and an unwritten rule is NOT a rule. Edited to add: Our lineups are locked the night before the first game of the weekend so withdrawing a player like this would not be an issue. But again, if lineups don't lock until game time this was simply a savy move.

 

[Plainsman]

I voted smart move. I just cannot see why some are against removing a player Monday Night to ensure a win. Ya'll cry "you must submit a legal lineup." Well, from what I gathered, technically he did. From the scenario presented, he removed his kicker following the Sunday games. He started the week with a full lineup with the intention to score as many points as possible to win. After the Sunday games he had score just enough to win but by a margin that his kicker could lose for him. As stated, how is this any different than kneeling at the end of game instead of kicking a fg? You kneel you win. You kick the fg it could be blocked and returned for a td and you could lose.

 

[rowediggy]

This agression will not stand, man.

Seriously. Here's the be all and end all of it, as most of you posted: "If there's no rule against it, the owner was perfectly within his rights to do this. If there is a rule against it, commisioner needs to follow whatever rule was decided upon."

Some of you posted about unwritten rules and "get a new owner next year." Well I proffer back-- If your commish is making rules on the fly, and enforcing "unwritten rules" or simply personal preferences, get a new COMMISH next year.

 

[videoguy505]

If the rule goes into effect NEXT SEASON, then WTH was the commish doing changing the dude's lineup? That's bogus.

Leagues should have rules clearly stated, with penalties attached, before the season starts to cover everything. Point him to the pinned thread.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Commish compared it to when an owner threw a game(took players out before Monday night) to get Tony Gonzalez off waivers with the #1 pick.

Commish is an idiot. The owner wasn't trying to lose -- he was, in fact, trying his best to win.The guy was following the rules, no?Could he have cut Feely to sign a non-rostered kicker?

 

[Zowned]

Commish compared it to when an owner threw a game(took players out before Monday night) to get Tony Gonzalez off waivers with the #1 pick.

Commish is an idiot. The owner wasn't trying to lose -- he was, in fact, trying his best to win.The guy was following the rules, no?Could he have cut Feely to sign a non-rostered kicker?

2 waiver pickups per week max. no players can be picked up after first kickoff so couldn't have added anyone before the Monday night game.

 

[jpeeters]

Sorry, but if you have a league with such ridiculous negative scoring penalties PLUS the ability to change lineups up until Monday night, then you are encouraging this type of strategy. If there's no rule against it, I think it's a great move. What you should maybe look at is changing your rules to discourage this kind of thing, ie. the brutal negative points and being able to change lineups so late in the week.

 

[joffer]

He's trying to win and not gaining an unfair advantage by not trying. I don't see the problem with this at all.

 

[Pipes]

Not a complete lineup = invalid lineup = forfeit...

How can you say this if it's not in the league rules? Does this apply then if someone starts a player on a bye? If not it should

 

[delusional]

This agression will not stand, man.

Seriously. Here's the be all and end all of it, as most of you posted: "If there's no rule against it, the owner was perfectly within his rights to do this. If there is a rule against it, commisioner needs to follow whatever rule was decided upon."

Some of you posted about unwritten rules and "get a new owner next year." Well I proffer back-- If your commish is making rules on the fly, and enforcing "unwritten rules" or simply personal preferences, get a new COMMISH next year.

I posted that and you are saying its ok to start an illegal line up in order to avoid negative points. Sorry that is a crock of ####.

 

[Ed Wood]

It's the fantasy equivalent of a late-inning defensive substitution.