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

[JAA]

WHAT DO YOUR RULES SAY!!!

 

[TommyGilmore]

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.

With rules like that, I'd bench my kicker every single week.

 

[Zowned]

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.

With rules like that, I'd bench my kicker every single week.

FWIW kickers score 3, 6, 9, 12 for FG's so they can put up a lot but also a chance that if they miss a FG it could hurt.

 

[TLEF316]

those negative penalties are ridiculus, so i would have done the exact same thing. The whole illegal lineup thing is nonsense in my mind. He made a move that secured a win, and there is no rule against it (nor should there be in my mind)

Very smart move.

 

[Frank Black]

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.

Based on this post, it appears that his move was legal in your league this season. Therefore, it sounds like a solid move. I see no ethical issue there whatsoever.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

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.

To all talking about this being an illegal lineup, how do you know it was? If it was, then there should be no question, so I would have to imagine it is a legit move.I don't see the big fuss with requiring every position to be filled, especially in re-draft leagues. If someone thinks they have a better shot at winning, under some set of circumstances, by leaving a starting spot empty then who are you or I to say that can't try it?

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

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 ####.

There is no such thing as an illegal lineup if there isn't such a rule in place so the only crock of #### in this case was the commish changing his lineup. It was stated that 8 players have been allowed in the past so applying the rules evenly states that it should be allowed in this case. If my commish tried this BS I'd be looking for a new Commish or new league the following year. You can argue all you want about that there should be a rule in place to prevent it but that isn't the case. The culprit in this case, IMHO, is negative points for kickers. Missing a field goal is punishment in itself as a lost scoring opportunity so there is no need for negative points. I'm against negative points at all in FF as there are never points taken away in the NFL, only lost opportunities.

 

[Frank Black]

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 ####.

There is no such thing as an illegal lineup if there isn't such a rule in place so the only crock of #### in this case was the commish changing his lineup. It was stated that 8 players have been allowed in the past so applying the rules evenly states that it should be allowed in this case. If my commish tried this BS I'd be looking for a new Commish or new league the following year. You can argue all you want about that there should be a rule in place to prevent it but that isn't the case.

Absolutely correct. In this case, we shouldn't even be using the term "illegal" lineup.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

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.

Sounds to me like you'd be finding a lot more than 1 owner for the following year if you pulled some BS like that...

 

[Frank Black]

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.

Your username . . . regarding this post. Your post seems a bit righteous and simply wrong. As a Commish, you understand the importance of drafting good rules. Not every FF situation may be accounted for before the season, but roster requirements are very elementary. The owner did not take advantage of a "loophole" on some obscure, unforeseeable issue. He acted squarely within the rules. I'm not sure that a Commish should be basing decisions on "unwritten" rules. If a rule is worth something, write it down!

 

[Frank Black]

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 ####.

The culprit in this case, IMHO, is negative points for kickers. Missing a field goal is punishment in itself as a lost scoring opportunity so there is no need for negative points. I'm against negative points at all in FF as there are never points taken away in the NFL, only lost opportunities.

Here, I have to disagree with you. Generally, there are several things about FF that do not correspond with real NFL. Second, missed kicks, like interceptions do take away points, in the following ways. If your kicker is reliable, your team is missing 3 points that it could have had. Also, a missed kick can result in points in situations when a kick is blocked and returned for a TD. Similarly, Romo's pick last night resulted in a Giants TD. What if the INT would have resulted in the Giants Def running the ball to the Dallas 1 yard line. Then Barber runs in a 1 yard TD? Hard to say the Romo pick would not have had a points consequence. I haven't expressed this argument as clear as I would like, but my point is that there are many situations where a turnover results in points against the team. Rather than analyze all the possible permutations, I would rather simply assess -1 for turnovers.However, what I don't like about deducting for missed kicks is that it doesn't take into account a blocked FG that is no fault of the K. On the other hand, you could say the same about a QB who throws it into his WR's hands, has the ball deflected into an INT.

 

[zdaddy]

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.

that would still be ####ty, but allowed I guess.

 

[Frank Black]

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.

that would still be ####ty, but allowed I guess.

Why ####ty in the poster's league? Because of some "unwritten" philisophical rule?

 

[nola]

He won. Thats very different from pulling players to intentionall LOSE. Any move made with the intent of winning is OK.

 

[Marc Levin]

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

if your league rules mandate a certain starting lineup or else you forfeit your game, that will correct anyone going w/o a K to protect a win.Of course, depending on how your WW and lineups work, the guy could always grab a K off the WW who is on a bye or who is injured and plug him in instead - nothing illegal about that, and seems like fair play.Similar to real football when you accept a safety when you are up by 10 and kicking the ball off.

 

[KiddLattimer]

I had this dilema earlier in the year when I was up by 4 and had the Ravens defense going Monday night. Fortunately for me Denver would have had to score 35+ for me to lose 4 pts and tie. That was a risk I was willing to take because my league would have flipped on me.

If it was the fantasy playoffs however, I would have benched them.

 

[Tau837]

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.

 

[Tau837]

Any move made with the intent of winning is OK.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It is like kneeling in an NFL game so as to run out the clock and not run the risk of a fumble.

Good analogy. This is exactly what it's like.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If this is not against the rules . . .

If it had been against the rules, this thread would not exist.

 

[ShadowMaster]

If you don't have a rule against starting an empty slot and he made it within the context of the rules (in time to make the change, etc.), then I wouldn't call it smart, but GENIUS on his part.

 

[MeatMops]

I agree that any "legal" move made to win is ok.

But this kind of stuff is why in my league we got rid of all the negative scoring stuff several years ago. I don't believe there should be a situation where you would be better off to have no player than some player.

I once lost a game because my regular QB was hurt. I started Testaverde instead and he threw 5 INT's, costing me the game because back then we had -2 pts per INT. So I would've been better off not to have a backup QB on my roster and just start my hurt guy. To me and the rest of the folks in my league that was a bogus situation - we got rid of the negative points starting the next year.

It's all positive now man.

 

[Rogi]

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?

Stop penalizing kickers for missed FGs.

 

[u999spf]

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?

Unless I am missing something...He did this to preserve a WIN, not throw a game for a better waiver pick, correct?This is a very smart move by that owner and should be applauded.

 

[John Mamula]

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?

if it is allowed in the rules, then it is fine.i personally think leagues who give negative points for players are ridiculous and only lead to this kind of behaviour.

 

[redman]

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?

Questions:1) Since when is trying to win a game by avoiding a negative score the same as attempting to lose a game to better one's waiver position? 2) What godforsaken league had Tony Gonzalez available on waivers?

 

[Delusions Of Adequacy]

Can't change your roster once sunday games start in our league.