Scoring discrepancy in playoff match (1 Viewer)

[compone]

Folks, hate to put another of these in here, but I know that this one is going to be a battle, so wanted a vote on this. There is significant benefit to the victor here.The Commish ended up beating another team by 1 point this past playoff weekend. In checking the scoring, a discrepancy was noted. In the written rules, a defensive 4th down stop is supposed to get 1 point, and the losing team's defense (GB) had two such stops. The Commish's defensed (Saints) had none. These points weren't included.If corrected, the result would be reversed. The Commish would lose.It ends up that the software was switched for the league a few years ago, but the written rule was never updated (although redistributed at the start of the year). The rules on the web site did not include the 4th down rule. Therefore, the last 3 seasons have never applied the rule.The Commish has suggested that to remain consistent, and not go back and look at all past matches, the rule should not be applied here and will be removed for next year. In his opinion, Commish still wins.In my opinion (I am not the other party, I'm out of the playoffs, just interested in fairness), all scores are final after a certain time, even if errors are found. We don't have a rule on this, but I think it is pretty standard in FF.In my opinion, since this error was found quickly, the correction should be made, but only for this week's games (no other matches were affected).How would you rule on this? Give me your reasons why?

Regardless, of the rules distributed you should go by the scoring that the league used all year. Sometimes things are missed to enter into a rulebook, but if this was stated it's almost like a verbal agreement. If the league has allowed this scoring all year, then I would go by the scoring the league used all year. I have a similar instance except it hasn't caused any issues. Fumbles lost are -2, but fumbles lost while on special teams are not -2. They mean nothing! CBS scoring doesn't allow you to change this. I let the scoring roll and if someone notices it and it effects the game I sure make the scoring adjustment. I would go with the scoring you've used all year, regardless if it's not in the rulebook. Especially, if it was verbally stated.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

Here's another way to look at it...

Statute of limitations - If the rule hasn't been enforced for 3 years, is it still valid?

If it is still valid, logic suggests there is no statute of limitations, right? And, if there is no statute of limitations on the rule, then there shouldn't be a statute of limitations on when an owner can call for a scoring recount, right? And, if that's the case, all games for the last 3 years must be recalculated. There obviously is no written rule as to when a final score is in stone, but those saying the score should be changed tend to think there is a statute of limitations in calling for a recount. You can't have it both ways. If you enforce the rule, why shouldn't you go back and recalculate all scores for the last 3 years?

If it is not still valid, end of story. Score stands.

To me, it sounds like the loser of this game may have noticed this error long ago, but is now trying to invoke it. If so, I wonder if he would've lost any games in the last 3 years that he knew about. And, if so, what a turd!

 

[Nemesis]

I'm going to re-cap some info from the original poster to make a point and clarify:

1-In the written rules, which were carried forward from previous yrs (& distributed at the start of this year), it lists that a defensive 4th down stop = 1 point.

2-The league website was switched a few years ago, but the written rule was never updated. (QUESTION: Does this imply that the rule was thought to have been removed?)

3-The rules on the web site did not include the 4th down rule. Therefore, the last 3 seasons have never applied the rule.

4-The web site rules do not even allow for that type of scoring.

I'm guessing what happened is b/c the new website doesn't even keep track of that stat that it never got loaded. In this case, forcing the implementation of this rule would have req'd the commissioner to adjust the website scoring EACH WEEK. This is a big pain and something that I personally wouldn't want to have to do if I was the commissioner of that league. We all know he SHOULD have brought it up at that time, but it wasn't.

So, it's now been 3 years.........and I know it's not a perfect solution, but I still say use common sense and don't change the outcome.

This isn't some NFL stat correction where they change who got a sack a couple of days later.......we're talking about 3 yrs.

 

[TommyGilmore]

It's an official rule, ratified by the majority of the league. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF THE SOFTWARE DOES NOT REFLECT THIS RULE.

If the software only gave 3 points for touchdowns, would you ignore that too?

 

[Jersey35]

So, the rule hasnt been applied in the league for 3 years? and you guys are basically now trying to apply it? I hope Im not the only one seeing something wrong with that, I dont care how quickly the error was discovered after than one isolated game. The 'error' hadnt been discovered in the 3 years. For that reason, I think the outcome should stand and the commish should win.

This should be the correct answer.

Agreed.Here's a bit more to chew on (and if I'm repeating someone else, my apologies - didn't read the whole thread):If we want to get really techinical, it should not be the rules "as written" that take precedence over all. It should be the rules "as intended". here's a goofy example: What if there was a typo in the rules AS WRITTEN that gave 8 points (instead of 6) for a rushing touchdown? What if no one looked or cared for the entire season until the playoffs where someone lost by 1 point - then pointed out the typo in the rules? If you believe the outcome in your current situation should be reversed, you also agree that the 8 points must be given to the owner requesting them in the hypothetical. Does that seem right?For the last three years, this rule has not been applied. This sets a precedent. In this case, precedent establishes intent. We now have one case where someone thinks that it "matters" and they use the rule to their advantage. Who is really to say that this rule would not have affected past games a great deal? You can't change the past, but you shouldn't ignore it either.The commish should win, and it's unfortunate, but precedent has been set by the past three years.Good luck.

 

[toppshelff]

To answer a couple of the questions. The Commish was the commish 3 years ago. I'm new in the league last year, and there was no communication to me at any point in time that the 4th down rule wasn't being implemented because it wasn't possible in the website. My assumption until this week was that the rule was being applied. I drafted my team according to the distributed rules each season, which included 4th down points.

Neither the Commish nor his opponent noticed this error, there was no sneakery by either of the two. I noticed the error when I saw how close the match was, and knew how important it was in the playoffs. As a Commish in another league, I know how mistakes can happen. I haven't checked during the last 2 years as there never was a reason to. I brought it to the league's attention. Now I've pointed them all to this thread.

Your input will hopefully inform their decision.

I particularly like the George Brett pine tar analogy...

 

[Pipes]

It's an official rule, ratified by the majority of the league. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF THE SOFTWARE DOES NOT REFLECT THIS RULE.

If the software only gave 3 points for touchdowns, would you ignore that too?

I'm sure someone would've noticed that in a 3 year period. Obviously something like this would only happen with a real minor or obscure stat to go unnoticed for such a long time.

This is a tough one and I can see both sides of the arguement but it just seems to me that after 3 years everyone has accepted the scoring system on the website. Seems too late to pull some obscure stat out of the wordwork.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

For 3 straight years not a single point was ever given in your league for a 4th down stop? Not a single owner ever even brought it up? If so, no way do you allow it now. I know the majority that voted on this poll say otherwise, but they are all wrong. Actually, I suspect the guy who lost that game has created multiple accounts just to vote.

 

[Sinn Fein]

So, the rule hasnt been applied in the league for 3 years? and you guys are basically now trying to apply it? I hope Im not the only one seeing something wrong with that, I dont care how quickly the error was discovered after than one isolated game. The 'error' hadnt been discovered in the 3 years. For that reason, I think the outcome should stand and the commish should win.

 

[Rooster]

My gut says the commish should win, my mind says the other guy. Logically, I think the rule is valid and according to the rules he lost the game. That said, this creates a scenario where the other guy may have had an unfair advantage. Let's say he knows about the flaw 2 years ago, he just doesn't mention it because it wasn't important to him. He is now in a situation where he could benefit from the discrepancy in a close game and keep his mouth shut or he can raise a stink if he is on the bad side of it. It's probably a bit unfair to project that worst-case scenario onto the other owner, but someone who is interested in the details enough to find this happens to find it after 3 years and in the most important game of the year? Smells fishy at the very least.

 

[Jersey35]

My gut says the commish should win, my mind says the other guy. Logically, I think the rule is valid and according to the rules he lost the game. That said, this creates a scenario where the other guy may have had an unfair advantage. Let's say he knows about the flaw 2 years ago, he just doesn't mention it because it wasn't important to him. He is now in a situation where he could benefit from the discrepancy in a close game and keep his mouth shut or he can raise a stink if he is on the bad side of it. It's probably a bit unfair to project that worst-case scenario onto the other owner, but someone who is interested in the details enough to find this happens to find it after 3 years and in the most important game of the year? Smells fishy at the very least.

I believe the OP has indicated that it was he who noticed the error, not the Commish or his opponent.

 

[GregR_2]

If a league has been notified of a rule change and the commish makes the error of not making the written rules reflect it properly, then the common sense thing to me is that the error is with the written rules and the league was told what they really were, and they should be fixed, not that an erroneous rule should be applied.

Now I don't know what communication went on with the website change. If it was me and I noted I couldn't set the 4th down stop scoring category, I'd have sent an email to the league saying something along the lines of, "The website can't handle it so this is one of those times I'm making a commish decree that I'm not scoring this stuff manually so it's being dropped from our scoring system. Any problems with me making that decree due to the circumstances, speak up now and we'll have a formal vote on it." Of course, we do have a rule that the commissioners (we have 3) shall amend the rules as necessary due to capabilities of our league hosting site, as these things come up from time to time. And I tend to be over-communicative about such things to avoid just this sort of problem.

If indeed that sort of notice was given in this league, then I think there's nothing to see here and everyone knew what the rule was and the fact it wasn't deleted was an error, and people shouldn't try to loophole wins out of things they know are errors.

If the commish didn't do that kind of communication, he's sort of shot himself in the foot and the chance to avert the situation, even apart from the error in not updating the written rules, was missed.

Apart from all of that, if I was the other owner I wouldn't be very proud of myself if I resorted to this sort of action to try to get a win, even in the Super Bowl. And if I was the commish and the other owner was adamant about it I'd probably give him the win and just think a lot less of him as a person going forward.

 

[toppshelff]

I had recommended to the Commish (as a fellow Commmish) to forfeit, since he is the one who is responsible for the error in the first place. Whether he deserved to win or not, he is the Commish and needs to be "above the law". He chose not to.

Seeing the conflict that was arising in the league, the other team graciously revoked his challenge, let the Commish win, and challenged the eventual winner of the championship to donate his winnings (~$1000) to charity after taking back their entry fee.

The other owner comes out gracious and noble. The Commish has a hollow victory, IMHO. I hope that a charity does benefit in the end.

There's a lesson in this for all of us. It's just a game and there is always a noble way out.

 

[Jersey35]

I had recommended to the Commish (as a fellow Commmish) to forfeit, since he is the one who is responsible for the error in the first place. Whether he deserved to win or not, he is the Commish and needs to be "above the law". He chose not to.Seeing the conflict that was arising in the league, the other team graciously revoked his challenge, let the Commish win, and challenged the eventual winner of the championship to donate his winnings to charity after taking back their entry fee.The other owner comes out gracious and noble. The Commish has a hollow victory, IMHO. I hope that a charity does benefit in the end. There's a lesson in this for all of us. It's just a game and there is always a noble way out.

Fantastic outcome - and a good lesson to boot!

 

[Class Dismissed]

To answer a couple of the questions. The Commish was the commish 3 years ago. I'm new in the league last year, and there was no communication to me at any point in time that the 4th down rule wasn't being implemented because it wasn't possible in the website. My assumption until this week was that the rule was being applied. I drafted my team according to the distributed rules each season, which included 4th down points.

Neither the Commish nor his opponent noticed this error, there was no sneakery by either of the two. I noticed the error when I saw how close the match was, and knew how important it was in the playoffs. As a Commish in another league, I know how mistakes can happen. I haven't checked during the last 2 years as there never was a reason to. I brought it to the league's attention. Now I've pointed them all to this thread.

Your input will hopefully inform their decision.

I particularly like the George Brett pine tar analogy...

I call BS.So how did you draft your team based on 4th down stops?...Is this one of the factors you consider while you are drafting your defense in the last round? How many times this year have you dropped your defense?

Seeing how you are answering questions, you haven't answered this one, is the Commish supposed to adjust the scores for each game, each week, to include the rule that the website scoring can't handle? Why won't you answer that?

I hope your league is reading this, because my recommendation is to give you the Boot. You are not helping anything, you are causing trouble, and creating disharmony, right before Christmas.

Way to go.

 

[toppshelff]

To answer a couple of the questions. The Commish was the commish 3 years ago. I'm new in the league last year, and there was no communication to me at any point in time that the 4th down rule wasn't being implemented because it wasn't possible in the website. My assumption until this week was that the rule was being applied. I drafted my team according to the distributed rules each season, which included 4th down points.

Neither the Commish nor his opponent noticed this error, there was no sneakery by either of the two. I noticed the error when I saw how close the match was, and knew how important it was in the playoffs. As a Commish in another league, I know how mistakes can happen. I haven't checked during the last 2 years as there never was a reason to. I brought it to the league's attention. Now I've pointed them all to this thread.

Your input will hopefully inform their decision.

I particularly like the George Brett pine tar analogy...

I call BS.So how did you draft your team based on 4th down stops?...Is this one of the factors you consider while you are drafting your defense in the last round? How many times this year have you dropped your defense?

Seeing how you are answering questions, you haven't answered this one, is the Commish supposed to adjust the scores for each game, each week, to include the rule that the website scoring can't handle? Why won't you answer that?

I hope your league is reading this, because my recommendation is to give you the Boot. You are not helping anything, you are causing trouble, and creating disharmony, right before Christmas.

Way to go.

Sorry you feel that way. Being fair before Christmas doesn't seem inappropriate. I thought I was being unbiased in describing the situation, but if others feel I've behaved badly, please let me know so I can learn.As to my team, my defense, etc. It is rather irrelevant as I drafted terribly and didn't even make the playoffs.

To answer your questions: I put in the scoring to a draft pick software at the start of the season. Honestly, I don't remember if it included 4th down stops, or not. I doubt that it would have changed draft order between defenses much, if at all, but it does have a 5-6 point difference on total defense scoring per team on the season. This might have changed when defenses were drafted. I didn't draft my defense in the last round, it was about round 10 (of 16). Some defenses went as high as round 6. I did drop my defense, and picked up another and stuck to it.

To your more directed question, my opinion on this is that the Commish should not go back and adjust any scores before this past week. This thread debates what should happen about last week, and it has opened my eyes to both sides. I'm divided. Moving forward, one of two things should happen. Either the Commish makes manual adjustments each week (probably only looking at close matches where it might make a difference), or the league votes on officially dropping the rule since the software doesn't handle it. I would recommend the latter for the sanity of all.

If the league decided to boot me for bringing up the discrepancy, I'd be surprised, but would accept it. Seems that both involved parties have seen the difficulty in the problem, and they have resolved it amicably.

Apparently I offended you, and for that I'm sorry.

Merry Christmas anyway.

 

[twitch]

To answer a couple of the questions. The Commish was the commish 3 years ago. I'm new in the league last year, and there was no communication to me at any point in time that the 4th down rule wasn't being implemented because it wasn't possible in the website. My assumption until this week was that the rule was being applied. I drafted my team according to the distributed rules each season, which included 4th down points.

Neither the Commish nor his opponent noticed this error, there was no sneakery by either of the two. I noticed the error when I saw how close the match was, and knew how important it was in the playoffs. As a Commish in another league, I know how mistakes can happen. I haven't checked during the last 2 years as there never was a reason to. I brought it to the league's attention. Now I've pointed them all to this thread.

Your input will hopefully inform their decision.

I particularly like the George Brett pine tar analogy...

I call BS.So how did you draft your team based on 4th down stops?...Is this one of the factors you consider while you are drafting your defense in the last round? How many times this year have you dropped your defense?

Seeing how you are answering questions, you haven't answered this one, is the Commish supposed to adjust the scores for each game, each week, to include the rule that the website scoring can't handle? Why won't you answer that?

I hope your league is reading this, because my recommendation is to give you the Boot. You are not helping anything, you are causing trouble, and creating disharmony, right before Christmas.

Way to go.

Sorry you feel that way. Being fair before Christmas doesn't seem inappropriate. I thought I was being unbiased in describing the situation, but if others feel I've behaved badly, please let me know so I can learn.As to my team, my defense, etc. It is rather irrelevant as I drafted terribly and didn't even make the playoffs.

To answer your questions: I put in the scoring to a draft pick software at the start of the season. Honestly, I don't remember if it included 4th down stops, or not. I doubt that it would have changed draft order between defenses much, if at all, but it does have a 5-6 point difference on total defense scoring per team on the season. This might have changed when defenses were drafted. I didn't draft my defense in the last round, it was about round 10 (of 16). Some defenses went as high as round 6. I did drop my defense, and picked up another and stuck to it.

To your more directed question, my opinion on this is that the Commish should not go back and adjust any scores before this past week. This thread debates what should happen about last week, and it has opened my eyes to both sides. I'm divided. Moving forward, one of two things should happen. Either the Commish makes manual adjustments each week (probably only looking at close matches where it might make a difference), or the league votes on officially dropping the rule since the software doesn't handle it. I would recommend the latter for the sanity of all.

If the league decided to boot me for bringing up the discrepancy, I'd be surprised, but would accept it. Seems that both involved parties have seen the difficulty in the problem, and they have resolved it amicably.

Apparently I offended you, and for that I'm sorry.

Merry Christmas anyway.

Ive read thru this thread to sway my own opinion, but I still basically feel like I did at the beginning of the day on this one. The scoring hasnt observed the rule for 3 years. The guy who would have lost here in this case, the non-commish, didnt even pick up on the rule himself. And going back and adjusting every game at this point, 15 weeks into a season, just doesnt make much sense. Its a can of worms situation. And to keep it simple, I think you guys should ride it out this year as is, and make the nessecary adjustments to your scoring/site in the offseason so that it impacts an entire year and not just one game. jmho.

 

[twitch]

Btw, I believe the vote on this topic at one point was 13-1 in favor of the change. Since then, its basically been even. FWIW. I see both sides. Pretty tough call.

 

[toppshelff]

To update again, both parties have withdrawn from the playoffs, with one asking that winnings be donated to charity. All have agreed to improve the rules for next year. There is love in the kingdom.

As I stated, I came in with one opinion, and left pretty neutral on the matter. I would have felt bad if either team lost out, and apparently they felt bad if they had won, not wanting an "asterisk" on their championship.

They were noble in their withdrawl, but I do feel guilty, somehow, at bringing the error up in the first place.

I have offered to take them out to St. Elmo's Steak House to recognize their graciousness.

 

[twitch]

To update again, both parties have withdrawn from the playoffs, with one asking that winnings be donated to charity. All have agreed to improve the rules for next year. There is love in the kingdom.As I stated, I came in with one opinion, and left pretty neutral on the matter. I would have felt bad if either team lost out, and apparently they felt bad if they had won, not wanting an "asterisk" on their championship.They were noble in their withdrawl, but I do feel guilty, somehow, at bringing the error up in the first place.I have offered to take them out to St. Elmo's Steak House to recognize their graciousness.

o I good ending then to a dicey situation. and thats a great gesture on your part, so I applaud your sportsmanship. I started on the other side of your logic, and worked my way closer to the middle. but this decision by these 2 owners seems a pretty cool way to settle it. and it kindof sucks that it wont represent the traditional ending to a season, but Ive always played FF more for the competition and sportsmanship and the great interest Ive always had in the game FAR more than winning. Big money leagues are one thing. Its always nice to win a K or a few hundred bucks or whatever the amount is. It always meant more to me to just field a rock solid team every year. Luck plays such a huge part in the outcome. Good to see here in your league that these guys actually each controlled their own destiny. pass that on to the fellas.

 

[Billcheats]

Tough call, but I don't think you can apply a rule that hasn't been followed for 3 seasons to one specific game.

Sure it's in the rules, and the rules should be followed, but for THREE YEARS the rule has been ignored, and unless you go back and determine that this definitely would not have changed any other games, you can't apply it to just one game now.

Frankly, unless there is a RULE that states as such, I don't see why you can't.If other owners would have won vital games due to the 4th down stop rule, and didn't catch it, that's their own fault.

This owner looked at the rules, said, "Hey, I actually won", and the commish is basically trying to insert a new rule, "If a rule hasn't been used in a while, it's not valid".

fascinating thread and I actually voted that the commish should win but I think this is the most logical response in the thread. It's a shame that your season had to end on this note.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

I had recommended to the Commish (as a fellow Commmish) to forfeit, since he is the one who is responsible for the error in the first place. Whether he deserved to win or not, he is the Commish and needs to be "above the law". He chose not to.

Seeing the conflict that was arising in the league, the other team graciously revoked his challenge, let the Commish win, and challenged the eventual winner of the championship to donate his winnings (~$1000) to charity after taking back their entry fee.

The other owner comes out gracious and noble. The Commish has a hollow victory, IMHO. I hope that a charity does benefit in the end.

There's a lesson in this for all of us. It's just a game and there is always a noble way out.

Totally uncalled for. You've single-handedly ruined a season. You bought up something that you could have waited to bring up when the season was over. You've guilted the commish for no reason. And you've caused the teams to withdraw for this season. And you did this as a cellar dwelling team.I guess there's something to be said for absentee league members.

 

[SuperJohn96]

I had recommended to the Commish (as a fellow Commmish) to forfeit, since he is the one who is responsible for the error in the first place. Whether he deserved to win or not, he is the Commish and needs to be "above the law". He chose not to.

Seeing the conflict that was arising in the league, the other team graciously revoked his challenge, let the Commish win, and challenged the eventual winner of the championship to donate his winnings (~$1000) to charity after taking back their entry fee.

The other owner comes out gracious and noble. The Commish has a hollow victory, IMHO. I hope that a charity does benefit in the end.

There's a lesson in this for all of us. It's just a game and there is always a noble way out.

Totally uncalled for. You've single-handedly ruined a season. You bought up something that you could have waited to bring up when the season was over. You've guilted the commish for no reason. And you've caused the teams to withdraw for this season. And you did this as a cellar dwelling team.I guess there's something to be said for absentee league members.

I effing hat guys like that. I had one in my league when we first started up and I am glad he's long gone.The OP should have just kept your nose out of other people's business.

I wonder if he goes and tells other teams when their starting lineups have injured players or guys one a Bye too?

:sigh:

The OP should have just left it to the responsibility of the Commish's opponent to figure out any issue with his own game score.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

It's an official rule, ratified by the majority of the league. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF THE SOFTWARE DOES NOT REFLECT THIS RULE.

If the software only gave 3 points for touchdowns, would you ignore that too?

If the software had been giving 3 pts for TDs for the past three years, and somebody came forward now, would you made TDs 6 pts for that one game?

 

[dancingbones]

I had recommended to the Commish (as a fellow Commmish) to forfeit, since he is the one who is responsible for the error in the first place. Whether he deserved to win or not, he is the Commish and needs to be "above the law". He chose not to.

Seeing the conflict that was arising in the league, the other team graciously revoked his challenge, let the Commish win, and challenged the eventual winner of the championship to donate his winnings (~$1000) to charity after taking back their entry fee.

The other owner comes out gracious and noble. The Commish has a hollow victory, IMHO. I hope that a charity does benefit in the end.

There's a lesson in this for all of us. It's just a game and there is always a noble way out.

Totally uncalled for. You've single-handedly ruined a season. You bought up something that you could have waited to bring up when the season was over. You've guilted the commish for no reason. And you've caused the teams to withdraw for this season. And you did this as a cellar dwelling team.I guess there's something to be said for absentee league members.

I may not have been reading correctly, but was this issue brought up by the team that actually lost in the playoffs, or by the OP who was not involved in any way other than a spectator?The resolution of this one is tricky, but I don't see how having both teams exit the playoffs makes any sense at all. Glad I'm not involved - sounds like a great way to ruin the fun of FF.

 

[Nemesis]

I had recommended to the Commish (as a fellow Commmish) to forfeit, since he is the one who is responsible for the error in the first place. Whether he deserved to win or not, he is the Commish and needs to be "above the law". He chose not to.

Seeing the conflict that was arising in the league, the other team graciously revoked his challenge, let the Commish win, and challenged the eventual winner of the championship to donate his winnings (~$1000) to charity after taking back their entry fee.

The other owner comes out gracious and noble. The Commish has a hollow victory, IMHO. I hope that a charity does benefit in the end.

Totally uncalled for. You've single-handedly ruined a season. You bought up something that you could have waited to bring up when the season was over. You've guilted the commish for no reason. And you've caused the teams to withdraw for this season. And you did this as a cellar dwelling team.

My thoughts exactly. Sounds like the OP was doing a pretty good job of putting a guilt trip on the commish ("Commish needs to be above the law"). Comments like that make people think you're insinuating that the commish tried to cheat. The commish did nothing wrong in this case to try to manipulate the outcome of THIS GAME. It's not like several other threads we've seen lately where the commish changed lineups or secretly did something behind the scenes.If anything however, I think we're all agreed that the commish s/h notified the entire league yrs ago when the website change happened.

To me, there wouldn't have been an " * " next to a championship this season. Just a note to fix the written rules during the offseason.

Question to the OP:

What is your relationship with the commish?

What is your relationship with the owner that originally lost?

(ie, "which one are you closer with?")

And finally, to the OP:

This thread has been one of more interesting threads I've read here in the Shark Pool lately and I see that a couple of us have been actively following it. This is a lesson for all us commissioners playing in leagues where they are NOT THE COMMISSIONER. If we see a potential issue in a league where you are just an owner, our natural instinct is to step forward and try to point it out & handle it "our way" when sometimes you just have to bite your tongue or let it go or wait for someone to ask us our opinion. Don't worry Topshelf..........we've all been there and it's something that I've had to deal with personally too.

 

[Master of Past and Present]

I had recommended to the Commish (as a fellow Commmish) to forfeit, since he is the one who is responsible for the error in the first place. Whether he deserved to win or not, he is the Commish and needs to be "above the law". He chose not to.

Seeing the conflict that was arising in the league, the other team graciously revoked his challenge, let the Commish win, and challenged the eventual winner of the championship to donate his winnings (~$1000) to charity after taking back their entry fee.

The other owner comes out gracious and noble. The Commish has a hollow victory, IMHO. I hope that a charity does benefit in the end.

There's a lesson in this for all of us. It's just a game and there is always a noble way out.

Totally uncalled for. You've single-handedly ruined a season. You bought up something that you could have waited to bring up when the season was over. You've guilted the commish for no reason. And you've caused the teams to withdraw for this season. And you did this as a cellar dwelling team.I guess there's something to be said for absentee league members.

I effing hat guys like that. I had one in my league when we first started up and I am glad he's long gone.The OP should have just kept your nose out of other people's business.

I wonder if he goes and tells other teams when their starting lineups have injured players or guys one a Bye too?

:sigh:

The OP should have just left it to the responsibility of the Commish's opponent to figure out any issue with his own game score.

Keep his nose out huh? Sounds like that if you win a game you shouldn't, you just want it to get past one pair of eyes instead of many so you can keep your win.

 

[toppshelff]

Thanks for your comments. I am no closer to one of the opponents as another, so don't feel that I have any biases.

Perhaps I should have kept my mouth shut. Interesting ethical question.

I was very clear throughout with all involved that this was clearly not a situation of misdoings. The Commish wasn't manipulating the system, he was merely stuck in a bad situation. However, I'd like to think that if I were the Commish, that I would have forfeited the game. I'm responsible for the rules and their communication. An error took place that I would take full responsibility for. For the integrity of the league, as Commish, I'd like to think that I am held to a higher standard, and would accept forfeit as my punishment.

That's what I think I would do, but who knows... sometimes greed gets in the way of the "right" choice and I'm no different than the next guy.

I wonder if I had been the Commish in this situation, and had noticed the error, would I have commented. Keep quiet I win, but not sure if I deserved it. Speak up, and earn respect in the league, but potentially lose out. Again, another ethical question.

I have really enjoyed this discussion, and look for other input.

BTW, I've offered my resignation from the league to the Commish for stirring up this bee's nest, based on some of your feedback. I'll let you know his response, if you are interested.

 

[Itchy Amos]

This is a pretty sticky situation, but it is pretty cut and dry for me.

I have been the commissioner of my main league for the past 10 years. My job has become exponentially easier since we have moved to an automated website. There is not too much that I need to do anymore. One of the remaining responsibilities of any commissioner is to make sure that everyone knows the rules. The OP's commissioner handed out the rules at the draft. These are the official rules. It is a little surprising that nobody noticed the inconsistency between the stated rules and the ones on the website for 3 years.

I know that if this were my league and even one team believed that 4th down stops were worth 1 point, then the rule would stand. To take it one step further, I would feel obligated to spend a few hours and sort the whole season out. It seems that it was understood by some people that 4th down stops were worth one point.

If the league never had a collective conversation about abandoning the written rules in favor of using the website's automatic scoring (and they continue to re-introduce the rule about 4th down stops every year), then the commissioner lost the game.

 

[dancingbones]

Thanks for your comments. I am no closer to one of the opponents as another, so don't feel that I have any biases.

Perhaps I should have kept my mouth shut. Interesting ethical question.

I was very clear throughout with all involved that this was clearly not a situation of misdoings. The Commish wasn't manipulating the system, he was merely stuck in a bad situation. However, I'd like to think that if I were the Commish, that I would have forfeited the game. I'm responsible for the rules and their communication. An error took place that I would take full responsibility for. For the integrity of the league, as Commish, I'd like to think that I am held to a higher standard, and would accept forfeit as my punishment.

That's what I think I would do, but who knows... sometimes greed gets in the way of the "right" choice and I'm no different than the next guy.

I wonder if I had been the Commish in this situation, and had noticed the error, would I have commented. Keep quiet I win, but not sure if I deserved it. Speak up, and earn respect in the league, but potentially lose out. Again, another ethical question.

I have really enjoyed this discussion, and look for other input.

BTW, I've offered my resignation from the league to the Commish for stirring up this bee's nest, based on some of your feedback. I'll let you know his response, if you are interested.

Of course he is not going to accept your resignation, but this is a situation where I definitely would have let sleeping dogs lie. Once someone points out a discrepancy in the rules, I think the commish is bound by the rules to implement the scoring change and take the loss. AND having a rule with scoring that the website doesn't automatically tally is asinine.

You've already made it impossible for him to enjoy his playoff victory - he now looks like an ### and cannot legitimately argue his case for advancing to the next round, even if he truly thinks he should have it based on the fact that IN PRACTICE your league has not been consistently applying this rule for some time.

It is like someone being prosecuted for having oral sex because of some law from the 1800s that has lost its relevance. Sure, it is a written rule - but by common sense and actual practice it has been made irrelevant.

As it is, I think the the commish has to take the loss, leave the other team in the playoffs, and you delete that rule next year.

I believe it should be up to the opponent to bring up a scoring challenge. Your protest of the this particular matchup serves the purpose of clarifying the rules, and if you only just noticed that discrepancy this week, then fine. But if you knew already that it wasn't being applied during the season and didn't bring it up, I think it is lame to have done so now - and your intent of clarifying the rules would have been more properly addressed in the off season.

 

[toppshelff]

I would hope that had anybody noticed the discrepancy during the year, they would have spoken up. I suppose that I would have noticed it had I lost a close match this year. However, it seems that most of my matches were never close, alas. I just discovered the discrepancy this week.

 

[ShadowMaster]

Written Rules > everything else involved.

The true beauty of written rules is to avoid arguments in situations just like this. If the written rules say that you get 1 point - then you get 1 point.

Nice of the commish to want to discard this rule when if benefits him to do so. That fact that the rule has not been used due to a software configuration error falls directly on the shoulders of the commish as well.

Commish looses his week and rule is applied as written going forward (with the option to adjust in the off-season)

 

[ShadowMaster]

The arguments basically line up this way:For the commish:We haven't noticed this before, so because we are all dummies, you don't get the points.For the other guy:THE RULESYou have a rule book so you don't have to deal with these questions.

I'm surprised so many people think it should stand because nobody pointed out the error until now. I find that just crazy!

 

[bigums]

The arguments basically line up this way:For the commish:We haven't noticed this before, so because we are all dummies, you don't get the points.For the other guy:THE RULESYou have a rule book so you don't have to deal with these questions.

I'm surprised so many people think it should stand because nobody pointed out the error until now. I find that just crazy!

For the RULES IS RULES crowd, what about Brock's question above? If the league had been scoring touchdowns as 3 points instead of 6 all season long, would you want to change it now?

 

[mad sweeney]

It is possible that no game was close enough for it to matter to this point.

You can't just wait until it's close enough to matter to point it out.There's a three year precedent to not use the rule. Since you guys already decided two season already without the 4th down rule it would make little sense to apply it now. Even if no one truly knew it was a problem till today the entire league has implicitly accepted the rule by not observing it.

Agree, thats basically my thought. Whether intentional or not, it was overlooked for 3 years. The rule therefore didnt apply for 3 years. And just from a pure #s standpoint, there were 447 4th down attempts this year, and 224 stops. That's a significant # of total stops made that could have altered scores. None of those other 222 didnt matter but these 2 should? I cant support that. Unfortunate situation, and I feel for you guys having to deal with such a dilemna.

You gotta play it consistently. Even though it's in the rules, it hasn't been used in any games thus far. And with 224 points not given out during the season I think it's highly unlikely that noe of those would have affected the current standings. If those points haven't been doled out all season, they shouldn't be now. In this case I think being consistent is a lot more important than being technically correct. If you want it to count this week, you should go back and make it count for other weeks. Enforcing a scoring rule in one game that hasn't been enforced all season (forget the other 2 for now) is extremely unfair. The guy who lost may not have even been in last week's game if the points had been scored properly all year, or the commish might not be. It's unfair to the whole league to use it now. Those two got to the playoffs based on not using that method, they should continue to play the same way they have all season.

 

[Jersey35]

So, the rule hasnt been applied in the league for 3 years? and you guys are basically now trying to apply it? I hope Im not the only one seeing something wrong with that, I dont care how quickly the error was discovered after than one isolated game. The 'error' hadnt been discovered in the 3 years. For that reason, I think the outcome should stand and the commish should win.

This should be the correct answer.

Agreed.Here's a bit more to chew on (and if I'm repeating someone else, my apologies - didn't read the whole thread):If we want to get really techinical, it should not be the rules "as written" that take precedence over all. It should be the rules "as intended". here's a goofy example: What if there was a typo in the rules AS WRITTEN that gave 8 points (instead of 6) for a rushing touchdown? What if no one looked or cared for the entire season until the playoffs where someone lost by 1 point - then pointed out the typo in the rules? If you believe the outcome in your current situation should be reversed, you also agree that the 8 points must be given to the owner requesting them in the hypothetical. Does that seem right?For the last three years, this rule has not been applied. This sets a precedent. In this case, precedent establishes intent. We now have one case where someone thinks that it "matters" and they use the rule to their advantage. Who is really to say that this rule would not have affected past games a great deal? You can't change the past, but you shouldn't ignore it either.The commish should win, and it's unfortunate, but precedent has been set by the past three years.Good luck.

I know this has been resolved, and I'm quoting my own post but I'm curious if anyone else used the same thought process that I explained above regarding "written rules" vs "intended rules". As a commissioner myself, I am sometimes forced to interpret certain rules when little situations pop up that weren't anticipated. I always try to fall back on the "intent" of a rule, rather than the "letter of the law", when there is this type of issue. The written word, while obviously useful, is not without flaws, only one of which is a typo.A more recent post made the analogy of old oral sex laws (YUM!), which I think applies here perfectly: even though the letter of the law is there - society (your league) had outgrown the rule, and as such, it should not have been subjectively applied for this one game.As commissioner, however, I would find it very difficult to move forward with this knowledge - so once informed, my conscience would force me to take the loss. I'm glad, at the very least, that the issue came to such a good resolution. Clearly you've got some very quality people in your league, and you're lucky to be a part of it.

 

[Road Warriors]

The arguments basically line up this way:

For the commish:

We haven't noticed this before, so because we are all dummies, you don't get the points.

For the other guy:

THE RULES

You have a rule book so you don't have to deal with these questions.

I'm surprised so many people think it should stand because nobody pointed out the error until now. I find that just crazy!

For the RULES IS RULES crowd, what about Brock's question above? If the league had been scoring touchdowns as 3 points instead of 6 all season long, would you want to change it now?

Yes, if the rules clearly state that TDs are worth 6 and the league management system was erroneously scoring only 3. It is on the owners to verify their scores, if they feel there is a problem. If you, as an owner, want to trust that no mistakes are made and don't question the scoring, thats on you.The biggest problem I have with your analogy is that while a 4th down stop on D is a reasonably rare event, and easy to miss all season long, and only in very rare cases would impact an outcome, TDs are scored in bunches each and every week, and for not one owner to notice until the end of the season is a bit too far a stretch of the imagination for me. Because of the frequency and impact ( 50% value ) of this scoring error, it would be a huge difference in the league outcomes ( most likely ). But, as a league, if this type of scoring error, no matter how large, were not brought up within the window to contest the outcome ( Thurs, in our league ) the results would stand. In the playoff game, if the results were challenged within the window, you make the adjustment to match the agreed upon rules.

FWIW, I think carrying scoring rules that your site can't automate is pretty foolish, and I would have recommended removing that particular rule from the league by-laws.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

[i effing hat guys like that. I had one in my league when we first started up and I am glad he's long gone.The OP should have just kept your nose out of other people's business.

Say hello to Todd H for me.:wheelhouse:

 

[bigums]

The arguments basically line up this way:

For the commish:

We haven't noticed this before, so because we are all dummies, you don't get the points.

For the other guy:

THE RULES

You have a rule book so you don't have to deal with these questions.

I'm surprised so many people think it should stand because nobody pointed out the error until now. I find that just crazy!

For the RULES IS RULES crowd, what about Brock's question above? If the league had been scoring touchdowns as 3 points instead of 6 all season long, would you want to change it now?

Yes, if the rules clearly state that TDs are worth 6 and the league management system was erroneously scoring only 3. It is on the owners to verify their scores, if they feel there is a problem. If you, as an owner, want to trust that no mistakes are made and don't question the scoring, thats on you.The biggest problem I have with your analogy is that while a 4th down stop on D is a reasonably rare event, and easy to miss all season long, and only in very rare cases would impact an outcome, TDs are scored in bunches each and every week, and for not one owner to notice until the end of the season is a bit too far a stretch of the imagination for me. Because of the frequency and impact ( 50% value ) of this scoring error, it would be a huge difference in the league outcomes ( most likely ). But, as a league, if this type of scoring error, no matter how large, were not brought up within the window to contest the outcome ( Thurs, in our league ) the results would stand. In the playoff game, if the results were challenged within the window, you make the adjustment to match the agreed upon rules.

FWIW, I think carrying scoring rules that your site can't automate is pretty foolish, and I would have recommended removing that particular rule from the league by-laws.

That's the thing. Someone earlier showed that there were 220+ already just this season. That's 15 points a week missing from the total scoring. Nobody noticed this in a close game in three years?And yes, it was a bit of a hyperbolistic analogy. This is still the Shark Pool, isn't it?

 

[PMENFAN]

Bummer for your commish. I thinik he loses.

You say the rules are distributed, hard copy, at the beginning of the year. Though it's been wrong on the site for 3 years, it's still the rule. all other games are final, and sorry to the commish, it's a hard way to lose, but he lost under the rules.