Should I warn other owner? (1 Viewer)

[footballnerd]

Of course I wouldn't have a problem telling him. I don't think there's anything wrong with the action.

I don't understand why it makes a difference to you. If you think what the commissioner did is a blatant violation of his duties, how is it any better if he notifies the opponent of the blatant violation? If someone steals from me, it doesn't help me sleep any better at night if they'd told me they were going to steal from me ahead of time. You're making a distinction that doesn't make any sense from your point of view - if you're about to do something wrong, telling people you're about to do something wrong doesn't make it any better.

You're a good man, and I respect your decision then.Its just a courtesy so they know whats going on and nothing is shady. I'm not even saying that they will react badly but they deserve to know what the commish believes, and can draw their own conclusions.

 

[footballnerd]

That is precisely why they don't make that call. The only people who would make that call are the ones who think they are acting improperly. If you think you acting properly, why would you make a call to announce that you are about to act properly?

why avoid the call if there's nothing wrong with it. then the two of you can have the very discussion we are having on this board.

 

[Bobcat10]

I'm still waiting for someone to give me a sample of the rule they have in their league that explains what the "place" of a commish/owner is and how this would be a violation. And don't just make up a rule. I want to see an actual written rule that covers "informs owner before kickoff that a player is inactive."

I personally think it's just a common sense approach to being a commish. Barring collusion you stay out of this business even though you think the result is what it should be. Maybe the owner that took care of his lineup should be rewarded.Another example, in my baseball league, we do alter lineups at the end of the year sometimes...but that's because owners stop making changes (so we're talking about bad teams, not playoff matchups) or they put in tanking lineups which we don't allow. The league knows this and we've set a precedent by always doing it.

IMO, this commish just set a precedence that he will be checking everyone's lineups before 1:00, 4:00, Sun/Mon night games each week and notifying owners of any inactive players being started or any type of news like that. But we all know this won't be happening.

HTH baseball league? If so, that is far above and beyond anything being discussed in this thread and I wouldn't participate in a league like that (I mean, aside from the fact that HTH sucks for baseball).

Simply put, sort of. It's a great league and a good rule. But it's probably a bad example. Doesn't change anything here or the other two parts I wrote. It sorta tied into the 3rd part more than the 1st or your question.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Another guy totally missing the point here.

Not at all. Why didn't you answer my question? In fact, why hasn't anyone on your side of the argument answered my question? The fact is that no reasonable person would knowingly, willingly leave an inactive player in his lineup if he had the opportunity to sub in an active player. That's a standard we should all be able to agree on. The logical assumption is that the owner didn't know, or didn't have an opportunity to make a change, not that he meant to start an injured guy, or just didn't care enough. We should also be able to agree that the "best" way to determine which team should advance in the playoffs would be for each team to submit a full, active lineup.

If I was stuck at work and left my stud RB in my lineup on a Monday night because he was declared inactive and I didn't get a chance to check, that's on me. No one is obligated to check up on my team and manage it for me. But if I found out the commissioner happened to notice that I was starting an inactive player, and was thinking about notifying me, but decided not to because it wouldn't be "fair" to my opponent, I'd be furious. Do you know how asinine that is? The "fair" thing is for both teams to field a full lineup, not for one owner to win on a technicality because the commissioner felt too scared to do the right thing.

Apparently this is really hard for all you college students to understand, but magic football takes a back seat to real life all the time. Someday if/when you have more important things going on in your lives, you'll understand. In the meantime, just trust that you're all being absolutely ridiculous here, and inventing standards that no reasonable adult would ever be held to.

Any time the phrase 'no reasonable person would' prefaces an argument, you can bet they are asking to circumvent the rules.You'd be mad? Be mad at yourself. YOU failed to check YOUR line-up. It's not FAIR that you need help, and certainly not fair that you'd be slighted that the help wasn't offered.

It's disingenous to say 'no one has answered my point' and then list a point that has been beaten to death to the point of ad nasuem...

Your life choices are your own. If you'd rather hang with your peeps and chill with your family then do 18-19 hour a day work, don't be an nfl coach. Simialrly how you choose to divide your fantasy time from your work/home time is up to you. But don't expect that others that take it more seriously/do put in the extra time and effort are going to hear what you are saying as nothing more than or as that's all it really is. Sour grapes dripping with blather.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Did the OP ever chime in with whether he told the other teams in his league, specifically the team that lost based on this about what he did? And what was the reaction?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Any time the phrase 'no reasonable person would' prefaces an argument, you can bet they are asking to circumvent the rules.

You'd be mad? Be mad at yourself. YOU failed to check YOUR line-up. It's not FAIR that you need help, and certainly not fair that you'd be slighted that the help wasn't offered.

It's disingenous to say 'no one has answered my point' and then list a point that has been beaten to death to the point of ad nasuem...

Your life choices are your own. If you'd rather hang with your peeps and chill with your family then do 18-19 hour a day work, don't be an nfl coach. Simialrly how you choose to divide your fantasy time from your work/home time is up to you. But don't expect that others that take it more seriously/do put in the extra time and effort are going to hear what you are saying as nothing more than or as that's all it really is. Sour grapes dripping with blather.

What an absolute disaster of a post. Since most of your points don't actually address any points I made, I'll just skip to the summary: Don't expect that others (e.g. the OP and his leaguemates) take their magic football league as seriously as you do. OP made a decision that was fine with the reasonable adults in his league. Had the same thing happened in any of the leagues I'm in, it also would not have been a problem. I'm honestly having a hard time imagining what kind of insufferable jackass would really be so bent out of shape about losing a fantasy game because his opponent - gasp! - started a full lineup, including a backup RB for his injured star.

If you're in a league with a bunch of fanatics who somehow operate under the contradictory illusion that magic football is SERIOUS BUSINESS and also that the most equitable thing is for one owner to beat another because the latter inadvertently left his stud RB in his lineup after he was declared inactive, then more power to you. If the commissioner of your league ever crossed the line by talking inactives with another owner, I assume you have some appropriate legislation to adequately punish him for his crime against the league. I wouldn't ever tell you that you couldn't run your league that way.

But there's no reason to lambaste the OP for what he did, because in the real world where most people act like reasonable adults with normal priorities, and wouldn't ever expect that they deserve to face a shorthanded opponent, there's nothing wrong with what he did.

 

[Pura Vida]

Redraft league that I commish. I won my matchup and will be in the Superbowl. Other matchup is up in the air with a 9 pt difference, one team has Forte the other has AP. That owner is unlikely to check in. He can plug in Knox if he were.As commish, what's the right thing to do? Let him know or leave it be? I'm not even looking to see who I'd rather play as that is irrelevant. Just want to do what's right. I know that commishes in leagues that I'm in have sent warnings to owners to doublecheck lineups.

I havent read these answers. Did you tell the other owner what you did?How much money was on the line?Bottom line- you influenced the outcome of the game. Its not your place.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Yeah, that's exactly what he's saying. It's important to take every possible statement and extrapolate it out to its' most ridiculous, absurd possible ending. Nice work.

Sharing information isn't the same as the above lunacy you just posted. By the way, you can always tell when someone is about to put words in someone else's mouth, and create a strawman: The post usually starts with the word 'So'.

Necessary to show what can be excused from that line of thinking. If a commish did that I would say he's helping an owner manage a team.and on a side note who doesn't bring up the most extreme outcome, somebody in here was comparing the situation with murder.

The line of thinking is just what I said. In that scenario I'm giving out information that anyone could give-- the same info I'd have if I was a commissioner or not. I wouldn't even have to be in the league to have that information. Their postman could provide it. Now you're saying that's "helping manage" a team. Asking "how's the weather in Pittsburgh?" could be helping manage a team under your parameters. Should there be stammers and "I can't answer that" under your scenario? Or is it okay to answer a question but not offer the information yourself?

I say the commish needs to be very careful about not using their power to any advantage-- blind bidding info, changing lineups, etc. If you couldn't do it as a regular owner, you shouldn't feel empowered to do it as commissioner.

But a commissioner should also be treated just like any owner. And if I'm an owner (commish or not) and I want to tell someone their player is inactive, I HOPE the opponent cries to me about it. Then I hope they lose specifically because of my information so I can trash-talk them for years about it. "Waaa, the world didn't keep quiet about Peterson and my opponent found out." Please let that happen in one of my leagues.

The world does not owe you a wall of silence. If people are sharing knowledge anyone with basic cable has, it's not managing a team, or helping manage a team or anything else. If they go into the site and make a switch for them knowing Peterson is inactive and they'd probably want Knox in there...I'll hold your pitchfork for you and get my own torch ready. That's totally unfair and an abuse of commissioner power.

But "FYI, Peterson is inactve" is not managing a team. It's sharing open information found from a ton of sources, including right here. Nothing underhanded or unfair about it. Again, no obligation to do it, but anyone can. Even the commish.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Here's the biggest disconnect for me: By saying that the commissioner wronged Owner B by alerting the Owner A about Peterson's status, you're implying that Owner B was supposed to face Owner A with a hole in his starting lineup; that by his actions, the commissioner robbed Owner B of his rightful opportunity to face an opponent with a missing RB. That's clearly not true.

Owner B has already had the good fortune that his opponent, who was going to start the best RB in the NFL, instead has to substitute in a mediocre Chicago WR at the last minute. But that's not enough! the naysayers cry. The commissioner owes it to Owner B to let him face Owner A with an inactive Peterson still in as a starter. That this is somehow fair, and that by alerting Owner A of the injury status, Owner B has been screwed.

Let's get real here. Owner B doesn't deserve any special considerations just because his opponent got stuck at work and didn't get a chance to make a lineup change (the lineup change he would obviously make if he knew about the status and could get online to make the change) before the game started at 5:30 PT. No one should be blaming the commissioner for anything because no injustice was done. The game played out exactly as it was supposed to. The only one who ends up with egg on his face in this situation is Owner B, if he decides to cry foul like he was treated unjustly. He wasn't.

 

[Hoosier16]

That is precisely why they don't make that call. The only people who would make that call are the ones who think they are acting improperly. If you think you acting properly, why would you make a call to announce that you are about to act properly?

why avoid the call if there's nothing wrong with it. then the two of you can have the very discussion we are having on this board.

Again, I understand why you think the call should be made. You think it's improper, therefore, you want to make sure it's ok with his opponent. But, they don't consider making the call because they don't see anything improper about the OP's actions. As the OP has said, it would be awkward to make announcements for every proper move he made.

 

[Pura Vida]

Here's the biggest disconnect for me: By saying that the commissioner wronged Owner B by alerting the Owner A about Peterson's status, you're implying that Owner B was supposed to face Owner A with a hole in his starting lineup; that by his actions, the commissioner robbed Owner B of his rightful opportunity to face an opponent with a missing RB.

You are right about the disconnect part. Your assumption of what we are implying is flat wrong. We believe that Owner A should follow his own team and make his own decisions.There are games on saturday night. If this commish doesnt look over the line ups prior to the game and make sure nobody forgot about thye staurday game, he is being inconsistent.

A commish should not ever, EVER, impact the outcome of a game.

IBut even if a commish thought he should, he should have asked the opponent for permission first.

I'd love to see a poll on this. Is there anyway to post a poll onto this thread?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

We believe that Owner A should follow his own team and make his own decisions.

So do I.

There are games on saturday night. If this commish doesnt look over the line ups prior to the game and make sure nobody forgot about thye staurday game, he is being inconsistent.

No he isn't. He's not obligated to inspect everyone's roster for them.

A commish should not ever, EVER, impact the outcome of a game.

He didn't. The outcome was exactly what it was supposed to be.

But even if a commish thought he should, he should have asked the opponent for permission first.

Why? The opponent isn't the arbiter of what the commissioner can say to another owner. I'd have no problem if the commissioner did let the opponent know first, of course, but he's not under any obligation to do so.

I'd love to see a poll on this. Is there anyway to post a poll onto this thread?

Why? You can get an accurate enough estimate of the sentiment here just by reading the thread. It seems like most people have taken the same position you have. And that's fine if that's how you guys handle your leagues. I wouldn't play that way, it seems like kind of a dooshy way to go about things, but if you have 11 friends who all want to run a league that way, have at it! But your opinion has no bearing on whether or not the OP did anything wrong in his league. He didn't.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I would have no issues whatsoever if the commish did this to my opponent and it caused me to lose. Assuming that week's opponent is pretty involved, I'd just shrug and say I needed a better team.

Would you guys have a problem with that? If the commish let your opponent know (assuming your opponent hasn't been absentee)?

 

[Summer Wheat]

The only lineup I ever look at other than mine is the team I am playing against. I never look at who the other teams start until the games are under way and I am checking scores.

 

[Pura Vida]

I would have no issues whatsoever if the commish did this to my opponent and it caused me to lose. Assuming that week's opponent is pretty involved, I'd just shrug and say I needed a better team. Would you guys have a problem with that? If the commish let your opponent know (assuming your opponent hasn't been absentee)?

We have all made bone headed plays before and paid the price. This year, i started a kicker who was hurt in one league. It happens. I paid the price for not paying attention. In another league, I only made the playoffs because a guy started two injured players against me. he paid the price for not paying attention. Part of being a fantasy owner is paying attention to your team. if you dont, you should pay the price. A commisioner definitely shouldnt get involved. Im still waiting to hear how much money the OP costed the loser of the game and if he told that guy why he lost.

 

[Dexter Manley]

This was a money league right? Let's keep it real, fantasy football is a game of skill just like poker.

And there are ethics for fantasy football just like there are ethics for poker. (IMO the ethics in fanstasy football are significantly worse than poker.)

Let's look at the situation:

- The team without AP was guaranteed a win if the AP owner didn't sub a player

- The winner of this game is playing the OP (commish) in the Super Bowl

- The OP (commish) contacts the AP owner on his own to warn him about AP being out so he can put in another player and possibly beat his opponent, and thus play the OP in the Super Bowl

While what the OP did was far from being collusion or against the rules, it was definitely unethical, as he helped the AP owner by giving him "inside information" that AP was inactive for the game, and this information helped the AP owner win his game and advance to the Super Bowl to play the OP.

And as others have stated, it also looks shady as hell. Especially when a commish is the guy doing it.

Here's an example of a somewhat similar situation that I was involved in recently.

A couple weeks ago I was at a party on a Saturday night and my buddy Steve, who was playing my buddy Joe in the playoffs 1st round, was asking me who he should start at qb. My team had a bye and I thought I was set to play the winner. On paper, Steve would have been a much easier foe than Joe. I flat out told Steve that I couldn't help him set his lineup, since it would be unethical.

Joe overheard the end of the conversation and assumed the worst, that I was advising Steve on who to start. Joe started getting huffy. I explained to him that I did no such thing and then he was chill.

There's a reason people get pissed when a member of a league contacts another owner to "help them out." It is because it's unethical.

 

[Flash]

As an update, I let the owner know and the change was made. It had an impact on the outcome.That said, I thought about it this way:1) If I wasn't in the playoffs, I wouldn't have even thought twice about this. I would have called to let him know.2) I'm not close friends with the guy at all, but I do have a couple very good friends that I know I would have called for sure. If I would have done that for them, I need to do it for everybody.I appreciate the responses. I don't think I had an obligation to call but I also don't think it was wrong if I did. It turns out the guy, who is on PST time, was still at work and had no idea. The fact that this was a major player, a pretty significant surprise, and during the playoffs made this important for me to make it right.

You did the right thing gianmarco. Kudos to you GB!Don't give it another thought, and certainly don't listen to the negativity in this thread. Not everyone owns an iphone or has internet access while at work to get the latest updates prior to kickoff. If you have mobile internet access and can change your lineups at will anywhere anytime, then good for you!It doesn't mean that your superior technology and internet access is shared by everyone else in your league, nor does it mean that those who can't afford the same toys, or who have limited access while working should automatically be put at a disadvantage to you. Those of you who want to win at all costs, and are pissed that someone might tell your opponent when their 1st overall pick/stud RB has been deactivated prior to kickoff are acting like spoiled children here.If your team can't win without the opponent starting inactive players, then you know what? ...I guess your team just wasn't good enough to win this week. I'm not going to be hoping my opponents can't field a full lineup so that I can coast or get a cheap victory. This is a hobby/game people. It's not a life and death matter.Gianmarco's integrity is much more valuable to him than the fear of your disapproval and whining like little girls, because :gasp: he pointed out the obvious to an owner. Getting ahead in fantasy football or in life doesn't have to come at the expense of your own personal integrity. You can choose to be better than that...

That's a bunch of crud.It's not just about IPhones or internet access at work. You can be responsible for your team by asking/getting assistance from friends, family, other people in your league, THE COMMISH, etc etc etc. The dude in question here didn't care about his team, plain and simple. If anyone knew AP was questionable going into that game, which you SHOULD know as an owner, then you should have a plan in place to get your lineup changed (especially if you know you will be at work without internet access) whether that will be you doing it or someone else. Has nothing to do with people here wanting an edge....we took care of our lineups....are we not managers of our own teams here?

If he didn't care about his team, then why would he switch AP out for Knox once he learned AP was inactive?

Why are you so intent on commissioners meddling in other owners team decisions?Should we just not have a 1st place winner and give everyone a slice of the prize money?

 

[Flash]

You're in a league with your best friend. Neither you or your friend are the commish. All the other owners are casual acquaintances. You didn't make the playoffs but your best friend did. You check how the playoffs are going Monday night and see your friend has Peterson starting but he is out and notice that he could start Knox in his place. He calls you at 8:00 that night about the Basketball game you guys are playing tomorrow. Are you guys not mentioning to him that he has Peterson on a bye and should make a change?

Totally different situation. Are people not reading here??????He is the commissioner and he meddled in a game that he had no reason to. He wasn't "just" friends with the guy, he is the COMMISSIONER.Commissioners should not meddle!

 

[Flash]

You're in a league with your best friend. Neither you or your friend are the commish. All the other owners are casual acquaintances. You didn't make the playoffs but your best friend did. You check how the playoffs are going Monday night and see your friend has Peterson starting but he is out and notice that he could start Knox in his place. He calls you at 8:00 that night about the Basketball game you guys are playing tomorrow. Are you guys not mentioning to him that he has Peterson on a bye and should make a change?

different scenarioa) neither person is the commishb) the call was not placed specifically to give him FF info . . . would I tell him - yes, but I was also give him a hard time for not keeping up with his team . . .

So if either person was the commish, you would not tell him?

NO.There is a fine line there, especially with money on the line.

 

[Flash]

Yeah, that's exactly what he's saying. It's important to take every possible statement and extrapolate it out to its' most ridiculous, absurd possible ending. Nice work.

Sharing information isn't the same as the above lunacy you just posted. By the way, you can always tell when someone is about to put words in someone else's mouth, and create a strawman: The post usually starts with the word 'So'.

Necessary to show what can be excused from that line of thinking. If a commish did that I would say he's helping an owner manage a team.

Owners manage their own teams. That's what we tell every guppy that comes in here #####ing about how he lost because of FBG's rankings.

Exactly, it's not the commissioners job to manage someone else's team. Which is EXACTLY what he did.

 

[Flash]

Another guy totally missing the point here.

Not at all. Why didn't you answer my question? In fact, why hasn't anyone on your side of the argument answered my question? The fact is that no reasonable person would knowingly, willingly leave an inactive player in his lineup if he had the opportunity to sub in an active player. That's a standard we should all be able to agree on. The logical assumption is that the owner didn't know, or didn't have an opportunity to make a change, not that he meant to start an injured guy, or just didn't care enough. We should also be able to agree that the "best" way to determine which team should advance in the playoffs would be for each team to submit a full, active lineup.

If I was stuck at work and left my stud RB in my lineup on a Monday night because he was declared inactive and I didn't get a chance to check, that's on me. No one is obligated to check up on my team and manage it for me. But if I found out the commissioner happened to notice that I was starting an inactive player, and was thinking about notifying me, but decided not to because it wouldn't be "fair" to my opponent, I'd be furious. Do you know how asinine that is? The "fair" thing is for both teams to field a full lineup, not for one owner to win on a technicality because the commissioner felt too scared to do the right thing.

Apparently this is really hard for all you college students to understand, but magic football takes a back seat to real life all the time. Someday if/when you have more important things going on in your lives, you'll understand. In the meantime, just trust that you're all being absolutely ridiculous here, and inventing standards that no reasonable adult would ever be held to.

Again, not his job to babysit your team.And what question are you dying to have answered?

 

[Flash]

why stop there, if facing a zero is such a problem, then why not implement a rule that allows players who accidentally started an injured player to retroactively put in another player. or allow an alternate RB or WR to be selected each week as back up. we can get rid of all the variables and just make it even all around. the reason why we dont have it is because its the owners responsibility to manage their own teams and we don't babysit these types of situations.

Do whatever you want in your league. I know of a league that has "backup" designations for when players get injured mid-game. I'm sure there are lots of ways to configure your league exactly how you want it. In the OPs league (which sounds like it's comprised of reasonable adults), it's ok for the commish to follow up with an owner if he notices that there's an inactive player in his lineup. Before I opened this thread I never would have imagined there would really be any objection to that, but I guess a lot of people have their priorities backwards.

i think the only real life situation here is owning up to the opponent by notifying them you helped changed the results.

Did the OP say he wasn't going to do this? If I was him, I would. Not sure why that's some kind of sticking point for you. If you truly think the commish blatantly overstepped his bounds and did the absolute wrong thing here, what difference does it make if he tells the opponent? It's not like it's going to make the opponent feel any better about losing. The point that you and everyone else is missing is that the commissioner did not "change" the results. The results are exactly what they should have been.

Yes he said making a league-wide announcement would be "awkward", why? because deep down he knows he meddled where he shouldn't have.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I would have no issues whatsoever if the commish did this to my opponent and it caused me to lose. Assuming that week's opponent is pretty involved, I'd just shrug and say I needed a better team. Would you guys have a problem with that? If the commish let your opponent know (assuming your opponent hasn't been absentee)?

We have all made bone headed plays before and paid the price. This year, i started a kicker who was hurt in one league. It happens. I paid the price for not paying attention. In another league, I only made the playoffs because a guy started two injured players against me. he paid the price for not paying attention. Part of being a fantasy owner is paying attention to your team. if you dont, you should pay the price. A commisioner definitely shouldnt get involved. Im still waiting to hear how much money the OP costed the loser of the game and if he told that guy why he lost.

Costed?I didn't say it's anyone responsibility to check a lineup outside the owner. But if he happened to be scrolling through and noticed that, would that be overstepping the line? What if he wasn't commish but just another owner?

 

[Flash]

I'm still waiting for someone to give me a sample of the rule they have in their league that explains what the "place" of a commish/owner is and how this would be a violation. And don't just make up a rule. I want to see an actual written rule that covers "informs owner before kickoff that a player is inactive."

I personally think it's just a common sense approach to being a commish. Barring collusion you stay out of this business even though you think the result is what it should be. Maybe the owner that took care of his lineup should be rewarded.Another example, in my baseball league, we do alter lineups at the end of the year sometimes...but that's because owners stop making changes (so we're talking about bad teams, not playoff matchups) or they put in tanking lineups which we don't allow. The league knows this and we've set a precedent by always doing it.IMO, this commish just set a precedence that he will be checking everyone's lineups before 1:00, 4:00, Sun/Mon night games each week and notifying owners of any inactive players being started or any type of news like that. But we all know this won't be happening.

Exactly.Where do you draw the line, and why?What if that game had a bearing on which team made the playoffs? You would be taking money out of one guys hands, think that's right?Once again a Commissioners job is not to babysit other owners.

 

[Flash]

Did the OP ever chime in with whether he told the other teams in his league, specifically the team that lost based on this about what he did? And what was the reaction?

He did say he wouldn't tell the rest of the league because it was awkward.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

If you people noticed something like this and went out of your way to keep it to yourself while hoping to sneak a cheap victory then you need to get your priorities in order. You don't need to check every lineup every week...but if you happen to see something what's the harm in dropping a quick text?

I exploit just about every loophole I can in all my leagues. Hell, I even am ok with people trading away injured players (do your research, idiots). But even I realize there's a basic level of competitive integrity one should have.

Grow up and realize this is a game. Yes, a game many of us play for $$, but a game nonetheless. For those who say playing fantasy football somehow represents your level of manhood...

 

[Flash]

Any time the phrase 'no reasonable person would' prefaces an argument, you can bet they are asking to circumvent the rules.

You'd be mad? Be mad at yourself. YOU failed to check YOUR line-up. It's not FAIR that you need help, and certainly not fair that you'd be slighted that the help wasn't offered.

It's disingenous to say 'no one has answered my point' and then list a point that has been beaten to death to the point of ad nasuem...

Your life choices are your own. If you'd rather hang with your peeps and chill with your family then do 18-19 hour a day work, don't be an nfl coach. Simialrly how you choose to divide your fantasy time from your work/home time is up to you. But don't expect that others that take it more seriously/do put in the extra time and effort are going to hear what you are saying as nothing more than or as that's all it really is. Sour grapes dripping with blather.

What an absolute disaster of a post. Since most of your points don't actually address any points I made, I'll just skip to the summary: Don't expect that others (e.g. the OP and his leaguemates) take their magic football league as seriously as you do. OP made a decision that was fine with the reasonable adults in his league. Had the same thing happened in any of the leagues I'm in, it also would not have been a problem. I'm honestly having a hard time imagining what kind of insufferable jackass would really be so bent out of shape about losing a fantasy game because his opponent - gasp! - started a full lineup, including a backup RB for his injured star.

If you're in a league with a bunch of fanatics who somehow operate under the contradictory illusion that magic football is SERIOUS BUSINESS and also that the most equitable thing is for one owner to beat another because the latter inadvertently left his stud RB in his lineup after he was declared inactive, then more power to you. If the commissioner of your league ever crossed the line by talking inactives with another owner, I assume you have some appropriate legislation to adequately punish him for his crime against the league. I wouldn't ever tell you that you couldn't run your league that way.

But there's no reason to lambaste the OP for what he did, because in the real world where most people act like reasonable adults with normal priorities, and wouldn't ever expect that they deserve to face a shorthanded opponent, there's nothing wrong with what he did.

I thought you just said you didn't want anyone stealing from you?Because if he helped an owner get to the playoffs, that would be stealing from the guy that lost, right? I mean if there's money involved anyway..

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I'm still waiting for someone to give me a sample of the rule they have in their league that explains what the "place" of a commish/owner is and how this would be a violation. And don't just make up a rule. I want to see an actual written rule that covers "informs owner before kickoff that a player is inactive."

I personally think it's just a common sense approach to being a commish. Barring collusion you stay out of this business even though you think the result is what it should be. Maybe the owner that took care of his lineup should be rewarded.Another example, in my baseball league, we do alter lineups at the end of the year sometimes...but that's because owners stop making changes (so we're talking about bad teams, not playoff matchups) or they put in tanking lineups which we don't allow. The league knows this and we've set a precedent by always doing it.IMO, this commish just set a precedence that he will be checking everyone's lineups before 1:00, 4:00, Sun/Mon night games each week and notifying owners of any inactive players being started or any type of news like that. But we all know this won't be happening.

Exactly.Where do you draw the line, and why?What if that game had a bearing on which team made the playoffs? You would be taking money out of one guys hands, think that's right?Once again a Commissioners job is not to babysit other owners.

He didn't babysit. It's not like he sat there watching every lineup and jumps into action at the slightest screwup. He happened to notice something and sent the owner an "Oh, by the way" kind of heads up. Totally legitimate move. If that cost you a playoff berth or some $$, tough #######. You should have assembled a better team and not needed something so cheap to pull out the victory. Don't blame your inferior squad losing on the commish giving a friendly heads up. Your team just sucked. Deal with it.

 

[Flash]

Here's the biggest disconnect for me: By saying that the commissioner wronged Owner B by alerting the Owner A about Peterson's status, you're implying that Owner B was supposed to face Owner A with a hole in his starting lineup; that by his actions, the commissioner robbed Owner B of his rightful opportunity to face an opponent with a missing RB. That's clearly not true.

Owner B has already had the good fortune that his opponent, who was going to start the best RB in the NFL, instead has to substitute in a mediocre Chicago WR at the last minute. But that's not enough! the naysayers cry. The commissioner owes it to Owner B to let him face Owner A with an inactive Peterson still in as a starter. That this is somehow fair, and that by alerting Owner A of the injury status, Owner B has been screwed.

Let's get real here. Owner B doesn't deserve any special considerations just because his opponent got stuck at work and didn't get a chance to make a lineup change (the lineup change he would obviously make if he knew about the status and could get online to make the change) before the game started at 5:30 PT. No one should be blaming the commissioner for anything because no injustice was done. The game played out exactly as it was supposed to. The only one who ends up with egg on his face in this situation is Owner B, if he decides to cry foul like he was treated unjustly. He wasn't.

Neither does Owner A, pretty simple.

 

[Flash]

Here's the biggest disconnect for me: By saying that the commissioner wronged Owner B by alerting the Owner A about Peterson's status, you're implying that Owner B was supposed to face Owner A with a hole in his starting lineup; that by his actions, the commissioner robbed Owner B of his rightful opportunity to face an opponent with a missing RB.

You are right about the disconnect part. Your assumption of what we are implying is flat wrong. We believe that Owner A should follow his own team and make his own decisions.There are games on saturday night. If this commish doesnt look over the line ups prior to the game and make sure nobody forgot about thye staurday game, he is being inconsistent.

A commish should not ever, EVER, impact the outcome of a game.

IBut even if a commish thought he should, he should have asked the opponent for permission first.

I'd love to see a poll on this. Is there anyway to post a poll onto this thread?

Yup, this...... in a nutshell.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Im still waiting to hear how much money the OP costed the loser of the game and if he told that guy why he lost.

The OP didn't "costed" the loser any money. He lost because his fantasy football team scored fewer points than his opponent's fantasy football team.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Because if he helped an owner get to the playoffs, that would be stealing from the guy that lost, right? I mean if there's money involved anyway..

What did the guy that lost have stolen?

 

[pantagrapher]

Yeah, that's exactly what he's saying. It's important to take every possible statement and extrapolate it out to its' most ridiculous, absurd possible ending. Nice work.

Sharing information isn't the same as the above lunacy you just posted. By the way, you can always tell when someone is about to put words in someone else's mouth, and create a strawman: The post usually starts with the word 'So'.

Necessary to show what can be excused from that line of thinking. If a commish did that I would say he's helping an owner manage a team.

Owners manage their own teams. That's what we tell every guppy that comes in here #####ing about how he lost because of FBG's rankings.

Exactly, it's not the commissioners job to manage someone else's team. Which is EXACTLY what he did.

You think FBG is managing subscribers' teams by providing them with information? Telling someone a player is inactive is not managing a team.

 

[Man In The Box]

I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm sorry if I repeat what others have said.

I think the OP should have stayed out of it as the commissioner. I'm not saying you acted shady, or had any motive other than doing what you felt was right. If you were just an owner, and the AP owner is a friend, I'd have no problem with you letting him know that his player was inactive. That's what friends do. But as commissioner, it was wrong on your part.

I don't know if the rest of your league was made aware of what happened. I would hope not, for your sake. You opened up a bit of a Pandora's box. What happens next week, or next year, when a similar situation occurs (believe me, it will) and you are not around to let an owner know that he has an inactive player in his lineup?

Like I said, it looks like you were trying to be a good guy, and didn't have any ill intentions. I commish two leagues, and I let every owner know that they are responsible for their own teams. If they want to make a lineup change and can't get to a computer, I let them know that they can call me and I will make the change for them. I then post a message on the league home page letting the league know that Owner X called me and asked to make the change. That's the extent of the involvement I will ever have as far as another owner's team goes.

 

[pantagrapher]

I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm sorry if I repeat what others have said. I think the OP should have stayed out of it as the commissioner. I'm not saying you acted shady, or had any motive other than doing what you felt was right. If you were just an owner, and the AP owner is a friend, I'd have no problem with you letting him know that his player was inactive. That's what friends do. But as commissioner, it was wrong on your part. I don't know if the rest of your league was made aware of what happened. I would hope not, for your sake. You opened up a bit of a Pandora's box. What happens next week, or next year, when a similar situation occurs (believe me, it will) and you are not around to let an owner know that he has an inactive player in his lineup? Like I said, it looks like you were trying to be a good guy, and didn't have any ill intentions. I commish two leagues, and I let every owner know that they are responsible for their own teams. If they want to make a lineup change and can't get to a computer, I let them know that they can call me and I will make the change for them. I then post a message on the league home page letting the league know that Owner X called me and asked to make the change. That's the extent of the involvement I will ever have as far as another owner's team goes.

So any owner can discuss football with another owner before the game except the owner who is serving as commissioner? Don't commissioners eat enough #### already without having to play the entire season at that kind of disadvantage?

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm sorry if I repeat what others have said. I think the OP should have stayed out of it as the commissioner. I'm not saying you acted shady, or had any motive other than doing what you felt was right. If you were just an owner, and the AP owner is a friend, I'd have no problem with you letting him know that his player was inactive. That's what friends do. But as commissioner, it was wrong on your part. I don't know if the rest of your league was made aware of what happened. I would hope not, for your sake. You opened up a bit of a Pandora's box. What happens next week, or next year, when a similar situation occurs (believe me, it will) and you are not around to let an owner know that he has an inactive player in his lineup? Like I said, it looks like you were trying to be a good guy, and didn't have any ill intentions. I commish two leagues, and I let every owner know that they are responsible for their own teams. If they want to make a lineup change and can't get to a computer, I let them know that they can call me and I will make the change for them. I then post a message on the league home page letting the league know that Owner X called me and asked to make the change. That's the extent of the involvement I will ever have as far as another owner's team goes.

You repeated what's been said but that's par for this place. The commish isn't checking the lineups with regularity. The heads up wasn't something to be counted on. It was more of an "Oh by the way I happened to notice..." type deal. It shouldn't be counted on but it's nice when it happens. I've given some people a heads up when their player is sitting. I've missed some others and owners have been stuck with a goose egg. I've also had others give me a heads up my guy was sitting. We all have lives.

 

[Man In The Box]

I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm sorry if I repeat what others have said. I think the OP should have stayed out of it as the commissioner. I'm not saying you acted shady, or had any motive other than doing what you felt was right. If you were just an owner, and the AP owner is a friend, I'd have no problem with you letting him know that his player was inactive. That's what friends do. But as commissioner, it was wrong on your part. I don't know if the rest of your league was made aware of what happened. I would hope not, for your sake. You opened up a bit of a Pandora's box. What happens next week, or next year, when a similar situation occurs (believe me, it will) and you are not around to let an owner know that he has an inactive player in his lineup? Like I said, it looks like you were trying to be a good guy, and didn't have any ill intentions. I commish two leagues, and I let every owner know that they are responsible for their own teams. If they want to make a lineup change and can't get to a computer, I let them know that they can call me and I will make the change for them. I then post a message on the league home page letting the league know that Owner X called me and asked to make the change. That's the extent of the involvement I will ever have as far as another owner's team goes.

So any owner can discuss football with another owner before the game except the owner who is serving as commissioner? Don't commissioners eat enough #### already without having to play the entire season at that kind of disadvantage?

When did I say that? I'm talking about team management. Do I talk about football with the other owners in my league? All the time. Would I call an owner in a league where I'm the commissioner to tell him that his RB is inactive? Not in a billion years.

 

[mozzy84]

Yeah, that's exactly what he's saying. It's important to take every possible statement and extrapolate it out to its' most ridiculous, absurd possible ending. Nice work.

Sharing information isn't the same as the above lunacy you just posted. By the way, you can always tell when someone is about to put words in someone else's mouth, and create a strawman: The post usually starts with the word 'So'.

Necessary to show what can be excused from that line of thinking. If a commish did that I would say he's helping an owner manage a team.

Owners manage their own teams. That's what we tell every guppy that comes in here #####ing about how he lost because of FBG's rankings.

Exactly, it's not the commissioners job to manage someone else's team. Which is EXACTLY what he did.

You think FBG is managing subscribers' teams by providing them with information? Telling someone a player is inactive is not managing a team.

wow

 

[Dr. Awesome]

But you'd call an owner if you were just a regular owner?

 

[pantagrapher]

I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm sorry if I repeat what others have said. I think the OP should have stayed out of it as the commissioner. I'm not saying you acted shady, or had any motive other than doing what you felt was right. If you were just an owner, and the AP owner is a friend, I'd have no problem with you letting him know that his player was inactive. That's what friends do. But as commissioner, it was wrong on your part. I don't know if the rest of your league was made aware of what happened. I would hope not, for your sake. You opened up a bit of a Pandora's box. What happens next week, or next year, when a similar situation occurs (believe me, it will) and you are not around to let an owner know that he has an inactive player in his lineup? Like I said, it looks like you were trying to be a good guy, and didn't have any ill intentions. I commish two leagues, and I let every owner know that they are responsible for their own teams. If they want to make a lineup change and can't get to a computer, I let them know that they can call me and I will make the change for them. I then post a message on the league home page letting the league know that Owner X called me and asked to make the change. That's the extent of the involvement I will ever have as far as another owner's team goes.

So any owner can discuss football with another owner before the game except the owner who is serving as commissioner? Don't commissioners eat enough #### already without having to play the entire season at that kind of disadvantage?

When did I say that? I'm talking about team management. Do I talk about football with the other owners in my league? All the time. Would I call an owner in a league where I'm the commissioner to tell him that his RB is inactive? Not in a billion years.

As I've explained, this isn't about team management, unless the word management is going to lose all meaning. The guy changed his own lineup. It's about sharing information. Why should a commissioner not be allowed to discuss NFL information like any other owner?

 

[Man In The Box]

But you'd call an owner if you were just a regular owner?

I wouldn't, but if a regular owner called another owner in my league, I wouldn't have a problem with it. There's a difference.The only lineup I really look at besides mine is the team I'm playing against.

 

[Man In The Box]

As I've explained, this isn't about team management, unless the word management is going to lose all meaning. The guy changed his own lineup. It's about sharing information. Why should a commissioner not be allowed to discuss NFL information like any other owner?

How is calling an owner 15 minutes before kickoff to tell him that he has an inactive player in his lineup not about team management?

 

[pantagrapher]

As I've explained, this isn't about team management, unless the word management is going to lose all meaning. The guy changed his own lineup. It's about sharing information. Why should a commissioner not be allowed to discuss NFL information like any other owner?

How is calling an owner 15 minutes before kickoff to tell him that he has an inactive player in his lineup not about team management?

When you get an alert from FBG informing you of late inactives and you act on that information, is FBG managing your team?

 

[Dr. Awesome]

But you'd call an owner if you were just a regular owner?

I wouldn't, but if a regular owner called another owner in my league, I wouldn't have a problem with it. There's a difference.The only lineup I really look at besides mine is the team I'm playing against.

I don't understand why a commish isn't allowed to do that but a 'regular' owner is. I think too many people are so paranoid and sensitive to being called out for some bias they forget they're still just an owner in most ways. I sign my posts with either my name or just sign it with -The CommishI'm in charge of things and will do my damndest to make sure it's fair for everyone...but I'll be damned if that means I can't still enjoy myself.

 

[Man In The Box]

As I've explained, this isn't about team management, unless the word management is going to lose all meaning. The guy changed his own lineup. It's about sharing information. Why should a commissioner not be allowed to discuss NFL information like any other owner?

How is calling an owner 15 minutes before kickoff to tell him that he has an inactive player in his lineup not about team management?

When you get an alert from FBG informing you of late inactives and you act on that information, is FBG managing your team?

FBG is not the commissioner of my league.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

As I've explained, this isn't about team management, unless the word management is going to lose all meaning. The guy changed his own lineup. It's about sharing information. Why should a commissioner not be allowed to discuss NFL information like any other owner?

How is calling an owner 15 minutes before kickoff to tell him that he has an inactive player in his lineup not about team management?

When you get an alert from FBG informing you of late inactives and you act on that information, is FBG managing your team?

FBG is not the commissioner of my league.

I still don't understand why it's okay for a regular owner to do that but the moment a commish does it it's forbidden.

 

[Man In The Box]

As I've explained, this isn't about team management, unless the word management is going to lose all meaning. The guy changed his own lineup. It's about sharing information. Why should a commissioner not be allowed to discuss NFL information like any other owner?

How is calling an owner 15 minutes before kickoff to tell him that he has an inactive player in his lineup not about team management?

When you get an alert from FBG informing you of late inactives and you act on that information, is FBG managing your team?

FBG is not the commissioner of my league.

I still don't understand why it's okay for a regular owner to do that but the moment a commish does it it's forbidden.

Because you're setting a precedent, and unless you intend to be glued to everyone's lineup for the entire season to make sure that nobody plays an inactive player, you probably shouldn't be doing it.

 

[Chaka]

As a commish, I will encourage teams during the regular season to field a competent lineup, because regular season games effect everybody. Once teams make the playoffs, they are on their own. If I were the other owner, I'd be a little perturbed at the assist.

You'd want to win on some BS like a guy accidentally starting an inactive player?

Why is that a BS win? Shouldn't coaching competency count for something?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I'm still waiting for someone to give me a sample of the rule they have in their league that explains what the "place" of a commish/owner is and how this would be a violation. And don't just make up a rule. I want to see an actual written rule that covers "informs owner before kickoff that a player is inactive."

I personally think it's just a common sense approach to being a commish. Barring collusion you stay out of this business even though you think the result is what it should be. Maybe the owner that took care of his lineup should be rewarded.Another example, in my baseball league, we do alter lineups at the end of the year sometimes...but that's because owners stop making changes (so we're talking about bad teams, not playoff matchups) or they put in tanking lineups which we don't allow. The league knows this and we've set a precedent by always doing it.

IMO, this commish just set a precedence that he will be checking everyone's lineups before 1:00, 4:00, Sun/Mon night games each week and notifying owners of any inactive players being started or any type of news like that. But we all know this won't be happening.

Exactly.Where do you draw the line, and why?

What if that game had a bearing on which team made the playoffs? You would be taking money out of one guys hands, think that's right?

Once again a Commissioners job is not to babysit other owners.

If another owner can do it, the commissioner can do it. If it can't be done (or the information can't be known) without special commissioner power, the commissioner should decline to use that special knowledge or power. The commissioner IS a fellow owner and is allowed to act like one. Ask yourself "would another owner know this information?" In this example, even a person not in your league would know this. A person with basic cable would know this. Then ask yourself "could another owner do this?" In this case, no owner would be punished for calling up a fellow owner and saying "Hey man, Peterson is inactive." If they can do it, so can the commish. Even if there was $1,000 on the line.

Nobody has a birthright to a wall of silence so they can get "their" $1,000. If common knowledge that everyone has gets to their opponents' ear...deal with it. I have no problem wanting to win based on a technicality. A win is a win is a win. Hopefully the guy leaves Peterson in there. But if someone told him and he changed him out don't be mad at the one who told him. You weren't entitled to radio silence up until game time. It would have been a nice advantage, but you didn't get it. Now you'll have to actually win.

But if another owner can do it, so can the commish. He's an owner, too. That's where I draw the line.

 

[Man In The Box]

I'm still waiting for someone to give me a sample of the rule they have in their league that explains what the "place" of a commish/owner is and how this would be a violation. And don't just make up a rule. I want to see an actual written rule that covers "informs owner before kickoff that a player is inactive."

I personally think it's just a common sense approach to being a commish. Barring collusion you stay out of this business even though you think the result is what it should be. Maybe the owner that took care of his lineup should be rewarded.Another example, in my baseball league, we do alter lineups at the end of the year sometimes...but that's because owners stop making changes (so we're talking about bad teams, not playoff matchups) or they put in tanking lineups which we don't allow. The league knows this and we've set a precedent by always doing it.

IMO, this commish just set a precedence that he will be checking everyone's lineups before 1:00, 4:00, Sun/Mon night games each week and notifying owners of any inactive players being started or any type of news like that. But we all know this won't be happening.

Exactly.Where do you draw the line, and why?

What if that game had a bearing on which team made the playoffs? You would be taking money out of one guys hands, think that's right?

Once again a Commissioners job is not to babysit other owners.

If another owner can do it, the commissioner can do it. If it can't be done (or the information can't be known) without special commissioner power, the commissioner should decline to use that special knowledge or power. The commissioner IS a fellow owner and is allowed to act like one. Ask yourself "would another owner know this information?" In this example, even a person not in your league would know this. A person with basic cable would know this. Then ask yourself "could another owner do this?" In this case, no owner would be punished for calling up a fellow owner and saying "Hey man, Peterson is inactive." If they can do it, so can the commish. Even if there was $1,000 on the line.

Nobody has a birthright to a wall of silence so they can get "their" $1,000. If common knowledge that everyone has gets to their opponents' ear...deal with it. I have no problem wanting to win based on a technicality. A win is a win is a win. Hopefully the guy leaves Peterson in there. But if someone told him and he changed him out don't be mad at the one who told him. You weren't entitled to radio silence up until game time. It would have been a nice advantage, but you didn't get it. Now you'll have to actually win.

But if another owner can do it, so can the commish. He's an owner, too. That's where I draw the line.

So what happens next week when MJD is declared inactive 10 minutes before kickoff, and you as commish, are in church and can't inform the MJD owner that he has an inactive player in his lineup? That's where your line becomes a slippery slope.