Should I warn other owner? (2 Viewers)

[footballnerd]

Are you saying another owner could do it but a commissioner couldn't?

I don't think anyone should be helping owners in their own league manage teams, but that's up to them As for the commissioner, he should be the one mutual objective person in the league. If you can't handle the duty give it to someone else that can. I don't see how its a disadvantage to the commissioner to not help other owners manage teams unless you're losing out on influencing the league results a certain direction. If that's your agenda then you definitely shouldn't be commissioner.Twist it how you may, but this is a game of information. who to draft, who to start, who to pick up, who's injured, who's getting replaced. Information is a key edge over your opponent. If we didn't need information we wouldnt be on these boards, those horrible beat writers would be out of the job.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

So let me get this straight. If we really wanted to reward the best teams, all else being equal, which of these is the more "correct" matchup in a magic football playoff game - which matchup truly measures which team is stronger and deserves to move on to the championship round?

This:

Tm A Tm BQB QBRB RBRB RBWR WRWR WRWR WRTE TEPK PKDST DST
Or this:

Tm A Tm BQB QBRB Inactive RBRB RBWR WRWR WRWR WRTE TEPK PKDST DST
...?

 

[footballnerd]

So let me get this straight. If we really wanted to reward the best teams, all else being equal, which of these is the more "correct" matchup in a magic football playoff game - which matchup truly measures which team is stronger and deserves to move on to the championship round?

I'm not sure why you're here, because obviously your league has a rule that if someone starts a injured player or has a player injured in game, which results in a zero, they can retroactively sub a guy in that scores points. Am I correct?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

So let me get this straight. If we really wanted to reward the best teams, all else being equal, which of these is the more "correct" matchup in a magic football playoff game - which matchup truly measures which team is stronger and deserves to move on to the championship round?

I'm not sure why you're here, because obviously your league has a rule that if someone starts a injured player or has a player injured in game, which results in a zero, they can retroactively sub a guy in that scores points. Am I correct?

Of course not. I'm anxiously awaiting the clever point you're about to make.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Did he HAVE to let him know? Of course not. But if he happened to notice something there's nothing wrong with giving the person a friendly heads up. Those of you who have a major issue with that have...well, issues.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Are you saying another owner could do it but a commissioner couldn't?

I don't think anyone should be helping owners in their own league manage teams, but that's up to them As for the commissioner, he should be the one mutual objective person in the league. If you can't handle the duty give it to someone else that can. I don't see how its a disadvantage to the commissioner to not help other owners manage teams unless you're losing out on influencing the league results a certain direction. If that's your agenda then you definitely shouldn't be commissioner.Twist it how you may, but this is a game of information. who to draft, who to start, who to pick up, who's injured, who's getting replaced. Information is a key edge over your opponent. If we didn't need information we wouldnt be on these boards, those horrible beat writers would be out of the job.

Nothing to twist. It's common information. He's not going in and changing his lineup. He's not picking up Gerhart on the waiver wire for him. He's sharing knowledge that anyone with a television has. It's amazing to me that we can have one standard for owners and another for the commissioner *acting as an owner.* If I want to tell a person their RB is inactive, that's "up to me" as long as I'm not the commissioner? Then I have to keep quiet? Why? You don't make the commissioner automatically select last on the waiver wire, do you? You don't give them the worst pick in the draft, right? So why are they forced to maintain a wall of silence when everyone else is free to share common knowledge? Makes no sense to me.This does not qualify as managing a team. Managing a team is drafting players, picking someone on the waiver wire, making trades or lineup decisions. This is sharing information. They can choose to do nothing with it, or make a change based on it. It's ESPN info. Nothing to do with being a commissioner. If the guy calls someone and tells them they saw on ESPN that Peterson is inactive, nothing wrong with that. If they can't reach them and they use their commissioner login to go and change that lineup and put someone else in who is starting, BIG problem with that. One is acting in a way any owner could act. The other is using commish power to manage a team.

 

[rick6668]

Are you saying another owner could do it but a commissioner couldn't?

I don't think anyone should be helping owners in their own league manage teams, but that's up to them As for the commissioner, he should be the one mutual objective person in the league. If you can't handle the duty give it to someone else that can. I don't see how its a disadvantage to the commissioner to not help other owners manage teams unless you're losing out on influencing the league results a certain direction. If that's your agenda then you definitely shouldn't be commissioner.Twist it how you may, but this is a game of information. who to draft, who to start, who to pick up, who's injured, who's getting replaced. Information is a key edge over your opponent. If we didn't need information we wouldnt be on these boards, those horrible beat writers would be out of the job.

Nothing to twist. It's common information. He's not going in and changing his lineup. He's not picking up Gerhart on the waiver wire for him. He's sharing knowledge that anyone with a television has. It's amazing to me that we can have one standard for owners and another for the commissioner *acting as an owner.* If I want to tell a person their RB is inactive, that's "up to me" as long as I'm not the commissioner? Then I have to keep quiet? Why? You don't make the commissioner automatically select last on the waiver wire, do you? You don't give them the worst pick in the draft, right? So why are they forced to maintain a wall of silence when everyone else is free to share common knowledge? Makes no sense to me.This does not qualify as managing a team. Managing a team is drafting players, picking someone on the waiver wire, making trades or lineup decisions. This is sharing information. They can choose to do nothing with it, or make a change based on it. It's ESPN info. Nothing to do with being a commissioner. If the guy calls someone and tells them they saw on ESPN that Peterson is inactive, nothing wrong with that. If they can't reach them and they use their commissioner login to go and change that lineup and put someone else in who is starting, BIG problem with that. One is acting in a way any owner could act. The other is using commish power to manage a team.

Those who do have a problem with this should probably play in leagues where the commissioner is not an owner.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Jesus Christ the SP has this wrong. I can only imagine that most of the people telling you this was the wrong move are in their early 20s and/or literally have nothing more important going on than their magic football championship. I'd say they're all taking it too seriously, but if they were they'd know that there's no honor in winning a fantasy game because your opponent inadvertently started an inactive player anyway. Not everyone is sitting around glued to their league website or getting live updates pushed to their mobile device. You didn't have an obligation to notify the owner, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with what you did. Don't let anyone tell you any different.

Yes there is. He literally changed the w/l of the game, by helping the other owner manage his lineup. For an NFL parallel he is the snow plow driver who cleared a patch for that guy to kick from in foxboro. What if instead of a player being inactive, you heard that the player was going to be limited in carries? suspended for a 1/4? suspended for a 1/2? What if weather was going to make the game unplayable? The correct answer is that in NONE of the these cases should you interject your knowledge of the nfl/weather/injury reports etc BECAUSE ITS NOT YOUR ####### TEAM AND YOU ARE NOT PLAYING 'Owner X'.In this case you specifically cost another owner a win, because you decided as a 'neutral' arbitrator that you should take it upon yourself to tell the other owner you would start a different lineup than he has going. Sorry, that's just wrong. Especially compounded by the fact that you play the winner of this matchup. You essentially 'helped another guy at the poker table decide whether to call.Sorry It just is. I don't think you meant to, as evinced by coming here to debate it. I just think you horrible erred and made the wrong decision because you are a nice guy. Well nice guy, that isn't your role. With cash on the line you stay out unless called on to arbitrate a dispute.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Not sure why you're equating sharing of information as being less competitive, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

tell that to the guy that you just knocked out of the playoffs, no really you should, especially if you feel there is nothing wrong with it you won't have a problem notifying the opponent. as should any commish that feels to do the same, you should contact the opponent before providing the information, and say "hey, so and so isn't starting x player so i'm going to let him know." if its not wrong, then the guy will say "thats fine," right? so it's not a bad practice and the OP should start with this very situation.why should the commish take these extra steps, because it is your duty to be an objective and unbiased moderator of the league, that is why each owner trusts you with their hard earned money. if you help someone knock an opponent out of the cash prize, then you need to be fair across the board and help everyone just as effectively, or should ask the opponent if its okay.

 

[Flash]

Keeping the playing field even is not your job as commish. Your job is simply to set up the league and arbiter the rules fairly.Advising an owner that he's got an injured player is not worth bringing up to the opponent. You're not doing anything that any other owner can't also do. I fully expect that other owners may tell my opponent that he's got a hole in his roster, if it helps other owners against me over the season. There's nothing wrong with that.The only reason to inform people of anything is when you're using commissioner authority to make a change that an owner normally can't make on his own. If you change an owners roster for him, or allow a late trade, or anything else that you have to use your admin rights as the commissioner to authorize. Anything below that is just owners being owners, and there's no need to scrutinize every single thing that everyone does.

Don't tell me, tell your league, obviously theres people that don't share the same viewpoint as you. Let them know before you exercise this action, this way they know what type of commish they're dealing with and can choose to stay or leave. Put it all up front and its all good.

So the commish has to put his communications up to league scrutiny? Does he have to let the league know when he's going to offer a trade, or call his buddy to talk about the upcoming draft? The "action" he's "exercising" is talking to someone about public knowledge that everyone knows. "Hey guys, I'd like your permission to tell owner A what I saw on ESPN."Again, this has NOTHING to do with commish powers, or information he has as commish that nobody else has. He has a television and he watches ESPN. You're saying the commish has to be held to a different standard than a regular owner. While I appreciate that some commissioners like to be packmules and robots and purposely hurt their own team so they can prove how "fair" they are, it's silly to expect everyone to be so eager to give themselves an unfair disadvantage. If a commissioner is supposed to be fair to everyone, does that not include himself?If I thought for a moment that some owners thought a commish wasn't allowed to talk about public info with fellow owners, and was forced to maintain radio silence in an effort to appear "fair," I'd show them the door before they could shed their first tear. Some owners are spoiled. They think a 12-team league includes 11 regular owners and one with a hand tied behind their back and a label of guilty until proven innocent. Everyone else can share what they saw on TV...but not this one owner. He better stay quiet. If he mentions what he saw on ESPN he's not being "fair."

So as commish you're prob the most active person on the site, you are helping two teams manage their teams through out the season and giving no help to anyone else. You're holding everyone's money, ya I would see problem with that. And when sheit hits the fan with some kind of league error, don't think the league will feel a bias is in play with the decision. Talk about the NFL all you want, but you shouldn't be helping people manage their teams.I talk a gang load of NFL with my leaguemates such as why does randy moss suck so bad, but I don't help them with their line up decisions, thats up to them on their own.

I wouldn't be giving any "help" that another owner couldn't give. If I can see blind bidding and revealed that information to someone (or used it to my advantage) you'd be 100 percent right. But this is information on ESPN. I could do it as an owner and could do it as commissioner.Are you saying another owner could do it but a commissioner couldn't?

You just have your head in the sand on this and are missing every point about it.

 

[Flash]

So let me get this straight. If we really wanted to reward the best teams, all else being equal, which of these is the more "correct" matchup in a magic football playoff game - which matchup truly measures which team is stronger and deserves to move on to the championship round?This:

Tm A	Tm BQB	 QBRB	 RBRB	 RBWR	 WRWR	 WRWR	 WRTE	 TEPK	 PKDST	DST

Or this:

Tm A	Tm BQB	 QBRB	 Inactive RBRB	 RBWR	 WRWR	 WRWR	 WRTE	 TEPK	 PKDST	DST

...?

Another guy totally missing the point here.

 

[duaneok66]

I still think people are missing the main point . . .

others and myself have already stated that AP was questionable ALL WEEK and the guy left him him in anyway - let's say the guy (due to injuries) is forced some scrub like Goodson, Goodson is playing MNF (no AP on roster), and Goodson is questionable - do you think he's going to leave Goodson in knowing he has to work Monday and might not have time to switch??? Most on here are acting like the owner had no role in this - Goodson would be out in the above example and he'd start a WR (if possible) or some waiver guy he knew would get SOME points . . . he left AP in due to his potential to get a lot of FF points, but there was risk involved . . .

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

The more I think about this, the more I think the OP probably benefited from this.

Sounds like the OP most definitely did not benefit from this...The more I think about this, the more I think fantasy football isn't for those of you who get pissed off when you fail to obtain a cheap playoff victory just because your opponent takes the inactive players out of his lineup in exchange for ones who are actually playing.

If you can't win your playoff game unless your opponent starts an inactive Adrian Peterson on game day, because he's busy doing something productive like say working, then you really shouldn't be whining about it and embarassing yourself.

As an alternative to crying like a little girl, I'ld recommend drafting a better team and outscoring your opponent next time chief.

And for the rest of you getting all hot and bothered over this scenario, remember this is not a matter of national security. It's a freakin' hobby/game, a source of enjoyment and excitement to enhance your enjoyment of the NFL. Those of you who treat it like it's a theater of war with life and death at stake here, really need to take a deep breath and reassess whether fantasy football is something you should be engaging in. Especially if it causes you to bash someone for exhibiting good sportsmanship, and extoll the virtues of being a piss poor sport instead.

you'd make a great activist judge.

as a non participant in this bet 'what FF is really about in your opinion' doesn't really matter very much. This is a bet between 10-16 dudes with prewritten rules/ The ethos you attach to your play doesn't or at least shouldn't come into play here.

Someone used to have a great sig about poker. Like some people want to beat the best to be the best. I'll just pound the worst players and be happy with my big piles of cash or something like that. Which route you choose is your own, but in this case the OP should have stayed out of it.

 

[pantagrapher]

Jesus Christ the SP has this wrong. I can only imagine that most of the people telling you this was the wrong move are in their early 20s and/or literally have nothing more important going on than their magic football championship. I'd say they're all taking it too seriously, but if they were they'd know that there's no honor in winning a fantasy game because your opponent inadvertently started an inactive player anyway. Not everyone is sitting around glued to their league website or getting live updates pushed to their mobile device. You didn't have an obligation to notify the owner, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with what you did. Don't let anyone tell you any different.

Yes there is. He literally changed the w/l of the game, by helping the other owner manage his lineup. For an NFL parallel he is the snow plow driver who cleared a patch for that guy to kick from in foxboro. What if instead of a player being inactive, you heard that the player was going to be limited in carries? suspended for a 1/4? suspended for a 1/2? What if weather was going to make the game unplayable? The correct answer is that in NONE of the these cases should you interject your knowledge of the nfl/weather/injury reports etc BECAUSE ITS NOT YOUR ####### TEAM AND YOU ARE NOT PLAYING 'Owner X'.In this case you specifically cost another owner a win, because you decided as a 'neutral' arbitrator that you should take it upon yourself to tell the other owner you would start a different lineup than he has going. Sorry, that's just wrong. Especially compounded by the fact that you play the winner of this matchup. You essentially 'helped another guy at the poker table decide whether to call.Sorry It just is. I don't think you meant to, as evinced by coming here to debate it. I just think you horrible erred and made the wrong decision because you are a nice guy. Well nice guy, that isn't your role. With cash on the line you stay out unless called on to arbitrate a dispute.

I'm still shaking my head over you calling this collusion. You are wildly overreacting. Anyone can discuss anything about football with whomever they want. Even commissioners.This is the second time someone has used the horrible poker table metaphor. It's laughably inaccurate.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

The more I think about this, the more I think the OP probably benefited from this.

Sounds like the OP most definitely did not benefit from this...The more I think about this, the more I think fantasy football isn't for those of you who get pissed off when you fail to obtain a cheap playoff victory just because your opponent takes the inactive players out of his lineup in exchange for ones who are actually playing.

If you can't win your playoff game unless your opponent starts an inactive Adrian Peterson on game day, because he's busy doing something productive like say working, then you really shouldn't be whining about it and embarassing yourself.

As an alternative to crying like a little girl, I'ld recommend drafting a better team and outscoring your opponent next time chief.

And for the rest of you getting all hot and bothered over this scenario, remember this is not a matter of national security. It's a freakin' hobby/game, a source of enjoyment and excitement to enhance your enjoyment of the NFL. Those of you who treat it like it's a theater of war with life and death at stake here, really need to take a deep breath and reassess whether fantasy football is something you should be engaging in. Especially if it causes you to bash someone for exhibiting good sportsmanship, and extoll the virtues of being a piss poor sport instead.

and if you can't win a playoff game without the commish calling you to set your lineup straight maybe you don't deserve to win? If anyone got a cheap win its the guy who got probably his first phone call ever from the commish telling him to change his lineup.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

You have to be trustworthy, bipartisan, and legit otherwise your integrity along with the league's, goes right out the window.

This is exactly why I DID tell him. I wasn't colluding against a specific owner. If the teams were reversed, I would have done the same thing. I wasn't treating one owner differently than I would have treated any other which is why I ultimately decided to do what I did. If I wasn't the commish and there was someone I didn't like in the league, you better believe I wouldn't make the call. And similarly, if I wasn't the commish and my buddy in the league had AP in his lineup and didn't realize it/wasn't able to check in, you better believe I'd let him know. I wouldn't even dream of not doing that.But, as commish, if I would have done it for one team, I felt I had to apply the same to any owner. It had nothing to do with liking one more than the other or benefiting my team (which it actually hurt as a result). Now, YOU may believe that a commish should never interfere and YOU may believe that another owner should never help another owner and that is fine. I find no fault with that line of thinking. But to question my integrity because of this decision is 100% incorrect. The reason I did it and the reason I came here to begin with was to do the right thing. While some of you obviously feel quite strongly that I didn't, I'm 100% comfortable with what I did and the "ethics" behind it. And as I stated, while making some type of weird announcement that I tried to contact the owner to inform him of an inactive player is not something I'll do (simply bc I don't think it's at all necessary), I am making no attempt whatsoever to keep it a secret.

you are missing the boat. You are are right to try and treat owners equally. You are wrong it that you shouldn't contact EITHER owner about these kinds of decisions.

 

[pantagrapher]

"Hey dude, Peterson is inactive."

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

You have to be trustworthy, bipartisan, and legit otherwise your integrity along with the league's, goes right out the window.

This is exactly why I DID tell him. I wasn't colluding against a specific owner. If the teams were reversed, I would have done the same thing. I wasn't treating one owner differently than I would have treated any other which is why I ultimately decided to do what I did. If I wasn't the commish and there was someone I didn't like in the league, you better believe I wouldn't make the call. And similarly, if I wasn't the commish and my buddy in the league had AP in his lineup and didn't realize it/wasn't able to check in, you better believe I'd let him know. I wouldn't even dream of not doing that.But, as commish, if I would have done it for one team, I felt I had to apply the same to any owner. It had nothing to do with liking one more than the other or benefiting my team (which it actually hurt as a result). Now, YOU may believe that a commish should never interfere and YOU may believe that another owner should never help another owner and that is fine. I find no fault with that line of thinking. But to question my integrity because of this decision is 100% incorrect. The reason I did it and the reason I came here to begin with was to do the right thing. While some of you obviously feel quite strongly that I didn't, I'm 100% comfortable with what I did and the "ethics" behind it. And as I stated, while making some type of weird announcement that I tried to contact the owner to inform him of an inactive player is not something I'll do (simply bc I don't think it's at all necessary), I am making no attempt whatsoever to keep it a secret.

Listen, I get it ok. You were trying to do what you perceived to be the "right thing to do". Maybe you are a super nice guy and no one in the world would ever think you had an alternative motive. The problem is that you are opening pandora's box. You are possibly giving off the impression (whether you had intent or not) of impropriety. As the commissioner, that's the biggest cardinal sin IMO. If you can't trust the guy running the show, the show does not go on. That's the reason you as the commissioner have to leave these situations alone.

/thread

 

[footballnerd]

This does not qualify as managing a team. Managing a team is drafting players, picking someone on the waiver wire, making trades or lineup decisions. This is sharing information. They can choose to do nothing with it, or make a change based on it. It's ESPN info. Nothing to do with being a commissioner. If the guy calls someone and tells them they saw on ESPN that Peterson is inactive, nothing wrong with that. If they can't reach them and they use their commissioner login to go and change that lineup and put someone else in who is starting, BIG problem with that. One is acting in a way any owner could act. The other is using commish power to manage a team.

So if you do this for the owner every week, give them internet information which always comes with an analysis spin to it, so they can decide who to draft, who to pick up, who to start, and who to sit, you're not helping them manage their team? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

 

[pantagrapher]

You have to be trustworthy, bipartisan, and legit otherwise your integrity along with the league's, goes right out the window.

This is exactly why I DID tell him. I wasn't colluding against a specific owner. If the teams were reversed, I would have done the same thing. I wasn't treating one owner differently than I would have treated any other which is why I ultimately decided to do what I did. If I wasn't the commish and there was someone I didn't like in the league, you better believe I wouldn't make the call. And similarly, if I wasn't the commish and my buddy in the league had AP in his lineup and didn't realize it/wasn't able to check in, you better believe I'd let him know. I wouldn't even dream of not doing that.But, as commish, if I would have done it for one team, I felt I had to apply the same to any owner. It had nothing to do with liking one more than the other or benefiting my team (which it actually hurt as a result). Now, YOU may believe that a commish should never interfere and YOU may believe that another owner should never help another owner and that is fine. I find no fault with that line of thinking. But to question my integrity because of this decision is 100% incorrect. The reason I did it and the reason I came here to begin with was to do the right thing. While some of you obviously feel quite strongly that I didn't, I'm 100% comfortable with what I did and the "ethics" behind it. And as I stated, while making some type of weird announcement that I tried to contact the owner to inform him of an inactive player is not something I'll do (simply bc I don't think it's at all necessary), I am making no attempt whatsoever to keep it a secret.

Listen, I get it ok. You were trying to do what you perceived to be the "right thing to do". Maybe you are a super nice guy and no one in the world would ever think you had an alternative motive. The problem is that you are opening pandora's box. You are possibly giving off the impression (whether you had intent or not) of impropriety. As the commissioner, that's the biggest cardinal sin IMO. If you can't trust the guy running the show, the show does not go on. That's the reason you as the commissioner have to leave these situations alone.

/thread

Out of curiosity, how do you phrase this in your league rules?

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

In the two leagues I commish I let people sink or swim on their own. I have never got involved in a issue like this and never will. How people run their teams is up to them.

I also commish two fairly high dollar leagues. I do not tell even my friends when they have made mistakes because I dont want to treat anyone unfairly. If I tell one person they have a lineup mistake, I must tell everyone that has a line up mistake or I am treating them differently.I dont know how old the OP is...but if you are in a league with men, men should be responsible for their own team. Maybe you could have called the opponent and given him the chance to let the AP owner know.

an excellent compromise if you feel compelled to do so. If he feels like the some in this thread he can make the call to contact him. Best of both worlds really.

 

[Bobcat10]

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?

 

[pantagrapher]

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?

 

[rick6668]

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?

 

[duaneok66]

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?

come on, he was exaggerating . . .he cared enough to switch, but he didnt care enough to keep tabs on him on Monday . . . yes he was at work, but he's not the only FF player that has a job . . .

 

[duaneok66]

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 . . .

 

[massraider]

This does not qualify as managing a team. Managing a team is drafting players, picking someone on the waiver wire, making trades or lineup decisions. This is sharing information. They can choose to do nothing with it, or make a change based on it. It's ESPN info. Nothing to do with being a commissioner.

If the guy calls someone and tells them they saw on ESPN that Peterson is inactive, nothing wrong with that. If they can't reach them and they use their commissioner login to go and change that lineup and put someone else in who is starting, BIG problem with that. One is acting in a way any owner could act. The other is using commish power to manage a team.

So if you do this for the owner every week, give them internet information which always comes with an analysis spin to it, so they can decide who to draft, who to pick up, who to start, and who to sit, you're not helping them manage their team? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

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'.

 

[footballnerd]

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.

 

[rick6668]

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?

 

[pantagrapher]

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?

come on, he was exaggerating . . .he cared enough to switch, but he didnt care enough to keep tabs on him on Monday . . . yes he was at work, but he's not the only FF player that has a job . . .

Nobody is saying we have to feel sorry for him if he doesn't find out about AP being inactive. But he found out. He made the change. No big deal.

 

[duaneok66]

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 - I wouldn't . . . best friend or no , he's an idiot for not keeping better watch over his team, and if one of them is the commish I would stay out of it . . .

 

[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.

 

[massraider]

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.

You could say that about any owner that offers advice to another owner. And I see nothing wrong with it. And if the commish is an owner in the league, he should be able to give owners a heads up, just the way any other owner would. It looks bad, sure, if you play what-ifs till the end of time, and imagine where it could lead, and come up with scenarios that would never ever happen. Fact is, common sense is all you need to differentiate between a friendly "Yo, Peterson is out tonight", and the manic, meddling, dictatorship you are describing above.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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.

 

[footballnerd]

You could say that about any owner that offers advice to another owner. And I see nothing wrong with it. And if the commish is an owner in the league, he should be able to give owners a heads up, just the way any other owner would.

It looks bad, sure, if you play what-ifs till the end of time, and imagine where it could lead, and come up with scenarios that would never ever happen. Fact is, common sense is all you need to differentiate between a friendly "Yo, Peterson is out tonight", and the manic, meddling, dictatorship you are describing above.

agreed, but who knows what conclusions will arise from this situation from other league mates. imho, in the end its better to practice objectively.

 

[footballnerd]

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.

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

 

[Bobcat10]

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?

Maybe I should have taken the "plain and simple" part out. But you know what I mean, dude.If a commish is doing this in the playoffs then they better damn well be doing it every single week for every single owner....and as someone mentioned the other day he might as well just start his own league where he controls every team to see which one wins.Would the guy that was at work with no knowledge of AP being inactive have called the commish after he got home and say "why the heck didn't you or anyone else let me know about this?"? I don't think so.I'd have no issue with a buddy letting another buddy know of some breaking news...."that's what friends are for"....but it's not the place of the commish to be making heads up calls that negatively effect other owners in his league.

 

[pantagrapher]

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?

Maybe I should have taken the "plain and simple" part out. But you know what I mean, dude.If a commish is doing this in the playoffs then they better damn well be doing it every single week for every single owner....and as someone mentioned the other day he might as well just start his own league where he controls every team to see which one wins.Would the guy that was at work with no knowledge of AP being inactive have called the commish after he got home and say "why the heck didn't you or anyone else let me know about this?"? I don't think so.I'd have no issue with a buddy letting another buddy know of some breaking news...."that's what friends are for"....but it's not the place of the commish to be making heads up calls that negatively effect other owners in his league.

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."

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Listen, I get it ok. You were trying to do what you perceived to be the "right thing to do". Maybe you are a super nice guy and no one in the world would ever think you had an alternative motive. The problem is that you are opening pandora's box. You are possibly giving off the impression (whether you had intent or not) of impropriety. As the commissioner, that's the biggest cardinal sin IMO. If you can't trust the guy running the show, the show does not go on. That's the reason you as the commissioner have to leave these situations alone.

/thread

Out of curiosity, how do you phrase this in your league rules?

not sure what you mean, but in some leagues we list duties of the commisioner

8. The Commissioner A. Duties i. Preside over the day to day operations of the league ii. Enforce the rules and regulations outlined in this document iii. Interpret the clauses of this document iv. Manage the financial affairs of the league v. Arbitrate any disputes between teams or between teams and the league vi. Punish offenders as outlined in this document (or in any way he sees fit if the punishment for the offense is not specifically outlined in this document) in order to best carry out the intentions or goals of the league vii. Carry out any other actions necessary to run the league in a manner which is in the best interest of the league B. Election i. The commissioner will be elected by the member teams ii. A commissioner may step down prior to the beginning of any season. iii. The election of a commissioner to an empty post requires 5 or more votes and must be at least one more vote than any other candidate 1. Should a vote fail to produce a valid election, the top two vote getters plus ties will be entered in a run-off election 2. If a the league continues to be unable to produce a valid election even after multiple run-off elections, the top vote getter in the most recent election will be appointed or, in the case of joint top vote getters, an appointment will be made by coin flip or other such game of chance iv. The election of a new commissioner against an incumbent who has not stepped down requires 7 votes v. The Commissioner may be impeached and replaced by the Deputy at any time with a vote of 10 teams C. Deputy Commissioner (“Deputy”) i. The Deputy will be appointed by the Commissioner prior to the draft for any given year ii. The Deputy will only be called into act in an official capacity when the Commissioner is conflicted or otherwise does not believe that he can objectively make a decision in a given situation or when he is indisposed for a period, either planned or unplanned, that is significantly long enough or at a critical enough juncture that for the good of the league the Deputy must take action. iii. The Deputy will have the full powers and authorities of the commissioner when called upon to act. 9. Amendments and Rule Changes A. Off season i. All proposed rule changes are to be submitted to the Commissioner prior to the first pick of the draft for that year either verbally or by e-mail ii. The Commissioner shall organize the submissions up for debate and present them to the owners of the league at the Annual Meeting iii. If a proposed rule change is seconded by a team who was not the original proposer, the rule will come to a full vote of the league 1. Simple majority is needed to carry a proposal 2. One team, one vote regardless of how many owners are on each team 3. A deadlock vote sees a proposed change fail and the status quo maintained iv. The Commissioner may elect to veto a rule change only in cases where the change is significantly disadvantageous to the minority or where logistical concerns make applying the change impractical. B. In season i. Proposed changes to rules actually in existence must first be submitted to the Commissioner who will, if he agrees with the proposal, submit it to the league for vote. The vote will need to be 12-0 in order to carry ii. Proposed new rules not otherwise covered by this document will be submitted to the commissioner who will put the rule up for a vote. The vote will need 9 votes to carry iii. The veto rules of 9(A)(iv) also apply to in season changes C. Interpretations i. From time to time disputes will arise which the Commissioner will be called on to resolve using the rules incorporated into this document as a guide. ii. The Commissioner shall, however, have the right to present an issue to the league for vote should he feel that a ruling will establish a precedence not contemplated by this document, would have far reaching consequences for teams beyond the incident at hand, and is not of a factual nature. Simple majority will carry.

in another we gave this rule on pt, but it requires the owner to be proactive, and is intended for limted circumstances (ie I am in a sales seminar on sunday noon and wont be able to check as I am the keynote speaker etc)

13) Vacationing Owner / Questionable Player Problems - In the event that an owner knows he will be out of town/away from a computer for a weekend, and has a roster situation that may require last minute attention, he may request a commissioner's roster adjustment prior to his departure. This is not intended to cover an entire emergency plan for a team, but instead to cover a single player uncertainty. The player must be named, there must be a reason ("ESPN says he's questionable" is OK, "In case he gets in a car wreck" is not), the player must be listed as "OUT" on the inactive report that is submitted to the NFL 30 minutes before kickoff, and the roster move must be explicit and allowable ("Start Eddie Kennison if Randy Moss is scratched" is okay, "Give me whoever if one of my RBs sprains a toe on Friday" is not). The swap must be a legal swap based on the timing of the scratch, or something you could have done yourself with computer access when the player is listed officially as "OUT." These moves are intended to cover unique and specific circumstances only, and the commissioners may decline repeated assistance if this is abused.

 

[footballnerd]

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.

look, if the owner came up to the commish and asked if AP was starting and he told him, that is fine, but if the commish goes out of his way to notify which changes a result, he should respect the matchup and the other owner, and let him know he did it. The opponent can then draw his own conclusion. Reactions are likely better if you notify the opponent before the match up.I'm using it as a sticking point because if there is nothing wrong with this action you will have no problem telling the opponent.

 

[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.

 

[duaneok66]

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.

love these assumptions that we dont have anything better to do - that this guy is the only one that has a job. Nice analysis - if his life is so important, then please explain why he'd be furious if he didnt get a call from the commish . . .

you cant have it both ways . . .

 

[pantagrapher]

Out of curiosity, how do you phrase this in your league rules?

not sure what you mean, but in some leagues we list duties of the commissioner

The poster accused the commissioner of "impropriety." I was asking to see the rule that prevents the commissioner from discussing inactives with another owner before a game, because I've never heard of such a rule (and I realize "discussing inactives" is very specific; I'll settle for a general category, as long as it's not general to the point of being meaningless). I was also curious to know if the rule is applied solely to the commissioner or to all owners.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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.

look, if the owner came up to the commish and asked if AP was starting and he told him, that is fine, but if the commish goes out of his way to notify which changes a result, he should respect the matchup and the other owner, and let him know he did it. The opponent can then draw his own conclusion. Reactions are likely better if you notify the opponent before the match up.I'm using it as a sticking point because if there is nothing wrong with this action you will have no problem telling the opponent.

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.

 

[FootballGuy22]

If this guy who had Peterson was at work and didn't have access to the information how did he make his lineup change? Pretty much every fantasy site I know of has some sort of news stream/info, all he had to do was check his fantasy site. It wasn't necessary for the commish to make this call out of obligation.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Nice analysis - if his life is so important, then please explain why he'd be furious if he didnt get a call from the commish . . .you cant have it both ways . . .

Re-read what I wrote a few times, and think about this a little harder. Because that's not what I said.

 

[pantagrapher]

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).

 

[pantagrapher]

If this guy who had Peterson was at work and didn't have access to the information how did he make his lineup change? Pretty much every fantasy site I know of has some sort of news stream/info, all he had to do was check his fantasy site. It wasn't necessary for the commish to make this call out of obligation.

Nobody said he didn't have internet access. Nobody said the commish was obligated to make the call.

 

[Hoosier16]

everyone is saying there is nothing wrong with it, so all those people including yourself should call the opponent and let them know what your doing prior to telling the owner to change his line up. its easy as pie, if there is nothing wrong or biased about it, you would have no problem making that courtesy call and face the music. who knows, the guy might be just like yall and say thats fine, right?

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?