"Stalling" online rookie draft, fair or unfair? (1 Viewer)

[Cjw_55106]

Lets suppose you are planning to quit after this season and you decide to trade your best 5 guys for a punter. Would they allow this? Since you didnt plan it with another owner, it isnt collusion, you simply decided to do it. What rights do they have to stop it? I think people that are saying these guys can hide behind the lack of rules are wrong. This is the real world. Make them pick or refund their money and kick them out. Either way, some people are jackasses so the rules needs to be put in place when possible. When people act rational, PC bull$hit isnt necessary.

 

[Adam Harstad]

You know what this all makes me think of? Imagine a little boy is poking his sister with his finger, and she complains, and his mother says "Timmy, stop touching your sister!"

If Timmy picked up a stick and started poking his sister with that, instead, and defended himself by saying "You said I had to stop touching her, but you didn't say I couldn't poke her with a stick", how do you think his mother would/should react to that sort of pedantic rules lawyering? Do you think the mother would respond that Timmy raised some very valid points, and that it was her fault for failing to anticipate that he might poke his sister with a stick, and that he could get away with doing it just this one time but going forward could he please kindly refrain from poking his sister with a stick, as well? Should she be forced to enumerate all of the other objects that Timmy is not allowed to poke his sister with, as well as listing any other potential actions which Timmy should refrain from taking, all while hoping that she manages to think of everything without leaving anything out? Or is it more likely that Timmy is about to find himself disciplined back to the stone age to send a clear and unmistakeable message that conniving and rules-lawyering will not be tolerated, to say nothing of tacitly encouraged? Because that's kind of how I think a good commissioner should react here. It sucks that commissioners have to be mommies to a bunch of grown men, but that's sort of the job description.

If the commissioner says "well, there's no rule on the books" and lets them get away with it this season, he's just begging them to try to find other ways to game the system going forward.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

The only possible exception would be a ruling that said you have to finish the draft before week 1 of the regular season. Other than that, if there is nothing currently in the bylaws regarding it, then nothing you can ethically do.

I'd say that if there are 8 picks left, then the draft will go to a 24-hour limit starting 9 days before the regular season. Anything beyond that would be violating your own league rules. If the majority does not like the tactic, then vote on a change to go in effect next offseason.

So if the guy at 1.02 said he was going to wait 8 weeks to make his pick so he can read some OTA reports before he chooses which rookie RB he likes, the league should just be ok with that?

Just because no time limit is set in the rules, there is an understanding amongst leaguemates that this isn't the way the draft is to be held.

These are two owners who are colluding to give themselves an advantage they don't deserve. The commish needs to be strong here and say "make the picks or lose them."

 

[coolnerd]

You know what this all makes me think of? Imagine a little boy is poking his sister with his finger, and she complains, and his mother says "Timmy, stop touching your sister!"

If Timmy picked up a stick and started poking his sister with that, instead, and defended himself by saying "You said I had to stop touching her, but you didn't say I couldn't poke her with a stick", how do you think his mother would/should react to that sort of pedantic rules lawyering? Do you think the mother would respond that Timmy raised some very valid points, and that it was her fault for failing to anticipate that he might poke his sister with a stick, and that he could get away with doing it just this one time but going forward could he please kindly refrain from poking his sister with a stick, as well? Should she be forced to enumerate all of the other objects that Timmy is not allowed to poke his sister with, as well as listing any other potential actions which Timmy should refrain from taking, all while hoping that she manages to think of everything without leaving anything out? Or is it more likely that Timmy is about to find himself disciplined back to the stone age to send a clear and unmistakeable message that conniving and rules-lawyering will not be tolerated, to say nothing of tacitly encouraged? Because that's kind of how I think a good commissioner should react here. It sucks that commissioners have to be mommies to a bunch of grown men, but that's sort of the job description.

If the commissioner says "well, there's no rule on the books" and lets them get away with it this season, he's just begging them to try to find other ways to game the system going forward.

Unfortunately, even with a listed 24 hour clock, I have (and seen other commish's do it also) had to explain that yes while you actually can use 24 hours to make a pick, that clock is really for life unexpected situation's or for people who really aren't online but once or twice a day, not for an individual to spin the clock waiting for a miracle trade offer or unexpected news.

 

[cstu]

If you don't want to make a rule change, you can also make a simple clarification that you like to have ethical owners in the league and they won't be allowed to return after this year. No rule change necessary, pretty sure they'll make their picks timely.

Now this is a good solution.

 

[Leonidas]

This is the fault of whoever created the league/made the rules. If fault is to be given to somebody, that is.

It's smart on their part. It feels cheap to me and I personally wouldn't do it, but if it's not against the rules in any way...

And I agree about posing the amendment to the rules for next year sooner rather than later.

At the same time, I understand the sportsmanship angle.

If I may....Last year in a league I commissioned I did not set a maximum number of acquisitions. Somebody decided to basically put every single free agent on waivers by adding and dropping and adding and dropping and adding and dropping. So I changed the rules right there to put a max on the number of acquisitions. Some absurdly high number, like 100 for the season, and I reset everybody to zero on the counter...there were no complaints.

 

[Mario Kart]

I'd throw the book at them and demand they pick within the next couple of days. Why? This is a draft and like every other draft in the history of drafts, they were completed in less than a weeks time (NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL, etc.). The precedent has been set and although there is "nothing" in your rules that sets a time limit, the precedents have been set and have been followed and adhered to without discussion. If they choose not to pick in the next 48 hours... those picks are forfeited. If the two teams leave the league, better for your league.

 

[Beefeaters]

Ok, how about this... have the Commish tell them that there is no specific rule preventing the Commissioner from going in and making the picks for them, and since he has the ability to do so, it must be allowed, and therefore they can't get mad about it. If that doesn't light a fire under their asses, then follow through with it. They will be pissed, but they've already pissed off the rest of the league so what's the difference... either way they've ruined the best part of the year for the league.

 

[Warhogs]

Maybe the other league mates should take a stand and say ix this or we are walking away from this league? I wouldn't want to play with a couple of tools like that anyway.

 

[Phantom Knight]

Brilliant on their part. There is no rule against it, so you can't be mad. You had the same choice as they did (any of you could have sat on pick 2.11 for a month since there is no time limit, but you chose not to), so you can't be mad. IMO, it would be unfair to THEM if you put a rule in place to institute a timer while you are in the middle of the draft because it is essentially changing the rule mid-stream.

In the end, they may end up with a REAL significant advantage if they just sit on this and wait for news to break on players so I would put a vote together for the future and base it on the "spirit" of fair competition (which is also why I would say you should NOT try to change it now, because it was fair to you all, some of you just handled it differently).

The one "out" I might say you have right now is IF you could prove that this idea was hatched out between the two owners and they acted out a plan to obtain and sit on these 8 picks jointly. If they did that, then that is collusion and that is generally a non-no in any league, written or unwritten. If they did that, then I would say you can call BS.

I agree with Shutout's thoughts, though I would add (or change his reply to include) this:

IF the league has a rule in place giving the commissioner the capacity to step in for the "good of the league" or something of that nature, I believe there are grounds for the commissioner to institute a rule change/clarification.

While clearly intelligent on their part and while clearly within the letter of the law, it is also clearly contrary to the spirit of the rules because it is a clear advantage to them over the rest of the league. In my opinion this, therefore, is a matter of integrity for the league.

If I were commish and the league had a general rule in place, I would step in for this reason. There would then follow a vote for a timer rule to be put in place permanently for future years. If the league does not have such a general rule... in addition to voting on a timer limit, I would seriously consider putting such a "good of the league" rule in place.

 

[finito]

This is the fault of whoever created the league/made the rules. If fault is to be given to somebody, that is.

Disagree here. You're saying that whoever commishes a league must put in place rules that will cover every single possible issue that could conceivably arise. That's impossible. Situations will pop up that warrant direct intervention, no one can cover every single base.

 

[Leonidas]

This is the fault of whoever created the league/made the rules. If fault is to be given to somebody, that is.

Disagree here. You're saying that whoever commishes a league must put in place rules that will cover every single possible issue that could conceivably arise. That's impossible. Situations will pop up that warrant direct intervention, no one can cover every single base.

IMO this is the kind of thing that shouldn't be overlooked. The length of time allowed to make a pick is one of the first things I would put in ink (err, text) when the Draft settings came up, if I were creating the league/rules.

But as I said or at least hinted at before, if I were the commissioner I would do something to fix it. I have made similar changes on the fly in the past and would do so again. The "integrity of the league" phrase seems quite apt.