Commish Dilemma

[The Next Generation 10]

Guy dropped DHB and picked-up B Brown and won his game this week. Has all kinds of pt/playoff implications.

 

League Rule: "All teams will consist of 3QB, 3RB, 4WR, 2K, 2DEF & 2 flex players that will play in either the RB or WR spot."

 

I know, roster limits are stupid. I agree but can't do anything about that. The dilemma is that by dropping a WR and adding a RB, he gave himself 6 RBs, which according to the rule above is illegal.

 

We don't have a rule about what would happen if an illegal roster/player was used...yet.

 

So, do I:

 

Reverse the transaction and give him 0 for the position in his lineup

Reverse the transaction and give him the bench guy he "most likely" would have started instead

Just drop a RB from his roster and add DB back on and say, "oh well"

Something else

 

Thanks!

[tikigods 76]

We don't have a rule about what would happen if an illegal roster/player was used...yet.

 

So, I:

 

Let him know and tell him he has to follow the rules. Then I make a poll and ask the league what the penalty will be for this violation in the future.

 

 

 

You're welcome.

[rise&demise 0]

Reverse the transaction and give a goose egg. Move was illegal and it's his responsibility to know and adhere to the rules.

[The Next Generation 10]

Reverse the transaction and give a goose egg. Move was illegal and it's his responsibility to know and adhere to the rules.

 

That's the way I'm leaning as well.

[JT 137]

Reverse the transaction and give a goose egg. Move was illegal and it's his responsibility to know and adhere to the rules.

 

+1

[veebs4 2]

Can't you set roster limits with the service you use to prevent a transaction that would result in an illegal roster from happening? Also, your rules specify the requirement, but not the punishment for not following. You could also assess a monetary penalty for maintaining the illegal lineup that is equal to 2 or 3 player transactions.

[The Next Generation 10]

Can't you set roster limits with the service you use to prevent a transaction that would result in an illegal roster from happening? Also, your rules specify the requirement, but not the punishment for not following. You could also assess a monetary penalty for maintaining the illegal lineup that is equal to 2 or 3 player transactions.

 

I think so, but I think the setting for the flex RB-WR-TE was wrong. I took over for the old commish this year (after 20 years) and assumed the settings were correct since we went to the flex a number of years ago. As for a monetary punishment, yeah sure that could work but some of these guys don't care how much they spend so it's not enough of a deterrent/punishment, IMO. Especially since this move directly led to him winning and screwing a few other people in the process.

 

ETA: I don't want to mess with the settings now, I'd rather play around with them in the off-season.

[steelers2101 7]

It's your job as commish to catch these mistakes before the fact, not punish people after the fact. By punishing him after the fact, you're putting him at a disadvantage than if you had corrected the mistake before last week's games. Noticing after he has won his matchup and then reversing the move is bush league.

 

It's just like breaking any other rule. You only get punished if you get caught. In this case, the commish failed to catch it in a timely fashion, and it would not be appropriate to punish him in an untimely fashion.

 

The solution is to have him drop an RB from his roster and NOT give DHB back to him. This is what should have been the case if you had noticed the error before the games, so it should be the case after. He should keep Brown, he should have to drop an RB, and his punishment is that he doesn't get DHB back. After all, dropping DHB was not illegal; only having an extra RB, which I imagine was on his bench. Also, he should have to drop an RB that was on his bench last week. If he started someone like Parmele, or Hunter, or J Stew, he should not be able to drop them, as he wouldn't have dropped them last week.

[Teren 2]

Real question is how d D Brown make a difference

[veebs4 2]

Bryce Brown: 178 yds rushing, 2 TD (65, <20), 4 rec, 11 yds, 2 lost fumbles. IN my league (PPR), that's an elite 36 points (most by RB last week).

[The Next Generation 10]

It's your job as commish to catch these mistakes before the fact, not punish people after the fact. By punishing him after the fact, you're putting him at a disadvantage than if you had corrected the mistake before last week's games. Noticing after he has won his matchup and then reversing the move is bush league.

 

It's just like breaking any other rule. You only get punished if you get caught. In this case, the commish failed to catch it in a timely fashion, and it would not be appropriate to punish him in an untimely fashion.

 

The solution is to have him drop an RB from his roster and NOT give DHB back to him. This is what should have been the case if you had noticed the error before the games, so it should be the case after. He should keep Brown, he should have to drop an RB, and his punishment is that he doesn't get DHB back. After all, dropping DHB was not illegal; only having an extra RB, which I imagine was on his bench. Also, he should have to drop an RB that was on his bench last week. If he started someone like Parmele, or Hunter, or J Stew, he should not be able to drop them, as he wouldn't have dropped them last week.

 

How is NOT getting DHB back punishment? Also, NO F'N way I'm checking everyone's roster 5 minutes prior to kickoff of the games (because that's when moves can be made until). The rule was posted and he violated it. This in no way is my fault. I can see where punishing him after the fact may not be the right move, but give me a friggin break on the rest of this drivel.

[jgcrawfish 232]

What site is this on? There's sort of a loophole on Sportsline in particular that allows you to set players as Flex even when they're on your bench. If you set 1 Flex starting and set 2 or 3 (or whatever number) as "flex" backup positions, you can stick any player at any position eligible to be used as a "flex" in those flex backup spots. I used it to "get around" the roster limits of our D-bag commish who's sole purpose was to enact rules to try and keep me from winning the league. On most sites a bench player is a bench player, but CBS allows you to list any player eligible as a flex to be a flex on your bench. So although we had a roster limit of 4 RBs, I'd often keep 2-3 extra as flex on my bench. It wasn't against the rules per se, because I was using them as flex players, but admittedly it was against the spirit of the rule. And it never resulted in an "illegal lineup" even with 7 RB's on my roster, as long as 4 were RB/Bench and the rest were Flex/Bench.

 

It's a difficult situation. Technically if he didn't have an "illegal" lineup warning, he may not have even known and it probably wouldn't be against the rules if the scenario outlined above is similar. If he didn't actually field an illegal lineup then reversing the points is out of the question. About the only thing you can do is notify him that his roster is illegal and has to be fixed before this weeks games, but no penalty will be imposed for last week. If the handling isn't outlined in the rules, and you didn't catch it before the game last week, then you're obligated to let it go.

[mobb_deep 919]

You use this as an opportunity to better define the rule/penalty. HTH.

[The Next Generation 10]

What site is this on? There's sort of a loophole on Sportsline in particular that allows you to set players as Flex even when they're on your bench. If you set 1 Flex starting and set 2 or 3 (or whatever number) as "flex" backup positions, you can stick any player at any position eligible to be used as a "flex" in those flex backup spots. I used it to "get around" the roster limits of our D-bag commish who's sole purpose was to enact rules to try and keep me from winning the league. On most sites a bench player is a bench player, but CBS allows you to list any player eligible as a flex to be a flex on your bench. So although we had a roster limit of 4 RBs, I'd often keep 2-3 extra as flex on my bench. It wasn't against the rules per se, because I was using them as flex players, but admittedly it was against the spirit of the rule. And it never resulted in an "illegal lineup" even with 7 RB's on my roster, as long as 4 were RB/Bench and the rest were Flex/Bench.

 

It's a difficult situation. Technically if he didn't have an "illegal" lineup warning, he may not have even known and it probably wouldn't be against the rules if the scenario outlined above is similar. If he didn't actually field an illegal lineup then reversing the points is out of the question. About the only thing you can do is notify him that his roster is illegal and has to be fixed before this weeks games, but no penalty will be imposed for last week. If the handling isn't outlined in the rules, and you didn't catch it before the game last week, then you're obligated to let it go.

 

That makes a lot of sense and it is on Sportsline. I just think the previous commish set the roster limits wrong and thus allowed him to add Brown when our Constitution expressly spells-out that he can't. However, I'm not sure it's the site's responsibility to enforce your roster decisions when it's spelled-out in the rules. The rules just weren't set correctly on the site.

[jgcrawfish 232]

That makes a lot of sense and it is on Sportsline. I just think the previous commish set the roster limits wrong and thus allowed him to add Brown when our Constitution expressly spells-out that he can't. However, I'm not sure it's the site's responsibility to enforce your roster decisions when it's spelled-out in the rules. The rules just weren't set correctly on the site.

 

Yeah, I figured it was sportsline. By setting the number of Flex/Bench positions at anything greater than zero, you open a door for people to put any flex-eligible position in those spots and they don't count against the individual positional limits (but do count against total roster size limit). I used it a lot, but in all honesty, everybody did it at some point in the league I was in. We had a four WR limit and people would stash them in the flex/bench spots as well. there's really nothing you can do about it because his lineup didn't show "illegal" with the blacked out player pictures like sportsline likes to do. I think you have to let it slide.

[steelers2101 7]

How is NOT getting DHB back punishment? Also, NO F'N way I'm checking everyone's roster 5 minutes prior to kickoff of the games (because that's when moves can be made until). The rule was posted and he violated it. This in no way is my fault. I can see where punishing him after the fact may not be the right move, but give me a friggin break on the rest of this drivel.

 

So he made the move 5 minutes before Monday night's kickoff? Or he made the move 5 minutes before Sunday's kickoffs and you waited a day and a half and Bryce Brown's big game before saying anything?

 

And touche on DHB, but technically, not giving him the option to get the player he dropped back is a punishment, though as bad as DHB has been, it's not much of a punishment at all.

 

Nevertheless, the solution is force him to drop a bench RB. Position limits are stupid anyway.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,005]

well he does seem to be the only person smart enough to make a claim for Brown, so let him keep him

 

as a punishment, make him drop 1 rb and 1 other player, and play with 1 less player the rest of the year, as well as move him to the bottom of the waiver order, or lock his team from making waiver transactions, only via free agents.

 

there are a lot of suitable punishments, in the league we have roster limitations, its basically overseen by other owners, if you have an illegal roster when games kick off sunday morning, you are docked 20 pts. Its only happened once

[The Next Generation 10]

So he made the move 5 minutes before Monday night's kickoff? Or he made the move 5 minutes before Sunday's kickoffs and you waited a day and a half and Bryce Brown's big game before saying anything?

 

And touche on DHB, but technically, not giving him the option to get the player he dropped back is a punishment, though as bad as DHB has been, it's not much of a punishment at all.

 

Nevertheless, the solution is force him to drop a bench RB. Position limits are stupid anyway.

 

Wow, really? I didn't even catch it, another owner did. I don't get paid for this and do a heck of a lot for nothing. No way am I checking everyone's roster every day to ensure it's legal. You're whacked.

[shutdown 40]

It's your job as commish to catch these mistakes before the fact, not punish people after the fact. By punishing him after the fact, you're putting him at a disadvantage than if you had corrected the mistake before last week's games. Noticing after he has won his matchup and then reversing the move is bush league.

 

It's just like breaking any other rule. You only get punished if you get caught. In this case, the commish failed to catch it in a timely fashion, and it would not be appropriate to punish him in an untimely fashion.

 

The solution is to have him drop an RB from his roster and NOT give DHB back to him. This is what should have been the case if you had noticed the error before the games, so it should be the case after. He should keep Brown, he should have to drop an RB, and his punishment is that he doesn't get DHB back. After all, dropping DHB was not illegal; only having an extra RB, which I imagine was on his bench. Also, he should have to drop an RB that was on his bench last week. If he started someone like Parmele, or Hunter, or J Stew, he should not be able to drop them, as he wouldn't have dropped them last week.

 

Try running a league one year then come back with this response. It is the commissioner's responsibility to enforce the rules, it is the player responsibility to play by them. I make it very clear to the guys in my league that I don't have time to check every roster, review every scoring decision, or generally police their teams. THEY are responsible for playing by the rules. If they are called out on it they will be punished in accordance with the rule OR by my decision in the event we don't have a specific rule in place. I'm not in the business of rewarding players for circumventing rules regardless of when the transgression occurs or how long ago it occured. If it's against the rules then whatever occurred is going to be reversed or some type of punitive measure will be enforced. Your solution would actually create a risk/reward situation where teams could actually be encouraged to try to skirt the rules and not get caught.

 

The original solution is the best. The transaction should not have happened as submitted. Reverse it and punish the player for making the mistake with a 0 in that position. This puts the onus of maintaining a legal lineup on the player, not the commissioner.

[chroniciguana 13]

If someone lodges a protest, then act on it. His opponent is the most likely party to protest, but anyone adversely affected - playoffs, for instance - can object. Unfortunately, your only real option is to award a forfeit. In the NFL, a forfeit is scored as 2-0. But this wouldn't be fair to the opponent. Instead, consider awarding the opponent the win and points scored, subtract the illegal player's points and levy a loss. Trying to unwind the clock through some other scenario would create a host of new problems.

 

Enforcement via a protest process leaves you a way out. There's always a chance nobody cares.

[tbk420 3]

Had the rule been observed, he would not have had the opportunity to score those Brown points. I say reverse the transaction, and subtract the points from Brown. It puts everyone in the position that they would have been in prior to the illegal transaction, and any 'penalty' would be the inability to substitute another player from his bench in place of Brown.

[jgcrawfish 232]

He may not have even known he was making an illegal transaction. If he had any players on Bench/Flex on CBS Sportsline, they DON'T count against the position limits. If his lineup said "illegal lineup" then maybe you have to ding him for it, but if the league settings aren't right, it's not his fault it will let him add the extra RB. What's done is done...move along.

[travis_henrys_baby_momma 10]

Would he lose his game with either option #1 or option #2? If he loses in both cases then I would use option #2.

[The Next Generation 10]

Would he lose his game with either option #1 or option #2? If he loses in both cases then I would use option #2.

 

Yes, he would lose either way. the ONLY way he wins is with Brown starting.

[The Next Generation 10]

He may not have even known he was making an illegal transaction. If he had any players on Bench/Flex on CBS Sportsline, they DON'T count against the position limits. If his lineup said "illegal lineup" then maybe you have to ding him for it, but if the league settings aren't right, it's not his fault it will let him add the extra RB. What's done is done...move along.

 

Except that we have stated many times over the years, you are responsible to follow the rules, don't count on the site to catch something for you (especially since they change the functionality every year and our scoring is whack). The rules clearly state that he can have a max of 3 RBs and 2 Flex. So, no matter what the site allowed, he violated the rules.

[travis_henrys_baby_momma 10]

Yes, he would lose either way. the ONLY way he wins is with Brown starting.

 

Then I would use option 2 this time and state clearly to the league that in the future you will use option #1 if someone can't follow the rules.

[steelers2101 7]

Wow, really? I didn't even catch it, another owner did. I don't get paid for this and do a heck of a lot for nothing. No way am I checking everyone's roster every day to ensure it's legal. You're whacked.

 

I didn't mean to imply that you saw it and waited, only that you didn't catch it until after the big game. If you can't regulate the rules you have in place, then you shouldn't have those rules, or someone who can regulate them should be commish.

[steelers2101 7]

Try running a league one year then come back with this response. It is the commissioner's responsibility to enforce the rules, it is the player responsibility to play by them. I make it very clear to the guys in my league that I don't have time to check every roster, review every scoring decision, or generally police their teams. THEY are responsible for playing by the rules. If they are called out on it they will be punished in accordance with the rule OR by my decision in the event we don't have a specific rule in place. I'm not in the business of rewarding players for circumventing rules regardless of when the transgression occurs or how long ago it occured. If it's against the rules then whatever occurred is going to be reversed or some type of punitive measure will be enforced. Your solution would actually create a risk/reward situation where teams could actually be encouraged to try to skirt the rules and not get caught.

 

The original solution is the best. The transaction should not have happened as submitted. Reverse it and punish the player for making the mistake with a 0 in that position. This puts the onus of maintaining a legal lineup on the player, not the commissioner.

 

I've run leagues for 10+ years. If you can't enforce the rules properly (i.e. before games), then you shouldn't have the rules in place. If you want to have the rule in place anyway, then you should have some punishment established, not some shady unilateral decision after you know how it will effect the result of the game.

 

Since this is clearly the fault of whomever made the rules and failed to enforce them timely, and since position limits are stupid anyway, the most equitable solution is to drop whom he would have dropped had he made the move legally, in addition to the player he already dropped. The argument for this is even stronger if dropping one of his other RBs is exactly what would have happened had the error been caught before the games.

[steelers2101 7]

 

We don't have a rule about what would happen if an illegal roster/player was used...yet.

 

 

This manager shouldn't be the one to have to suffer the consequences of the league not having a rule in place. When you don't have a rule on how to enforce another rule, the other rule is meaningless and shouldn't apply. Now that you realize that you need some rule on how to enforce the illegal roster rule, you can put a rule in place going forward, but the only fair way to resolve this situation is to have the manager drop the RB he would have dropped to retroactively make the move a proper one. He wasn't materially benefitted in his matchup by having a bench RB instead of a bench WR, so just have him drop an RB.

 

Btw, who was the manager who had the illegal roster playing?

[The Next Generation 10]

Btw, who was the manager who had the illegal roster playing?

 

What do you mean, who was he playing? You want the name of his opponents FF team?

[shutdown 40]

I've run leagues for 10+ years. If you can't enforce the rules properly (i.e. before games), then you shouldn't have the rules in place. If you want to have the rule in place anyway, then you should have some punishment established, not some shady unilateral decision after you know how it will effect the result of the game.

 

Since this is clearly the fault of whomever made the rules and failed to enforce them timely, and since position limits are stupid anyway, the most equitable solution is to drop whom he would have dropped had he made the move legally, in addition to the player he already dropped. The argument for this is even stronger if dropping one of his other RBs is exactly what would have happened had the error been caught before the games.

 

Agree position limits are stupid but I don't really think that's the crux of the debate. I think the OP made it clear he inherited the league and it's rules. I've run a league in its 14th season and my first set of rules were not perfect. There were some loopholes and grey areas. If you have a rule and don't have a penalty that is certainly a bad rule. Again, no argument from me on that. But sometimes you have to take what you have in season and adapt it to situations that arise where there is no clear written direction.

 

I do dispute that it is "shady" to enact a penalty when a situation arises that the rules do not cover. I also disagree that it not the responsibility of the player to know the rules of the league. Would you let a manager change his first draft pick from a RB to a QB because he "didn't know" you got 6 points for a passing TD? I wouldn't. If I had positions limits, I wouldn't let a transaction violate those position limits no matter when the error was caught (within the window to protest) and no matter if the web interface allowed it. The website interface does not supersede my rules.

 

In my opinion the cleanest, fairest way to correct the managers error is to disregard the transaction, meaning there was no starter at RB that week. That judgment reflects the spirit of the rules and keep the responsibility of team management on the player, not the commissioner.

[steelers2101 7]

What do you mean, who was he playing? You want the name of his opponents FF team?

 

Sorry, I should be more specific. What is the standing of the other manager; competing for a playoff spot? Is he the commish himself?

[steelers2101 7]

Agree position limits are stupid but I don't really think that's the crux of the debate. I think the OP made it clear he inherited the league and it's rules. I've run a league in its 14th season and my first set of rules were not perfect. There were some loopholes and grey areas. If you have a rule and don't have a penalty that is certainly a bad rule. Again, no argument from me on that. But sometimes you have to take what you have in season and adapt it to situations that arise where there is no clear written direction.

 

I do dispute that it is "shady" to enact a penalty when a situation arises that the rules do not cover. I also disagree that it not the responsibility of the player to know the rules of the league. Would you let a manager change his first draft pick from a RB to a QB because he "didn't know" you got 6 points for a passing TD? I wouldn't. If I had positions limits, I wouldn't let a transaction violate those position limits no matter when the error was caught (within the window to protest) and no matter if the web interface allowed it. The website interface does not supersede my rules.

 

In my opinion the cleanest, fairest way to correct the managers error is to disregard the transaction, meaning there was no starter at RB that week. That judgment reflects the spirit of the rules and keep the responsibility of team management on the player, not the commissioner.

 

I don't disagree that it is the responsibility of the player to know the rules. That said, a rule without an established way to enforce it is meaningless. And I feel the window to protest passed once the games began. Thus, since the rule is meaningless, it is not fair to enforce it, particularly after the fact. So, though I respect your opinion, my opinion is that without a set rule on how to enforce it ater the fact, the fairest way to handle it is to do what should have been done before the fact. And since this is apparently the first time it has come up, and the first time the issue of dealing with an illegal lineup after the fact, there is no precedent set, so there is no issue of treating this specific situation differently than it had been dealt with before.

[The Next Generation 10]

Sorry, I should be more specific. What is the standing of the other manager; competing for a playoff spot? Is he the commish himself?

 

Yes, competing for playoff spot in other division. No, I'm the new (as of this year) commish.

 

We ended-up voting on it since I, as commish, could have benefited greatly by him having the transaction reversed. He won the vote and there was no punishment, he just dropped a RB.

[steelers2101 7]

Yes, competing for playoff spot in other division. No, I'm the new (as of this year) commish.

 

We ended-up voting on it since I, as commish, could have benefited greatly by him having the transaction reversed. He won the vote and there was no punishment, he just dropped a RB.

 

Good karma for the league, clearly with plenty of nice guys who valued fairness over any potential benefit to themselves.

[The Next Generation 10]

 

Good karma for the league, clearly with plenty of nice guys who valued fairness over any potential benefit to themselves.

 

[jgcrawfish 232]

 

glad this got resolved without turning into an issue.

[The Next Generation 10]

glad this got resolved without turning into an issue.

 

Oh, the owner(s) who lost his game (only team with co-owners) are plenty pissed about it. But, with no punishment spelled-out in the rules they really don't have a leg to stand on. FWIW, I agree w/them but I also see merit in the other side of the argument and both our teams would benefit from the decision going the other way.

[swirvenirvin 25]

let it stand you cant make up a rule midseason

[The Next Generation 10]

let it stand you cant make up a rule midseason

 

Yup and we'll revisit it in the off-season.