Rule #14

mrhambone · Post by **mrhambone** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:39 am

I am in Las Vegas League 10 and last week a team in my league dropped Brian Roberts for Skip Shumaker. He also had Dave Roberts on his team and he quickly admitted to making a mistake and dropping the wrong Roberts. I'm assuming that the commish for my league fixed this because Brian Roberts is in his line-up this week as well as Skip Shumaker.

I'm curious as to how far this goes. Can I drop a guy on Sunday and then say I dropped the wrong guy after news comes out on him later in the day that I don't like. Is this an exception because they were both named Roberts? Is there no penalty for this? It seems a little unfair for this guy to not only get the correction but then to be able to start them both that week. In my opinion the league should have been a little harder on this guy.

Any Vets out there ever encounter this before and what are your thoughts on the fairness of the outcome.

Rule stated below.

14. Trades between managers: To minimize the possibility of collusion, there will be no trading allowed. All drops are also subject to review by the commissioner of the NFBC and can be revoked if the dropped player is deemed too valuable to be offered to that league's free agent pool, thus damaging the credibility of the overall contest. In the case of a "star" player being dropped in a league for a valid reason, the NFBC commissioner does reserve the right to allow the cut but keep the player out of that league's free agent listing for any length of time, possibly the entire season. All decisions by the NFBC commissioner will be final.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:57 am

Originally posted by mrhambone:

I am in Las Vegas League 10 and last week a team in my league dropped Brian Roberts for Skip Shumaker. He also had Dave Roberts on his team and he quickly admitted to making a mistake and dropping the wrong Roberts. I'm assuming that the commish for my league fixed this because Brian Roberts is in his line-up this week as well as Skip Shumaker.

I'm curious as to how far this goes. Can I drop a guy on Sunday and then say I dropped the wrong guy after news comes out on him later in the day that I don't like. Is this an exception because they were both named Roberts? Is there no penalty for this? It seems a little unfair for this guy to not only get the correction but then to be able to start them both that week. In my opinion the league should have been a little harder on this guy.

Any Vets out there ever encounter this before and what are your thoughts on the fairness of the outcome.

Rule stated below.

14. Trades between managers: To minimize the possibility of collusion, there will be no trading allowed. All drops are also subject to review by the commissioner of the NFBC and can be revoked if the dropped player is deemed too valuable to be offered to that league's free agent pool, thus damaging the credibility of the overall contest. In the case of a "star" player being dropped in a league for a valid reason, the NFBC commissioner does reserve the right to allow the cut but keep the player out of that league's free agent listing for any length of time, possibly the entire season. All decisions by the NFBC commissioner will be final. In the NFFC we had a similar situation last year. Fortunately we have a commishioner who understands the game and is able to exercise good judgement in such matters. A hardfast rule would be an inferior solution. Looks like it was handled correctly IMO.

Sheep · Post by **Sheep** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:59 am

We all know that he didn't want to drop B. Roberts. It was clearly an error, and it was corrected.

Berkshire Juggernauts · Post by **Berkshire Juggernauts** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:12 am

This looks like an honest mistake that could happen to anybody. I see no problem here, This is my third yr in the NFBC and Greg and Tom have my total trust to do whats right in a case by case basis.

mrhambone · Post by **mrhambone** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:18 am

Thanks,

My first instinct was to let it go but the more I thought about it I thought that maybe a 1 week rule where he couldn't play his pick-up seemed fair. Anyways, I'm ok with the end result. Thanks for your opinions. The Bone

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:22 am

I don't see anything wrong here.

Red Sox Nation · Post by **Red Sox Nation** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:23 am

Players with the same last name can be problems. I almost dropped Scott Baker instead of Jeff and Corey Patterson instead of John. Now I'm a nervous wreck on Sundays checking my moves non-stop. It was an honest mistake and handled properly.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:03 am

It goes as far as common sense dictates.

Owners will make human mistakes that were not intentional. Those should be fixed.

swampass · Post by **swampass** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:46 pm

hmm everytime you go to your FA page you get your listed drops and adds. it clearly states who you are bidding on and who you are dropping. so this goes beyond a mistake....its carelessness and stupidity.

this is supposed to be a top notch league with high stakes. we are all under the same strain and stress every sunday afternoon. to not expect managers to be accountable for their moves is a mistake. i made a mistake in bidding week 1 and i paid dearly for it. i didnt get any do-overs.

should brian roberts have been put back on the team, maybe. should he just have been dropped and pulled from the FA list, maybe. like hambone said is this only because they were both named roberts? otherwise is it tough cookies?

this topic seems to live in a real grey area. im just glad that i wasnt in that league, because i would have lost my junk.

at best give him back brian roberts but dont allow the schumaker pick up for davey. like hambone says there has to be some sort of penalty for getting your 2nd round pick back on a careless mistake.

duggan · Post by **duggan** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:54 pm

even if he had wanted to drop brian roberts the league did the correct thing and stepped in and invalided the drop. that is in the rules.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:23 am

Get over it. Fixing stupid mistakes upholds the integrity of the contest. If you can't see that clearly, you don't belong here--you belong in a weak yahoo league where you can pick up Brian Roberts on waivers and then tell all your friends how you are the best at the end of the season. Don't be a chump.

mrhambone · Post by **mrhambone** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:57 pm

Actully Duggan is right the rule says All drops are also subject to review by the commissioner of the NFBC and can be REVOKED if the dropped player is deemed too valuable to be offered to that league's free agent pool, thus damaging the credibility of the overall contest.

Revoked, not that the player gets to change his dropped player to a differant one. This rule in my opinion has a lot of grey area. In my opinion the move should have been revoked and S. Shumaker should have been given to the next highest bidder. If no second bid he should have been returned to the FA pool. You can't reward someone for not paying attention.

Bjoak, you can't actually think that someone questioning this rule doesn't belong here and someone who doesn't realze he's dropping B. Roberts does. This was just posted because when I e-mailed the commish for my league I never recieved a response.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:10 pm

My post was more directed to swampass than you. Questioning the rule is one thing but no one who understands the league, the rules, and what is most fair to everyone should disagree with that call.

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:12 am

I am in this league and have a serious dog in this hunt.

I do not want to play in a contest where a guy gets his whole season ruined by a silly mistake.

I do think Greg should give some serious consideration to addressing it in the rules though. My suggestion would be simple I will reverse it for you but you have to keep that guy on the bench this week. There are consequences for our mistakes and we cannot say on Tues morning we benched the wrong Roberts so it is similar.

I am totally against a harsh strict rule interpetation here, but I am equally against some mistakes being penalized and some not.

Let me be clear though- for the current rules I think this was handled perfectly.

Atlas · Post by **Atlas** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:04 am

How about this scenerio...

During a satellite draft, not one, not two, but three draft picks were allowed "do overs".

In two cases I believe the owners timed out and didn't want who the computer auto-picked. In the third case, ...and I'm still a little foggy on this one,.. apparently the owner didn't know that so-and-so was still available and was able to return a player after several selections ensued, for that player.

I guess it becomes where do rules become rules?

If I'm working hard and preping to make my selections in certain amount of time, shouldn't everyone be expected to do the same?

The majority of the owners, by the way, didn't seem to have a problem with the commissioners decisions for this particular draft.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:29 am

Originally posted by Atlas:

How about this scenerio...

During a satellite draft, not one, not two, but three draft picks were allowed "do overs".

In two cases I believe the owners timed out and didn't want who the computer auto-picked. In the third case, ...and I'm still a little foggy on this one,.. apparently the owner didn't know that so-and-so was still available and was able to return a player after several selections ensued, for that player.

I guess it becomes where do rules become rules?

If I'm working hard and preping to make my selections in certain amount of time, shouldn't everyone be expected to do the same?

The majority of the owners, by the way, didn't seem to have a problem with the commissioners decisions for this particular draft. Isn't it better to have the game decided on the field? Seems better than testing one's mouse-eye coordination.

[ April 20, 2008, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:04 am

Originally posted by Atlas:

How about this scenerio...

During a satellite draft, not one, not two, but three draft picks were allowed "do overs".

In two cases I believe the owners timed out and didn't want who the computer auto-picked. In the third case, ...and I'm still a little foggy on this one,.. apparently the owner didn't know that so-and-so was still available and was able to return a player after several selections ensued, for that player.

I guess it becomes where do rules become rules?

If I'm working hard and preping to make my selections in certain amount of time, shouldn't everyone be expected to do the same?

The majority of the owners, by the way, didn't seem to have a problem with the commissioners decisions for this particular draft. For the satellite leagues, this is covered in the rules. We realize that some folks time out online or have computer troubles or, yes, have trouble finding a player. So we do all we can that everyone leaves that online draft with the players they wanted and if that means stopping the draft to help an owner out we do it. And we do it within the rules. See below from the satellite league rules:

16. Time Limit For Draft: There will be a 90-second time limit for each owner to make his/her pick during each round of the NFBC Satellite League draft. If a participant does not make a selection in the allotted time, the computer will select for that owner using MDC's overall ranking system. If there is a computer failure, the draft moderator can stop the draft and correct the error and then resume the draft. That decision will be made by the NFBC moderator during the draft and will be final.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:08 am

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

I am in this league and have a serious dog in this hunt.

I do not want to play in a contest where a guy gets his whole season ruined by a silly mistake.

I do think Greg should give some serious consideration to addressing it in the rules though. My suggestion would be simple I will reverse it for you but you have to keep that guy on the bench this week. There are consequences for our mistakes and we cannot say on Tues morning we benched the wrong Roberts so it is similar.

I am totally against a harsh strict rule interpetation here, but I am equally against some mistakes being penalized and some not.

Let me be clear though- for the current rules I think this was handled perfectly. Mistakes that are recognized by the owner, brought to our attention and rectified by common sense are dealt with properly by me. This is one of those instances. Your reference to a Tuesday correction just wouldn't happen.

We do have it in the rules that I can revoke a move. If everyone would like me to update that to state "revoke or rescind" a move, I will. If that helps, I'll add that word.

We want the championship won fair and square. Human errors happen and if we're alerted to it quickly and fairly and it's easily rectified we will do it. Again, this was easily done where the owner got the player and he wanted and meant to cut Dave Roberts, not Brian Roberts. No other team was affected as this owner got the free agent he wanted and cut the right Roberts. Time to move on.

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:47 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

I am in this league and have a serious dog in this hunt.

I do not want to play in a contest where a guy gets his whole season ruined by a silly mistake.

I do think Greg should give some serious consideration to addressing it in the rules though. My suggestion would be simple I will reverse it for you but you have to keep that guy on the bench this week. There are consequences for our mistakes and we cannot say on Tues morning we benched the wrong Roberts so it is similar.

I am totally against a harsh strict rule interpetation here, but I am equally against some mistakes being penalized and some not.

Let me be clear though- for the current rules I think this was handled perfectly. Mistakes that are recognized by the owner, brought to our attention and rectified by common sense are dealt with properly by me. This is one of those instances. Your reference to a Tuesday correction just wouldn't happen.

We do have it in the rules that I can revoke a move. If everyone would like me to update that to state "revoke or rescind" a move, I will. If that helps, I'll add that word.

We want the championship won fair and square. Human errors happen and if we're alerted to it quickly and fairly and it's easily rectified we will do it. Again, this was easily done where the owner got the player and he wanted and meant to cut Dave Roberts, not Brian Roberts. No other team was affected as this owner got the free agent he wanted and cut the right Roberts. Time to move on. [/QUOTE]Greg I appreciate you telling me it is time to move on. If I could just have one more word here sir I will mind real well after that.

You made my point for me if it were Tuesday and someone said I put the wrong guy in help you would tell him hell no properly.

I was just suggesting some small penalty to avoid abuse. By the way in 2005 my partner dropped the wrong guy on accident and it was corrected in our favor and much appreciated. I would have been very accepting of a small penalty of losing that guy for a week.

I am officially retired from these boards for a good while. Good luck to you all-

[ April 20, 2008, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Chest Rockwell ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:05 pm

Chest, I wonder if we'd have more debate for the penalty than the current setup we now have. In this situation from last week, the guy got the free agent he wanted and nobody else was affected. He meant to cut Dave Roberts and clicked Brian Roberts and then told us about the error shortly. Should he have been forced to sit Brian Roberts, even if that left his roster illegal???

I think enough of you guys know me that we try to run a fair ship and take all decisions seriously. We know an effect can have a counter-effect, so we think every decision through. This one was too easy.

And don't stop posting Chest. You make a lot of good points and I wasn't talking to you directly about the Tuesday situation. That was just obvious for all, I felt.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:56 pm

I don't think a penalty is needed so long as someone does not try to abuse the rule.

Mudster · Post by **Mudster** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:18 am

I'm in LV10 and I think the decision was a no brainer also. Good job Greg, and I think the rephrasing of the rule is a good idea.