Author |
Topic: Line Up Issues for Week 7- (Read 956 times) |
|
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '95, '98, '08, '09, '10, '13, '15, '17, '19
# 22
9X Ultimate Supreme Champion
Posts: 807
Back to top
|
 |
Re: screwed up line-up
« Reply #1 on: Oct 21st, 2005, 7:28pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Yo Steg, my lineup reflects the one I submitted last week not this week. It seems the others are updated. What's the deal?
|
|
 Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
 
Posts: 19699
Back to top
|
 |
Re: screwed up line-up
« Reply #3 on: Oct 21st, 2005, 8:19pm » |
Quote Modify
|
DB, you're covered. I think I know what happened with yours. I was dealing with a problem with the GBRFL2 and I betchya, yours (updated through October 16th, last week), which in my FTP program was right underneath the two of theirs in question, I uploaded along with theirs by accident. In any event, I received your submitted lineup by e-mail, so you're good to go. It'll reflect correctly in short order.
Steve, we just spoke. I'll let the trade you and Joe cut go through based on his phone call in to me. BUT, as I stated on the phone, your lineup "as is" is your lineup. The ball had already been kicked off as of your post above. You gotta hope that Matt Schaub doesn't throw a pass on Monday night... or that if he does, he BLOWS UP... 
Joe, I'm sorry but you are screwed. I received NO e-mail indicating that you successfully submitted a lineup. Furthermore, you called and left a message almost right at kickoff. If you would have just included a lineup in your message, I probably would have let it slide and counted it. As it stands, your Week 6, i.e. most recently submitted, lineup is what stands. I'm sorry, bro,... BUT there is a bit of irony here. I've been hounding you about not leaving the submission of your lineup to the very last minute week in and week out. Shit can happen! This time you got burned by it,... I guess.
Furthermore, as proof that the lineup-submission system was in fine working order around kickoff here tonight,... Rob Pak submitted his lineup ONE MINUTE before kickoff... WITHOUT HITCH!!! Steve Warner did so only five minutes before without any technical  difficulties and Ray Matty of the GBRFL2 submitted his lineup 11 minutes prior without problems.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 21st, 2005, 9:42pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '95, '98, '08, '09, '10, '13, '15, '17, '19
# 22
9X Ultimate Supreme Champion
Posts: 807
Back to top
|
|
Re: screwed up line-up
« Reply #5 on: Oct 21st, 2005, 9:44pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:| Addendum... Joe's fielding of the Redskins for Week Seven has been approved as there was corroboration prior to kickoff of his starting the Redskins, not the Panthers. This is an acceptable resolution as I have in the past let owners unable to get through to me due to some extreme circumstance submit their lineups through another owner. |
|
What do you mean? Warner told you Joe wanted to play the Redskins? I am curious since I play him.
Not that I wouldn't be amenable to him using the Redskins against me (in good faith) even had he not told Steve who told Steve (or whoever he told)
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19699
Back to top
|
|
Re: screwed up line-up
« Reply #8 on: Oct 22nd, 2005, 2:39am » |
Quote Modify
|
First of all,... fellas,... for further and more detailed information regarding the application of the "cascading"
rule, consult the following thread on the GBRFL2 board:
http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/cgi-bin/theGridiron/YaBB.cgi?board=99;a ction=display;num=1061408994.
...
Now, secondly, the more and more I think about this, despite DB's kind amenability, the more and more uncomfortable I am with the decision AND the more and more I feel frustrated by it all.
Regarding the latter, I was put in the uncomfortable (and somewhat insulting) position of having to justify things and explain away (rather remote, sticky) rules, rules, which, mind you, are in fine working order. The rules here are quite clear on how I should proceed. I was only inclined to make a small exception here because of the deal that Joe made with Steve (and as of late, I've been pretty cool with accepting trades when reported by just one party (so as to, frankly speaking, get a jump on doing the transactions for the week), taking the absence of protest from the other participant(s) in the trade as de facto confirmation of the deal). I did not want to screw Steve because Joe was doing his usual last-second flailing. On the other hand, Steve should have known what he was getting into.
Regarding the former from above, this sets terrible precedent. I don't want to open the Pandora's Box of people's being able to tell me, "Oh, I said this to so-and-so before kickoff. That's what I meant. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Contact him. He can corroborate that I wanted to play so-and-so and not such-and-such." With regards to any other instance where I can kind of recall accepting a lineup "unofficially-ish", 1) the circumstances were genuinely extreme, 2) the lineup was definitely given to the go-between person before kickoff (and I think even made it to me from the relay man before kickoff) and, in any event, 3) the lineup submission was a) complete (insofar as it was given) and stated to the relay person per se and b) given to the person who was to relay it to me for the express purpose of relaying it to me. Joe's circumstance here was not extreme; he was able to leave a message for me during which he failed to state his lineup; this whole situation was in essence created by Joe's rushing to submit a lineup with little to no time (when, again, the lineup submission system was working just fine for everybody else). It is not absolutely clear that his "informal" submission was in fact made before kickoff (19 other guys clearly on time; Joe not). And, the lineup submission was not complete and not stated per se and was not stated "at the moment" with the express purpose of relaying it in to me; it was an informal comment in passing, from what I gather.
And, ALL this bullshit for what??? Because a dude in our league who, despite being warned time and time again about the dangers of (and administrative inconveniences he creates by) pushing the envelope and submitting his lineup excessively late week in and week out, alas, playing with fire, GOT BURNED. It is just that he took someone else down with him (which is the ONLY reason, mind you, that I am even entertaining making exceptions here). I am going to mull this over between now and the kickoff of the games on Sunday. In this case, I wouldn't mind hearing you all (including GBRFL2ers) out...
Should Joe be allowed to use the Redskins or should he be stuck with the bye-week Panthers like Jeremy in the GBRFL2 was with the Steelers back in Week Four, after which, mind you, Jeremy MADE NO STINK AT ALL? It was his bad. He evidently accepted it. The rules regarding this stuff are sharp and have to be if you think them through to their ugly logical ends, and Jeremy matter-of-factly accepted them. Should the trade go through?
Again, I am not going to allow this to be decided democratically because there are too many (quite literally) "competing" interests. BUT, I will hear yous out. The more thought-through the reply, the more I will consider it!
Bottom line, this stinks!!! And, the ultimate cause has nothing to do with any imperfections or loopholes in the system. It totally has to do with a dude who screwed up and now calls shit into question and wants what's fair for him. What about everybody else... and, gasp, me, the guy who is stuck sorting it all out? Remember all I am doing now is clean-up!!! And, clean-up sucks!!!
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 22nd, 2005, 3:23pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Gridiron Great
GBRFLer
Champ - '14, '23
# 5
Posts: 3340
Back to top
|
|
Re: screwed up line-up
« Reply #9 on: Oct 22nd, 2005, 9:29am » |
Quote Modify
|
Ultimately, there are a couple of factors at work here, and no matter what the conclusion is, the commish is going to be put into a fix.
The first factor I see is that the line up was not submitted, thus making the last line up the valid line up. So by that effect, the line up listed is the valid line up.
So then the question arises is telling another league member one positions starter valid? I have mixed feeling on this. Telling one position does not seem to me to be submitting a line up. If the Redskins are accepted as starters, then unfortunately I think a really bad precedent could be started. As an example, I could argue that I told Joe, Rob, and Doug(as I was attempting to obtain a QB) that Brooks was my only starter this week. Fact is, I fucked up and have to pray that either Vick goes dowm REALLY early in the game or that Schaub does not throw a pass.
So in conclusion, while I think it really really sucks, letting the Redskins start would open a pandoras box that could set ugly precedent in the future.
I will honestly admit that I was not real familiar with the cascarding rule for kickers and defenses. You did take the time to explain it to me. It does make sense since really the defense plays every week. (just don't screw up during the bye and you are good to go)
Now on to the trade. I am going to state right upfront that I am biased. I am involved in the trade but will try to set that aside as much as possible.
Quote:| (and as of late, I've been pretty cool with accepting trades when reported by just one party (so as to, frankly speaking, get a jump on doing the transactions for the week), taking the absence of protest from the other participant(s) in the trade as de facto confirmation of the deal). |
|
This statement alone seems to be the precendent. If it has been done in the past, then it should not be changed now. In our league, many trades are done last second and it is often difficult for both parties to get to a computer to enter the trade. I think if one party gets the trade in and the other does not disagree/protest/ or contest the terms of the trade it should go through. If NEITHER gets the trade submitted in the line up or the board before the cutoff time, then that would be a different story. Again, this is just my feelings and take it for what it is worth.
|
|
Logged |
"Every rule has an exception....the exception can't become the rule"
|
|
|
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '95, '98, '08, '09, '10, '13, '15, '17, '19
# 22
9X Ultimate Supreme Champion
Posts: 807
Back to top
|
|
Re: Line Up Issues for Week 7-
« Reply #10 on: Oct 22nd, 2005, 10:14am » |
Quote Modify
|
Yeah this is sticky. Thinking back, the commish ALWAYS does bombard us with reply emails or posts about getting in line-ups on time and placing a trade in a line-up.
Anyway, the reason I inquired last night was because I found it odd that player A would tell player B who he is playing and then player B would tell the commish. It just struck me as weird that player A would not just call the commish himself and say "I can't put in a line-up now, play xxx". That is precedent, as I know I have left messages in prior years with the commish and since I am the one who gets copied on the commish's line-up I have received line-up/free agency changes from him via voicemail prior to the deadline.
So as far as the defense issue here ... when I said what I said last night, I meant I would be cool (as one of the teams playing him) with his defense cascading from his bye defense (knowing that that is the commish's call anyway but throwing in my 2 cents). I am however not into making the "telephone game" the precedent for future weeks because I think as a general rule the commish should hear lineup changes from the horse's mouth.
As far as trades are concerned I agree that hearing from one side makes it tough on the commish but I don't think anyone will ever call with a fake deal so the not hearing boo from the owner after the fact rule is fine IMO. And BTW I play Warner this week too. 
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 22nd, 2005, 10:15am by DB » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19699
Back to top
|
 |
Re: Line Up Issues for Week 7-
« Reply #12 on: Oct 22nd, 2005, 4:59pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Yummy!  Those are three great posts... Those are some thought-full and thoughtful posts.  Love it! That's the kind of stuff I like seeing going on around here.  If you are up to the standard of consideration DD, DB and BW set, please add your thoughts.
First, though, a couple points of clarification...
It would not be the cascading principle that we would be deferring to here if Joe is permitted to play the Redskins over the Panthers. It would be that we would be accepting his "informal" talk with Warner and supposedly Pak about his playing the Redskins (read, not a formal lineup presentation with the express purpose of having the person(s) with whom he is speaking act as a relay to get the lineup in to me... in time) and putting the Redskins in as his #1 defense as though he submitted a lineup (on time) that was exactly the same as his prior week's with the exception of the change in defense. Go see how I "made up" his lineups page to see what I mean. The Redskins are just listed #1, the Panthers #2.
Regarding the (history of the) cascading principle, ASG, the company we used to use, applied this cascading principle (though it wasn't called that), to QB's and RB's ONLY. At EVERY other position, you did not get cascading love. They did not extend it to WR's for basically the same reason that we still do not extend it to PK's, namely WR's and PK's not getting any stats (that count in our game) does NOT at all necessarily mean that they did not play. Because WR is a weighty position along the lines of QB and RB and since a large portion of the time a WR's not getting any stats did, in fact, mean he was out with an injury, WE decided to extend the love to WR's. Bye weeks became a further (unintended) bonus under the cascading principle. Now, when I have said that the cascading principle applies to PK's and DU's (or any of the positions for that matter) in the case, e.g., of listing a free-agent in your lineup that you did not get so it drops to the next guy down or, worse yet, of putting a player or defense in your lineup that you don't even have but failing to list said player or defense on your free-agent list or, even worse yet, of including a player or defense in your lineup and/or on your free-agent list that someone else already has (which happens quite frequently... even to me on rare occasion), speaking specifically, that is a misnomer and somewhat of a misrepresentation on my part.  In those cases, it's not really (I mean... in a way it is and in a way it isn't) the cascading rule that is kicking in. It is just that those lines on your lineups page, by virtue of the player or defense's not even being on your roster, are for all intents and purposes BLANK lines and are treated as such. Brought out to its logical ends, this results in another one of these (originally unintended) merciful conclusions for those rare times when a dude just totally biffs and lists a guy in his lineup that is not on his team nor even his free-agent list and, furthermore, may even be on another dude's team (this is something that has applied to Danny, especially going back in time, more times than I can count,... but it's all good when you think it through). The point being here is that these instances are not (really) instances of cascading per se (as I have called them). They are a beast of a different breed, in fact (that, in a way though, when looking at it from the perspective of going through a lineup submission, you could consider what you are doing a cascading of sorts, when really you are just in fact overlooking/ignoring such (erroneous) lines on the lineups page). So, Steve, in light of my "broad" (we'll cut me some slack here; really, though, the word is "incorrect") use of the term "cascading", when you wrote this, "I will honestly admit that I was not real familiar with the cascarding rule for kickers and defenses," you were really saying a mouthful and (unwittingly and) instinctively pointing at (and out) the essence of the problem. Nice intuition!
Now, as to the matters at hand,... I tend to agree with Steve and Dave regarding the trade. As a matter of fact, when Joe and I spoke, he confirmed the deal. That's a "reality" I can't dismiss. The trade was ultimately submitted in time by one of the parties. There is no reason to penalize that party because the other guy didn't get his shit in on time. To be honest, as I type right now, I think that was another reason I became cool about this kind of stuff. There were many times, going back in time, where one of the dudes in a deal would forget to report the trade with his lineup submission and (as soon as possible... after kickoff, mind you) after I realized the problem, I'd be rushing to call the other dude to get his confirmation. My concern here, though, is for the following scenario: what if things over the weekend go in a way that the dude who did not submit the trade does NOT like and then he calls me Sunday night or whenever saying, "Oh, I didn't agree to that!" I mean that's extremely dickheaded and the dude would not just have to contend with me BUT ALSO the dude who he's dicking over, so I think this is a fairly remote scenario. On the other hand, as we know, people like Joe have a way of somehow conjuring up these remote scenarios from their deep abysses and making for a bunch of sticky bullshit that takes HOURS and even DAYS to sort out. Bottom line, I think such trades as Steve and Joe's here should go through and that is the direction I am leaning toward right now. BUT, when such occurs in the future, I will be seeking confirmation VERY QUICKLY! However, between the lineup forms, our message board here, the private message system, e-mail, two phones, there is NO reason for a trade NOT to be confirmed somehow rather immediately. In this case in particular, it did end up, in fact, being confirmed fairly quickly though not the (forthright and proactive) way it should happen. At least, when Joe left that message, he should have mentioned the trade (out of consideration for Steve if nothing else).
As for the issue of who Joe's defense should be, DB captured it dead-on when he wrote, "... the reason I inquired last night was because I found it odd that player A would tell player B who he is playing and then player B would tell the commish. It just struck me as weird that player A would not just call the commish himself and say 'I can't put in a line-up now, play xxx'," and the thing is Joe did call and leave me a message. Given that, Jim hit the nail on the head when he wrote, "He had the chance to leave his lineup via the phone and failed to do so." That is the bottom line and that is the direction I am currently leaning in.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 22nd, 2005, 5:06pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19699
Back to top
|
|
Re: Line Up Issues for Week 7-
« Reply #13 on: Oct 23rd, 2005, 8:34am » |
Quote Modify
|
Damn... I'm getting up out of bed to post this because it somehow while in a momentary awakened state dawned on me that I forgot to before going to bed two hours ago. ... I have come to a final decision. I think the right answer is fairly clear to any man looking at this objectively, actually. The trade between Steve and Joe is allowed for the reasons stated quite clearly and thoroughly above. However, Joe's inserting of the Redskins into his lineup over the Panthers is disallowed. This is a severe "consequence" for sure, BUT Joe knew that, and for that reason (if not for any (of the) other ("consider"able reasons)) he should have known better than to be trying to submit his lineup with (what literally seems this week to have been) seconds on the clock. A consideration of the severity of his own circumstances this week should have prompted him to make sure his lineup was in on time. Getting a lineup in early, even if just preliminary, would have been the responsible thing to do with, as he points out, so much hanging in the balance. I mean there is further irony here. His lack of urgency beforehand to get his lineup in on time belies his telling me after the fact how crucial his lineup was for him this week. If it was so crucial to his team for his lineup to be in on time, he should have made it a point to get it in in time. That should have been priority number one, not last-minute deal-cutting. When you are scheduled to be at work at 9:00, that doesn't mean you leave your house at 9:00; it means that you leave at 8:30 or 7:30 or 6:30 or whatever the distance you have to travel requires. Your lineup needs to be submitted by a certain time. I, trying to be generous and wanting us to have the maximum amount of time possible, make that time kickoff of the first game(s) of the week. That doesn't mean that kickoff or whatever the set time would happen to be is when you start submitting your lineup. You have to do what it takes to have it submitted by then. That means that the responsible course of action is to start inputting your lineup around 20 or so minutes before kickoff, AT LEAST,... AT THE VERY LATEST!!! The severity of Joe's circumstances is not a reason to bend the rules. Quite the contrary, it should have been the impetus behind his getting his lineup in on time. He did not take the required course of action to make sure that happened and that's that for that. Any "informal" discussion canNOT be considered "formally" by the commissioner. This is not a "consequence" as in a penalty. It is what it is. This is a "consequence" as in the final culminating result of a course of action/pattern of behavior. This decision is final. I am going back to bed.  Good night! 
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 23rd, 2005, 8:11pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Red Zone Master
GBRFLer
Champ - '16
# 25
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 1444
Back to top
|
|
Re: Line Up Issues for Week 7-
« Reply #14 on: Oct 23rd, 2005, 10:55am » |
Quote Modify
|
Sounds good to me.
This is the rule, and I agree 100%. I had talked to Steve Warner and DB yesterday and told them both that I had some very good input on this subject on both sides of the coin, but because it involved me, I could not and would not give input about it.
I wanted to let you guys make your interpretation of the rules. There is no interpretation at all. The owner(myself) did not follow proper procedure for submitting his lineup. I fucked up and will deal with the consequences of my mistake. Nuff said.
DB did bring up some very interesting questions though, of which I suggested he talk to STEGEY about. The subject also came up when I spoke to Steve Warner and none of us have the answers. Those answers lie within the league rules. I did tell DB though that I felt that his questions logically do merit consideration.
I know that I do in fact "forfeit" all defensive categories.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 23rd, 2005, 10:56am by DOLFAN » |
Logged |
GO TONY, GO TONY, GO TONY!
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19699
Back to top
|
 |
Re: Line Up Issues for Week 7-
« Reply #16 on: Oct 23rd, 2005, 2:51pm » |
Quote Modify
|
 Yikes, Steve!!! That having been said, I don't think Schaub will do anything and you'll be just fine... It does add suspense to the GBRFL...  for our rabid fan base, though.
...
on Oct 23rd, 2005, 10:55am, DOLFAN wrote:Sounds good to me.
This is the rule, and I agree 100%. I had talked to Steve Warner and DB yesterday and told them both that I had some very good input on this subject on both sides of the coin, but because it involved me, I could not and would not give input about it.
I wanted to let you guys make your interpretation of the rules. There is no interpretation at all. The owner(myself) did not follow proper procedure for submitting his lineup. I fucked up and will deal with the consequences of my mistake. Nuff said. |
|
Thanks, Joe, for not making this any harder on me...
Quote:DB did bring up some very interesting questions though, of which I suggested he talk to STEGEY about. The subject also came up when I spoke to Steve Warner and none of us have the answers. Those answers lie within the league rules. I did tell DB though that I felt that his questions logically do merit consideration.
I know that I do in fact "forfeit" all defensive categories. |
|
Okay, let's get this cleared up right here right now in text... Though Joe has been stuck with the Panthers, he does NOT forfeit EVERY category.
Within the scoring area of defense/special teams, there are positive categories, where the higher the number the better; those are: sacks, interceptions, fumble recoveries and points scored, and there are negative categories, where the lower the number the better; those are: points allowed and yards allowed. The question is how are these defaulted in a case like the one we are dealing with herein. Well,... it's quite simple and VERY logical. As for the negative categories, where it stands that the higher the number the worse it is, they are defaulted to (an unpredictable) infinity, on the sheet as 999 yards and 99 points allowed, which is theoretically or conceptually (if you ever wondered, here is great example of where theory has its substantive place in life) possible (if, in some unbelievable scenario where the opponent's defense actually gave up more than 99 points or 999 yards and these defaults needed to be increased, they would be). The point is that the opponent is guaranteed to win those TWO negative categories. As for the positive categories, where the lower the number the worse it is, it is not even theoretically or conceptually possible for them to be negative numbers, so they default to ZERO, e.g. 0 sacks, 0 interceptions, etc., etc. It would be an absurdity to default them to IMpossibilities, i.e. negative numbers. So, all the opponent here is guaranteed is a wash in those categories. If his defense does NOTHING in the way of, e.g., sacks, i.e. gets zero sacks, he is not rewarded for that "achieved" "0". But, he should expect to be awarded points for fielding a defense (against no defense), especially if his defense gives up zero points and nothing (so to speak) in the way of yardage. ... If you are still struggling with this, think of it this way... Similar to the way things work on defense, when a team ends up fielding NO quarterbacks, which has happened, the negative category, namely fewer interceptions thrown, for which the higher the number the worse it is/the lower the number the better, is defaulted to (an unpredictable) infinity, 99 interceptions on the spreadsheet; the default settings for the positive categories, where the higher the number the better/the lower the number the worse it is, viz. passing yards, passing touchdowns and completion percentage, are ZERO (or if in the freak event that the opponent's quarterbacks threw for negative yards, it would be defaulted to that number). The point is that the opponent in such a situation is ONLY guaranteed to win the negative category of interceptions and only a wash in the positive categories, just like defense. He shouldn't expect to be awarded with points for the "achievement" of "0" touchdowns, a "0%" completion percentage, or, gasp, "-10" yards passing. Whereas, he should surely be awarded for fewer interceptions, especially if zero is what he achieved.
So, whoever Joe plays this week is guaranteed 1) a win in points allowed and yards allowed and 2) no worse than a wash in sacks, interceptions, fumble recoveries, and points scored. ... Okay,... that should be that for that! 
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '95, '98, '08, '09, '10, '13, '15, '17, '19
# 22
9X Ultimate Supreme Champion
Posts: 807
Back to top
|
|
Re: Line Up Issues for Week 7-
« Reply #18 on: Oct 23rd, 2005, 5:07pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:| I did tell DB though that I felt that his questions logically do merit consideration. |
|
Joe, I assume you are refering to our discussion about how your defense would be scored this week. Steg's conclusion is consistent with how I assumed it should be scored. As I said, I certainly don't think that a team should get zero's for yards given up and points against in such a situation. The analysis described above answers my question and is clearly a logical way to score it.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Games
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
