FantasySharks.com

The taxi never has anything to do with the active/IR roster, just any 2nd year taxi player must be moved off by the time declarations are made the week before the auction.

_________________
Follow me @mchamberlin32

By the same token, the IR never has anything to do with the active roster per the bylaws.

_________________
Champion of HoP in 2009 and 2012.

Interesting article: http://dynastyfootballwarehouse.com/statistical-analysis-and-fantasy-football/

You can twist this any way you want but this is what was intended all along. If there was a problem with the language it needed to be brought up when they were written and amended. I said as such when the by-laws were being developed and edited that people need to poke and prod this thing, I'm not the best rule writer because I don't always think of all of the potential loop holes. My stance is K.I.S.S. so there just aren't any. I thought the way the post auction roster rule was written was pretty cut and dry, but, here we are.

_________________
Follow me @mchamberlin32

Clearly, we disagree. I don't feel like I am twisting anything and have felt this way about IR since I joined, nothing to do with having IR eligible players now.

If someone is on pup during the season, they are eligible for IR, yes?

Why is this different?? Are you stating that there is no IR in the offseason? If someone is eligible for IR in week one, when are you allowed to put them on IR?

At this point I would like to hear other opinions. Anyone else have an opinion?

I am driving to ny for Easter so I won't reply either for a while.


Except I will add that if you are not allowed to put someone on IR until they are listed out on the injury report in week 1, then that rule applies for the entire season. That means if a player is hurt on Sunday, you can't put them on IR until they are listed as out on Friday. And if they are not listed as doubtful or put, you can't put them on IR until game time on Sunday.

It will make getting waivers to cover injured players very difficult, but it appears to be how you are interpreting the rules.

_________________
Champion of HoP in 2009 and 2012.

Interesting article: http://dynastyfootballwarehouse.com/statistical-analysis-and-fantasy-football/

I can see both sides to this.

If you have a guy (one) on IR for example its no problem. Probably two as well.

But when you have 3 on IR and at least 2 of them likely on PUP then obviously this is a bit of a pickle. Especially when you can only keep 5 starters on main. Its quite an impressive %age increase in potential depth of choice that noone else has.

I can see it could be used as a loophole - tho this isnt the case here - (e.g. people could actively target and trade for IR players knowing they could bypass roster restrictions until the end of camp and week1, which is quite a big advantage ref: camp battles and WW room and FA auction room) and why the rule was put there in the first place.

I think thats important. That being WHY it was put there, rather than WHAT it says word for word (which can be interpreted in the manner both mean) actually said. To borrow a parlance "The spirit of the law or the letter of the law", right?

I cant think of a reason WHY it would be put in except to keep rosters under control during the lengthy off-season despite the fact it can be interpreted as either fashion youre both saying. Just my tho.

Im not going to get involved really or post on this again as its up to you guys and youre good guys both - i just hope it can be settled amicably



EDIT: Just a quick question then though that might clear this up ...

Q: If the rule is interpreted as Cy suggests, does that mean we can all load up on IR players in FA as we dont have to worry about it till week one?
A:

Ive no idea, but it doesnt sound/feel right and its why im thinking im erring towards the interpretation that Oar put fwds. Sounds/feels wrong to be able to do that (^^ the above question) somehow

Im groovy with those dates

This.

If Cy can find a case in which another team sometime in the history of this league kept more than the max because one or more of their players were IR eligible then I'm fine letting this one through this time, re-wording the by-laws, and closing the loop hole subject to voting next offseason. That's it though.

_________________
Follow me @mchamberlin32

There are a few issues or clarifications.

1- everyone on IR is not eligible. I am saying only pup list candidates. This is a very small group.
2- what is the reason for IR if not to give teams a chance to fill a roster that is hurt by injury? If i am counting on Mendy and Moreno, you are saying I can only have three RB on my roster?
3- once the season starts, it is fine to have five active RB and two on IR. So you aren't saying that I can't have five active RB, you are creating an arbitrary distinction between the offseason and the regular season.

4- if oar gets his way and I have to cut them, I will so so after auction and pick them up after waivers open and stick them on IR. It doesn't change a damned thing, it just penalizes me. Is yhat the goal? Can someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest due to competing with me make a ruling?

_________________
Champion of HoP in 2009 and 2012.

Interesting article: http://dynastyfootballwarehouse.com/statistical-analysis-and-fantasy-football/

I will add that the intent of this league is to mimic the NFL.

Pup doesn't count against active roster in the NFL.


Also, I am losing players for 8 weeks. I will need backups if they are on pup. Do you think it is fair to screw owners who have injuries to key players? BB lost Peterson, should he have to cut him or a backup if he starts on pup?

_________________
Champion of HoP in 2009 and 2012.

Interesting article: http://dynastyfootballwarehouse.com/statistical-analysis-and-fantasy-football/

My other full dynasty, after the first couple of years of arguing about pup and our league IR slot, finally decided to let just pup qualify. It's been nice since.

_________________
HoP, Wall, Dyno$, P$B, FSDM, BluShk6, FSNFL, Uber, College

It's not a conflict of interest, it's been the rule since the beginning of the league.

_________________
Follow me @mchamberlin32

Holy $@#*, BB & I agree on something.

_________________
Ready. Willing. Able.

In another league im in we kept it even simpler



Cant get simpler than that and the reason (and i quote again here)?

The reason why i think the spirit is with Oar's explaination of it is because:

# If we have a stringent limit of 5 players? It was probably setup that way for a reason.
# If a player can carry as many as will be the case into wk6, it really (honestly) feels like the whole "raison d'etre" for the hard cap of 5 disappears too

I understand its not Cy's fault (and DEFINITELY not intentional) - but then it's noone elses either ... mine, dingo's, checo's, GDMK's, BB's, Norm's or any other owner's fault how injuries go either.

I follow Cy's logic about "Where in the rules does it say otherwise" (ref:IR) but the same logic can go both ways and there IS something on the rules about IR which could easily clear this up.

# So according to the rules (and nowhere is this rule made an exception of elsewhere in the bylaws) if hes not on a injury report on Friday hes not IR eligible and is not on IR.
# If there is no injury report this friday then a player cannot possibly be on IR.
# QED.

Also, if we being precise, literal and technically accurate as far as possible? Because the bylaws reference the NFL injury reports rather than any FF site designation (like MFL) then NO player can possibly be on IR (or PUP) until the final 53 man cuts are made in the league.

Including your 5 players, my 5 players & Oar's 5 players (Only Dingo beats us with 6 )

EDIT: I will just add that Cy is the last owner i think that would intentionally try to circumvent any laws or rules but i would EQUALLY like to point out that Oar is the last guy id accuse of being biased in this either. In fact, if anyone were to suggest otherwise id go as far as to say they would be doing them both a disservice and wholly inaccurate ... and id be forced to sick my dog on you:

How about a compromise for now?



Just a suggestion ONLY, though. I still see both sides, but i still think Oar's interpretation definitely makes more sense given the 5 x RB hard limit on main.

The above (i believe so, anyway! ) fulfills the criteria of:

Not unfairly penalising the team in question
Not unfairly penalising other teams

Yarmouth will still have to cut players @RB, but it will be at a time when they can make an informed decision - and without being able to make profit on it OTHER than being able to have players and depth to compete

Also an addendum to the rules to take place mandatorily this next off-season to prevent any misinterpretation by any owner in the future