Poll: IR designation (part deux/trois)...take two!
 

Okay... let's try this again.
The current rules seem to imply that a player can be placed on IR as long as they've appeared as "questionable/probable/out" at any time in the NFL season.

Do we want to affirm that as our IR policy?
Or do we want to say that a player is IR eligible as long as he's listed as "questionable/probable/out" on the MFL website (note: go to your roster & you'll see injury designation in RED next to your player)?

NOTE: the current rule interpretation (see option one) will be in effect UNLESS the league unanimously votes for option two.

Re: Poll: IR designation (part deux/trois)...take two!
 

Can we get a few more votes here, folks?!? Only 3 of the 12 owners have chimed in.

Re: Poll: IR designation (part deux/trois)...take two!
 

I'd vote in favor of an amendment....but I see a few problems.

1. The vote says "questionable/probable/out" and I think it's meant to be "questionable/doubtful/out".

2. MFL is not a good place to decide injury status. There is no record of previous status, so there is no way to verify anything after the initial post is made. Today a guy is a "Q", tomorrow a "P", and next week - who knows? Also, based on years of experience, I can tell you MFL updates are sporadic and made on the basis of someone's random judgment. The current case with Witten is a good example. So I think we should go with what's official - the NFL.com injury report. Why complicate things with MFL?

3. Even better - how about our IR is only for players on the actual NFL IR list? No more debates, no more playing games with the status, no more questions like "If he was hurt 10 days ago, can I still put him on IR?"

Re: Poll: IR designation (part deux/trois)...take two!
 

D'OH! I screwed up again! Yes... there's no "probable" in our rules. Dang.
As for NFL IR status... that would be easier... but it would take a lot of the strategy out of managing our rosters.
At this point... it looks like we're stuck with the way the rules are currently written. Crap. I think they're poorly written... but I can't seem to get a suitable alternative. No time to work on this now, however...

Re: Poll: IR designation (part deux/trois)...take two!
 

Let's fix it, guys. Otherwise I will put Maroney on IR next week, because he was questionable two weeks ago.

And then Burners might put Portis on IR in Week 10, because he hurt his wrist in September.
And then someone will say "this is crazy".
And then I will point him to the rules.
And then we will start this all over again.

Bottomline - this is a hole in the rules that should not wait, in my opinion.

Here is my proposal for a new poll:

Should a player be eligible for IR if:

* He appears on any NFL.com weekly injury report as "Out / Doubtful / Questionable" (current rule)
* He appears on the last available NFL.com injury report as "Out / Doubtful / Questionable" (proposed change)

If the proposed change passes unanimously, then it is effective immediately. If not, then it is effective at the end of the season. If it doesn't pass at all, well....then may the one who keeps best track of past injury reports win.

We will also need a poll expiration time. After that time, if you haven't voted, it should be assumed you don't care either way.

Re: Poll: IR designation (part deux/trois)...take two!
 

i think it should be the most recent injury report

Re: Poll: IR designation (part deux/trois)...take two!
 

I did propose we go with whichever report is most current - either the prior weeks report if this weeks is not released, or this weeks once released. That way, we always have one report we can use.....I can go for that...

btw, I am not sure MFL is as willy-nilly as described above...I believe they base it on the most recent report from the team...if NFL injury list has a player listed as Questionable, MFL is not going to list him as Probable...so I still think MFL would be easiest to manage and best up to date report on player...