Pred's Fantasy Football Forums - View Single Post - Insects

zdravko27 · September 6th, 2010, 04:35 PM

I hate to see the Insects penalized, but the penalty in this case is logically consistent with the spirit of the rules. It is the hypothetical penalty (if the years assigned were more than one) that makes me post.

Once a player is declared with a given number of years, this is his contract. All contracts become effective at midnight of the deadline day. If a roster is not in compliance, given the cumulative of the roster's contracts, then the owner has 24 hours, counting from midnight, to remedy. If the owner doesn't fix the problem in 24 hours, the last player(s) acquired are dropped until the roster is in compliance - just as with any other acquisition.

So, at least in terms of consistency with the rules, the penalty cannot logically be just to reduce the number of years and assess 20% penalty, yet let the owner keep the player(s). The full contract(s) have to be voided.

The open question is whether the penalty is only 20% per player or the full release penalty (20% + 10% + 10%, etc.). The former approach would suggest that the judge believes the issue is a calculation error, the latter - that it is a gaming of the system.

September 6th, 2010, 04:35 PM	#5
zdravko27 Feeding Frenzy Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 916	Re: Insects - Roster Cap Years Violation I hate to see the Insects penalized, but the penalty in this case is logically consistent with the spirit of the rules. It is the hypothetical penalty (if the years assigned were more than one) that makes me post. Once a player is declared with a given number of years, this is his contract. All contracts become effective at midnight of the deadline day. If a roster is not in compliance, given the cumulative of the roster's contracts, then the owner has 24 hours, counting from midnight, to remedy. If the owner doesn't fix the problem in 24 hours, the last player(s) acquired are dropped until the roster is in compliance - just as with any other acquisition. So, at least in terms of consistency with the rules, the penalty cannot logically be just to reduce the number of years and assess 20% penalty, yet let the owner keep the player(s). The full contract(s) have to be voided. The open question is whether the penalty is only 20% per player or the full release penalty (20% + 10% + 10%, etc.). The former approach would suggest that the judge believes the issue is a calculation error, the latter - that it is a gaming of the system.