Insects - Roster Cap Years Violation

[Liquid Swords]

When updating the roster app, I found Insects to be in violation of Active Roster Cap Years. I show them 1 year over the 38 year max.

Commish, please review and determine necessary penalties.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I don't think we've ever had a CAP YEARS PENALTY before.
Here's what I suggest...

Jeff Reed was the last player signed by the Insects (by one minute over Devry Henderson)... he has a ONE year contract, so his contract is invalid. The player is dropped and the Insects incur a 20% penalty... plus they're ineligible to bid on him for 30 days.

Thanks for catching this.

[FYI... had this player had a multiple year contract, my ruling (for future scenarios) would have been to reduce the number of years by one, and impose the 20% contract, but NOT force the player to be dropped, since it was simply too many years - rather than NO ROOM AT ALL. Make sense?]

[Flaxwless]

Crap.

Eli's years were changed to 1 instead of 2 on the draft app I was using!

[Burt the Butcher]

Seems fair Jim

[zdravko27]

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.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

So the moral of the story is... GET YOUR ROSTERS STRAIGHT!
Let's hope we don't have to cross this bridge... but I see your point.

Originally Posted by zdravko27

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.