3 teams have Roster Penalties coming...

[Preds]

While updating the Roster App... AND the Frenzy website this morning, I came across 4 roster violations (among 3 teams), we need to decide how to handle them (I want input).

#1 Jersey Failed to declare contract years, and TS/PS status by the deadline (still waiting on them from Kyle... I made him aware this afternoon).

#2 Jersey is 3 players under the mandatory 5 TE/K/D rules with only 2 on his roster

#3 BDSC is also 3 players under the mandatory 5 TE/K/D rules with only 2 on his roster

#4 The Derby Cars are EXCEEDING THE CAP by 43 cb's.

Obviously, we need to assess roster penalties for all of the above, but my brain is spent from cleaning up the app and the website... so I'm looking for input on what the appropriate penalties are supposed to be.

Thanks.

Mike

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Well, I'm not on the rules committee... and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night... but to me it looks like #2-4 are pretty clear cut (don't we have penalty rules spelled out for those violations?). Number one is a bit tricky, though... as you can read in another thread .

[Liquid Swords]

Originally Posted by Preds

While updating the Roster App... AND the Frenzy website this morning, I came across 4 roster violations (among 3 teams), we need to decide how to handle them (I want input).

#1 Jersey Failed to declare contract years, and TS/PS status by the deadline (still waiting on them from Kyle... I made him aware this afternoon).

All undeclared contract years should only be 1 year.

Rookie Draft rules (5B) state: If a rookie is not declared active or DS by the end of the free agency period, he will become a free agent available to open bidding.

Rookies drafted are now free agents.

#2 Jersey is 3 players under the mandatory 5 TE/K/D rules with only 2 on his roster

Roster penalty rules state: A penalty of 500cb's will be assessed for each player a team is below the minimum roster limit if a team falls below 13 players at any time during the In-Season Free Agency period (August 16 to the start of the 1st Week 17 games). If a team is below the minimum roster limit, they will have 24 hours to get back to the limit before the penalty is assessed. This penalty will also apply for teams having fewer than 5 players among TE/K/D.

Off-Season FA rules (section 4) state: Teams must also responsibly manage their 18 Active Roster slots and 5 Taxi Squad slots.

Off-Season FA rules (section 9) state: It is your responsibility, as owner, to meet the minimum roster requirements outlined previously, by August 15, or a 500cb penalty will be assessed (per player).

This would lead to a 1500 cb penalty. I'd be leanient and allow until Thursday to get the extra 3 players.


#3 BDSC is also 3 players under the mandatory 5 TE/K/D rules with only 2 on his roster

see #2

#4 The Derby Cars are EXCEEDING THE CAP by 43 cb's.

Assess necessary cap penalty and give Derby Cars 24 hours to get under the cap.

Obviously, we need to assess roster penalties for all of the above, but my brain is spent from cleaning up the app and the website... so I'm looking for input on what the appropriate penalties are supposed to be.

Thanks.

Mike

Thoughts in blue text
Edited to adjust thoughts on #4

[Preds]

#1 Jersey Failed to declare contract years, and TS/PS status by the deadline (still waiting on them from Kyle... I made him aware this afternoon).

All contract years should only be 1 year. Agreed

Rookie Draft rules (5B) state: If a rookie is not declared active or DS by the end of the free agency period, he will become a free agent available to open bidding.

Rookies drafted are now free agents.
[Mike] This just seems exceedingly harsh, and not in the betterment of the league as a whole. I propose Jersey gets to keep his class, but loses say 1 ontract year for every day late (which would be 6), knocking him down to a max 13 years on the TS if he declared TODAY. We can also strip his PS by 1 or 2 years as a penalty as well.[/Mike]


#2 Jersey is 3 players under the mandatory 5 TE/K/D rules with only 2 on his roster

Roster penalty rules state: A penalty of 500cb's will be assessed for each player a team is below the minimum roster limit if a team falls below 13 players at any time during the In-Season Free Agency period (August 16 to the start of the 1st Week 17 games). If a team is below the minimum roster limit, they will have 24 hours to get back to the limit before the penalty is assessed. This penalty will also apply for teams having fewer than 5 players among TE/K/D.

Off-Season FA rules (section 4) state: Teams must also responsibly manage their 18 Active Roster slots and 5 Taxi Squad slots.

Off-Season FA rules (section 9) state: It is your responsibility, as owner, to meet the minimum roster requirements outlined previously, by August 15, or a 500cb penalty will be assessed (per player).

This would lead to a 1500 cb penalty. I'd be leanient and allow until Thursday to get the extra 3 players. -

[Mike] Again, too harsh (we need to lighten up a tad I guess)... I propose they get hit with a 100cb penalty EACH WEEK for each player. That means right now both teams have 300cb penalties coming. If they are still under next week, they get hit with another 100cb penalty per player under. [/Mike]

#3 BDSC is also 3 players under the mandatory 5 TE/K/D rules with only 2 on his roster

see #2 - [Mike] I agree, see #2 [/Mike]


#4 The Derby Cars are EXCEEDING THE CAP by 43 cb's.

Assess necessary cap penalty and give Derby Cars 24 hours to get under the cap. [Mike] Problem is, normally it'd be a FA, and they'd get cut and a 20% penalty would be applied, however, in this case, it related to a PROMOTION... cutting Arrington seems a bit harsh to me... some financial penalty should apply, but not losing his top pick (IMO) [/Mike]

My comments are obviously in read... damn, I must be going soft.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Well, far be it from me to come down on the side of judgment over grace. I think Mike's suggestions are reasonable...

[Nittany Dodgers]

Do we know why Jersey has failed to announce years? It is my opinion that we have strict rules that either a) won't be broken too often, but when they will, serve as a sharp rap on the knuckles to keep good owners aware of the requirements, or b) when multiple rules are broken we see when an owner isn't fully participating. I don't think Jersey is a deadbeat owner, so I'd hate to see a full list of penalities assessed that reduce his competitive balance. On the other hand, we've been pretty harsh the last couple of years with the penalties. Maybe we need to readdress that. I don't know.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Do we know why Jersey has failed to announce years? It is my opinion that we have strict rules that either a) won't be broken too often, but when they will, serve as a sharp rap on the knuckles to keep good owners aware of the requirements, or b) when multiple rules are broken we see when an owner isn't fully participating. I don't think Jersey is a deadbeat owner, so I'd hate to see a full list of penalities assessed that reduce his competitive balance. On the other hand, we've been pretty harsh the last couple of years with the penalties. Maybe we need to readdress that. I don't know.

He just got too busy... I talked with him about it, and he'll remedy it, but like many of us (myself included), his focus was elsewhere the last couple weeks.

[Flaxwless]

Normally I'd say screw it and go with what the rule books syas... because if 10 other teams can comply... why shoudl we give leeway to the 2 that didnt?

HOWEVER..... this summer the Frenzy has been neglected due to starting up the SAC'D from scratch and that I believe is a big effect on all these violations. Had I kept the apps up to date and other mentioned deadlines none of these problem would occur as they haven't in the 3 or 4 years since we started this league.

So for these instances I would not be opposed to lighter penalties.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

He just got too busy... I talked with him about it, and he'll remedy it, but like many of us (myself included), his focus was elsewhere the last couple weeks.

I say boot him then, and all others that haven't been paying attention to the Frenzy as much as they should have.

Well, that or the lighter penalities that have been suggested. Either one.

[Preds]

OK, what I've done to SBDC is to assess the penalty as if he had been forced to cut JJ Arrington, however we will not enfore the cut itself.

Since Arrington has a 5 year contract at 470 cb's, the penlaty to cut him (for exceeding the cap) is a whopping 334. I've assessed that, theSBDC is now 377 OVER the cap, and needs to get under ASAP. JJ Arrington remains on his active roster.

[Liquid Swords]

[quote=Preds]#1 Jersey Failed to declare contract years, and TS/PS status by the deadline (still waiting on them from Kyle... I made him aware this afternoon).

All contract years should only be 1 year. Agreed

Rookie Draft rules (5B) state: If a rookie is not declared active or DS by the end of the free agency period, he will become a free agent available to open bidding.

Rookies drafted are now free agents.
[Mike] This just seems exceedingly harsh, and not in the betterment of the league as a whole. I propose Jersey gets to keep his class, but loses say 1 ontract year for every day late (which would be 6), knocking him down to a max 13 years on the TS if he declared TODAY. We can also strip his PS by 1 or 2 years as a penalty as well.[/Mike]
[Patrick]Seems reasonable[/Patrick]

#2 Jersey is 3 players under the mandatory 5 TE/K/D rules with only 2 on his roster

Roster penalty rules state: A penalty of 500cb's will be assessed for each player a team is below the minimum roster limit if a team falls below 13 players at any time during the In-Season Free Agency period (August 16 to the start of the 1st Week 17 games). If a team is below the minimum roster limit, they will have 24 hours to get back to the limit before the penalty is assessed. This penalty will also apply for teams having fewer than 5 players among TE/K/D.

Off-Season FA rules (section 4) state: Teams must also responsibly manage their 18 Active Roster slots and 5 Taxi Squad slots.

Off-Season FA rules (section 9) state: It is your responsibility, as owner, to meet the minimum roster requirements outlined previously, by August 15, or a 500cb penalty will be assessed (per player).

This would lead to a 1500 cb penalty. I'd be leanient and allow until Thursday to get the extra 3 players. -

[Mike] Again, too harsh (we need to lighten up a tad I guess)... I propose they get hit with a 100cb penalty EACH WEEK for each player. That means right now both teams have 300cb penalties coming. If they are still under next week, they get hit with another 100cb penalty per player under. [/Mike]
[Patrick]Too light IMO. Neither team is involved in SAC'D (like someone mentioned as a likely reason for err) plus everyone knew of the deadline and everyone has known of the TE/K/D min for years. Maybe split it in half for each week to 250 for each player...for a total of 750cbs.[/Patrick]

#3 BDSC is also 3 players under the mandatory 5 TE/K/D rules with only 2 on his roster

see #2 - [Mike] I agree, see #2 [/Mike] [Patrick]see #2 again[/Patrick]


#4 The Derby Cars are EXCEEDING THE CAP by 43 cb's.

Assess necessary cap penalty and give Derby Cars 24 hours to get under the cap. [Mike] Problem is, normally it'd be a FA, and they'd get cut and a 20% penalty would be applied, however, in this case, it related to a PROMOTION... cutting Arrington seems a bit harsh to me... some financial penalty should apply, but not losing his top pick (IMO) [/Mike]
[Patrick]Seems reasonable.[/Patrick]

My comments are obviously in read... damn, I must be going soft. [/QUOTE]
New comments in green.

[The Knights of Ni]

I will make my cut tonite, but I want to take some time to look through my moves because I thought I had enough cap room. Something will be done tonite to get under the cap.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Soap Box Derby Car

I will make my cut tonite, but I want to take some time to look through my moves because I thought I had enough cap room. Something will be done tonite to get under the cap.

No problem Nate, honestly, I hope I missed something... don't think I did... but if I made an error... I will GLADLY reverse the penalty.

[The Knights of Ni]

I think I might have forgotten to add in the 05 roster penalty for Hicks.

[Liquid Swords]

Any other thoughts on this? I think we need an official Rules Committee ruling on this before the start of Thursday's game.

Thanks.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Liquid Swords

Any other thoughts on this? I think we need an official Rules Committee ruling on this before the start of Thursday's game.

Thanks.

That would mean Brian and Jake need to speak up. Brian has already agreed to my plan... although I'm open to your suggestion Pat (250cb's for the TE/K/D infractions). Even 750cb's seems pretty steep, but then again, as you stated, neither Kyle or Joe are in SACD, and they really had all off-season to get to the required numbers.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

That would mean Brian and Jake need to speak up. Brian has already agreed to my plan... although I'm open to your suggestion Pat (250cb's for the TE/K/D infractions). Even 750cb's seems pretty steep, but then again, as you stated, neither Kyle or Joe are in SACD, and they really had all off-season to get to the required numbers.

750 does seem harsh, but the rules are clear, and this was well known. I'd say just assess the 750 and as long as he's actively trying to acquire new players to fill those slots, be lenient on the time frame.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

750 does seem harsh, but the rules are clear, and this was well known. I'd say just assess the 750 and as long as he's actively trying to acquire new players to fill those slots, be lenient on the time frame.

Well, the rules say 1500... Pat was proposing 250 per player instead of the 500, whereas I proposed 100... but if you want 250 I can swing my vote that way.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Well, the rules say 1500... Pat was proposing 250 per player instead of the 500, whereas I proposed 100... but if you want 250 I can swing my vote that way.

Yep, I should have stated I acknowledge that 750 is only a portion of what the rules call for, yet 750 is still harsh. I think 300 is a little lenient. Maybe 500 would be a nice compromise. I really don't have too strong a feeling. I hate to start the season off on a bad foot. I just want to see some football played, dammit!

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Yep, I should have stated I acknowledge that 750 is only a portion of what the rules call for, yet 750 is still harsh. I think 300 is a little lenient. Maybe 500 would be a nice compromise. I really don't have too strong a feeling. I hate to start the season off on a bad foot. I just want to see some football played, dammit!

Well, I tlaked with Joe, and he's fine with whatever we decide.. so I say we'll go with the 750. Both he and Kyle have the capsspace to accomodate the hit.

Joe (and myself) would like to see us address this rule in the off-season though... personally, I think it's the biggest point of problems in terms of penalties... 3 years in to the added 2 roster spots and 500 cb cap space, I thin kwe can say the league has adjusted salaries.... I think we should just eliminate the restriction altogether in '06... but I'm just 1 vote.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Well, I tlaked with Joe, and he's fine with whatever we decide.. so I say we'll go with the 750. Both he and Kyle have the capsspace to accomodate the hit.

Joe (and myself) would like to see us address this rule in the off-season though... personally, I think it's the biggest point of problems in terms of penalties... 3 years in to the added 2 roster spots and 500 cb cap space, I thin kwe can say the league has adjusted salaries.... I think we should just eliminate the restriction altogether in '06... but I'm just 1 vote.

Doesn't matter to me, as long as Jake agrees.

As far as the rule change, I'd be more in favor of the 5 roster spots be dedicated to TE/D/K without a minimum requirement. There were two goals, in my eyes, to the rule. #1 was ensuring that all teams fielded competitive lineup at least most weeks, by having a full compliment of players. The second was the restrict the hoarding of certain positions when we expanded the roster. If we eliminate the required minimum without dedicating the roster spots to those positions, hoarding will occur. I'd like to prevent that, and simply requiring those spots on your roster be filled by TE/K/D would be much easier to police and monitor, and the penalities would be easier to impliment.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Doesn't matter to me, as long as Jake agrees.

As far as the rule change, I'd be more in favor of the 5 roster spots be dedicated to TE/D/K without a minimum requirement. There were two goals, in my eyes, to the rule. #1 was ensuring that all teams fielded competitive lineup at least most weeks, by having a full compliment of players. The second was the restrict the hoarding of certain positions when we expanded the roster. If we eliminate the required minimum without dedicating the roster spots to those positions, hoarding will occur. I'd like to prevent that, and simply requiring those spots on your roster be filled by TE/K/D would be much easier to police and monitor, and the penalities would be easier to impliment.

ooh.. I LIKE that suggestion... I could get behind that.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Doesn't matter to me, as long as Jake agrees.

As far as the rule change, I'd be more in favor of the 5 roster spots be dedicated to TE/D/K without a minimum requirement. There were two goals, in my eyes, to the rule. #1 was ensuring that all teams fielded competitive lineup at least most weeks, by having a full compliment of players. The second was the restrict the hoarding of certain positions when we expanded the roster. If we eliminate the required minimum without dedicating the roster spots to those positions, hoarding will occur. I'd like to prevent that, and simply requiring those spots on your roster be filled by TE/K/D would be much easier to police and monitor, and the penalities would be easier to impliment.

I could get behind this as well... but we'd have to either REMOVE the 500 cbs or reduce it to 250 or something. If not you can be guranteed the 500 will be allocated to non-DEF/TE/PK.

I really have no sympathy for failing to comply with the 5 rule because we've had ALL off-season to get this in the clear. But I feel 250 is a sound compromise. Even though it is each OWNER'S responsibility to keep track of their roster status I feel the powers that be have been distracted with the other league and it has affected those not part of SAC'D.

As for the "5 rule" I feel the only tweak that must be made to it is to extened the period to comply in-season from 24 hrs to the end of the bidding period for that week. This allows teams enough time to fill vacancies through trades or FA pickups.

[Liquid Swords]

Originally Posted by Preds

ooh.. I LIKE that suggestion... I could get behind that.

I LIKES too

[Nittany Dodgers]

I love you guys.

If this was my local league in the same situation, and I made the same suggestion, half the league would disagree just to disagree, and the rest wouldn't care.

:sniff: I need a tissue.

[Mutts]

Yeah, sounds fine to me. (Sorry to have missed all the hot and heavy discussion - but you guys always work it out well.)

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Doesn't matter to me, as long as Jake agrees.

As far as the rule change, I'd be more in favor of the 5 roster spots be dedicated to TE/D/K without a minimum requirement. There were two goals, in my eyes, to the rule. #1 was ensuring that all teams fielded competitive lineup at least most weeks, by having a full compliment of players. The second was the restrict the hoarding of certain positions when we expanded the roster. If we eliminate the required minimum without dedicating the roster spots to those positions, hoarding will occur. I'd like to prevent that, and simply requiring those spots on your roster be filled by TE/K/D would be much easier to police and monitor, and the penalities would be easier to impliment.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

My original thought was to get rid of the min 5 TE/K/Def like Brian suggested. I dont see why we have to have a min of 5 as long as we dont use those roster spots on other positions. Anyway we can discuss this in the off season. Lets get ready to roll!