|
Post by Chargers on Oct 1, 2016 16:47:46 GMT -5
Trade processed. Now let's see if you guys can both submit a full lineup. #fingerscrossed
|
|
|
Post by Raiders on Oct 1, 2016 17:19:39 GMT -5
Submitted my full lineup
|
|
|
Post by Rams on Oct 2, 2016 11:26:58 GMT -5
I think a commissioner could have just started the players for you. I believe we can just go in and set your lineup, a reversal was not necessary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 17:36:45 GMT -5
Sooooo.... not to be debbie downer here, but don't we, year in and year out, get grilled because we make decisions that were potentially contradictory to the rules and then get talked down to and smacked on the hand because we should have known the rules before we did anything and ignorance of the rules isn't an excuse because they are clearly posted for all to see?
Therefore why should they get a bye on the situation because they screwed themselves on something?
Is this leniency we can all expect in the future?
|
|
|
Post by Chargers on Oct 3, 2016 20:33:06 GMT -5
Sooooo.... not to be debbie downer here, but don't we, year in and year out, get grilled because we make decisions that were potentially contradictory to the rules and then get talked down to and smacked on the hand because we should have known the rules before we did anything and ignorance of the rules isn't an excuse because they are clearly posted for all to see? Therefore why should they get a bye on the situation because they screwed themselves on something? Is this leniency we can all expect in the future? You make a valid point. However, I don't think we've ever encountered this particular situation before. So I'm not sure that this really can be compared to anything in the past. I may be wrong, but it seems like a first to me. As far as "screwing" themselves, I simply mentioned a way that they could "unscrew" themselves. If I were playing against a team that couldn't field a full lineup and they had a legal way to be able to make it to where they could do so, I'm fine with that. I'd rather beat a team with them at full strength than have them be a man down and also have an excuse.
|
|
|
Post by Browns on Oct 4, 2016 10:09:01 GMT -5
Sooooo.... not to be debbie downer here, but don't we, year in and year out, get grilled because we make decisions that were potentially contradictory to the rules and then get talked down to and smacked on the hand because we should have known the rules before we did anything and ignorance of the rules isn't an excuse because they are clearly posted for all to see? Therefore why should they get a bye on the situation because they screwed themselves on something? Is this leniency we can all expect in the future? You make a valid point. However, I don't think we've ever encountered this particular situation before. So I'm not sure that this really can be compared to anything in the past. I may be wrong, but it seems like a first to me. As far as "screwing" themselves, I simply mentioned a way that they could "unscrew" themselves. If I were playing against a team that couldn't field a full lineup and they had a legal way to be able to make it to where they could do so, I'm fine with that. I'd rather beat a team with them at full strength than have them be a man down and also have an excuse. You guys did the right thing...I'm not sure why there is even on question on that. Once a guy plays for the week, like the Bengals QB, he should be locked on a guys roster until after the weekend games are played. It's no different than cutting a guy who played and was in your starting lineup on a Thurs to pick up someone who has yet to play. Great job as always commishes.
|
|