POLL: IR designation (part deux!)...
 

What should the spirit (and letter!) of the IR rule be?
Should an owner be able to move a player to the IR based on ANY prior week during the season that player was listed as "out/doubtful/questionable"?
OR should an owner only be able to move a player to the IR based on the CURRENT NFL injury report (out/doubtful/questionable status)?

I believe Zdravko has uncovered another one of our potential loophole passages that we need to address!

Re: POLL: IR designation (part deux!)...
 

I don't like either option....I would vote to allow IR placement if player is on current week, or prior week, if current week has not been released.

If ONLY going on current week, you have several days where NO ONE would be able to be placed on IR, since based on this years release of weekly report, they have not been available until Friday (some teams not until late Friday). Thus you have a large portion of week without allowing IR placement.

This is way too restrictive

Re: POLL: IR designation (part deux!)...
 

What if it said "the last available NFL.com injury report for the respective team"? That will typically cover the period Friday-to-Friday and also give consideration to bye weeks.

Also, these probably go without saying, but should find their place in the rules: (1) players cannot be placed on IR in anticipation of a formal injury report and (2) players formally declared on the actual NFL IR and PUP lists are IR-elligible. Right now, most IR assignments are in violation with the rules: Norwood, Rice (neither showed up on an injury report), Bush (placed on IR before appearing on an injury report).

Re: POLL: IR designation (part deux!)...
 

Jim...as this is not a Yes/No vote, how do we determine if it passes unanimously?

Re: POLL: IR designation (part deux!)...
 

I like it!

Re: POLL: IR designation (part deux!)...
 

I'm guessing it will have to be unanimous for one OR the other.
Actually, the first option seems to be the way the current rule is written... so that option means things stay the way they are. The second option would need to be unanimous for us to make a mid-season change.

Make sense?

Re: POLL: IR designation (part deux!)...
 

Yep makes sense...but I don't like either option ;-)
I think it should be re-done to either what Michael is suggesting, or what I suggested in the Harrison thread...let MFL decide who is eligible and who is not....lets not even use a third party reference....