Pred's Fantasy Football Forums - View Single Post - Including SUSPENDED players as IR-eligible... NOT PASSED

zdravko27 · September 11th, 2010, 08:10 PM

I cut a player to make sure I am in compliance either way. Don't want to be the one taking advantage of a controversial item. Plus, I wanted to be able to argue the case without people assuming I am doing it for self-interest.

I think this is a rule interpretation, not a rule change. The intent of the rule (to me) is to allow for unavailable players to be IR-eligible. If that is correct, then there is no change here - only a clarification on what the rule means. To make an analogy, this is the same situation as when the Supreme Court renders an interpretation of what a passage in the Constitution is intended to mean. It is an interpretation, not a change in the Constitution itself.

To further illustrate the need for an interpretation: players like Chris Henry (RIP) or Plaxico (jail) didn't show up on the official injury report in the respective years of their incidents. Would you say they were also not IR-eligible, while someone with a bruised thigh can be listed as "Questionable" and thus qualify for season-long IR? That wouldn't make sense to me. So just like real-world laws, fantasy rules can contain less-than-perfect language. Correcting that language is not a substantial change in the rule itself.

September 11th, 2010, 08:10 PM	#11
zdravko27 Feeding Frenzy Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 916	Re: Including SUSPENDED players as IR-eligible... I cut a player to make sure I am in compliance either way. Don't want to be the one taking advantage of a controversial item. Plus, I wanted to be able to argue the case without people assuming I am doing it for self-interest. I think this is a rule interpretation, not a rule change. The intent of the rule (to me) is to allow for unavailable players to be IR-eligible. If that is correct, then there is no change here - only a clarification on what the rule means. To make an analogy, this is the same situation as when the Supreme Court renders an interpretation of what a passage in the Constitution is intended to mean. It is an interpretation, not a change in the Constitution itself. To further illustrate the need for an interpretation: players like Chris Henry (RIP) or Plaxico (jail) didn't show up on the official injury report in the respective years of their incidents. Would you say they were also not IR-eligible, while someone with a bruised thigh can be listed as "Questionable" and thus qualify for season-long IR? That wouldn't make sense to me. So just like real-world laws, fantasy rules can contain less-than-perfect language. Correcting that language is not a substantial change in the rule itself.