Rules changes...2 issues...

[chasmvp19]

#1 - Please put in the Practice squad area about the fact that these players are or can be elevated to active roster in their 4th season...this happened to me at the beginning of 2016 and I suffered a cap hit after releasing him...as I recall, he was never on my Taxi or Active Squad...maybe someone can verify that this is indeed a thing that happens...I thought Practice Squad players were pretty much hands off as the Rules say nothing about these guys being elevated automatically at any preordained time period...The Taxi Squad automatic elevation is clear enough...

#2 - Injured Reserve...There is a 4 week minimum, but no mention of when an owner must activate or release other than the new season...This seems to fall in the category of an additional stash point...NOTHING in rules forces an owner to REMOVE a previously injured player from IR in season...I would off a 1 week grace period after removal of all injured status then penalties can occur...

please advise...

[Liquid Swords]

Practice squad players can remain on PS for their entire contract. There is no auto-promotion for PS players - only TS players.

Players placed on IR can remain on IR for a full season if an owner wishes. Once placed on IR, the player must remain there for at least 4 weeks.

[chasmvp19]

Ok...so that brings me back to Geno Smith and there is nothing I can do now cause his cap hit is over for me now...I got jacked on him...but I will watch from here on out...

Next - I would like a Rule Change on the IR issue so players CAN NOT STASH healthy players on IR...that is not fair to the league...

[Burt the Butcher]

What would you propose Chuck? I can see your point, but football is so much different than baseball where they have defined DL stints 15-30-60 day. Football does not have that. So we allow you to put a player on IR list that is only listed as doubtful. He may play that week, but who knows.

I guess only thing we could say is if after his 4 week mandatory stay, if they are no longer qualified to stay, they need to move to active or are cut. I could maybe get behind that. Just more work for commissioners to monitor for this.

[chasmvp19]

I see the work involved...but there is already some sort of mechanism in place that identifies possible IR infractions...several rosters have the red warning signs below the IR status...let me think it over because I want to provide a solution not just identify a potential problem...letting it slide because "we've always done it this way" is not a good answer...

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by chasmvp19

I see the work involved...but there is already some sort of mechanism in place that identifies possible IR infractions...several rosters have the red warning signs below the IR status...let me think it over because I want to provide a solution not just identify a potential problem...letting it slide because "we've always done it this way" is not a good answer...

Yes, MFL will flag anyone on your IR who does not qualify for IR. But there is no mechanism to note weeks, so really, you could put the player on IR in week 5 when listed as Doubtful, then they are starting in NFL in Week 6, but your 4 week mandatory period has not passed. So he will be flagged for 3 weeks.

[Preds]

I would be open to creating a mechanism (perhaps once they are no longer on an injury report in any way, or play a game, then a team has 1 week to remove off IR) to force healthy players return to the active roster or TS, however, in that event I'd be totally against the 4 week minimum and would want no minimum whatsoever to create more flexibility to move players on or off.

[Burt the Butcher]

MFL already flags when a player does not qualify.
In SAC'd we have it set to allow the following statuses:
IR or Out or Doubtful or Questionable
I can no longer get into Frenzy as Commish, so cannot check there, but assume the same.
One thing we can do, they have a setting to not allow submission of lineup if a player is on IR but no longer qualifies. This would make it all automatic.

I could go for that. I actually like that...only allow players on IR that qualify....then you can still allow teams to move players to IR for valid reasons, and move them for one week when they are in a bind for a starter.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Those are the same settings in Frenzy.
If someone would like to offer up a rule change for this season... go right ahead.

[Preds]

Did we want to have more discussion on revising the IR rules?

I'd be agreeable to mandatory activating a player off IR within one week of no longer being listed as questionable, doubtful or out, however, with the stipulation that there is no longer a 4 week minimum.

Is there enough support to this tweak of the IR to address Chuck's concern of stashing players on the IR?

[chasmvp19]

I am proposing changes to the IR rule...

I still would like the 4 week min so that can be an option along with Pred wanting there to be no min...reason being that this still has to make the owner think long and hard before actually putting a guy on IR...is it really worth it...

Owners have 1 week grace after a guy is no longer on injury report to bring roster back into good graces...just like the NFL does...cap and years...
Not sure the mechanism that stops owners from setting lineups is correct for this as there is the one week grace to ensure the player is indeed off injury list. Timing for lineup submission is the issue.

Penalty for leaving a player on too long could be lenient or harsh...100cbs is lenient and half salary of offending player is harsher (usually)...put it up for vote...not allowing lineup submission is really harsh and unacceptable I believe...

Those are my thoughts for now and you guys have the insights on what the software can and cant do...mix it up in a blender and let us know what to vote on...

I just dont think in its current state it is reflective of the intent of this league to mirror the NFL as close as it can...

Leave as is could be an option, but I would hope the other owners see this as a concern also...

[Preds]

Originally Posted by chasmvp19

I am proposing changes to the IR rule...

I still would like the 4 week min so that can be an option along with Pred wanting there to be no min...reason being that this still has to make the owner think long and hard before actually putting a guy on IR...is it really worth it...

Owners have 1 week grace after a guy is no longer on injury report to bring roster back into good graces...just like the NFL does...cap and years...
Not sure the mechanism that stops owners from setting lineups is correct for this as there is the one week grace to ensure the player is indeed off injury list. Timing for lineup submission is the issue.

Penalty for leaving a player on too long could be lenient or harsh...100cbs is lenient and half salary of offending player is harsher (usually)...put it up for vote...not allowing lineup submission is really harsh and unacceptable I believe...

Those are my thoughts for now and you guys have the insights on what the software can and cant do...mix it up in a blender and let us know what to vote on...

I just dont think in its current state it is reflective of the intent of this league to mirror the NFL as close as it can...

Leave as is could be an option, but I would hope the other owners see this as a concern also...

I can't support a mandatory removal from IR when healthy without removal of the 4 week minimum. The 4 week minimum is a huge detriment to putting a player on IR. Many times it's been tough to make the call as teams haven't made clear the severity of injury and week to week becomes 4 weeks and beyond. Committing a player to a minimum 4 week IR is a good chunk of our season. IMO it's a huge detriment to using IR.

Now you want to clean up the ease to stash players with minimal injuries, that's fine but a much smaller concern then I have with the 4 week minimum. You're adding a 2nd detriment to using IR, which IMO is already too restrictive.

Take away the minimum and let IR be used in a more week to week fashion where you have to activate if healthy before you can make other roster additions. Yahoo leagues work that way and it's a much more difficult restriction to work around than you'd think.

[chasmvp19]

Here is the problem for us Mike...Yahoo doesnt go through a bidding process to get replacement players for IR guys...You just add them if they are available...we need time to go through our process and decide a salary and contract years...most owners need their roster to settle and get in a flow...it seems you want to still have a means to be able to manipulate your roster easily and that is never gonna happen as long as we have competition for UFA...there is no emergency way for an owner to quickly run out and grab a replacement player...AND this is another reason to leave the 4 week min in place...HELL I can see many of you long time owners pushing bidding out just to stop an injury owner from being able to insert a replacement especially if they are playing your team in a certain week...I might even do it...SO again, timing and our league make up is even more reason to keep the 4 week min...IR is SUPPOSED to be a HARD DIFFICULT decision...it isnt easy in the real NFL...

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Agreed that IR should be a difficult decision. I like the minimum mandatory time. It makes us as owners think long and hard before putting a player there. Personally, I don't see a problem with the way we have our IR system currently. Once you make the decision to put a player on IR, you're without his services. That's sacrifice already. However, if we got to a mandatory return, I'd think something like 8 weeks should be in play. That gives 4 weeks after the initial IR designation to figure out what to do.

[chasmvp19]

Mike gonna lose his mind on 8 weeks...that is half a whole season...it is interesting though...talk about difficult decisions...I'm guessing we are not going to solve this before our current season...it is just hard for me to be able to wrap my head around how we do it currently with all the other rules you have created and the salary cap and contract years...you guys just let this slip through the cracks for years...as a matter of fact you chiseled out more room in the crack to ensure it never got fixed as owner got comfortable stashing players maybe for future use or just allowing the replacement to continue on the team - as is evidenced by Mike replies to allow EASIER roster manipulations...its ok as long as we all know this is how we use it...

[chasmvp19]

Heck...I might even volunteer to be the INJURY COORDINATOR if a solution can be compromised...

[Burt the Butcher]

I hate the fact that even though a player is no longer on IR, we can let them ride the whole season on the IR list. I agree something needs to change to not allow this.

I think like the 4 week minimum. Biggest problem I see is we are pretty liberal with status allowed to be placed on IR, so it would take a lot of monitoring to enforce a new rule.

So not really sure what new rule would make most sense without making it a manual work nightmare....

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

We could tighten up what would allow a player to move to IR... the after 4 weeks on IR, depending on NFL status, we could have 2 weeks to activate or cut the player, unless he's still IR eligible.

[Liquid Swords]

How about after 4 weeks you must either activate or keep on IR for another 4 weeks. The player would still need to be IR-eligible in order to keep on IR for additional 4 week periods.

[chasmvp19]

That I like...the fact that he has to be eligible to stay IR...activate is relative - do something for sure - cut, demote, move to active, whatever the owner thinks best...just not leave on IR...
Do you like the 4X4X4 option or change weeks after the initial period - like 4X2X2X2???

This is not supposed to be another roster spot the owner can manipulate easily to his benefit like Mr Kraft aka Pred...(Relax, that was supposed to be funny)...

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I think 4x2x2... is better gives more options to bring back players off if they improve.

[Preds]

I hate the 4 week minimum. Make it 2x2x2 etc and I'd be agreeable to vote that way.

Tracking can be done in an IR Thread for each season.

[chasmvp19]

Make the initial weeks allocation part of the voting...

The X2 allocations are repeating until end of season I presume...

When will the vote be since there doesn't seem to be much more conversation from other owners???

Mike...we seem to want something done so put the vote out there and even give a shot at keeping it the same...I am willing to abide by what the people want...

Is there a specific number needed to create this new rule???

[chasmvp19]

The rules are vague when discussing numbers to pass on issues brought up in off season...after start of draft it has to be unanimous...
I want this proposed to the electorate NOW, as in being prior to start of draft and I want to know the specifics of what passing/implementing numbers look like...

I don't want to assume simple majority, but that is what it appears to be for items brought prior to draft...please make this happen as time is short...I know mike is out of pocket in a foreign country so can the holiest of commishes or another league big wig make a call here on this proposition timing....thanks...

[chasmvp19]

P.S. I hate a lot of rules...I want more money, etc...I don't want to go to jail for some things I may or may not have done...blah blah blah...lol

[Preds]

Poll posted here.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by chasmvp19

The rules are vague when discussing numbers to pass on issues brought up in off season...after start of draft it has to be unanimous...
I want this proposed to the electorate NOW, as in being prior to start of draft and I want to know the specifics of what passing/implementing numbers look like...

I don't want to assume simple majority, but that is what it appears to be for items brought prior to draft...please make this happen as time is short...I know mike is out of pocket in a foreign country so can the holiest of commishes or another league big wig make a call here on this proposition timing....thanks...

Anyone can put up a rule to vote on Chuck...doesn't have to be done by the great and powerful Oz