Including SUSPENDED players as IR-eligible... NOT PASSED

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I've declared that WR Vincent Jackson is eligible for IR status. However, that's a "spirit of the rule" ruling, and not a "letter of the law" ruling. The rules clearly state a player must be on the weekly injury report to qualify.

I propose we amend the rule to allow suspended players to be IR-eligible.

One BIG rationale: in the NFL, suspended players don't officially count towards the 53-man roster.

If this rule passes, suspended players on the IR will still be obligated to abide by the minimum 4-game "sit-out" requirement.

[Burt the Butcher]

I would agree with this.

What do we use to make the determination that a player is suspended? Common knowledge? NFL.com's injury report is great for the other statuses. I think we all would pretty much know who is suspended and who isn't?

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Good point. Is there anywhere on NFL.COM that lists suspended players? Otherwise, any news source that lists an NFL ruling, I guess.

[Scorpions]

go to frenzy MFL site, select rosters, look at swords roster, next to
Roethlisberger, Ben PIT QB (S)
That S indicates supended, so its there onthe MFL site

[Burt the Butcher]

Perfect Dale...that works for me...

[Liquid Swords]

IR = injured reserve

Suspended players aren't injured thus ineligible for IR, IMO. But it looks like I'll lose this battle so I guess I can put Big Ben on IR...I definitely need the room.

[Burt the Butcher]

OK..I guess the commish has another decision..If we are going based on this poll, then we are not going to allow Suspended players to be placed on IR, as we are now In-Season, and new rules must be passed by a unanimous vote:

After installment of the final version of the league rules, major changes to the rules can only be made through a league-wide vote. Any member club can propose a change to the rules by calling for a vote from the entire league during the off-season ONLY. Simply write up something that can be answered with a yes or no, and if a majority of clubs vote yes, the rules will be changed accordingly. Any rules changes after the start of the draft through the conclusion of the season must be agreed upon by the entire league unanimously. In the event of a tie in any rule vote, the rules committee will hold a separate vote, with majority rule breaking the tie.

[zdravko27]

I'd like to understand better Swords' opposition. Does he see the spirit of the rules as contained in the word "injured", i.e., the focus should be solely on whether a player is injured rather than on whether a player is available?

Not trying to be confrontational at all, just looking to get the alternative point of view.

[Scorpions]

Just a word, you can place a player on IR if they are not on NFL IR.
from the rules:
For a player to be put on IR he must be listed as Questionable, Doubtful or Out
So technically we can place players on IR who are not officially on IR in the NFL.
As all three of those options are for players who are still on an active NFL roster.
IN the NFL once you are placed on IR, you are out for the year there, and do not count on a roster.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

OK..I guess the commish has another decision..If we are going based on this poll, then we are not going to allow Suspended players to be placed on IR, as we are now In-Season, and new rules must be passed by a unanimous vote:

After installment of the final version of the league rules, major changes to the rules can only be made through a league-wide vote. Any member club can propose a change to the rules by calling for a vote from the entire league during the off-season ONLY. Simply write up something that can be answered with a yes or no, and if a majority of clubs vote yes, the rules will be changed accordingly. Any rules changes after the start of the draft through the conclusion of the season must be agreed upon by the entire league unanimously. In the event of a tie in any rule vote, the rules committee will hold a separate vote, with majority rule breaking the tie.

I agree with this. While I am in favor of allowing suspended players to the IR, I think this is a bad precedence to set regarding in-season rule changes, when unanimous vote. Doing this will lead to potentially ugly battles later on.

So while I agree with allowing suspended players on IR, this needs to wait until the off-season. Sorry, guys.

[zdravko27]

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.

[Burt the Butcher]

The teams who had Henry and Plax had to cut those players and take a cap hit...they were not allowed to place them on IR....

you have valid arguments, but I still feel the rule is clear on both wording and intent

BTW, Michael, are you a lawyer?

[zdravko27]

No, Sir, not a lawyer, but I do spend a lot of my time around lawyers, judges, court cases....so I am pretty sure it creeps up. Anyway, the fun for me is here to think this through - I don't care much about the actual decision, which is why I made sure not to have a dog in the fight.

To address your point about Henry and Plax - I was only hoping to use them to illustrate that a strict letter-of-the-law approach leads to dubious (for me) results. Namely, that those two players can be denied IR, but that any partially dinged up player would be eligible. If teams took cap hits for Plax and Henry, I would say that was unfair - but those cases are closed and should remain closed.

We seem to agree that it is the intent that matters. You mention that the intent of the rule is clear, as is the wording. Does this mean that in your view the rule did not intend for suspended / dead / imprisoned players to be IR-eligible? This would probably be where we disagree.

I would argue the rule creator wrote it in order to open the IR door for unavailable players. Did he want to deliberately exclude non-injury reasons as a IR cause? My opinion - no, he didn't. I can't imagine why he would. He simply did not consider the possibility that a player may be "Out" and not be listed on an injury report as "Out". That's just one person's view, of course, but if you agree with it, then you would logically agree that we are voting on a rule interpretation, not a rule change.

[Liquid Swords]

Originally Posted by zdravko27

I'd like to understand better Swords' opposition. Does he see the spirit of the rules as contained in the word "injured", i.e., the focus should be solely on whether a player is injured rather than on whether a player is available?

Not trying to be confrontational at all, just looking to get the alternative point of view.

Yes, I see the spirit of the rules as contained in the word "injured".

[Burt the Butcher]

I really think if we start trying to interpret every rule to read into it the 'spirit' of the rule, we could debate nearly every rule in the book. After hearing everything, I still stand by my initial remark, that this rule is very specific, and we should stand by it, and the poll that was just taken, and not allow suspended players to be included on IR this year. It could really cause a precedent that could cause long term issues with the rules.

As commish of SAC'd, I would not allow suspended players to be included in IR, and in fact created a poll there to mirror Frenzy, which is being defeated soundly.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Thank you all for the comments. I want to be a fair and honest commish.
It seems as though, per our rules, that in order for this to be adopted, it would have had to have been unanimous (for in-season rules changes). Since there is already a vote against, this will NOT pass for this season.
Let's shelve this until the off-season, when we can reconsider this and other rules changes we'd like to possibly make.

Sorry for the long delay in posting. Sunday is my busiest work day!