place TE Marcedes Lewis (Jac) on IR

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

That's all well and good, and I agree a tweak to the rule needs to be made. However, I think it is appropriate to tweak the rule for the NEXT infraction, not for the one that just happened. I tried to find the previous infraction (I know it happened a couple of years ago), but I could only find the BDSC second infraction, where we let the penalties slide, but not the first. Assuming we assessed full roster penalities for the first infraction, then I think we do so again here. If Jake feels strongly about lessoning the penality, I can live with that, but I do not support changing the rule and applying it to a situation that has already happened.

Well Jake can have final say, I'm cool with that... I just want it clear that I was a proponent of cleaning this up long before it affected me, and tried getting a change made but couldn't get enough momentum on it in the early off-season.

My team is about to be wrecked by this stupid mistake, but so be it.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Well Jake can have final say, I'm cool with that... I just want it clear that I was a proponent of cleaning this up long before it affected me, and tried getting a change made but couldn't get enough momentum on it in the early off-season.

My team is about to be wrecked by this stupid mistake, but so be it.

The momentum argument is a weak argument. All you have to do is post a poll in the preseason and get people to vote. Nine times out of ten an effort as simple as that is all that is needed with a rule as poorly conceived as this one.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

The momentum argument is a weak argument. All you have to do is post a poll in the preseason and get people to vote. Nine times out of ten an effort as simple as that is all that is needed with a rule as poorly conceived as this one.

Bullshit, I tried talking to several people and was unable to get momentum on it.

Everyone was MIA for the most part from January to March.

You know I've been much more lenient with the rule infractions the past year, particularly when it's clear teams made mistakes and they make prompt efforts to resolve said mistake.

You want to stick it to me do it. 500 cb's is what the rules state specifically. Put it in place.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Bullshit, I tried talking to several people and was unable to get momentum on it.

Everyone was MIA for the most part from January to March.

You know I've been much more lenient with the rule infractions the past year, particularly when it's clear teams made mistakes and they make prompt efforts to resolve said mistake.

You want to stick it to me do it. 500 cb's is what the rules state specifically. Put it in place.

Are you saying every rule change proposal has been a collective effort?

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

You want to stick it to me do it. 500 cb's is what the rules state specifically. Put it in place.

Just to be clear, I definitely don't want to "stick it to" anyone. My preference is that we invalidate the IR move and simply roll everything back without penalty.

Considering that you believe a penalty must be given, Mike, I'm not sure we have any choice but to dock at least 250cb. Leniency in the past has usually been shown by waiving penalties for 1st time offenses, etc. Do we have any examples in which we've decided to actually lessen the $ amount of a penalty when its been decided to hand one out?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Are you saying every rule change proposal has been a collective effort?

For the most part, they've had input from at least 3-4 of us before it was put up for vote. Usually more.

Assess the 500 cb penalty. That is what's stated in the rules.

And be prepared to dot every ****ing I and T from here on out, because I'll go back to the old hardcore days with penalties... instead of rationally looking at each situation as I have the past year plus and assessing reasonable penalties relevant to the situatuon.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Mutts

Just to be clear, I definitely don't want to "stick it to" anyone. My preference is that we invalidate the IR move and simply roll everything back without penalty.

Considering that you believe a penalty must be given, Mike, I'm not sure we have any choice but to dock at least 250cb. Leniency in the past has usually been shown by waiving penalties for 1st time offenses, etc. Do we have any examples in which we've decided to actually lessen the $ amount of a penalty when its been decided to hand one out?

The 250cb penalty in and of itself was a reduction of the 500 stated in the rules.

Both are ridiculous, especially in a case like this.

[Preds]

When a rule is broken several things need to be looked at when penalties are assessed IMO.

1 - Was their intent to violate the rule?
2 - What was gained by the team because of the rule violation?
3 - How promptly did the team respond to remedy the situation?
4 - Is it a repeat offense of the same violation?
5 - Is the team a repeat offender of other rule infractions?
6 - Is the penalty in the rules commesurate with the violation?

Let's see how to answer this situation for my offense...

1 - No Intent
2 - Gain was 50 cb's in cap space, a roster slot, and 1 week earlier eligibility to release off IR * neither the cap space nor roster slot was used
3 - not only did I respond immediatly upon realizing the mistake, I notified the ****ing league about it
4 - Nope, never violated this rule before
5 - Nope
6 - Penalty in the rules is WAY out of whack with the crime

Add in the fact that the freackin rule is an admitted bad one that needs modification, and you get a pissed off Preds

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

And be prepared to dot every ****ing I and T from here on out, because I'll go back to the old hardcore days with penalties... instead of rationally looking at each situation as I have the past year plus and assessing reasonable penalties relevant to the situatuon.

Alright, now this is getting out of control. So basically you're telling us Mike that we make a decision that you personally feel is fair - or you're going to make it tougher on the rest of the league. That's unreasonable IMO. Not speaking for anyone else, but I'm doing my best to look at this rationally. I guess I don't understand where you're coming from. You wouldn't go along with my idea of waiving the penalty completely - yet you want a penalty smaller than 250cb. I'm not big on doing something just for symbolic reasons - rather just waive it completely.

We're not going to levy a 500cb penalty. Earlier in this conversation you pointed out this:

Last year we reduced the stated 500 cb penalty in the rules to 250 for teams being under the limit

I don't remember that specifically, but I assume it to be true - whether the rules were edited to reflect the league's decision isn't important.

Tell us, Mike, what do you feel is a fair penalty? You're a member of the rules committee - give us a concrete opinion to work with.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Mutts

Alright, now this is getting out of control. So basically you're telling us Mike that we make a decision that you personally feel is fair - or you're going to make it tougher on the rest of the league. That's unreasonable IMO. Not speaking for anyone else, but I'm doing my best to look at this rationally. I guess I don't understand where you're coming from. You wouldn't go along with my idea of waiving the penalty completely - yet you want a penalty smaller than 250cb. I'm not big on doing something just for symbolic reasons - rather just waive it completely.

We're not going to levy a 500cb penalty. Earlier in this conversation you pointed out this:

I don't remember that specifically, but I assume it to be true - whether the rules were edited to reflect the league's decision isn't important.

Tell us, Mike, what do you feel is a fair penalty? You're a member of the rules committee - give us a concrete opinion to work with.

It's just me getting pissed off at Brian for being an unreasonable TOOL (I'm certain he learned it from MY old days of being an asshole). If he wants to be a dick you all know I can be a biggger one (one of my BAD traits).

We have never changed the rule, we just assessed a penalty not in the rules. We've also been far more lenient on other mistakes the past yearin both Frenzy and SACD than what's specifically stated in the rules... assessing the situations to determine everything I posted a few posts above before assessing a penalty that fits the offense.

As for WHY I think a penalty should be assessed... I DID make a mistake. I sholdn't skate for that, but I don't think the penalty should be ridculous either in light of the situation.

I've already posted what I think a reasonable penalty is for the mistake several posts above... I'll quote it in a second.

[Preds]

:bump for Jake

Originally Posted by Preds

Is the 250cb penalty final?

250 seems steep seeing as I free'd up all of 50 cbs in the mistaken IR move (his salary is 100), didn't use the roster spot, didn't use any of the cap money free'd up by the move (I already had plenty of cap to pickup Carter yesterday, and had 1333 cb's invested in TE/K/D positions), notified the league of my error, and made an immediate effort to rectify the situation by bidding on a Defense which I won this afternoon. I'll also add that he's questionable again this week, and I gained nothing in my accidental move except 1 less mandatory week he must spend on IR.

This situation isn't quite the same as previous infractions where we assessed 250 penalties. I'll accept whatever penalty is ultimately decided... and DO feel some penalty is approriate, but IMO we really need to fix this rule, and we just screwed the pooch by not addressing it for the 3rd off-season in a row.

I'd suggest the following penalty as being fair for the circumstances... as well as a precedent to follow the remainder of the season (assuming teams who mess up make efforts to remedy the error ASAP).

My proposed penalty:
- a 50 cb penalty for screwing up in this case (this is equivelent to the cb's I free'd up (but didn't use) with the move)

- an additional mandatory week on IR for Lewis so that there was absolutely nothing gained by my team in this screw up.

Final thoughts?

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

When a rule is broken several things need to be looked at when penalties are assessed IMO.

1 - Was their intent to violate the rule?
2 - What was gained by the team because of the rule violation?
3 - How promptly did the team respond to remedy the situation?
4 - Is it a repeat offense of the same violation?
5 - Is the team a repeat offender of other rule infractions?
6 - Is the penalty in the rules commesurate with the violation?

Let's see how to answer this situation for my offense...

1 - No Intent
2 - Gain was 50 cb's in cap space, a roster slot, and 1 week earlier eligibility to release off IR * neither the cap space nor roster slot was used
3 - not only did I respond immediatly upon realizing the mistake, I notified the ****ing league about it
4 - Nope, never violated this rule before
5 - Nope
6 - Penalty in the rules is WAY out of whack with the crime

Add in the fact that the freackin rule is an admitted bad one that needs modification, and you get a pissed off Preds

I agree with all of that completely. Seems like an honest and harmless mistake to me. If it were someone who wasn't demanding a penalty be given to them, I have to imagine we would just waive it off as an honest first time offense.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Mutts

I agree with all of that completely. Seems like an honest and harmless mistake to me. If it were someone who wasn't demanding a penalty be given to them, I have to imagine we would just waive it off as an honest first time offense.

As for WHY I think a penalty should be assessed... I DID make a mistake. I shouldn't skate for that, but I don't think the penalty should be ridiculous either in light of the situation.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

:bump for Jake

Thanks! I still don't see the point in making precedent for symbolic penalties - I really don't think its ever been done before. (Please point out if I'm wrong - I haven't researched back too far.) Still leaning towards 250cb or nothing at all. Mike, I'm completely fine letting you decide which of those two is best. (And, obviously, lean towards no penalty myself.)

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Mutts

Thanks! I still don't see the point in making precedent for symbolic penalties - I really don't think its ever been done before. (Please point out if I'm wrong - I haven't researched back too far.) Still leaning towards 250cb or nothing at all. Mike, I'm completely fine letting you decide which of those two is best. (And, obviously, lean towards no penalty myself.)

Actually I think we have assessed mmore lenient penalties in other situations in the past year+, I could go digging if you want.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

Actually I think we have assessed mmore lenient penalties in other situations in the past year+, I could go digging if you want.

Yeah, if we have it would change my opinion in this situation. However, I also think we should put an end to that practice in the future.

If we use a benchmark test to determine $ amounts of penalties, we're going to end up with varying amounts every time - I agree with leniency for first time mistakes, but it should be a complete waive of the penalty. If we're going to dock $s, it needs to be a standard amount for every situation to avoid any claims of impropriety.

[Nittany Dodgers]

I'm out of this thread and obstaining from any vote on this issue.

[smsmith40]

Woah guys. Firstly, I think you guys need to kiss and make up. Perhaps then we can actually move forward.

My 2 cents for what its worth is that when an error can be corrected / reversed with no advantage either sought or gained then the maximum leniency should be offered. However this is not what the rules say and its completely valid for somebody to point out that the rules are the rules and they should apply to everyone.

Reasonable men come to compromises. I suggest a temporary member is co-opted on to the rules committee and they assess whatever penalty they can agree to. At that point discussion on the subject should end.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

Woah guys. Firstly, I think you guys need to kiss and make up. Perhaps then we can actually move forward.

My 2 cents for what its worth is that when an error can be corrected / reversed with no advantage either sought or gained then the maximum leniency should be offered. However this is not what the rules say and its completely valid for somebody to point out that the rules are the rules and they should apply to everyone.

Reasonable men come to compromises. I suggest a temporary member is co-opted on to the rules committee and they assess whatever penalty they can agree to. At that point discussion on the subject should end.

Brian and I have a history of agreeing to disagree. I still love the guy and respect the hell out of him (though at times I'm certain he can't stand me ).

I don't have a vote in this, since it involves me... and a substitute is supposed to be inserted. Thus Jake and Brian need to appoint someone in my stead, issue a final ruling, and we move on.

[Nittany Dodgers]

If we don't have a predetermined replacement for Mike for the temp rules committee spot, then I nominate Matt as the senior member from the east, which leaves us with all three divisions being represented in the decision. Plus, since he hasn't posted in this thread yet, I have no idea what he thinks, so his choice is unbiased.

That said, I'm still obstaining and Jake and Matt (or whoever else) can work it out.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

If we don't have a predetermined replacement for Mike for the temp rules committee spot, then I nominate Matt as the senior member from the east, which leaves us with all three divisions being represented in the decision. Plus, since he hasn't posted in this thread yet, I have no idea what he thinks, so his choice is unbiased.

That said, I'm still obstaining and Jake and Matt (or whoever else) can work it out.

Matt would seem an appropriate choice. Send him a PM, or would you like me to do so?

[Mutts]

Matt sounds like a good choice to me. I'd be happy to figure it out with him.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Thanks for thinking of me. ;) I did not post anything because I figured this would just fizzle out. Bet wrong on that one.

In all honestly I don't really care but since Mike caught the mistake on his own, fessed up to it and feels compelled to be penalized I would say $125.

I would also suggest that following criteria be applied to future violations with one addition:

1- If this offense has already been committed (exactly) then we go with that. If not,
2 - Was there intent to violate the rule?
3 - What was gained by the team because of the rule violation?
4 - How promptly did the team respond to remedy the situation?
5 - Is it a repeat offense of the same violation?
6 - Is the team a repeat offender of other rule infractions?
7 - Is the penalty in the rules commesurate with the violation?

Hope that helps!

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Thanks for thinking of me. ;) I did not post anything because I figured this would just fizzle out. Bet wrong on that one.

In all honestly I don't really care but since Mike caught the mistake on his own, fessed up to it and feels compelled to be penalized I would say $125.

I would also suggest that following criteria be applied to future violations with one addition:

1- If this offense has already been committed (exactly) then we go with that. If not,
2 - Was there intent to violate the rule?
3 - What was gained by the team because of the rule violation?
4 - How promptly did the team respond to remedy the situation?
5 - Is it a repeat offense of the same violation?
6 - Is the team a repeat offender of other rule infractions?
7 - Is the penalty in the rules commesurate with the violation?

Hope that helps!

$125 sounds fine to me - lets get this particular issue past us.

Fleshing this out, however, please clarify: are you suggesting these benchmarks are applied to each situation and a different $ amount assigned for each individual penalty? We're going to end up with a debate ensuing for every penalty we try to hand out. I just don't see how you can fairly quantify the results after considering those benchmarks.

I think first time offenders should have the penalty waived - after that, why can't we give everyone the same, standard $ amount as defined in the rules?

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Fleshing this out, however, please clarify: are you suggesting these benchmarks are applied to each situation and a different $ amount assigned for each individual penalty? We're going to end up with a debate ensuing for every penalty we try to hand out. I just don't see how you can fairly quantify the results after considering those benchmarks.

I think first time offenders should have the penalty waived - after that, why can't we give everyone the same, standard $ amount as defined in the rules?

Sorry, I was not advocating for each case to be assessed different amounts. I guess I was thinking that if we had a precedent (or a clearly defined rule that was applicable) then that should be option 1. For more nebulous cases I would say we want to apply the criteria listed above to determine the most appropriate penalty.

BTW, I also agree that first time offenders get a pass. Thanks!

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Sorry, I was not advocating for each case to be assessed different amounts. I guess I was thinking that if we had a precedent (or a clearly defined rule that was applicable) then that should be option 1. For more nebulous cases I would say we want to apply the criteria listed above to determine the most appropriate penalty.

BTW, I also agree that first time offenders get a pass. Thanks!

Fair enough. Issue solved! :clap

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

This is one of the advantages of living in Hawaiian standard time... wake up and see what wonderful fireworks I've missed.

Thanks for working this out, Matt.

[Preds]

The turk will make some cuts later in the day to get me under the cap when I find a moment it figure it out. I believe with the penalty I'm 129 over at the moment.

Anyone need a WR dirt cheap? (Gabriel, maybe Kevin Curtis?)

I've been trying to PM an apology to Brian for the past 2 hours and keep getting interrupted. I was trying to make an offhand sarcastic dis and it came across totally the wrong way. I apologize to everyone for that... BTW, I also bashed myself a couple times if I recall.

:dammit

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

The turk will make some cuts later in the day to get me under the cap when I find a moment it figure it out. I believe with the penalty I'm 129 over at the moment.

Anyone need a WR dirt cheap? (Gabriel, maybe Kevin Curtis?)

I've been trying to PM an apology to Brian for the past 2 hours and keep getting interrupted. I was trying to make an offhand sarcastic dis and it came across totally the wrong way. I apologize to everyone for that... BTW, I also bashed myself a couple times if I recall.

:dammit

It's all good, Mike.


Umm....hmm...this is a little uncomfortable, but I, uh...I could use a cheap WR.

[Urza's Ragers]

Hahahaha...you guys are great!!!