PASSES 10-2 - Rule Proposal on Allowing teams to retroactively place players on IR

[Preds]

I am proposing a tweak of our IR where we keep the current 4 week minimum status, and the rolling 2 week extensions (the 4x2x2 system voted in last season), however, we tweak it to allow teams to retroactively place players on IR 1 or 2 weeks prior in the 4 week window IF the player being placed on IR was: i

1 - DOUBTFUL or OUT on final injury report for the prior week(s) as well as the current week
2 - INACTIVE for the previous 1 or 2 weeks by their NFL team
&
3 - was not started by their Frenzy team in either of the applicable preceding weeks.

With this proposed tweak to our system, IR players will still miss a minimum of 4 games for their Frenzy teams. Leagues like the NHL allow this. I think the NBA and MLB might as well?

IMO, the 4 week minimum is a huge detriment to placing players with legitimate week to week injuries on IR that are simply too unknown as to how long they'll be out. This hurts doubly when they end up having a more longterm injury than anyone knew yet you fear placing the player on IR each week as he could return within the 4 week window. Jordan Reed is a prime example, though there are many others.

In summary: this vote is to allow teams to retroactively place a player on IR 1 or 2 weeks prior IF:

the Player was DOUBTFUL or OUT on final injury report(s) & INACTIVE for the week(s) by their NFL team in the preceding week(s)

and

the Player was not started by their Frenzy team in the preceding week(s)

The team placing a player on retroactive IR must provide the necessary link(s) from MFL linked article(s) and/or Injury Reports at the time the player is placed on retroactive IR. Failure to submit proof of eligibility in the post where the player is retroactively placed on IR will void the move and the player will not be eligible for retroactive IR until the following week at the earliest.

An example of how this system would work:

SCENARIO 1 - Player A has an injury and is listed OUT in the final injury report and is INACTIVE week 4 for his NFL team. Week 5 this player is again listed as doubtful, and ends up INACTIVE again. Week 6 player is again doubtful on the NFL injury report.... Team A has the option to place Player A on IR with their 4 week minimum IR stay backdated to week 4 and extending to week 8 before the 2 week renewals come in. This shortens the remaining IR term to 2 weeks for this player, though the player will have missed at least 4 weeks playing time for their Frenzy team.

SCENARIO 2 - Player A has an injury and is listed OUT in the final injury report INACTIVE week 7 for his NFL team. Week 8 this player is again listed as OUT on the NFL injury report.... Team A has the option to place Player A on IR with their 4 week minimum IR stay backdated to week 7 and extending to week 11 before the 2 week renewals come in. This shortens the remaining IR term to 3 weeks for this player, though the player will have missed at least 4 weeks playing time for their Frenzy team.

The 4x2x2 system otherwise remains in place.

[Burt the Butcher]

Sounds good to me...does NFL.com keep history of their weekly reports for us to use to know that backdate is valid?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

Sounds good to me...does NFL.com keep history of their weekly reports for us to use to know that backdate is valid?

MFL allows you to pull up news article on players up to 99 days back which should provide the data for players injury status as well as inactive status.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Preds

MFL allows you to pull up news article on players up to 99 days back which should provide the data for players injury status as well as inactive status.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

sure. makes sense.

[Bounty Hunter]

You telling me teams have IR slots to use this way instead of using them on players that are lost for the season?

For the betterment of the league I would support this as long as the record keeping is not cumbersom and create a hardship on someone.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Bounty Hunter

You telling me teams have IR slots to use this way instead of using them on players that are lost for the season?

For the betterment of the league I would support this as long as the record keeping is not cumbersom and create a hardship on someone.

Teams have 2 IR slots that can be used at any one point in time on any eligible player (not necessarily players lost the entire season).

I don't think this is any more work than a regular IR move for Chuck, especially since the burden of proof is on the team looking to backdate the 1-2 weeks for the IR move. I'd suggest teams looking to do this submit the evidence supporting the move when they make the move.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Preds

I'd suggest teams looking to do this submit the evidence supporting the move when they make the move.

Good idea

[Bounty Hunter]

[quote=Preds;145141]Teams have 2 IR slots that can be used at any one point in time on any eligible player (not necessarily players lost the entire season).

Seems every year I use my slots on players that are lost for the year and never return them. Thats what I was referring to.

[Preds]

[quote=Bounty Hunter;145144]

Originally Posted by Preds

Teams have 2 IR slots that can be used at any one point in time on any eligible player (not necessarily players lost the entire season).

Seems every year I use my slots on players that are lost for the year and never return them. Thats what I was referring to.

I figured as much, but took the bait just in case...

[Bounty Hunter]

[quote=Preds;145145]

Originally Posted by Bounty Hunter

I figured as much, but took the bait just in case...

I should have used the

[Liquid Swords]

I think all players placed on IR retroactively must provide the necessary link from MFL linked article in IR post.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Liquid Swords

I think all players placed on IR retroactively must provide the necessary link from MFL linked article in IR post.

I think that’s a good add to the rule details.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Liquid Swords

I think all players placed on IR retroactively must provide the necessary link from MFL linked article in IR post.

I added the following to the rule description:

The team placing a player on retroactive IR must provide the necessary link(s) from MFL linked article(s) and/or Injury Reports at the time the player is placed on retroactive IR. Failure to submit proof of eligibility in the post where the player is retroactively placed on IR will void the move and the player will not be eligible for retroactive IR until the following week at the earliest.

[chasmvp19]

On plane...this is a lot...look later if I make flight....Houston weather killing my flights...

[chasmvp19]

So...this link thing will have to be taught to ALL the new guys...rooster, me, maybe a Bee...I have tried to link crap before and eventually just give up because I am dumber than my machines...

[Preds]

Originally Posted by chasmvp19

So...this link thing will have to be taught to ALL the new guys...rooster, me, maybe a Bee...I have tried to link crap before and eventually just give up because I am dumber than my machines...

Linking is easy.

In a separate tab of your browser open up whatever it is you're linking (like a news article). Highlight and Copy the entire URL in the browser window (if using windows you can copy with CTRL-C or Right click then select Copy).

Then click back to your new post here on the boards, in the format bar for Messages, there is a globe with a little chain-link symbol (looks like an infinity sign). You can click that and paste whatever link you just copied (CTRL-V to paste, or Right Click then select Paste). Hit enter... bam, you have a linked URL in your post.

BTW the process to post pics is similar, you copy the URL for an image, then click the yellow Mountain button next to the globe and paste the link for the image with CTR-V.

[chasmvp19]

So since there was changes to the original rule change proposal...does this need to be voted on again to get a real final product passed???

Just trying to get ahead of what my part will be since the basic rule is on the thread I update...the changes should be incorporated so owners can see everything on one page IMO....this helps answer potential questions ahead of time. Understanding tougher questions run through the leadership group for interpretation.

Let me know when we are a go and what the specifics are....thanks!

[Burt the Butcher]

I think maybe we can just ask if anyone objects to this change in the rule? It's really not a change to the rule intent itself, just in the way it's managed.. Makes administration easier

I have also updated the rule book.. Just need to add this, and the section of past winners and we should be able to upload it.

[chasmvp19]

Giddyup...lol

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

[Preds]

Needs votes from Freedom and Bees still

[Preds]

Proposal PASSES 10-2 and will be effective for the current season.