Showing posts with label 2009 Fantasy Football. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2009 Fantasy Football. Show all posts

Monday, June 28, 2010

Fantasy Football Dispute No. 5105: Proposed Pick-Up of John Carney Disallowed

SPORTSJUDGE.COM

COURT OF FANTASY FOOTBALL

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

x

Index No. 5105

Date: December 14, 2009

League Type: Fantasy Football

Dispute: Injured Reserve Rules

Authoring Judge: Marc Edelman

Concurred By: Stuart Shiffman


COMMISSIONER’S RULING UPHELD

DOUBLE Ds

Petitioner,

- against -

COMMISSIONER NELSON

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

X



SUMMARY:


The plaintiff in this case, the Double D Fantasy Football Team (“Double Ds), has asked the SportsJudge.com Court of Fantasy Football to resolve the league’s fantasy football dispute and overrule Commissioner Nelson’s ruling that kicker John Carney is ineligible for injured reserve status pursuant to the league’s “OUT Rule.”

This court rejects the appeal, upholding Commissioner Nelson’s ruling that John Carney is ineligible for injured reserve.


The basis for the court’s ruling is that John Carney is not injured, but rather inactive due to what Carney’s real-life coach perceives as poor on-the-field performance. Demotion for poor on-the-field performance is not grounds for an injury replacement based on the clear reading of the league rule, nor was it necessarily one that the parties would have included within the scope of the rule had the issue been broached.


In addition, even if the rule is in some ways harsh, it was the rule to which the fantasy football league members had accepted, and a rule that teams had the opportunity to consider in setting their late season rosters (for example, The Take Down Fantasy Team carried two kickers for probably that reason). It is a rule that Double Ds should have considered more carefully when choosing not to select a backup kicker for the playoffs, even though each team is allotted a generous seven reserve slots.


FACTS:


A. The League Rules


Commissioner Ken Nelson has overseen his fantasy football league for the past 15 years. The league runs on a blind pickup system, in which each week teams submit bids for free-agent players. The teams that submit the highest bid gain rights to that player.


To prevent collusion risks, this league ends its regular free agent signing process after week 12, with rosters generally frozen at that point. However, the league maintains a limited exception to the free-agent freeze rule, which applies when a player on one of the teams’ rosters is injured and thus certain not to play. Under this rule, a team with an injured player may place that player on injured reserve (“IR”) and replace that player with another on that player’s same NFL team if that player is listed as “OUT” by ESPN, Sportsline, Huddle.com or Rotoworld.com. Thus, these four sources serve as the exclusive means of information about player status, and a listing of “OUT” is the only basis for initially moving a player to IR.


In addition, the rules for picking up an “emergency player” to replace an IR player after week 12 state as follows:


Your player must be listed as OUT as of each Thursday. THIS MEANS THAT IF YOUR PLAYER IS DOUBFUL ON THURSDAY THEN IS LISTED AS OUT ON FRIDAY - YOU'RE [OUT OF LUCK]


Further, once a player is placed on IR pursuant to these rules, the rules become somewhat more lenient on keeping the player on IR. According to the rules “[i]f a player’s status is moved from OUT to doubtful or inactive the next week - you can still keep them on IR - but if they PLAY - you will lose that player and get a ZERO for their position … YOU MUST EMAIL THE COMMISH ON THURSDAY OF THIS.”


B. The Fantasy Football League Dispute


The most recent dispute in this fantasy football league involves the issue of whether the Double Ds may replace kicker John Carney subsequent to week 12 in the season pursuant to the league “OUT” rule. What makes this proposal controversial is that John Carney was not in fact injured nor listed as “OUT” on any of the four approved websites. Rather, for each of the past two weeks Carney was designated as “inactive” 15 minutes before kickoff. This means Carney was one of the eight players on the Saints’ 53-player roster who was designated by his coach not to make the team’s starting lineup that week.


Upon reviewing this matter, Commissioner Nelson ruled that Carney was ineligible for replacement because “[a]lthough not explicitly stated in the rules, but certainly implied - IR moves and emergency pickups are set up for players Injured.” Commissioner Nelson went on to recognize that in his view this was “a fluke with regard to kickers” but not necessarily something leading to a need to change the league rules.

Thereafter, Double D’s put forth an extremely thoughtful and well-written brief, seeking to appeal on three separate grounds: (1) league rules are ambiguous on IR moves, internally inconsistent and unenforceable based on their spirit and intent; (2) the emergency pickup rule was intended to protect teams such as Double D from an “unforeseen event,” and (3) even under the literal interpretation of the rules, the IR move should be allowed because Carney was inactive for the prior week’s game.


HOLDING:


A. General Ruling


While recognizing the language in the league constitution is at times imperfect, this court upholds Commissioner Nelson’s ruling, agreeing that the plain meaning of the league rule limits the emergency pickup to a player who has been listed as “OUT” by one of the four approved websites. See Commissioner Mike D. v. Sweaty Baseballs, Index No. 3466-C (June 9, 2009); see also Hermann’s Head v. Commissioner of Yale Football League, Index No. 247 (Sept. 1, 2006) (noting that clear language in league constitution trumps all other considerations).

The rule does not even allow moving to IR a player who is listed as doubtful. Indeed, the league constitution states in no uncertain terms that “THIS MEANS THAT IF YOUR PLAYER IS DOUBFUL ON THURSDAY THEN IS LISTED AS OUT ON FRIDAY - YOU'RE [OUT OF LUCK]” (emphasis provided). Thus, it is clear the rule was contemplated to be both narrow and specific in scope, and hence should be applied as clearly written.


In addition, this court believes that even Commissioner Nelson gave too much importance to this matter by noting it as “a fluke with regard to kickers.” While John Carney may be the first discussed fantasy player demoted from starter to inactive for reasons other than health issues, this same problem could plague a team such as Beetle who is not carrying a backup quarterback to Aaron Rodgers, especially if a late-season Packers game proves meaningless in the season.


Recognizing the possibility of a healthy player being deemed inactive at any time, a properly prudent owner would have used his seven reserve slots to carry a backup at every position. Indeed, the team Take Down properly hedged for this risk at kicker by carrying two at that position. It would be unfair to a team like Take Down who properly hedged all positions at the risk of depth at wide receiver, running back or defense to now compensate a team that chose not to hedge.


B. Double Ds Defenses


While Double D’s defenses are each interesting and extraordinarily well presented, none overrides the clear language of the league rule, even where the language of the league rule is at times imperfect.

First, this court rejects the contention that the league rules are ambiguous on the issue of whether a non-injured player is eligible for IR status, and finds the issue of whether the rules are ambiguous in other areas entirely irrelevant for purposes of this dispute. While it may be true that official injury reports are not released until Friday thus making it a plausible argument that no player is ever eligible for IR status, this matter is particularly about the IR status of a non-injured player and not when official injury reports are released. The court will not get lost in that red herring analysis. Moreover, according to league rules, “OUT” status is determined by four chosen websites and night by the league’s official injury report per se. Thus, it is possible a website may deem a player “OUT” even if the official injury report has not yet done so.


Second, based on the clear reading of the league OUT rule, there is no reason to believe the rule was intended to cover any type of unforeseeable event. Rather, the rule seems intended only to cover a single type of unforeseeable event—an injury that occurs prior to Friday. While this may not seem logical to Double Ds, there is certainly an argument that demotion for poor play is more foreseeable than an injury. Indeed, with respect to Carney, various websites including Rotowire had been warning for weeks that would potentially lose his starting job due to inconsistent kicking. Thus, one could make a stronger argument that Double Ds should have hedged Carney by signing a backup kicker than that a team should have hedged a player who was performing well but injured during a game.


Finally, Double Ds argues that even under the literal interpretation of the rules, the IR move should be allowed because Carney was inactive for the prior week’s game. While this court finds this reason to be the most compelling grounds of the three, the problem with this reasoning is that the rules, as written, do not allow a player that was inactive in a given week to be placed on IR for the following week. Rather the rules only mention the term “inactive” in one place, where they state as follows:


If a player's status is moved from OUT to doubtful or inactive the next week - you can still keep them on IR - but if they PLAY - you will lose that player and get a ZERO for their position


In this context, the court believes inactive status is relevant only for “keep[ing]” a player on IR that is already on IR, and not placing the player on IR in the first place. However, if Double Ds is able to present evidence that the court in the past has allowed inactive status in a prior week as a basis for placing a player on IR, the court would be willing to reconsider this aspect of our ruling based upon this practice.


JUDGMENT:


For the foregoing reasons, unless Double Ds can present irrefutable evidence of Commissioner Nelson allowing a team in the past to place a player on IR (rather than keep a player on the IR) based entirely on the player’s inactive status from the previous week, Commissioner Nelson’s ruling shall stand and Double D may not pickup a replacement kicker for John Carney.

It is so ordered.



Friday, May 28, 2010

Fantasy Football Dispute No. 3223-T: Trade Of Draft Picks Tolled Because Trade Not Recognized By ESPN.com


SPORTSJUDGE.COM

COURT OF FANTASY FOOTBALL

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

x

Index No. 3223-T

Date: September 13, 2009

League Type: H-TO-H, KEEPER

Judge: JOE ROMANO


TRADE IS TOLLED.

COMMISSIONER TIDMAN

Petitioner,

- against -

FAT JESUS & PROGRESSIVE LEMMINGS

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

X



Petitioner, Commissioner Tidman, brings this claim in the COURT OF FANTASY FOOTBALL, seeking a declaratory judgment of the status of a trade made in the prior season between Fat Jesus and Progressive Lemmings. The trade between Fat Jesus and Progressive Lemmings is waived for the 2009 season but may be applied in 2010.


The Law on Upholding a Trade

In resolving a trade dispute, SportsJudge.com first looks to the specific league’s constitution for guidance in determining the dispute. Where no constitution exists or the constitution does not provide any guidance in determining a trade dispute, the default rule is a trade shall be upheld so long as the trade may adequately benefit both teams. Wicked Threadz Fantasy Football League v. Real Men of Genius & Express, 2306-T (2008). In such situations, SportsJudge.com arbitrators are guided by case precedent. Where the issue is one of first impression, the arbitrator will attempt to provide an equitable and fair resolution.


The Proposed Trade

The proposed trade is a 2-for-1 involving both future draft picks and players.


Fat Jesus traded to Progressive Lemmings:

· 3rd Round Pick in 2009


Progressive Lemmings traded to Fat Jesus:

· Marvin Harrison (WR, IND)

· 5th Round Pick in 2009


Analysis of the Trade


This trade presents an issue of first impression to SportsJudge.com. The initial trade is not being disputed, all involved agree the trade is fair. The problem arises in that the trading parties forgot to apply the trade in the current year draft. The league uses ESPN.com as the host of their league, but ESPN.com does not provide a way to trade draft picks. Therefore, each player was responsible for ensuring the trade was completed within the draft room. However, each forgot, and the commissioner seeks our decision as to the proper remedy for the situation.


It is clear from the outset that the trade was valid and, therefore, a binding contract was made between the parties. When each party failed to swap picks within the draft room, the contract became voidable due to mutual mistake. Therefore, the question remains as to what is the proper remedy for this situation.

Two possible remedies exist for the portion of the trade that remains unexecuted. The failure to trade the 2009 draft picks can be ignored or the players selected in the draft can be treated as though selected by the franchise who owned the draft choice as a result of the trade. However, to impose a trade upon the teams is an inappropriate remedy in light of the many individual factors that determine a draft choice. To impose a trade upon the teams will not promote equity and fairness. Trading the players is therefore not a feasible option.


The best remedy to this waiver of contract through mutual mistake is to ignore that the trade ever occurred and continue as thought nothing happened. This resolution does not hurt the league for the current season and promotes stability within the league. The only teams currently affected by this resolution would be the two trading teams. However, as SportsJudge.com history indicates, the stifling of fair trades is not favored. Therefore, at the discretion of the trading teams, they may apply the results of the trade in the 2010 draft. This resolution provides the most efficient remedy while not ignoring the past trade.


Holding


Based on the foregoing, the trade between Fat Jesus and Progressive Lemmings is waived for the 2009 season but may be applied in 2010.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Fantasy Football Dispute No. 5299-T: SportsJudge.com Court Upholds Trade but Requires Pre-Payment of Next Year's Entry Fee


SPORTSJUDGE.COM

COURT OF FANTASY FOOTBALL

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

x

Index No. 5299-T

Date Rendered: Nov. 18, 2009

League Type: Keeper

Dispute: Trade Review

Authoring Judge: Marc Edelman

TRADE APPROVED SUBJECT TO PREPAYMENT BOND

COMMISSIONER

Petitioner,

- against -

SEND IT IN! & JAMESON

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

X





The SportsJudge.com Court of Fantasy Football is faced here with the question of whether to uphold the trade of Wes Welker for Donald Royal and Earl Bennett. The trade was made by two teams, each seemingly out of playoff contention. The league's entry fee is $500/club.

General Rules for Upholding a Fantasy Football Trade:

The general rule of the SportsJudge.com Court of Fantasy Football is to uphold any fantasy football trade that reasonably benefits both teams. See Big Red Rockers v. Big City Bombers, Index No. 101 (August 14, 2004).

In examining whether a team derives some benefit from a trade, the standard requires the Court to consider not only the quality of the players involved, but also the context of the trade. See generally Team Anadrol v. Vegas Baby & Flathead Yankees, Index No. 955-C (Nov. 4, 2007). The surrounding context includes factors such as team rosters and the current standings. See Commissioner v. Parkstarz & Fuall, Index No. 5877-T (Nov. 12, 2009).

The Proposed Trade:

Here, the proposed trade has Send It In! (3-7, 3 games out of playoff spot) trading Wes Welker (Round 4 WR, 64 catches, 662 total yards, 4 touchdowns despite missing early weeks with injury) to Jameson (4-6, 2 games out of playoff spot) for Earl Bennett (Round 15, 35 catches, 454 total yards, 0 touchdowns) and Eddie Royal (Round 9, 27 catches, 253 total yards, 0 touchdowns).

The League's Keeper Rules:

Given both teams are near mathematical elimination, this trade must be considered in light of the possibility of these teams making further trades before the deadline, as well as league keeper rules, which state as follows:

KEEPERS

1.A franchise may keep players that were on the franchise's roster at the end of the previous year. However, in order to keep a player the franchise must give up a draft pick at least three rounds earlier than the player's draft round in the previous year. Players drafted during the first three rounds of the previous year may not be kept.


2. If a franchise wishes to keep two players at the same former draft round then the next earlier draft round must be given up. A franchise may not keep players if there is no legal draft round available. For example, in order to keep two 6th round picks the franchise would have to give up a third and a second round pick in the new draft; or for example, a franchise may not keep two players who were drafted in the fourth round during the previous year because there would only be one draft round, the first, available.


3. Each year, one (1) week before the draft, each owner will provide a list of players as keepers for the upcoming draft. Each owner may save any or all players on the current roster, except of course players drafted in the first three rounds.


4. A player who was not drafted (A free agent) the previous year is assigned a previous year draft round of 15. To keep such a player, a franchise must give up a 12th round pick. Also, the values that are assigned for each player will not change for any reason during the football season. Any drafted player that is cut during the year and picked up later in the year will still maintain their draft round value. For example, if you drafted Warrick Dunn in the 7th round and cut him early in the season and then picked him up later in the season, he will still have a draft round of seven.

Analysis:

Wes Walker's real value is in the possibility of his being re-traded before the deadline--something that will not be difficulty given his talent. In terms of keeper value, Wes Welker, pursuant to league rules, may be protected in exchange for a first round draft pick. However, that is almost certainly not going to happen given that all of the players picked in the first three rounds of the 2009 draft must return to the draft pool at the end of the season.
Bennett and Royal may have an angstrum more keeper value than Welker, but not clearly anything more. While Bennett's strong perfrormance last week might be a sign that he is beginning to click with his old college quarterback in Jay Cutler, one 93-yard game in two years in the NFL is not in itself a strong indicator of anything.

This leaves the court somewhat confused on the merits for this trade. On one hand, Send It In! might be making this trade because of the very slightly higher keeper value in Bennett and Royal. However, without knowing the parties or circumstances, or even whether Send It In!'s level of future commitement to the league, this trade could also be one of the many frauds that take place in fantasy sports called "Swap and Run." Under the "Swap and Run," a team that is already eliminated for playoff contention will trade a player with value for another player that may seem to have a very small amount of value ("token consideration" or "fake consideration" for you lawyers), but in reality just be trying to move assets off his team.

Without any further evidence, this court needs some way to ensure this trade is not a "Swap and Run" but rather that Send It In! is really optimistic about the prospects and keeping Bennett and/or Royal (or at least more excited about them as keepers than of keeping Welker).

Thus, given the low but unavoidbale risk of the "Swap and Run" taking place here, this court will protect against such a fraud by requiring Send It In! to pay a 50% nonrefundable deposit toward the 2010 season should Jameson trade Welker to a contender before the deadline.

Should either party reject this additional term, the trade would be deemed withdrawn.

Holding:

Based on the forgoing, the proposed trade is upheld. However, given the low but unavoidable risk of the "Swap and Run"fraud taking place here, this court will protect against the risk of fraud by requiring Send It In! to pay a $250 (50%) non-refundable deposit toward the 2010 season should Jameson trade Welker to a contender before the deadline.

.