Showing posts with label Rules Dispute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rules Dispute. 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.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Fantasy Football Dispute No. 2602: SportsJudge.com Orders "King Solomon" Split of Championship Bracket

SPORTSJUDGE.COM

COURT OF FANTASY FOOTBALL

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

X

Index No. 2602

Date: December, 11 2008

League Type: H-2-H FOOTBALL

Dispute: RULES DISPUTE

Judge: MARC EDELMAN


COURT ORDERS THAT THE LEAGUE PLAYOFF BRACKET SHALL BE SPLIT INTO TWO SEPARATE BRACKETS, EACH FUNDED WITH 50% OF THE PRIZE MONEY.


DOUG M.

Petitioner,

- against -

ADAM S.

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

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

X



BACKGROUND


Petitioner Doug M. and Respondent Adam S. are competitors in the Bring Back Favre Keepers League, a head-to-head fantasy football league that is hosted by the CBS Sports “Commissioner” service. The league only has a rudimentary constitution, which was created using a CBS Sports template. However, the league involves a significant amount of money. The league entry fee is $175 per team, with prize payouts of $1400 to the league champion, $350 for the runner-up, and $220 for the team with the best regular season record.


Last weekend, Doug M. and Adam S.’s teams met in the first round of the bracketed playoff tournament. Astoundingly, the game ended in a tie. The league is now unsure of how to proceed.


Heading into last week’s games, Adam S.’s team had a better regular-season record, but Doug M.’s team had more points. Both argue on those grounds that there team should advance into the next round.


This court took jurisdiction to address the following two questions:


  1. Is there are written agreement that determines which of these two teams shall advance into the next round of the playoffs?

  1. If there is no written agreement on this issue, what is the fairest way to proceed?


ANALYSIS

I. Is There a Written Agreement about which Team Should Advance?


The first issue for the court to consider is whether there is a written agreement that determines which team should advance. The starting point (and ending point) for this review is always the language in the league constitution. (See Tom L. v. Commissioner, Index N. 2305, Oct. 29, 2008). However, here, all that exists is a very rudimentary constitution, created in conjunction with the CBS Sports Commissioner service. The only language in the constitution with respect to breaking ties states as follows: “"Ties in the standings are resolved in this order: Winning Percentage, Total Points."


I invited both parties to brief the issue about whether this clause is intended to apply to ties in a game, as well as to ties in overall record. Neither party chose to brief the issue. This court – upon its own best judgment – therefore concludes that the plain meaning of the text applies only to standings, and does not apply to deciding a single game. Hence, the writing in the league constitution does not address which team shall advance into round two of the playoffs.


II. Given the Constitution is Silent, What is the Fairest Way to Proceed?


Given the league constitution is silent on what team shall advance in the playoffs, this court next turns to equitable principles, and including custom, usage, past dealings, and, if necessary, the cy pres doctrine.


  1. Custom, Usage and Past Dealings

As a general matter, when a contract is silent on any particular issue, a court turns to custom, usage and past dealing to determine what serves as the best default provision. (See Tom L. v. Commissioner, Index N. 2305, Oct. 29, 2008). In other words, the next question for this court to consider is what serves as the standard practice in the fantasy sports marketplace for breaking playoff ties.


Upon the court’s review, it takes judicial notice to the fact that both custom and usage on this issue are mixed throughout the fantasy sports. According to games hosted by ESPN, “in the event that two teams have the same number of points at the conclusion of their playoff game, the system tiebreaker awards the win to the higher seeded team.” (www.espn.com). According to Yahoo, the first tie breaker is “most touchdowns scored by entire starting roster.” (www.yahoo.com). Meanwhile, in CBS Money Leagues – a distinctly different product, with a distinctly different Constitution from CBS Commissioner Leagues – the team with the most combined passing, rushing and receiving yards proceeds to the next round. (http://football.sportsline.com/splash/football/spln/single/rules). Furthermore, a brief survey of my colleagues shared with me the wide range of tie-breakers they use in their leagues (playoff bench scoring, regular season winning percentage, regular season points, coin toss).


This all goes to tell you is that there us no standard custom, usage, or past dealing for the court to reply upon. Further, to adopt any one of these three standards to resolve a past event would be wholly arbitrary. Irrespective of what standard this court chooses, it clearly would not represent the parties’ spoken, or even latent, intent.


  1. Cy Pres Doctrine


Given custom, usage, and past dealings each provide little guidance, the court has no alternative but to shift next to the doctrine of cy pres. The doctrine of cy pres means that the court recognizes that there is no perfect solution, and therefore it will adopt a solution that is as close as possible to the parties’ interests, goals and intent.


While so much of fantasy football is about competing against friends, this particular league is also clearly about money (a $175 is a real investment). With that it mind, the court recognizes that any cy pres remedy should be one that closest approximately the reasonable monetary expectations of each party based on the actual performance of the teams in round one of the playoffs.


While Israel’s great King Solomon once decided that splitting a baby is not the right way to resolve a dispute over the baby’s true mother, here the court concludes (sincerely no less) splitting a playoff bracket into two solves the problem just fine. Unlike a baby, a bracket is not alive. Two playoff brackets therefore can thrive alongside one another.


Therefore, rather than arbitrarily picking one to advance between Doug M. and Adam S., this court rules the fantasy bracket shall be split into two – “Bracket A” and “Bracket B”. Both brackets shall be absolutely identical to one another in all respects, except that Doug M. advances in Bracket A, and Adam S. advances in Bracket B. The prize money for the winner of Bracket A shall be $700 to the league champion, and $175 to the runner-up. The same shall be true for Bracket B. Indeed, a single owner can, and probably will, win both brackets. In that case, that owner collects the full $1400. However, based on this setup, neither Doug M. nor Adam S. is eligible to win more than $700. This is the mathematically proper outcome, and a fair one to boot. (Indeed, should Doug M. and Adam S. both lose this week, the brackets again become identical and merge back into one).


This solution is completely fair for not only to Doug M. and Adam S., but also for all remaining playoff teams. Indeed, for the team that is forced to play Doug M. and Adam S. simultaneously this week, there is no disadvantage to doing so. In fact, that team is better hedged against risk because even if that team were to lose to one of its two opponents under the split-bracket format, that owner remains in the running for $700 of prize money in the other bracket.


Furthermore, even though this solution leads to one more team using the waiver wire in the upcoming weeks, the court finds this effect de minimis, especially since it has already instructed Doug M. and Adam S. to continue using the waiver wire all week.


Finally, setting up two brackets and keeping track of the results may at first sound a bit confusing to any league commissioner. Therefore, if you are not sure how to do so, please send me your current playoff bracket with the teams that remain, and I will provide you with the duel bracket to use moving forward.


CONCLUSION


For the foregoing reasons, this court orders the Bring Back Favre Keepers League playoff bracket shall be split into two playoff brackets “A” and “B,” with equal prize money funded to each bracket. All playoff teams shall be seeded identically in both brackets and shall be entitled to win all prize money from both brackets, except Doug M. shall be seeded only in “Bracket A” and Adam S. shall be seeded only in “Bracket B.”





Friday, April 10, 2009

Fantasy Baseball Dispute No. 3004: SportsJudge.com Overturns Late Bid for Free Agent

SPORTSJUDGE.COM

COURT OF FANTASY BASEBALL

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

X

Index No. 3004

Date: April 10, 2009

League Type: BASEBALL -- MIXED

Dispute: FREE AGENT BIDDING PROCEDURE

Chief Justice: MARC EDELMAN

Deputy Justices: BRIAN DOYLE, MATTHEW COHEN, MICHAEL COLLIGAN, JOSEPH ROMANO

COURT UNAMIMOUSLY OVERTURNS LATE BID SUBMITTED BY CEDARBURG TIGERS


PHILADELPHIA FREEDOMS

Petitioner,

- against -

CEDARBURG TIGERS & THE HAMPSHIRE BASEBALL LEAGUE

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

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

X



This dispute involves whether the Commissioner of the Hampshire Baseball League was within his rights to allow one of its teams, the Cedarburg Tigers, to submit a late bid for free agent second baseman Emilio Bonifacio. Based upon a review of the facts, this court rules that it was not proper for the Commissioner to extend the bidding period beyond the stated 24-hour period. Therefore, the court orders the rights to Emilio Bonifacio to revert to the Philadelphia Freedoms—the team that had submitted the highest bid at the time the player auction officially expired.


While the court recognizes this case is complicated by the Commissioner’s original error in prematurely announcing the auction for Bonifacio closed, the Cedarburg Tigers nevertheless are barred from challenging this original decision under the Doctrine of Laches. This is because the Tigers had failed to bring such a challenge to the Commissioner’s attention within a reasonable period of time.


THE DISPUTE


The Hampshire League Free Agent Auction Rule:


The Hampshire Baseball League is a mixed league (AL & NL) fantasy baseball league, currently in its ninth season. The league maintains a free agent auction rule, which allows teams to bid for free agent players using an in-season auction bidding process. This means, each time a team seeks to sign a free agent, that team must place a bid for the player. The other teams then have a chance to top that bid.


From the league’s first season in 2001 through 2007, Hampshire League maintained a free agent bidding period of just four hours. Then, in 2008, the Hampshire League changed its rules to allow for a 24 hour bidding period.



The 2009 season marked the Hampshire League’s second season under its new 24-hour bidding procedure. All league owners were on notice of the league bidding procedure having competed in the league during the previous season,


The Bidding for Emilio Bonifacio:


On April 7, 2009, at 8:00 A.M., the Cedarburg Tigers called to auction Florida Marlins second baseman Emilio Bonifacio with a bid of $0.25. Two hours later, at 10 A.M., the Philadelphia Freedoms topped that bid with a $2.00 offer. Then at noon, the league Commissioner posted a message on the league message board declaring the auction “CLOSED” and awarded Bonifacio’s rights to the Philadelphia Freedoms. This decision, however, was incorrect. Pursuant to the current league rules, the auction should have lasted for twenty-four hours—not four hours. Therefore, other teams should have still had the opportunity to top the Freedoms’ bid. Nevertheless, no team challenged the Commissioner’s decision to close the bid process early—even though all teams in the Hampshire League played under the 24-hour auction rule the previous season.


Thereafter, on April 9 at 10 A.M., the Commissioner realized himself that he had improperly closed the bid period on Bonifacio. In an attempt at fairness, the Commissioner then unilaterally decided to offer the Cedarburg Tigers additional time to match the Freedoms bid on Bonifacio, which they did. The Commissioner then sought to award Bonifacio to the Cedarburg Tigers.


The Parties Arguments:



Both parties submit somewhat reasonable arguments as to why they should be allowed to keep the rights to Emilio Bonifacio. The Cedarburg Tigers contend that they might have matched the $2.00 bid for Bonaficio; however, he “figured that [the commissioner] would know the rules [so he] respected that and moved on. Meanwhile, the Philadelphia Freedoms contends that “[the league] rules are very clearly written ….The other owner should have known the rules. If he did not know the rules, he could have simply looked at them. They are posted on our website.” Nevertheless, neither of these arguments resolves the situation in a perfect manner.


THE RULING


The general rule of this court is that wherever there is a dispute over league rules, language in the league constitution trumps all other considerations. (See Public Opinion No. 257, Hermann’s Head v. Commissioner of Yale Football League). In addition, unless stated otherwise in the league constitution, the league commissioner is no more powerful than any other owner when it comes to changing the rules in the league constitution. (See Public Opinion No. 257, Hermann’s Head v. Commissioner of Yale Football League) (denying the league commissioner the right to unilaterally change the league’s roster size).


Here, the dispute amongst the parties involves the length of the free agent bidding period. All parties agree that the league constitution states this period shall last for just twenty-four hours. However, the parties disagree about whether the Commissioner is allowed to increase the length of this period as a way to correct for his own earlier mistake in declaring the period prematurely complete.


This court recognizes that there may exist an exception to the general rule for certain extremely usual circumstances could toll a constitutionally stated bidding period. For example, potential reasons why a commissioner might be allowed to toll the twenty four hour period, in theory, might include an outage on the site that collects bids, or a temporary suspension of league operations.


While this court is mixed on the issue of whether a commissioner’s inaccurate statement could ever toll a bidding period for a free agent, the court is unanimous that the commissioner may not unilaterally toll the period in a situation, such as is here, where no party even requested tolling until the bid period had concluded. This conclusion is based on the equitable Doctrine of Laches, which this court has applied on several previous occasions. (See Public Opinion No. 2959-T, Commissioner v. Teams 1, 2, and 3). This is a legal doctrine that, as matter of fairness, prevents an unduly slothful party from thereafter seeking a remedy.


Here, it would be unfeasible to allow a Commissioner to indefinitely extend a bidding period based on his own mistake given that no league owner researched the Commissioner’s decision and brought it to his attention during a reasonable period of time. Indeed, the Cedarburg Tigers had access to the rules. The Cedarburg Tigers could have checked the rules, and brought their grievance to the Commissioner before the 24-hour bid period lapsed. However, they chose not to do so, and instead simply proceeded with the season without having Emilio Bonifacio on their roster. As a result, it was improper for the Commissioner, thereafter, to conduct his own independent investigation and award a remedy to the Cedarburg Tigers.


Indeed, the Hampshire League Commissioner attempted to extend the bid period for the Cedarburg Tigers by only a short amount of time. However, allowing such an extension would naturally lead the court down a slippery slope that it finds inappropriate. What if the Commissioner discovered his error one week later? One month? Three months? This court is simply not going to go down that path.


If the Cedarburg Tigers had correctly believed they had an additional twenty-hour window in which to bid on Bonifacio, they should have made that known within this twenty-hour window. By waiting longer than that period, as a matter of fairness and certainty, they forever waived such rights, if any.


Holding


For the foregoing reason, this court unanimously overturns the late bid submitted by the Cedarburg Tigers and awards the rights to Emilio Bonifacio to the Philadelphia Freedoms.