Fantasy Football Ruling Issue - Page 2

Pepsquad · #11 12-10-2006, 03:53 AM

Times, Dates, Wed. night/Thur. morning, Gore had a bad game, Team 1 was hungover and Team 2 has herpes are all irrelivent and only serving to cloud the issue.

You had two teams agree on a trade. What one or the other "thought" they were getting isn't part of the equation.

Trade stands - buyer beware.

NLSoldier · #12 12-10-2006, 04:14 AM

For those who think the trade stands.

Would you still say the trade stands in the following scenario. (Im not sure if this is quite the same)

A team who must win to make playoffs offers some player in exchange for Tiki Barber (who we know will retire at the end of the year)

For whatever technical reason having to do with thurs night game the trade doenst go through and the team misses the playoffs. Now Tiki is absoutely worthless to him and he didnt even get to use him.

Should he still have to honor the trade?

Pepsquad · #13 12-10-2006, 07:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
For those who think the trade stands.

Would you still say the trade stands in the following scenario. (Im not sure if this is quite the same)

A team who must win to make playoffs offers some player in exchange for Tiki Barber (who we know will retire at the end of the year)

For whatever technical reason having to do with thurs night game the trade doenst go through and the team misses the playoffs. Now Tiki is absoutely worthless to him and he didnt even get to use him.

Should he still have to honor the trade?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. He should still honor the trade. Once both owners agree to the conditions of a trade, it has been completed.

Tiki Barber's usefullness to the owner is irrelivent.

Let's think about this in another way...take the following statement in your post, "For whatever technical reason having to do with thurs night game the trade doenst go through and the team misses the playoffs".

Replace it with "For whatever reason, the owner drank a fifth of Jack and didn't wake up in time to insert Tiki into his starting lineup" OR "Tiki Barber trips over his dog and snaps his fibula later that evening".

They are all equivilant to one another as it pertains to the owners responsibility of honoring this trade. After both parties agreed - that's it. You can end the story there because what happens beyond that doesn't pertain to the trade.

Just my take.

NLSoldier · #14 12-10-2006, 08:05 AM

But in one case it is the owners fault and in the other case it is the websites fault or leagues fault.

assuming the trade was made at a time in which it SHOULD have gone through like they wanted it to.

Pepsquad · #15 12-10-2006, 08:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But in one case it is the owners fault and in the other case it is the websites fault or leagues fault.

assuming the trade was made at a time in which it SHOULD have gone through like they wanted it to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear ya'. That's the rub. Personally I think owner A got shafted. The website screwed up. But there's really nothing that can be done. Owner B shouldn't have this deal pulled out from underneath him just because the website messed up. It's neither owner's fault, but the deal was done.

Huskiez · #16 12-10-2006, 11:53 AM

I am having a little difficulty understanding the timing of the trade being accepted, but if they both agreed to it before Thursday's game and were under the impression that they would have those players being traded for in time for Thursday's game, then why not have the trade implemented and retroactively substitute the appropriate players in (not sure if this is possible)?

Force the trade through, and appropriately change a win to a loss or vice versa to both teams if necessary.

Michael Davis · #17 12-10-2006, 12:04 PM

The real issue is how do I get some guy in a deep keeper league for money who thinks that Williams has better value than Gore at this point after one good game against Philly. I mean, Gore looks like and has been an absolute stud and Williams is totally unproven, that the trade was agreed to and then later reversed by someone trying to keep Williams is beyond belief.

-Michael

Michael Davis · #18 12-10-2006, 01:37 PM

By the way, having read the way this went down, this is clearly a non-trade. If the league has a one-day review policy, and Thursday player cannot be involved in a trade this late. Clearly the owner who did not get to use Baltimore's defense has a legitimate gripe and the trade was illegal from the getgo, so no trade before it even gets to the issue of someone complaining.

-Michael

AngusThermopyle · #19 12-10-2006, 01:57 PM

You don't have a league rule to cover this?
Assume no Thursday game.
Trade "agreed to" noon Saturday.
League review delays it past the website's deadline.
No rule to cover it? No rule that says "to be valid, a trade must be submitted 24 hours [review period] before any game with the players involved"?

MikeyPatriot · #20 12-10-2006, 02:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am having a little difficulty understanding the timing of the trade being accepted, but if they both agreed to it before Thursday's game and were under the impression that they would have those players being traded for in time for Thursday's game, then why not have the trade implemented and retroactively substitute the appropriate players in (not sure if this is possible)?

Force the trade through, and appropriately change a win to a loss or vice versa to both teams if necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're on Yahoo, it is possible. I have done it for players in my league.