Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
the lone star

No Rule Disclosure: Allow Players Returning From Injury To Be Kept On IR?

Should The Commish Have Allowed Owners To Keep Players Returning From Injury On IR?  

3 members have voted

  1. 1. Should The Commish Have Allowed Owners To Keep Players Returning From Injury On IR?

    • Yes. If No Disclosure, Then No Official Rule Change. Players Returning From Injury Can Stay On IR.
      1
    • No. Activate Newly Healthy Players Regardless Of Rule Disclosure Or Retroactive Effects.
      2
    • Other (Specify Below).
      1


Recommended Posts

So let's say a league allowed owners to keep non-injured players on the IR in previous seasons. However, last season, the commish and vice commish agreed to not allow such a tactic. Although they decided on this, they did not disclose a rule change to the owners. Instead, a new rule for designating a player to return from IR actually implied that the owner had a choice to keep a non-injured player on IR or not. This is because the commish explicitly stated that "you can activate an injured player off of IR, if you want."

A few weeks had already been played at the time, so players wound up on IR. Yet, the commish wanted to enforce IR rules in accordance with how he and the vice-commish intended. If the commish did this though, teams that have already placed players on IR would be forced to cut someone and take a cap penalty as well.   

Given The Facts, Should The Commish Have Allowed Players Returning From Injury On IR? Why or why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude...every week you come to this forum asking theoreticals about your commissioner. Just quit the league!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went with the second option, I think that what was said by the League GM/Co-GM was implied for players having been activated from IR to be taken off of IR, otherwise did the rule really change? Unless it was the case where players who went on the IR had to stay on IR for the whole year, even if they came off IR, only then would I say that they should have been clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2018 at 8:24 PM, sammymvpknight said:

Dude...every week you come to this forum asking theoreticals about your commissioner. Just quit the league!

Unless he is the commissioner and in that case...I'd watch your back lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2018 at 7:24 PM, sammymvpknight said:

Dude...every week you come to this forum asking theoreticals about your commissioner. Just quit the league!

Thanks for the insight. Good analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2018 at 12:10 PM, The Gnat said:

I went with the second option, I think that what was said by the League GM/Co-GM was implied for players having been activated from IR to be taken off of IR, otherwise did the rule really change? Unless it was the case where players who went on the IR had to stay on IR for the whole year, even if they came off IR, only then would I say that they should have been clearer.

That's fair. It's a tough situation. The way I see it, if the customs of the league tell you you can do something, and that no rule change has been discussed or disclosed to you, and other rule changes still imply you have a choice, then you should have that choice until a rule change is official.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×