RTTRUTH Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 54 minutes ago, EaglesPeteC said: If my mans gotta pull out “I’m a lawyer” when discussing rules for a fake football league, maybe there are too many rules 🤷 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarok Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 25 minutes ago, Blue said: For a lawyer, you sure are bad at wording things the way you mean them. The way it's worded, I'm right and you're wrong. I didn't write any of them. You're still wrong. Way to fail reading comp. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 44 minutes ago, Blue said: For a lawyer, you sure are bad at wording things the way you mean them. The way it's worded, I'm right and you're wrong. When it comes to RFA it has always been it's always been that if you have your original pick in said round that is the pick that is forfeit first. Anything to the contrary on that regard in regards to regards to eighteen's original pic original pic is incorrect. The only time it should be earliest pick 1st is if you do not have your original pick. Also you cannot bid on a player if you don't have a pick in that round. In other words people should not be using the fact that they only have a 4th instead of a 5th Tiff as a way to get a player that has a tender of a 5th round pick that is not the way the system is set up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 1 minute ago, Ragnarok said: I didn't write any of them. You're still wrong. Way to fail reading comp. Nope, I am 100% in the right. As it is currently written, there is no consideration given to whether the team owns their original pick in the round or not. All it concerns itself with is whether the team has an a pick in the round that is not their original one. It is not a reasonable assumption to say that this rule only applies when the team does not possess their original pick. I don't care either way, just pointing out that if that's how you're choosing to enforce the rule, then make it clear that's how the rule works. As it currently stands, it doesn't say what you're claiming it says, and we'd all hate to have hard feelings over something as simple as a poorly-worded rule, wouldn't we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 1 minute ago, wwhickok said: When it comes to RFA it has always been it's always been that if you have your original pick in said round that is the pick that is forfeit first. Anything to the contrary on that regard in regards to regards to eighteen's original pic original pic is incorrect. The only time it should be earliest pick 1st is if you do not have your original pick. Also you cannot bid on a player if you don't have a pick in that round. In other words people should not be using the fact that they only have a 4th instead of a 5th Tiff as a way to get a player that has a tender of a 5th round pick that is not the way the system is set up. It does not say that. And yes you can bid on a player if you don't have a pick in that round, you just have to give up a pick in a higher round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarok Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 3 minutes ago, Blue said: Nope, I am 100% in the right. As it is currently written, there is no consideration given to whether the team owns their original pick in the round or not. All it concerns itself with is whether the team has an a pick in the round that is not their original one. It is not a reasonable assumption to say that this rule only applies when the team does not possess their original pick. I don't care either way, just pointing out that if that's how you're choosing to enforce the rule, then make it clear that's how the rule works. As it currently stands, it doesn't say what you're claiming it says, and we'd all hate to have hard feelings over something as simple as a poorly-worded rule, wouldn't we? While I dont disagree that the rule could be clarified, you're still reading it wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 2 minutes ago, Blue said: It does not say that. And yes you can bid on a player if you don't have a pick in that round, you just have to give up a pick in a higher round. Idgaf what it says. That's the way it's always been done and that's the way its intended. Also, you are required to have the tendered compensation if bidding on a player. That should be pretty obvious. It seems you're fishing for loopholes. But since it's a discussion. I'm proposing to make these worded adjustments to the rules effective immediately Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 3 minutes ago, Ragnarok said: While I dont disagree that the rule could be clarified, you're still reading it wrong. I'm reading it as written, if you feel that's wrong, that's not my fault. 1 minute ago, wwhickok said: Idgaf what it says. That's the way it's always been done and that's the way its intended. Also, you are required to have the tendered compensation if bidding on a player. That should be pretty obvious. It seems you're fishing for loopholes. But since it's a discussion. I'm proposing to make these worded adjustments to the rules effective immediately It matters a great deal what it says. It's not a loophole, it is literally what the rules state. If a team doesn’t have a pick in the round a player was tendered they give up their next highest draft pick available to the other team. (ex. Don’t have a 3rd. You would give up your lowest 2nd rounder instead.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whicker Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 By far the easiest solution: don’t bid on RFAs 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Blue said: I'm reading it as written, if you feel that's wrong, that's not my fault. It matters a great deal what it says. It's not a loophole, it is literally what the rules state. If a team doesn’t have a pick in the round a player was tendered they give up their next highest draft pick available to the other team. (ex. Don’t have a 3rd. You would give up your lowest 2nd rounder instead.) I know what it says but I think that is a situation where if you bid on a player and then you make a trade that eliminates you from having that pick, that is the situation in which you would give up your next pick it's not telling you that you're allowed to bid on a player without having the required compensation that, is not what that rule is intended for, at least not as I interpret it. Bidding on a player knowing you don't have the required compensation but you can offer an even higher round is in a way a loophole, and in a way a form of cheating the system because if hypothetically somebody bids on Max Crosby that does not have a second round pick but they do have a first, well obviously I would want the 1st round pick but that's not fair to anybody else who bid on Max Crosby with a second round pick Edited March 25, 2022 by wwhickok 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 1 minute ago, Whicker said: By far the easiest solution: don’t bid on RFAs I agree with that I think certain people are simply overcomplicating the rules Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 8 minutes ago, wwhickok said: I know what it says but I think that is a situation where if you bid on a player and then you make a trade that eliminates you from having that pic pick that is the situation in which you would give up your next pic it's not telling you that you're allowed to bid on a player without having the required conversation that is not what that rule is intended for. Bidding on a player knowing you don't have the required conversation but you're the conversation but you can offer an even higher round is in a way a loophole in a form of cheating because if if hypothetically somebody bids on Max Crosby that does not have a second round pick but they do have a first known day well obviously I want the 1st mountain pick but that's not fair to anybody else who bid on Max Crosby with a second round pick This was a bit confusing but I think I get what you're saying. It's just really hard (but not impossible!) to see a scenario where someone could take advantage of this to the detriment of the person who originally tendered the RFA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 2 minutes ago, Blue said: This was a bit confusing but I think I get what you're saying. It's just really hard (but not impossible!) to see a scenario where someone could take advantage of this to the detriment of the person who originally tendered the RFA. It's not about the detriment of the person placing the tender. It's about keeping the playing field even with people bidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 (edited) 2 minutes ago, wwhickok said: It's not about the detriment of the person placing the tender. It's about keeping the playing field even with people bidding. eh EDIT: You know the compensation only matters after highest bid is determined, right? This isn't a trade. Doesn't matter if you're willing to give up a 1st for a guy on a 7th round tender if you don't have the highest offer on him. Edited March 25, 2022 by Blue 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarok Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 19 minutes ago, Blue said: I'm reading it as written, if you feel that's wrong, that's not my fault. You'd have to ignore the if-then aspect of the rule to read it that way. Maybe you could sit in on a reading comp class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.