\n| Scott (8)<\/td>\n | 0<\/td>\n | Brady<\/td>\n | Green-Ellis<\/td>\n | Woodhead<\/td>\n | Welker<\/td>\n | Branch<\/td>\n | Hernandez<\/span><\/td>\n | Graham<\/td>\n | Patriots<\/td>\n | Pats, 44<\/td>\n | 43<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Analysis From Pope Paul.<\/p>\n Shades (Saints) and Ted (Eagles) are done. Between so many teams
\ntaking Brady, Green-Ellis, Woodhead, Welker, Branch, Graham and the
\nPats D, several teams are covered and will continue to drop out of the
\ntournament as the playoffs progress. For instance, although they are
\nnot mathematically eliminated yet, Hans and Ian are pretty much done.
\nAlthough Rishi is currently leading, and he was the only one to pick
\ntop tier running backs Rice and Mendenhall, with four players already
\nout, he needs a lot of help to hold on. There are four Pats heavy
\nteams: Shane, Scott, Jay and Paul. Shane looks to have the most upside
\nof them with Forte and Wallace still alive. However, he will need the
\nPats to score enough points without the help of Woodhead, who he left
\noff his roster. Likewise, Jay needs the Pats to do well and Tony
\nGonzalez to go off, be he must hope Deion Branch doesn’t for any
\nchance to win. If the Pats make it to the Superbowl, Scott’s all Pats
\nand Paul’s mostly Pats rosters will be in a great position. Although
\nPaul is somewhat happy that Garcon and Hartley gave him a 21 point
\ncushion prior to the Colts and Saints’ early elimination, you better
\nbelieve that there will be a lot of yelling at the television every
\ntime Shane Graham and the Patriots line up for a field goal of 31
\nyards or greater during the rest of the playoffs. Barron and Benny
\nhave a unique Falcons\/Steelers thing going on that might pay off for
\none of them, especially if the Falcons and\/or Steelers do well.
\nFinally, the good news for Seth is that he made an all Packers
\nstrategy and the Packers won on the road in the wild card game, but
\nthe bad news is that he didn’t realize that the Packers would only
\nthrow to their 6th and 7th best wide receivers and pound the ball with
\ntheir third best running back during the playoffs. For any chance to
\nwin the pool, Seth needs the Packers to continue to win on the road
\nwhile earning more than 32 fantasy points each week.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The controversy and resolution so lame it makes you sick as described in email chain.<\/p>\n From Paul Jan 9.<\/p>\n Just put the playoff pool entries into the spreadsheet. Only one
\n\u00c2\u00a0controversy this year which directly impacts Scott and my entries
\n\u00c2\u00a0(we basically have the same roster except for one position player and
\n\u00c2\u00a0our kickers):<\/p>\n Scott is attempting to play Aaron Hernandez, who was cut in Week 15
\n\u00c2\u00a0and cleared waivers the following week. The post-season playoff
\n\u00c2\u00a0rule,which recently was revised to incorporate several Commissioner
\n\u00c2\u00a0interpretations, states that “any player on any active roster,
\n\u00c2\u00a0practice squad, injured reserve, or any player who has been cut but
\n\u00c2\u00a0has not passed through waivers is eligible.”<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0It is my understanding that a player in the free agent pool can only
\n\u00c2\u00a0be used if he was cut after the final free agency deadline since
\n\u00c2\u00a0there is no other way to determine his fair market value. But because
\n\u00c2\u00a0invalidating Hernandez might affect the outcome of Scott and my
\n\u00c2\u00a0entries, I wanted to defer to Comp Comm for guidance.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n From Shane Jan 9.<\/p>\n I actually thought about using Hernandez too but didn’t because he was ineligible based on my reading of the playoff pool rule. I felt he was ineligible before I submitted my roster and I still believe that to be the case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n From Scott Jan 9.<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0Shit.\u00c2\u00a0 I thought Duggan still had him.\u00c2\u00a0 When I was looking a players
\n\u00c2\u00a0on A.S.S. I was looking at salaries, forgetting that A.S.S. sucks and
\n\u00c2\u00a0doesn’t clear the salaries from players when they clear waivers.\u00c2\u00a0 I
\n\u00c2\u00a0saw the $2 salary and assumed he was still on Duggan’s roster.\u00c2\u00a0 It’s
\n\u00c2\u00a0especially stupid because I actually wanted to play Gronkowski, but
\n\u00c2\u00a0saw that he had a zero salary and wasn’t on anyone’s roster.<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0I don’t think there is any question that he is ineligible.<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0The question is; am i screwed or do I have the option of subbing in
\n\u00c2\u00a0someone who hasn’t played yet (e.g. someone else on the Pats).\u00c2\u00a0 It’s
\n\u00c2\u00a0pretty obvious what my strategy was.<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0I would completely understand if it is determined that I should just
\n\u00c2\u00a0be screwed.\u00c2\u00a0 It’s clearly my fault.<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0Although, I have a vague memory of something similar happening last
\n\u00c2\u00a0year and feel like maybe we let that guy make a sub.\u00c2\u00a0 If that’s the
\n\u00c2\u00a0case I would like to ask for the same treatment.\u00c2\u00a0 Let me do some quick
\n\u00c2\u00a0research and see if I can find it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Scott continues in another email.<\/p>\n The only thing I could find was evidence supporting the fact that
\n\u00c2\u00a0players cut before the final week of free agency are not eligible for
\n\u00c2\u00a0the playoff pool.\u00c2\u00a0 Hernandez was cut week 15 and so is not eligible.
\n\u00c2\u00a0If he had been cut in week 16 then he would have been eligible since
\n\u00c2\u00a0we don’t play in week 17 and therefore the guy couldn’t be picked up
\n\u00c2\u00a0and played.\u00c2\u00a0 Although, we should make sure the constitution is
\n\u00c2\u00a0specific about that, because we could technically allow free agency
\n\u00c2\u00a0through week 17 in case someone wanted to take a flyer on a guy for
\n\u00c2\u00a0next year, but that would mean that guys cut in week 16 wound NOT be
\n\u00c2\u00a0eligible.<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0Anyway, the emails I found referenced a playoff roster violation
\n\u00c2\u00a0involving Vinatieri, but I couldn’t find the original emails for that
\n\u00c2\u00a0case because that predated my switch to gmail.\u00c2\u00a0 Does anyone have
\n\u00c2\u00a0access to email from that far back so that we can see if there was a
\n\u00c2\u00a0precedent that could be applied here?<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0In case, the precedent was to allow a sub who hadn’t played yet, I
\n\u00c2\u00a0will list Brandon Tate as my sub.\u00c2\u00a0 I think it’s only fair to sub
\n\u00c2\u00a0another marginal NE player since it could be argued that subbing a
\n\u00c2\u00a0player from another team might be because of next week’s matchups
\n\u00c2\u00a0(which we now know).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Scott the next day Jan 10.<\/p>\n We should probably get a final ruling on this before Paul send out the
\n\u00c2\u00a0update tonight.<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0Assuming no one can find the resolution to the seemingly similar
\n\u00c2\u00a0Vinatieri incident a few years back, how should we handle this.<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0Paul seems to be recusing himself and I obviously need to do the same.<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0Should this just go to a comcom vote?<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0Also, regardless of the outcome of this, I’d like to suggest that in
\n\u00c2\u00a0the future we make the deadline 24 hours before the first game.\u00c2\u00a0 Not
\n\u00c2\u00a0only so that we can catch errors before they matter, but also so that
\n\u00c2\u00a0the commissioner can distribute the rosters in advance of the first
\n\u00c2\u00a0game, which would be nice.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n From Paul Jan 10.<\/p>\n In 2008, Benny used Vinatieri, who similarly was off a roster after
\n\u00c2\u00a0Week 4. While there was some communication about it being illegal and
\n\u00c2\u00a0there was a lot of discussion about Ted’s ploy to load his playoff
\n\u00c2\u00a0roster with seven position players (and no kicker), the lengthy and
\n\u00c2\u00a0pithy email string never comes to any resolution about how to handle
\n\u00c2\u00a0either situation (although it appeared that if Ted would have advanced
\n\u00c2\u00a0in the playoff pool, he most likely would have forfeited kicker points
\n\u00c2\u00a0(which he did not name) and either his highest payed player or his
\n\u00c2\u00a0highest scoring player).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n From Paul again Jan 10.<\/p>\n I searched the rest of my email archive (since 2005) and could not
\n\u00c2\u00a0find another example of an illegal player being named (since “active
\n\u00c2\u00a0roster” was interpreted to include PS, IR and recently cut players,
\n\u00c2\u00a0these sorts of situations have usually resulted in findings of no
\n\u00c2\u00a0violation. Also, I don’t believe I was on the comp comm and I used a
\n\u00c2\u00a0separate work account in 2005-07, so there may have been one of these
\n\u00c2\u00a0situations for which I do not have a record). In 2008, there is no
\n\u00c2\u00a0indication whatsoever that Benny was offered the opportunity to name
\n\u00c2\u00a0another kicker when he improperly named Vinatieri, and Comp Comm was
\n\u00c2\u00a0going to take a pretty hard-lined stance with Ted, counting only six
\n\u00c2\u00a0of his entries. Although admittedly, Ted’s situation was
\n\u00c2\u00a0distinguishable because it was a salary cap issue.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n From Scott Jan 10.<\/p>\n Acknowledging that I don’t get a vote in this, I’d just like to say
\n\u00c2\u00a0that although this was a stupid mistake and clearly was my fault and
\n\u00c2\u00a0no one else’s, I feel like denying a replacement player would be a
\n\u00c2\u00a0particularly harsh penalty.\u00c2\u00a0 Based on what Paul said about he and I
\n\u00c2\u00a0having the same roster except for the kicker and one position player
\n\u00c2\u00a0(presumably Hernandez), it essentially amounts to disqualification.<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0I could understand this if the player in question was on a team who
\n\u00c2\u00a0already played, but I don’t see how I am gaining any advantage
\n\u00c2\u00a0whatsoever in replacing Hernandez with Tate.\u00c2\u00a0 I also don’t think that
\n\u00c2\u00a0there is much of a question about who I would have played if I had
\n\u00c2\u00a0realized that Hernandez was unavailable.\u00c2\u00a0 I submitted an all Patriots
\n\u00c2\u00a0line up and the fact that I was going to play Hernandez in the first
\n\u00c2\u00a0place even though a) I he hasn’t played in 4 weeks, b) during that
\n\u00c2\u00a0time Gronkowski has established himself as the go to TE and c) I
\n\u00c2\u00a0didn’t even need to play a TE and could have chosen a stud WR or RB
\n\u00c2\u00a0from another team, clearly demonstrates that I was committed to an all
\n\u00c2\u00a0NE line up and would not have played anyone from a team who was
\n\u00c2\u00a0eliminated this weekend.<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0Ultimately, I think this a clear violation without a clear punishment
\n\u00c2\u00a0and that it’s the commissioner’s decision to rule on punishments.
\n\u00c2\u00a0However, he has recused himself and so I think comcom should vote on
\n\u00c2\u00a0this.\u00c2\u00a0 My non-vote opinion is that a $20 fine would be fair, but I
\n\u00c2\u00a0will abide by a comcom vote without protest.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Shane Jan 11.<\/p>\n There is no doubting Scott’s intent to field an all New England lineup. He’s
\n\u00c2\u00a0been doing it for years and is the biggest NE homer in QFL Nation.<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0However, the question for me is whether Scott submitted a valid playoff
\n\u00c2\u00a0roster by the deadline and he clearly did not. Like I said on Sunday, i came
\n\u00c2\u00a0very close to making the same mistake until I realized that Hernandez and
\n\u00c2\u00a0Gronkowski were free agents who had cleared waivers and were therefore
\n\u00c2\u00a0ineligible based on the playoff roster rule so i went in another direction.<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0I think Scott is one of the hardest-working members in the QFL but I don’t
\n\u00c2\u00a0want to set a precedent where we allow people mulligans in cases where they
\n\u00c2\u00a0didn’t comply with the rules. I vote that there is no fine and that Scott
\n\u00c2\u00a0simply forfeits that roster spot in his playoff lineup.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n From Paul Jan 11. No fine is bullshit.<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0I do not think a fine is even an issue. No fine.<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0Without any other guidance, as Commissioner, I am forced to make some
\n\u00c2\u00a0sort of ruling here. If my tournament entry was not affected, I do not
\n\u00c2\u00a0think there is any way that I could allow Scott to add a replacement
\n\u00c2\u00a0player under the Constitutional language “a regular starting line-up
\n\u00c2\u00a0of 8 players is selected BEFORE the playoffs.” While I understand his
\n\u00c2\u00a0points, his proposed remedy would create ridiculous precedent. Quite
\n\u00c2\u00a0simply, if I ruled otherwise, there would be nothing stopping an owner
\n\u00c2\u00a0from starting an invalid player next year in order to cherry-pick a
\n\u00c2\u00a0second round match-up. I know that Scott is going all Pats and he is
\n\u00c2\u00a0proposing to use Tate instead of seeking a better player on another
\n\u00c2\u00a0team, such as Mike Wallace or Forte, but what about future situations
\n\u00c2\u00a0where a third string receiver on the same team is not available (such
\n\u00c2\u00a0as 2008, when Benny illegally started Vinatieri)? Also, what do we do
\n\u00c2\u00a0if the mistake is not discovered right away? I mean, the only reason I
\n\u00c2\u00a0discovered the violation when I was creating the spreadsheet is
\n\u00c2\u00a0because I, like Shane, knew that Hernandez was ineligible. Here, I am
\n\u00c2\u00a0at a disadvantage for reporting the violation immediately instead of
\n\u00c2\u00a0waiting for the Pats game when there would be no fair way for another
\n\u00c2\u00a0player to replace Hernandez.<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0Nonetheless, because I am put in a peculiar situation here, I agree
\n\u00c2\u00a0that if at the end of the tourney, if Tate’s points are the difference
\n\u00c2\u00a0between Scott beating me, I will split the pot with him. I am offering
\n\u00c2\u00a0this in order to resolve this unique situation. From this point
\n\u00c2\u00a0forward, however, any points for an illegal player will be forfeited
\n\u00c2\u00a0with no opportunity for a replacement player. Of course, if the Pats
\n\u00c2\u00a0win the Superbowl and Graham and Tate do not cover the 21 point head
\n\u00c2\u00a0start I have on Scott, I’m keeping the whole pot. And of course, by
\n\u00c2\u00a0making an issue of this, Scott has so overwhelmingly jinxed the
\n\u00c2\u00a0Patriots that there is no way they are even going to win a game in the
\n\u00c2\u00a0playoffs, much less the Superbowl, so none of this really matters.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n From Scott Jan 11.<\/p>\n I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that you are the King
\n\u00c2\u00a0Solomon of the modern age.\u00c2\u00a0 I respect and accept your ruling without
\n\u00c2\u00a0reservation.\u00c2\u00a0 Thank you for being a stand up guy.<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0And while I do hope that your kicker and mystery position player are
\n\u00c2\u00a0both already eliminated and Shayne Graham throws several fake field
\n\u00c2\u00a0goal passes to Brandon Tate for TDs delivering me half the prize
\n\u00c2\u00a0money, I will nonetheless (or maybe only a little bit the less) be
\n\u00c2\u00a0happy for you should you win it all.<\/p>\n \u00c2\u00a0Go Pats!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u00c2\u00a0This is the lamest post ever.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" What would\u00c2\u00a0a QFL1\u00c2\u00a0post-season be without a good controversy? We haven’t known such a situation in years. This time around the issue involved Scott (hopefully it won’t infringe on his campaign for Commissioner) picking one of his beloved Patriot players who was NOT\u00c2\u00a0on a QFL team. Oooh, juicy you might think, but, the resolution brings to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,19,20],"tags":[234,224],"class_list":["post-2080","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","category-qfl-nation-news","category-qfl-prime","tag-playoff-pool","tag-standings"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.qballers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2080","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.qballers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.qballers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.qballers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.qballers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2080"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.qballers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2080\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2086,"href":"https:\/\/www.qballers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2080\/revisions\/2086"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.qballers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2080"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.qballers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2080"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.qballers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2080"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
|