Text of response is :
As commissioner, I thought that team A[Judge: I assume you mean team B here], the original winner should be awarded the team trophy for several reasons. 1. The stat correction was too late. On such an important week as week 16 for the title to be decided on a stat correction 6 days after is absurd. 2. In that period of time, the proclaimed winner unselfishly spent the winning to buy a much needed league trophy, there was also an end of the year celebration proclaiming him as the winner. So in light of the original winners actions it would be ideal if the original winner was proclaimed champion and the stat correction nullified because of the tardiness of the correction and the celebratory events which took place during that time.
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

Yahoo! Fantasy Football has a topic posted on this subject at http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/sports/fantasysports/football/

And reprinted here:

Scoring Changes and Corrections

Last Updated: December 22, 2009

In order to provide the most accurate scores possible we process scoring corrections as we receive them from our data provider. While this can result in frustrating losses it can also result in unexpected wins.

Note: The NFL makes scoring corrections for players every week. We typically receive the stat corrections every Thursday from our data provider, at which time the corrections are updated and applied to all leagues.

You can click Stat Corrections from the Players tab to view a list of corrections that have been processed in your league.

Any statistical changes that are made will impact head-to-head matchups if they are made before the first game of the following week.

Your dispute occurred after Week 16 games were played on December 25 and 26, 2009.  Note that the Yahoo! posting was December 22, before the dispute in your league occurred.  It would certainly be possible for a league to have a rule in its constitution that states, “No NFL stat changes will affect scores after x number of days.”  I am assuming your league constitution is silent on this.  Therefore I have no problem following Yahoo!’s guidance, which is quite clear on the subject:  “In order to provide the most accurate scores possible we process scoring corrections as we receive them from our data provider. While this can result in frustrating losses it can also result in unexpected wins.” (emphasis added)

Your league results, therefore, were not final until all stat changes were received by Yahoo!  So it is incorrect to state that Team B had ever won.  Team B appeared to have won until the stat correction was made.  This is consistent with the object of fantasy sports, namely, to accurately predict a player’s performance (or statistics).  Team A’s defense made that official sack, it just took a while for the NFL (or Yahoo!) to acknowledge it.  So Team A needs to be rewarded with the points attributable to that sack, even if those points were late to arrive.

As for the argument that the stat change was “too late,” I disagree.  If there had been league activity such as add/drops, waivers, trades, or any transaction that may have been effected by the posted (yet incorrect) standings, I might very well have ruled that the stat change was too late because some of the teams would be prejudiced by the scoring change (and corresponding change in the standings, which can effect waiver order, for example).  However, purchasing a trophy was simply premature, not “prejudice” to Team B related to the fantasy game.

So the winner of the league is Team A.  Team A deserves the 1^st place winnings, and should be paid accordingly. Team B gets the 2^nd place winnings.

As for the expense of the tropy, there is no reason Team B should still be on the hook for it.  The league (all teams equally) should reimburse Team B for the trophy cost.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Thank you for using the services of www.FantasyDispute.com

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

I have no problem with a league that strictly enforces the lineup deadlines, regardless of unintentional mistakes by owners.  I also have no problem with leagues that allow the commissioner to make adjustments after the deadline if there was obviously a computer clicking error and it is undisputed as to an owner’s intent.  What is not acceptable is a league that sometimes applies the former, and sometimes the latter, on a willy nilly basis.

In your league, it is clear that last year and up to midseason this year, your league allowed the comissioner to make adjustments for unintentional mistakes.  However, at midseason, this rule was changed to a “strict deadline” league, and it was publicly announced (and publicly criticized).  Once the rule was changed, the rule must be enforced, regardless of the effect on weekly and end-of-season winners.  This is not a rule change that requires unanimous approval (such as a change in scoring rules midseason)—it is a procedural rule that has a rational basis, namely, the commissioner does not want to be in a position to decide an owner’s intent (even if it is undisputed).  So long as the rule did not flip-flop after it was announced (which it apparently did not, as evidenced by your statement that  “From that point it was not an issue as no owner forgot to submit, until this incident in week 17”).  Therefore, I find that once the rule was changed, your commissioner consistently applied it.  A greater problem would result if your commissioner made this one time exception, and the next time in a similar circumstance, your league is left arguing whether this is a “strict deadline” league or not.  From midseason on, your league became a “strict deadline” league.  Period.

The owner that made the clicking errors in Week 17 is out of luck.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Thank you for using the services of www.FantasyDispute.com

Text of dispute is :

I’m a Commish and need some outside help on whether to allow a trade or not. We have a modified keeper rule where you can keep one player for one extra year if they were drafted in the 6th round or later. We allow keepers to keep their eligibility if traded. The trade in question is Chris Johnson for Rashard Mendenhall. CJ is on a team out of the running, Mendenhall is keeper eilgible. We have two very distinct schools of thought on this. One is that the potential of a good keeper balances an otherwise unfair trade and the other is that all trades should be equitable and judged on the value they bring to each team at the time of trade. My league is full of high maintenance cry babies so some wise outside help is greatly appreciated. Our trade deadline is tomorrow at 5pm. Thanks.
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

This is a fairly typical dispute for a keeper league.  One team, obviously still in contention for winning this year, is trading a decent player, Mendenhall, who has keeper value for next year, for Chris Johnson, a top running back.  I sympathize with the teams (probably the other teams still in contention for this year) that complain that this is unfair to them in that one team will now have a pretty dominant lineup comprised of the other studs that got him into contention, and now C. Johnson too.  But that is the nature of keeper league trades.  In keeper leagues, the teams that are out of contention will (properly, in my opinion) try to take advantage of the teams vying for first place, in order to build a team for next year and the future.  Whereas this trade might very well affect the results this year, I would suggest that teams that are overly concerned with this year’s finish do not adequately appreciate the objectives in a keeper league—which is to try to contend not just once, but year after year.

I agree with the school of thought that the potential of a good keeper balances an otherwise one-sided trade. When evaluating the trade, you should focus more on whether there was collusion between the trading teams in an attempt to prevent another team from winning, as opposed to a good faith attempt to improve both teams, whether it be for this year or next year. I can’t say that this trade is so imbalanced as to disrupt the fairness of the league in the long run.  Teams must be allowed to take chances and build for the future.  The trade should be allowed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Thank you for using the services of www.FantasyDispute.com

Dispute ID is 4909

Text of dispute is :
Facts: Our league starts 1QB, 3WR, 2RB, 1TE, and 1Flex on offense. There is 10 teams and one division. My team is 4-5 and one game out of a playoff spot. Team Y is 7-2 and in first place overall. Team Y – QB: Roethlesburger, Cutler, Romo; WR: White, Moss, Marshal, Evans; RB: Jones, R.Brown, Mendenhall, Benson, Forte. My team – QB: Rodgers, Hasselback; WR: V.Jackson, Edwards, Harvin; RB: S.Jackson, K.Smith, Jacobs. Since Jacobs is on a bye, and Smith has a very bad matchup against Minnesota this week, I was seeking to get 2 RBs to replace them in my lineup. Furthermore, I consider this a must win situation as the other team I am playing this week is also 4-5. I offered V.Jackson, Harvin, Smith, Jacobs, and Hasselback to team Y for Marshall, Evans, R.Brown, Mendenhall, and Cutler. The trade was accepted and vetoed by the league within 8 hours. It takes 4 votes to veto the trade. I spoke with the league commissioner about it. He said that “noone wants to see his team get bette r”. He also said that since I am fighting for a playoff spot, that noone wants to see my team get better either. He implied that the trade was rejected based purely on personal motives and objectives, completely unrelated to the fairness of the trade. Furthermore, Team Z vetos every trade, as he believes that trading is morally inept and should not be permitted in the first place. Issues: Considering these facts, and the overriding fundamental fantasy interest in fairness and sportsmanship, was this trade wrongfully vetoed? Is it “fair” to veto trades based on purely personal motives unrelated to the underlying value of the trade itself? Should Team Z be reprimanded and suspended for the rest of the year for joining a league that clashes with his own moral values and then forcefully imposing those values to every other team’s detriment?
END——–

Response ID is 4909

Text of response is :
In response to the arbitration claim, I would ask that the arbitrator uphold the vote of the league and dismiss the dispute. I would first like to say that I have not been apprised of every detail of the dispute and therefore cannot completely defend against the exact allegations and arguments of the dispute. I am unclear as to how to properly counter those allegations without knowing them. The method in this league for evaluating trades is league vote. This method has been used throughout the entire season. In fact, several trades have been vetoed and several trades have been approved. Each member of the league joined the league agreeing to and knowing that this would be the method of approving trades. Each member has the right to vote how he chooses. This is supported by the fact that the vote is both available and an anonymous vote. We have made it known to the league that this is the case. To overturn the decision of the league would remove the efficacy of the vote. It would essentially be telling the rest of the league that the method to which every member agreed has no effect and no purpose. It would be just the same as an outside party changing the terms of the agreement assented to by each member of the league. Most courts have held in upholding arbitration awards that despite discontent with the terms of an agreement, the arguing party has no right to relief if the term was agreed to prior to the dispute. This is clearly the case in this dispute. Each league member cast his vote without violating the intent of the league vote method as agreed upon by the league. Furthermore, the motivation behind each vote is unknown. To assign to those votes a motive that an arbitrator finds inappropriate would be improper. How can an arbitrator overrule a democratic league vote based on allegations without knowing what could be very viable reasons for the vote? To even ask each member to provide a “proper” reason for why he voted would violate what we have agreed to and the anonymity of the vote. This method has been used the entire season. It has become the accepted practice of the league. Yahoo gave our league the chance to decide how to “do” trades. We chose the league vote over the other methods for a reason. Yahoo did not provide us with any exceptions to the method or tell us for what reasons a member may exercise his or her right to vote. What this boils down to is that a member of the league has now decided more than halfway through the season that he no longer likes the method to which we all agreed and utilized for nearly 10 weeks. Finally, the proper time to make such a change would be after the season is over. The members of this league, all friends, have discussed possible minor changes to how the league is run next year. To have an outside party overrule what we had agreed to prior to the season would completely change the landscape of the league. Does our system of voting matter anymore? What about those who had trades vetoed earlier in the season using the same method? Does each member send a claim to the arbitrator with the same objection? Needless to say, our league would turn into a mess and no longer be our need. If a majority of the members of this league wanted the method for “doing” trades changed, we would make that change; however, that is not the case. We agreed at the beginning of the season to “do” trades through the league vote system. It has been utilized numerous times with some trades going through and some trades getting vetoed. It was not until a party was denied a trade that a claim filed with the arbitrator. In closing, we were given the choice by Yahoo and chose as a league to vote on trades. That is what we have done for the entire season thus far. The votes were cast in conformity with the intent of the league’s agreement. To change what we agreed to would be wrong. We ask that the arbitrator dismiss the dispute. Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter.
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

The trade that is disputed is Vince Jackson, Harvin, Smith, Jacobs, and Hasselback for Marshall, Evans, R. Brown, Mendenhall, and Cutler.  Your ten-team league has chosen to allow trades subject to a veto vote by at least four teams.  It is undisputed that those are your league rules, agreed upon at the beginning of the season, and relied upon for other trades that have taken place during the year.  I will address the issues in the order presented.

1)      Considering these facts, and the overriding fundamental fantasy interest in fairness and sportsmanship, was this trade wrongfully vetoed?

I won’t dwell on the pros and cons of a trade of  Vince Jackson, Harvin, Smith, Jacobs, and Hasselback for Marshall, Evans, R. Brown, Mendenhall, and Cutler.  There is no need to. Suffice it to say that the trade is not blatantly one-sided, nor is there collusion alleged between these two teams.  The question is whether the other teams had a right to vote against the trade. In your league, the answer is “Yes.”  All teams acted within the rules by voting to veto (or not voting to veto) the trade.  The veto won, so the trade is void.

2)      Is it “fair” to veto trades based on purely personal motives unrelated to the underlying value of the trade itself?

Duh!  What did you expect when you adopted such a rule? Did you think the masses would vote out of a sense of altruistic fairness as opposed to whether they think the trade helps or hurts their own team?  A vote based on self-interest is exactly what I would expect, and exactly what you got.  As an aside, I think allowing other teams to veto trades based on a vote is a poor rule, for exactly the reasons stated in this dispute.  I recommend you adopt (for next year) a Fantasy Sports Bill of Rights:

1st Amendment: Each owner shall play fairly and use good sportsmanship. Each owner shall make transactions with the intent of improving their own team.
2nd Amendment: The league commissioner shall use reasonable discretion to resolve league disputes.
3rd Amendment: If an owner disagrees with the league commissioner’s decision regarding a dispute, the owner has the right to submit the dispute to www.FantasyDispute.com for binding resolution at that owner’s expense.

Applying the Bill of Rights, your commissioner would be the only one judging the propriety of the trade, and it is assumed that your commissioner has been chosen for his strong sense of altruistic fairness.  However, under the 3^rd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, if an owner disagrees with the commissioner, he can submit the disputed trade to an impartial arbitrator.  This results in a much “fairer” league, in my experience.  But you can’t change the rules in the middle of the season (except by unanimous vote), so your team is out of luck on this one.

3)      Should Team Z be reprimanded and suspended for the rest of the year for joining a league that clashes with his own moral values and then forcefully imposing those values to every other team’s detriment?

No. Team Z, who vetoes every trade, as he believes that trading is morally inept and should not be permitted in the first place, has every right to do so given your rules.

The trade has been properly vetoed in your league. It should not be allowed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Thank you for using the services of www.FantasyDispute.com

Text of dispute is :
14 Team Keeper League (4 keepers per season). PPR League (one point per reception) 1 point per 10 yards rushing and passing. 3 Bonus points for 100yrds rushing or receptions 5 Xtra Bonus Points for 200yrd games. Draft Picks are allowed. Team 1 (5-3) 3rd position. Roster: QB Philip Rivers, SD QB RB Maurice Jones-Drew, Jac RB RB/WR Chris Johnson, Ten RB WR Roddy White, Atl WR WR Antonio Bryant, TB WR TE Vernon Davis, SF TE D/ST Jaguars D/ST, Jac D/ST K Nick Folk, Dal K HC Steelers Coach, Pit HC Bench Braylon Edwards, NYJ WR Bench Jets D/ST, NYJ D/ST Bench Rashard Mendenhall, Pit RB Bench Texans Coach, Hou HC Bench Earl Bennett, Chi WR Bench Nate Washington, Ten WR Bench Matt Cassel, KC QB IR Chris Cooley*, Was TE O Team 2 (3-4-1) 10th position. Roster: QB Matt Ryan, Atl QB RB Brandon Jacobs, NYG RB RB/WR Laurence Maroney, NE RB WR Marques Colston, NO WR WR Derrick Mason, Bal WR TE Kellen Winslow, TB TE D/ST Broncos D/ST, Den D/ST K Lawrence Tynes, NYG K HC Ravens Coach, Bal HC Bench Roy E. Williams, Dal WR Bench Willie Parker, Pit RB P Bench Ted Ginn Jr., Mia WR Bench Shonn Greene, NYJ RB Bench 49ers D/ST, SF D/ST Bench Marcedes Lewis, Jac TE Bench Vince Young, Ten QB IR The proposed trade is as follows: Team 1: Rashard Menderhall plus 1st round(4 team keeper league)pick for 2010 season. Team 2: Marques Colston Is this trade fair and should I allow it to proceed? Thank You D G Commissioner ESPN A C SOC 2009 League.
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

This is a fairly typical dispute for a keeper league.  Team 1, in third place, is trading a decent bench player (Mendenhall) and his first round pick next year for Colston, a top wide receiver.  I sympathize with the teams (probably the teams in first and second place) that will likely complain that this is unfair to them in that Team 1 will now have a pretty dominant lineup, including MJD, C. Johnson, and now Colston.  But that is the nature of keeper league trades.  In keeper leagues, the teams that are out of contention will (properly) try to take advantage of the teams vying for first place, in order to build a team for next year and the future.  Whereas this trade might very well affect the results this year, I would suggest that teams that are overly concerned with this year’s finish do not adequately appreciate the objectives in a keeper league—which is to try to contend not just once, but year after year.

Most importantly, no evidence of collusion has been offered, and I can’t say that this trade is so imbalanced as to disrupt the fairness of the league in the long run.  Teams must be allowed to take chances and build for the future.

The trade should be allowed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dispute ID is 4905
Text of dispute is :
Yahoo league. Kevin Smith and Anquan Boldin for Roddy White.
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

Kevin Smith is a top fifteen running back. He has rushed for 348 yards and three touchdowns. He also has 143 receiving yards.

Anquan Boldin has 306 yards receiving with only one touchdown.  He hurt his ankle in his last game, but it looks to be minor.  However injuries are always difficult to predict.

Roddy White has 385 yards receiving with four touchdowns.  He is currently a top ten wide receiver.  

I’d rather be the team getting Smith and Boldin in this deal.  I think Boldin has underperformed so far.  And Smith, even playing for hapless Detroit,  gets the “lion” share of the carries, so he should remain an above average running back, which is a rare commodity.

Having said that, there is no evidence offered of collusion between these teams, and it is certainly possible Roddy White will continue his early season heroics.  Teams must be allowed to take chances (unless there is proof of collusion), and especially with Boldin’s injury, I can’t say this trade is so unfair as to upset the balance of a league.  The trade should be allowed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Thank you for using the services of www.FantasyDispute.com

Text of dispute is :
10 team, 23 man roster, 6 keepers, 5×5 roto + OPS and K/9. Keepers cost the owner their original draft spot. My team (Chin Music) and another team (Flavor Savor) had the top 2 waiver priority spots. On 10/2, with neither of us in contention, I dropped CC Sabathia (4th round), Flavor Savor dropped Roy Halladay (10th round). We then put in waiver requests to add the player that the other dropped. This move was within the rules of Yahoo’s setup and not prohibited by the following portion of our league constitution: “Waiver priority will be the reverse of the draft order to start. Teams may drop any player and select another from the free agent pool. Dropped players will be added to waivers. Waiver time is one day. Limit? Trades are permitted and will be submitted to league review. Trades should only be vetoed upon both team managers unanimous request, or by reason of collusion. which an entirely unfair, onesided trade. Keeper value must be considered for this as well.” My main argument for allowing this can be summed up simply. It was a creative move, made within the rules of the Yahoo structure and the league constitution, **that did not jeopardize the competition of the season**, and that involved two players of equal value. The argument against is that all teams would now start doing it, and keeper value would not exist after some amount of time, be it a few weeks or years. The commish has also said that allowing this to go through would “set a precedent” and everyone could do it. I disagree. For one, this trade didn’t just happen — it took weeks of arguing to find something fair that we would both be happy with, so it wouldn’t be as easy as everyone thinks. There are still guys that you do and don’t want on your team (i.e. Flavor Savor refused to take Ryan Howard). Also, and more relevant to the commish’s point — in sports, law or anything else, when something is done within the law or rules that people don’t like, a rule or law is created or modified to stop it from happening again. That new rule/law sets the precedent that what just happened isn’t right according to the rule makers, however that rule is not retrofit to whatever previously happened. The spitball was outlawed in the 19 60s, PEDs were outlawed a few years ago. It’s evolution, baby. I think a better example is in golf. Equipment needs to conform to certain standards, recently in response to guys being able to drive the ball too far and control the spin too much. This is a result of believing that no regulation on the equipment degrades the quality of competition. A guy using a club over size X is not prohibited from using that club before the rule takes effect. There is even a crossover time between when the rule change is announced and implemented where guys are using equipment today that could be banned next weekend. The precedent is not set that everyone can now use an oversized driver — the opposite is true. The precedent is set that there needs to be a rule that regulates the size of the driver. I propose reviewing the rule, but you cannot retrofit the rule to stop this move, as it was within the rules and didn’t jeopardize the outcome of the league.
END——–

Text of response is :
Response from the commisioner. There is not a rule against it, but there is also no rule saying you can do it. They called it a ‘trade’ and the trade deadline has passed. I think the main problem with it is for the future of the league which is the main issue. Technically Flavor Savor and Chin Music struck a deal under the table to drop players and agreed to pick up the player the other dropped. It so happens that they have the top two waivers in the league. IF they did not have the top waivers this would never happen. What would be to stop an endless carousel of #1 and #2 people dropping their top keepers, picking them up in a ‘trade’ just like this one. All of a sudden the 120 keepers in our league are all exactly equal in the last 6 rounds of the draft. Bye bye keeper league. Much like the supreme court we need to rule fairly and also set a precedent for the future. The other teams have proposed allowing the trade to go through maintaining the original draft positions since trade was made to pickup the keeper value after the waiver pickup. If they are touting it as a trade that is fair then the original keeper value should be a fair option. I think they are really shorting the long term view of the league. I understand the ‘point’ of the trade but I really think they are not seeing the big picture. Chin’s owner, myself and another owner said that we would vote on the major issues and rule stuff. This is one of those situations and we have ruled 2 to 1. They could have done Morneau (Flavor) and Howard (Chin). Whats the difference between Morneau and Howard if you get to keep both of them at 23rd round value? No one else did it also because there were three days left in the season. If you think that everyone would not fully cycle through keepers your nuts. I really do not think the league should have the possibility of every keeper eventually being exactly the same be it two weeks, two months or two years away it will happen. I am not saying it was easy, or even uncreative move. It took nearly two full seasons for someone to find a hole in our keeper system. A CC for Halladay trade itself would not have throw the competitive course of the season off. Both Chin and Flavor has said they do not want it as a ‘trade’ either but that is how it was billed…A ‘waiver trade’ so I used that. Almost everyone knew the point of what they did. It was a move to maximize keeper value of the players. They were both were trying to pick up an extra 10-15 rounds of value on a guy. I dont necessarily agree with the fact that it should be allowed to go through then noone else can do it. Just because it is not specifically in the rule does not make it right or fair or good for the future of the league. We will never think of every possible merky scenario ahead of time. So that is where I agree with you that we need to define the process. We did say we would go three man committee and Chin actually called for that first. When that wasn’t good enough, they wanted a vote from the league, which also ruled against the move. While not in the constitution the three forefathers in the league agreed to something for a situation just like this though, and it was enacted.
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

This dispute is easy to resolve.  This was a trade– no ifs, ands, or buts.  Using the add/drop Yahoo function on the website was merely the mechanism to carry out the trade.   

Strictly speaking, the transaction also violated the Yahoo Fair Play and Sportsmanship Rule: “All league-related transactions will be executed with the intent of improving the owner’s team and/or its standing within the league.”  When Chin Music dropped CC Sabathia, that move did not improve his team.  Flavor Savor was not required to drop Halladay unless there was a “trade” agreement.  And the trade agreement was in violation of your league rules.

According to your undisputed league rules, the trade deadline has long passed.  Therefore this trade, however accomplished, is null and void, and must be reversed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Thank you for using the services of www.FantasyDispute.com

Text of dispute is :
The other party hasnt agreed to use this service but the events that are occurred that no one disputes to is this: Two of the top 3 teams in the standings going into the last week of the regular season, we will call them Team A and Team B were facing other teams. Team A ended up winning the regular season. Team B finished 3rd in the regular season. Team B played a team that finished 10th place overall that we will call Team C. Team A had conversations with Team C explicitly telling him what moves to make, mostly through the use of pitcher streaming, which was common throughout the season. Some settings of the league were 12 team H2H, 7×7, top 6 make the playoffs, 5 moves per week. All players team C dropped in these moves were of little value. Team B is also the commissioner. When the news of these conversations came out, the commissioner has decided to disband the league and declare no winner. The commissioners claim is that this violates these 3 rules on Yahoo! http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/baseball/rules/brules-26.ht ml Even though fantasy games are meant to be a competitive experience for all involved, it is important to us that our users not lose sight of the rules of fair play and good sportsmanship. ….. 3. No owner will engage in any action that may be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other). 4. No owner will make any roster moves (including waiver claims, trade proposals, etc.) whose sole purpose is to hamper the play of other owners. 5. No owner will take any action whose purpose is to, in any way, interfere with fair play in a league. The commissioner says these actions greatly affected seeding in the playoffs and therefore the whole league has to be broken up. Team A believes that this is not anything new in a H2H league and these rules number one don’t state an action of giving advice to another team on how to improve for that week rises to the level of collusion, as in the rule it says only one team benefits, he believes that the other team did benefit also as it was better than it would’ve been had the moves not been made. Number 2, there was no dumping of good players in the moves he had made, so the integrity of the league wasn’t hurt in that manner. Team A also thinks that the intent of such rules is very important here as they do not pertain to such a situation, the intent of these rules is to prevent bad trades, dumping players to higher waiver priorities, and player swaps. Also Team A questions the timing of this as this decision was made soon after the commissioner was eliminated from the playoffs. The questions asked to the court are this… 1. Did this violate any of the 3 rules listed above? 2.If it did, what should be the remedy in terms of money, and what should happen with the remainder of the league? 3. If it didn’t what should be the penalty, if any to the commissioner for abusing his power?
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

After re-reading your dispute a few times, I do get it.  Basically, Team A gave advice to Team C to field a strong lineup during the last week of the season, which enabled Team C to defeat Team B that week, which helped Team A claim the title.  I find no violation of the Yahoo league rules, either explicitly or implicitly.

I will analyze the Yahoo rules in order—

3. No owner will engage in any action that may be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other).

Team A did assist Team C, but not in any illegal way.  All of Team A’s advice to Team B admittedly helped Team A (by helped Team C defeat team B), but also helped team C.  This is no different than if Team A had traded players with team C, giving both arguably better teams at the detriment of all other teams in the league.  This is permissible.

4. No owner will make any roster moves (including waiver claims, trade proposals, etc.) whose sole purpose is to hamper the play of other owners.

All of Team C’s roster moves were done to improve Team C’s chances of winning that week.  The fact that this letdto Team B’s loss did not hamper his play—Team B just got beat by a better lineup that week.

5. No owner will take any action whose purpose is to, in any way, interfere with fair play in a league.

Team A’s and Team’s C’s actions were all done to improve Team C’s team.  This does not interfere with fair play, it promotes it.  It must be assumed that all teams will continue to play strong lineups throughout the season, even if they are eliminated from contention.

Note that my decision would be quite different if Team A played Team C that final week, and Team C, at the advice of Team A, purposefully fielded a weak team in order to give Team A the victorty.  That would be collusion, but it is not what happened here. 

Parenthetically, I encourage leagues to have some incentive for all teams to compete the entire season (e.g., rewarding a weekly high point winner), so that there can be no dispute but that each team is trying to play their best lineup week in and week out.  However, even if Team C was completely out of contention, with nothing to gain with a win over Team B that final week, he should still be trying to play all out to win.  If this means accepting advice from others, so be it. 

In your league, no rules were broken. The commissioner should distribute its normal awards accordingly.  

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Thank you for using the services of www.FantasyDispute.com

In our league we start an offensive unit: The Scoring System defined on our rule sheet that was typed in 1988: Defense: Interception for TD: 2 points Fumble for TD: 2 points Safety: 2 points INT not returned for TD: .5 points Offense: Kick-Off Returned for TD: 2 points Punt Returned for TD: 2 points And last year a team got credit for a missed FG that was returned for TD as an offensive score. Week 2: The Arizona Cardinals are my offense and blocked a FG and returned it for a touchdown, but the commisioner says it counts as a defensive score because they didn’t have a guy back to return the kick. He also said, a blocked punt that passes the line of scrimmage and returned for a TD would qualify for an offensive score. (The kick was a 46 yd attempt which was returned 83 yards, meaning it passed the line of scrimmage and is a live ball). There are 4 ways to score a special teams touchdown in normal fantasy football leagues: Kick off return, Punt return, punt block, field goal blocked. In our league 3 out of 4 scenarios count as an offensive score, but commish is saying the FG blocked is a defensive touchdown. My argument is a blocked FG doesn’t count as a turnover, it crossed the lie of scrimmage and is now a live ball so it can’t be considered a defensive score. In my interpretation ,according to our scoring, once the ball leaves the kicking team’s foot, they are no longer on offense. It was explained on draft night that Punt and Kick TDs count as offense because the other team is trying to tackle them and they have the ball. We reward $ based on weekly totals and I lost 2nd place by .5 points
END——–

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

When interpreting the rules of a particular league, the first and foremost task is examining YOUR LEAGUE’s written rules or constitution.  If those rules are unambiguous, they control.  Only if they are ambiguous, is it proper to consider past precedent in the league.  So the first step is examining your league rules.  If your league rules are silent, then it is also appropriate to consult past precedent in your league.  If there is no precedent, then it is appropriate to consider external sources, such as NFL league rules, or “common law” established in most fantasy football leagues.

Per your written league rules: “Defense: Interception for TD: 2 points; Fumble for TD: 2 points; Safety: 2 points; INT not returned for TD: .5 points” and “Offense: Kick-Off Returned for TD: 2 points; Punt Returned for TD: 2 points.”  Therefore your league rules are apparently silent on how to score Field Goals returned for touchdowns. 

 Pursuant to the rules of interpretation, the next step is examining whether there is precedent in your league—while these are unwritten rules, they are still implied rules, since presumably the entire league was aware of the scenario and put on notice that the league would handle things this way in the future (unless and until a contrary rule was written into your league’s rules).

It appears undisputed that “last year a team got credit for a missed FG that was returned for TD as an offensive score,” since no reply was submitted in response to your dispute.  Therefor, I have no problem deciding that last year’s precedent controls this year’s situation.  To rule otherwise would allow confusion to reign.

Parenthetically, I note that per NFL official league rules, “Kicks from Scrimmage, Rule 13”:  Defensive team may advance all kicks from scrimmage (including unsuccessful field goal) whether or not ball crosses defensive team’s goal line. Rules pertaining to kicks from scrimmage apply until defensive team gains possession.”  And certainly in most fantasy football leauges (CBSSportsline, Yahoo, ESPN, etc.), the “default” rule (which again, is subject to change in any private league like yours) is that blocked field goals are scored as defensive or special teams touchdowns.  However, as stated above, your league’s precedent controls unless there is a contrary written rule adopted, which apparently never occurred.  Furthermore, you state (again undisputed) that “It was explained on draft night that Punt and Kick TDs count as offense because the other team is trying to tackle them and they have the ball.”

Therefore, considering your league’s undisputed precedent and verbal reinforcement on draft night, in your league, blocked field goals count as offensive scores. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Thank you for using the services of www.FantasyDispute.com

In our 6 member league i was proposed a trade of Randy moss (the other team involved) for C Palmer. I accepted the trade. A few of the other members are disputing the trade saying that it is an unfair trade. I believe that it is a fair trade. I already have t brady and j cutler as my 2 qbs. The other member has t edawrds and j flacco. He does not want to send a response.

I wanted to add that in our league the settings are qb 25 passing yards 1 point. tds 6 points pics -2 points WR 10 receibing yards 1 point, 10 rushing 1 point, tds 6 points the person who wants c palmer has trent edwards and joe flacco on his roster already. Our league uses a 2 qb 3 wr system. Its on yahoo on a head 2 head system.

THE JUDGE RULES AS FOLLOWS:

The proposed trade is Randy Moss for Carson Palmer.  Moss has 165 receiving yards and no touch downs.  Palmer has thrown for 432 yards, with 3 touchdowns versus 4 interceptions. 

Currently, Moss is only in the top 25 among wide receivers in fantasy points, which is much lower than his projections.  But a close look reveals he has been targeted 23 times, which is in the top 5.  I think that is a better measure of his future value the rest of the season.

Palmer is currently only in the top 20 among quarterbacks, but he is showing signs of improvement after a horrible week 1, and a decent week 2 with 3 touchdowns. 

I’d rather be the team getting Moss in this trade, but that’s not the issue.  The question is whether there is any evidence of collusion between fantasy teams or if the trade is so one-sided as to upset the balance of the league.  No evidence of collusion has been offered, and after only two weeks, there is no way either team is out of contention and can be accused of “dumping” all their best players.  Teams must be allowed to take chances, and it is possible that Moss will regress to his Raider-days statistics, and Palmer will go on a tear.

The trade should be allowed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.