Loaning players

[andy77725]

I know this has been discussed before, but I am trying to determine what to do about what I see as a clear example of collusion.

This is what happened:
Team 1 has only 1 K and 1 Def, Hartly and N.O. He didn't submit his lineup before the Thursday game, so he traded for a K and Def.

Trade on Friday
Team 1 gives Hartley and N.O.
Team 2 Gives Rackers and NYJ

On Monday they swapped back. Team 1 started Rackers and NYJ this week, and Team 2 started a K and Def not involved in the trade. The points team 1 scored from Rackers and NYJ were enough to give him the win in week 1.

So far what we have done is to remove the points that Rackers and NYJ scored for Team 1, thus giving him a loss in week 1.

What if any further penelty should these two owners be subject to?

[prinefan]

Seems sufficient if accompanied by a warning that any future similar actions would include a more severe penalty (perhaps voted on by the rest of the league-loss of future draft picks perhaps?).

[RobertBobson]

loss of draft pick or monetary fines imo

[Knight_Rider]

I think you handled it as best you could. I give a stern warning that both teams will be kicked out of the league if anything like this happens again. On a side note, find some FF players with a hint of integrity next year. Unless you're in high school playing with your buddies, you're probably too old to be dealing with these sorts of issues.

[WarriorPoet]

Wow, Did they really think they could get away with it? That no one would pay attention, especially whoever played Team1. on Thursday was probably like WOOOHOO, he didn't submit a lineup, easy victory! and then this happening is just obvious. The team one owner is shady, everything here violates the spirit of fair play, and it's an insult to the intelligence of the rest of the league that he would try something like this, I don't know if his "trade partner" was just strung along or what, but The team 1 owner needs to know that behavior like this will NOT be tolerated. you've done a fine job so far, but continue to watch this guy under a microscope, he will try to do something sneaky again.

[Steelersfan]

The actions were very shady indeed but was there are rule in place that prohibited such actions? I've seen a rule that prohibits teams to trade the same players that were involved in a prior deal for a certain amount of weeks (3 for example). If not a simple "collusion" clause in the bylaws would be sufficient...

[stingray_76]

The actions were very shady indeed but was there are rule in place that prohibited such actions? I've seen a rule that prohibits teams to trade the same players that were involved in a prior deal for a certain amount of weeks (3 for example). If not a simple "collusion" clause in the bylaws would be sufficient...

This^^^

in a league where i am a Co-Comish we put in a clause where no team can trade any player away and receive the same player in return from the team the player was originally traded to for a period of 4 weeks. should the original team receive said player by way of trade from a 3rd, 4th, 5th team during that period, this is acceptable.

[WarriorPoet]

we simply don't allow trades after kickoff of the first game every week. Rosters are locked at that point. you can still change lineups, but no adds.

[skip]

We have a "no tradebacks" rule. Our commish has the right to reverse any trades considered to be bad for the league. This is clear and blatant collusion. BOTH owners need to pay some kind of penalty as determined by the league.

[yumbo]

My keeper league has a rule that after a trade, those players can't be traded back to the original teams unless they play a certain amount of games. So as to prevent such happenings.

I think you did the best you could. But, I would have thought that the Commissioner would have wielded his power and reversed the trade right after it was announced and claim it was for the "Best interest of the League". There is no excuse for an owner NOT to set his line-up. It is HIS responsiblity to do it or suffer the consequences. (IE a loss for the week)

You should add a new rule as soon as you can. Use a league vote and decide what the rule should be and when it should be introduced. Either, immediately or after the season.

[meineymoe]

we simply don't allow trades after kickoff of the first game every week. Rosters are locked at that point. you can still change lineups, but no adds.

this. If the player isn't on your team at the first kickoff of the week, you can't add him.

also, I have no trade back rules of 3 or 4 weeks. But only in cases of obvious extreme collusion, like yours, would I enforce it. Then I'd tell the owners to grow up.

-oo-

[rkrazy]

Definitely was some back door planning involved with that deal. Do the two owners know each other? The initial trade in itself isn't an issue (aside from the ridiculous nature of moving the consensus #1 Team D for a minor kicker upgrade). The issue is in the trade back on Monday, which should not have been allowed since the Jets played on Monday. Collusion is hard to prove, but the exact player trade back after the week 1 games and the nature in which this situation came about makes it clear that these two guys worked out some type of arrangement.

Penalties should be defined in your bylaws and they should be harsh, especially if you play for money. Losing the game (and all points scored that week) for both owners is a start. If there is money involved I would allow the league to decide if there needs to be more punishment - Loss of draft pick or removal from the league with no reimbursement.

[BradyT]

Taking the points for this week is a good start.. but normally there has to come more punishment. Loss of draft picks is an idea. In one league I play in, another onwer lost a game on purpose last season in order to get a better draft pick on the long run.. we hammered him a BIG warning and took his 2011 2nd rd pick(which have added value in a big IDP league). It worked well.. he has been a good owner since..