Need Opinions -- Rules Interpretation

[ckrumm24]

Exact wording is below. There is no language re free agents and all free agent pickups are only for the same league year.

1. If a player performs w/I a designated ‘performance metric’ relative to other players at his position w/i one of the last 2 league years of his contract, he will be required to receive a contract cost increase w/ his current owner when his current contract expires if he is to be re-signed as one of the owners 3 exclusive UFA re-sign options.

After my first 3 reads I thought you should fight it, but now I’m quite confident that the word “current” in the phrase “current owner” allows the commissioners’ interpretation to be sound. However, this could definitely be reworded for clarity’s sake.

[Hottoddies]

However you interpret the rules, Hunt's just not worth that kind of extension or all the fuss to get him at a cheaper extension. I would say the heck with him, just throw him back, and let the league reset his value. Some things are just not worth the fight.

[dustyroads]

Just put it to a league vote. The justification can go either way, but the rules should not be that fuzzy. As a commissioner I never like to "punish" league members because I didn't format/present the rules in the proper way. If he really said that the rule should be worded in a different way and it will be changed moving forward, that's acknowledging there is a gray area and he should at the very least be amicable to a league vote for this specific case before making a permanent change to the rules so they are more clear.

[ckrumm24]

Just put it to a league vote. The justification can go either way, but the rules should not be that fuzzy. As a commissioner I never like to "punish" league members because I didn't format/present the rules in the proper way. If he really said that the rule should be worded in a different way and it will be changed moving forward, that's acknowledging there is a gray area and he should at the very least be amicable to a league vote for this specific case before making a permanent change to the rules so they are more clear.

Disagree. The wording is “difficult” but it still allows for the commish to make that ruling. He should change it for clarity, but this shouldn’t go to a vote. It’s a bad precedent to start voting on rules interpretations that aren’t actually 100% ambiguous. If you had some shady bleep commissioner maybe I’d change my mind, but in that case we shouldn’t be playing in that league.

[OhCruelestRanter]

Can you find precedent on any previous one year contract?

[millworkguy]

I think the commish is right in this, and I think the words "of his contract" should be removed. As that would imply that only players given contracts 2 years or longer are subject to this rule, when Hunt had a contract in 2018, and a 2nd contract in 2019. Just because he was released and resigned doesn't negate the fact her was under a contract.

With those 3 words removed for clarity, you have:
1. If a player performs w/I a designated ‘performance metric’ relative to other players at his position w/i one of the last 2 league years, he will be required to receive a contract cost increase w/ his current owner when his current contract expires if he is to be re-signed as one of the owners 3 exclusive UFA re-sign options

[djeternal2]

I think the commish is right in this, and I think the words "of his contract" should be removed. As that would imply that only players given contracts 2 years or longer are subject to this rule, when Hunt had a contract in 2018, and a 2nd contract in 2019. Just because he was released and resigned doesn't negate the fact her was under a contract.

With those 3 words removed for clarity, you have:
1. If a player performs w/I a designated ‘performance metric’ relative to other players at his position w/i one of the last 2 league years, he will be required to receive a contract cost increase w/ his current owner when his current contract expires if he is to be re-signed as one of the owners 3 exclusive UFA re-sign options

But that doesn't make any logical sense. For a real world situation it would be like Player A signed a contract in 2018 with the Vikings with certain performance bonuses that would apply to his 2019 salary and then hit those bonuses. Then the offseason between 2018 & 2019 season was cut by the Vikings and signed during the 2019 season. Based on your interpretation the performance bonuses would apply on a wholly different contract with a different team. Unless I'm not understanding what you are saying.

[millworkguy]

I think the commish is right in this, and I think the words "of his contract" should be removed. As that would imply that only players given contracts 2 years or longer are subject to this rule, when Hunt had a contract in 2018, and a 2nd contract in 2019. Just because he was released and resigned doesn't negate the fact her was under a contract.

With those 3 words removed for clarity, you have:
1. If a player performs w/I a designated ‘performance metric’ relative to other players at his position w/i one of the last 2 league years, he will be required to receive a contract cost increase w/ his current owner when his current contract expires if he is to be re-signed as one of the owners 3 exclusive UFA re-sign options

But that doesn't make any logical sense. For a real world situation it would be like Player A signed a contract in 2018 with the Vikings with certain performance bonuses that would apply to his 2019 salary and then hit those bonuses. Then the offseason between 2018 & 2019 season was cut by the Vikings and signed during the 2019 season. Based on your interpretation the performance bonuses would apply on a wholly different contract with a different team. Unless I'm not understanding what you are saying.

This isnt the real world. Its fantasy football, where hunt could be on a $1 contract for 6 years as a waiver add. As we are in fantasy football, the rule is designed to pay people according to their worth (similar to a hold out clause) he performed as a top ten talent, and regardless of what someone was able to acquire him on waivers for, in order to franchise him, he gets top 10 money. Otherwise he goes back in the pool, and all teams get a chance to sign him (likely for less, based on character concerns)

[djeternal2]

I think the commish is right in this, and I think the words "of his contract" should be removed. As that would imply that only players given contracts 2 years or longer are subject to this rule, when Hunt had a contract in 2018, and a 2nd contract in 2019. Just because he was released and resigned doesn't negate the fact her was under a contract.

With those 3 words removed for clarity, you have:
1. If a player performs w/I a designated ‘performance metric’ relative to other players at his position w/i one of the last 2 league years, he will be required to receive a contract cost increase w/ his current owner when his current contract expires if he is to be re-signed as one of the owners 3 exclusive UFA re-sign options

But that doesn't make any logical sense. For a real world situation it would be like Player A signed a contract in 2018 with the Vikings with certain performance bonuses that would apply to his 2019 salary and then hit those bonuses. Then the offseason between 2018 & 2019 season was cut by the Vikings and signed during the 2019 season. Based on your interpretation the performance bonuses would apply on a wholly different contract with a different team. Unless I'm not understanding what you are saying.

This isnt the real world. Its fantasy football, where hunt could be on a $1 contract for 6 years as a waiver add. As we are in fantasy football, the rule is designed to pay people according to their worth (similar to a hold out clause) he performed as a top ten talent, and regardless of what someone was able to acquire him on waivers for, in order to franchise him, he gets top 10 money. Otherwise he goes back in the pool, and all teams get a chance to sign him (likely for less, based on character concerns)

Well from my understanding on what I've heard about salary cap leagues the whole reason for contracts & a salary cap is to be even more similar to the NFL so why wouldn't you tailor the rules the same way?

[millworkguy]

But that doesn't make any logical sense. For a real world situation it would be like Player A signed a contract in 2018 with the Vikings with certain performance bonuses that would apply to his 2019 salary and then hit those bonuses. Then the offseason between 2018 & 2019 season was cut by the Vikings and signed during the 2019 season. Based on your interpretation the performance bonuses would apply on a wholly different contract with a different team. Unless I'm not understanding what you are saying.

This isnt the real world. Its fantasy football, where hunt could be on a $1 contract for 6 years as a waiver add. As we are in fantasy football, the rule is designed to pay people according to their worth (similar to a hold out clause) he performed as a top ten talent, and regardless of what someone was able to acquire him on waivers for, in order to franchise him, he gets top 10 money. Otherwise he goes back in the pool, and all teams get a chance to sign him (likely for less, based on character concerns)

Well from my understanding on what I've heard about salary cap leagues the whole reason for contracts & a salary cap is to be even more similar to the NFL so why wouldn't you tailor the rules the same way?

That's what this rule does.

In the real word, an agent goes around contacting all 32 teams, and getting the best deal for their client. in fantasy we have blind bid waivers where you can get players for dirt cheap. The OP got hunt dirt cheap, and their waivers are set up so that you cant ruin the balance by then giving him a 7 yr deal. It forces waiver adds back into the pool, and the free market to set his contract price (unless like nfl franchise rules) you want to pay an extremely high salary to keep them off the market(Franchise Player)

[OhCruelestRanter]

I think the commish is right in this, and I think the words "of his contract" should be removed. As that would imply that only players given contracts 2 years or longer are subject to this rule, when Hunt had a contract in 2018, and a 2nd contract in 2019. Just because he was released and resigned doesn't negate the fact her was under a contract.

With those 3 words removed for clarity, you have:
1. If a player performs w/I a designated ‘performance metric’ relative to other players at his position w/i one of the last 2 league years, he will be required to receive a contract cost increase w/ his current owner when his current contract expires if he is to be re-signed as one of the owners 3 exclusive UFA re-sign options

You’re saying the commissioner is right and the written rule is wrong, which is just a value judgement. You’re not interpreting what you think the rule should be rather than what the rule is, even admitting that the rule needs to be changed.

The rule is clear. By not letting him sign Hunt at the rate specified in the rule, he’s setting a precedent that bylaws can just be changed when any owner finds themself in too advantageous of a position. If the league wants to change the rule, fine, but then it should happen going forward, not to Kareem Hunt.

[millworkguy]

I think the commish is right in this, and I think the words "of his contract" should be removed. As that would imply that only players given contracts 2 years or longer are subject to this rule, when Hunt had a contract in 2018, and a 2nd contract in 2019. Just because he was released and resigned doesn't negate the fact her was under a contract.

With those 3 words removed for clarity, you have:
1. If a player performs w/I a designated ‘performance metric’ relative to other players at his position w/i one of the last 2 league years, he will be required to receive a contract cost increase w/ his current owner when his current contract expires if he is to be re-signed as one of the owners 3 exclusive UFA re-sign options

You’re saying the commissioner is right and the written rule is wrong, which is just a value judgement. You’re not interpreting what you think the rule should be rather than what the rule is, even admitting that the rule needs to be changed.

The rule is clear. By not letting him sign Hunt at the rate specified in the rule, he’s setting a precedent that bylaws can just be changed when any owner finds themself in too advantageous of a position. If the league wants to change the rule, fine, but then it should happen going forward, not to Kareem Hunt.

No, I think the commish is right, and the rule backs him, its just written poorly and 3 words should be removed to make it even simpler.

Fact:
Hunt performed within the given metric within the last 2 years of his contract.

The fact it was over 2 contracts and waived in between those contracts is not defined in the rules as a reason to not follow this rule

[OhCruelestRanter]

I think the commish is right in this, and I think the words "of his contract" should be removed. As that would imply that only players given contracts 2 years or longer are subject to this rule, when Hunt had a contract in 2018, and a 2nd contract in 2019. Just because he was released and resigned doesn't negate the fact her was under a contract.

With those 3 words removed for clarity, you have:
1. If a player performs w/I a designated ‘performance metric’ relative to other players at his position w/i one of the last 2 league years, he will be required to receive a contract cost increase w/ his current owner when his current contract expires if he is to be re-signed as one of the owners 3 exclusive UFA re-sign options

You’re saying the commissioner is right and the written rule is wrong, which is just a value judgement. You’re not interpreting what you think the rule should be rather than what the rule is, even admitting that the rule needs to be changed.

The rule is clear. By not letting him sign Hunt at the rate specified in the rule, he’s setting a precedent that bylaws can just be changed when any owner finds themself in too advantageous of a position. If the league wants to change the rule, fine, but then it should happen going forward, not to Kareem Hunt.

No, I think the commish is right, and the rule backs him, its just written poorly and 3 words should be removed to make it even simpler.

Fact:
Hunt performed within the given metric within the last 2 years of his contract.

The fact it was over 2 contracts and waived in between those contracts is not defined in the rules as a reason to not follow this rule

I think the rule supports the commissioner but also the rule needs to be changed is a hell of a take.

His contract, singular, lasted one year. He did not meet the criteria on that contract. If the rule said contracts or contract(s) then you’d be right.

There’s a more definitive answer though. OP- has anybody been signed to a one year deal AFTER meeting the criteria and then been resigned?

[millworkguy]

You’re saying the commissioner is right and the written rule is wrong, which is just a value judgement. You’re not interpreting what you think the rule should be rather than what the rule is, even admitting that the rule needs to be changed.

The rule is clear. By not letting him sign Hunt at the rate specified in the rule, he’s setting a precedent that bylaws can just be changed when any owner finds themself in too advantageous of a position. If the league wants to change the rule, fine, but then it should happen going forward, not to Kareem Hunt.

No, I think the commish is right, and the rule backs him, its just written poorly and 3 words should be removed to make it even simpler.

Fact:
Hunt performed within the given metric within the last 2 years of his contract.

The fact it was over 2 contracts and waived in between those contracts is not defined in the rules as a reason to not follow this rule

I think the rule supports the commissioner but also the rule needs to be changed is a hell of a take.

His contract, singular, lasted one year. He did not meet the criteria on that contract. If the rule said contracts or contract(s) then you’d be right.

There’s a more definitive answer though. OP- has anybody been signed to a one year deal AFTER meeting the criteria and then been resigned?

"... within 1 of the last 2 league years in his contract"

it says his performance metric is based on the last 2 seasons of work.
It doesn't say for a 1 yr contract it's based on 1 yr of work, and yes, there is an assumption that the player was on a singular contract. But if you read your rules does it refer to all the owners in a male pronoun? Would that mean none of the rules applied to a female owner?

Hopefully if there was a historical occurrence of this the OP would have used that when disagreeing with the commish rather then posting here

I can argue a rule was poorly written but the interpretation of the rule was correct. It's not "one hell of a take" it's the fact we are not lawyers, i've left leagues over poorly executed rules and weak commish trying to appease all

OP - is the commish the same person who founded the league, and wrote the rules

[OhCruelestRanter]

No, I think the commish is right, and the rule backs him, its just written poorly and 3 words should be removed to make it even simpler.

Fact:
Hunt performed within the given metric within the last 2 years of his contract.

The fact it was over 2 contracts and waived in between those contracts is not defined in the rules as a reason to not follow this rule

I think the rule supports the commissioner but also the rule needs to be changed is a hell of a take.

His contract, singular, lasted one year. He did not meet the criteria on that contract. If the rule said contracts or contract(s) then you’d be right.

There’s a more definitive answer though. OP- has anybody been signed to a one year deal AFTER meeting the criteria and then been resigned?

"... within 1 of the last 2 league years in his contract"

it says his performance metric is based on the last 2 seasons of work.
It doesn't say for a 1 yr contract it's based on 1 yr of work, and yes, there is an assumption that the player was on a singular contract. But if you read your rules does it refer to all the owners in a male pronoun? Would that mean none of the rules applied to a female owner?

Hopefully if there was a historical occurrence of this the OP would have used that when disagreeing with the commish rather then posting here

I can argue a rule was poorly written but the interpretation of the rule was correct. It's not "one hell of a take" it's the fact we are not lawyers, i've left leagues over poorly executed rules and weak commish trying to appease all

OP - is the commish the same person who founded the league, and wrote the rules

What you're doing is called making an inference. That means you're guessing that it's based on "one year of work," but you don't know- none of us actually do. What we know is how the rule is written. Based on how the rule is written, it doesn't apply to Hunt.

If they want to change it, great- do it going forward. It's bad enough to play in a league with such poorly written rules, but applying that change to Hunt ex post facto seems even worse.

Also- I thought the comparison to whether or not bylaws mention gender was a grasping, intellectually feeble one, but I figured I'd check. My by-laws actually don't include the words he/him/his except when referring to a player. Maybe we can re-examine that silly suggestion if there's ever a female NFL player.