| |
Recent Rulings |
|
| "We tried putting the argument to a vote but it was a split decision and not everybody voted" |
 |
|
|
Here is an example of a recent dispute and ruling:
Project L wrote:
We have had a dispute in our league. I offered Arrington and T. Green for McNabb and Owens and Ziddy accepted the trade. We are using the Yahoo league so the trade was sent to the league and allowed the league to veto. There was an owner who vetoed the trade because he felt it was too "lopsided", which I feel should be irrelevant as long as there is no reason to believe collusion is going on (which it isn't). The other side of it is that we have complex keeper rules including:
-a franchise keeper which can be kept for p to 3 years
-a regular keeper which can be kept for 2 years
-a sleeper keeper which can be kept for up to 2 years but you lose a draft pick (5 rounds higher than the round you got your sleeper keeper).
Here is our scoring:
|
Roster Positions:
|
QB, WR, WR, RB, RB, TE, W/R, K, DEF, D, BN, BN, BN, BN, BN, BN, BN
|
|
|
|
Stat Categories:
|
Passing Yards (25 yards per point; 5 points at 300 yards)
Passing Touchdowns (4)
Interceptions (-2)
Rushing Yards (10 yards per point; 5 points at 100 yards)
Rushing Touchdowns (6)
Reception Yards (10 yards per point; 5 points at 100 yards)
Reception Touchdowns (6)
Return Touchdowns (6)
2-Point Conversions (2)
Fumbles Lost (-2)
Offensive Fumble Return TD (6)
Field Goals 0-19 Yards (3)
Field Goals 20-29 Yards (3)
Field Goals 30-39 Yards (3)
Field Goals 40-49 Yards (4)
Field Goals 50+ Yards (5)
Point After Attempt Made (1)
Sack (1)
Interception (2)
Fumble Recovery (2)
Touchdown (6)
Safety (2)
Block Kick (2)
Points Allowed 0 points (10)
Points Allowed 1-6 points (7)
Points Allowed 7-13 points (4)
Points Allowed 14-20 points (1)
Points Allowed 21-27 points (0)
Points Allowed 28-34 points (-1)
Points Allowed 35+ points (-4)
Tackle Solo (0.5)
Sack (3)
Interception (4)
Fumble Force (2)
Fumble Recovery (2)
Touchdown (6)
Safety (2)
Pass Defended (1)
Block Kick (2)
|
|
|
|
Fractional Points:
|
Yes
|
|
|
|
Negative Points:
|
Yes
|
Yahoo reviewed the trade and vetoed it because they did not realize the value of Arrington as a keeper. Please provide your ruling.
Thanks,
Project L
10/23/05 MFR wrote:
I vetoed this trade for two reasons:
1-This is a ridiculous trade and clearly Project L is taking advantage of Ziddy because he is new to fantasy.
2-They are friends.
Please provide your ruling.
Thanks,
MFR
10/24/05 Fantasy Arbitrator wrote:
In reviewing trades I must look at not only if a trade is lopsided or not but also if the trade is fair and in the best interest of the league. Well this trade is clearly lopsided, but that alone is not reason to veto. MFR also brought up some key elements including the friendship between the owners and the fact that Ziddy is new to fantasy. After confirming both of these items with Project L I looked at the keeper argument and did some research.
Let's assume for the moment that McNabb and Green are close enough to equal value (considering McNabbs injury). That makes the trade really more about Arrington and Owens. Owens value is clear, but Arrington's value is in some question because he is still essentially an unknown. Here are some recent trades involving Arrington (one to one):
With the exception of the Anderson trade, the other players are borderline waiver wire material. Considering his limited market value of Arrington and the suspect circumstances surrounding the transaction, the Fantasy Arbitrator is ruling VETO on this transaction. Please copy and past this e-mail to your leagues message board. Thank you for using the fantasy arbitrator. Email your problem to hotshot012002@yahoo.com. This service is FREE I do it for the love of the sport! Please order a discoiunt item from the arbitrator store.
Sincerely,
Fantasy Arbitrator
|
|
