As a commish, how do you handle loopholes?

[fantasyhockeygeek]

I ask this question for two reasons:

1. I'm the commish of a league, and one of the GMs has found a loophole that, while against the intent of the rules, isn't against the rules as they are written.
2. I'm in a league where I've found a similar loophole that I wish to exploit.

How do you deal with that? Go by the letter of the rules, change them in the offseason to close it up (provided that's what the league wants), or go by the intent of the rules, even if it isn't syntactically or logically correct to do so?

Anybody feel like a good discussion?

HPG

[NYR9394]

Can you explain what the loophole is? I think you'll get some great answers if we can find out what is in question.

[smack]

Without knowing the loophole, I have to say that like it or not, it's within the rules. I've seen in leagues where a GM uses loopholes and gained huge from it. I personally didn't like it but if it's within the rules, you got to let it go and change the rules after the year. I know that might not be popular, but if it's wrong, it should have been in the rules and now it can be put in after the year.

Was it a loophole that was extremely difficult to think of and the other GM's are just upset they didn't think of it first or was it one everybody knew was wrong and just passed on it for reasons of ethics.

[mister_mcgoo]

Without knowing the loophole, I have to say that like it or not, it's within the rules. I've seen in leagues where a GM uses loopholes and gained huge from it. I personally didn't like it but if it's within the rules, you got to let it go and change the rules after the year. I know that might not be popular, but if it's wrong, it should have been in the rules and now it can be put in after the year.

Was it a loophole that was extremely difficult to think of and the other GM's are just upset they didn't think of it first or was it one everybody knew was wrong and just passed on it for reasons of ethics.

I'm with Smack on this one, you generally have to wait until the offseason to fix something like this. The only exception I could see would be something where the loophole was partially (but not explicitly) addressed in the language in the rules, then you could submit it to the league for a vote. Even so, if the vote passes, if its a H2H format what I'd do is wait til a full cycle completes (i.e. everyone has played everyone else) then implement it.

[metaldude26]

Whatever the rules indicate that's what you need to abide. If it's an issue then address it in the offseason with a new rule change.

As commissioner I wouldn't be abusing any loopholes. You are the one who wrote up the rules and are in charge of making the league the best it can be. So that comes off as very unethical for you to abuse loopholes in the rules you personally wrote. Kind of like the whole deal with fine print on contracts and stuff. I mean we don't really expect people to read and completely understand all the ins and outs of that stuff, so if you were to exploit it, it would kind of be like you left that loophole there for that exact reason.

[joos]

I've had a few scenarios where loopholes have been found in my salary cap league. The comish dealt with them in a few ways.

Firstly, the loophole was brought to everyones intention. Then there was a "vote" or discussion on what was to be done. Either allow the one loophole to go through and then close it off, or just undo whatever the loophole was and then close it off. Depending on whether it was a big loophole or small, I think it should always be somewhat democratic with obviously the comish getting the final word.

If the loop is somewhat minor, I would let it pass but make sure the loophole is closed after (gives the person who found the loophole some credit). If its big, revert whatever the loophole was and close it.

[fantasyhockeygeek]

It has to do with ambiguous rules around farm elilgibility and scooping up top prospects before they've been drafted. It happens that it's the same loophole, because I'm a lazy commish and copied some rules from one league that I'm in to another I'm running.

Here we go with the rules themselves:

6. Each farm team may consist of any a maximum of 6 players at any position.

a. Farm players do not count towards scoring in any way. Think of them like assets on your AHL team that you can call up at any time to your pro team.

b. To be eligible for your farm team a player must have played fewer than 100 NHL games. Once a player on your farm reaches 100 NHL games played he must be moved to your pro roster or released to waivers.

c. Each farm player may be called up to your pro team at any time during the regular season or the offseason. However, because we are using FANTRAX’s scoring system, you may want to make sure that FANTRAX has your player in their system before you call him up. If FANTRAX doesn’t have him in their system, he will not be able to accumulate points for you.

d. To add a farm team player to your pro roster you must either drop or demote a player from your pro team to make space.

i. If the player is dropped he is put on waivers and can be claimed by any other manager once he clears waivers (the waiver period is 2 days).
ii. If the player is demoted he is placed on the farm team. To qualify for demotion a player must have played fewer than 100 NHL games.

e. There are three ways to add players to your farm:

i. Draft them or trade for them.
ii. Demote them from your pro team (see rule above)
iii. Two ‘free’ free agent signings per season. At any point during the active season you may add a free agent to your team (either to an empty spot, or by dropping an existing farm player first)

Year 1 Farm Draft
10. In the inaugural year of the league we will conduct an online draft of 6 rounds for our farm draft.

a. Players are only eligible if they are drafted by an NHL franchise.

b. For the farm draft players are only eligible to be selected if they have played in fewer than 100 NHL games. By extension players who have not yet played an NHL game are therefore valid to be selected in the farm draft.

c. The farm draft also a proceeds in a ‘snake’ format meaning that it goes from 1st thru 12th then loops back from 12th to 1st (13th pick overall back to 24th overall) until complete.

d. Draft order will be the reverse of the Year 1 Pro Draft.

e. Each manager will be given 5 mins to make their selection but please be prepared and pick as quickly as possible.

So the loophole here:

Section 10 explicitly states that as part of the inaugural farm draft, a player's NHL rights must be owned in order to be drafted to a farm team.

Section 6, which presumably applies to the ongoing running of the league once the inaugural draft is complete, has no such provision. Thus, since we're in the ongoing running of the league, one should be able to add a desirable prospect (let's call him Taylor H... no, that's too obvious, let's call him T Hall) as one of the two "free" farm FA adds referenced in rule 6 e (iii).

What do you guys think? How would you handle it as a commish, and how would you handle it as a loophole-seeker? Why?

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not looking to exploit the rule in the league where I'm commish.

[metaldude26]

I think that one falls under what McGoo said about it being partially covered in your rules. I mean the obvious point was to keep nondrafted players out of the league until they are drafted.

That one I think you take it to the league and have a vote. It will become obvious that it's just a poorly worded constitution and that it should be amended to maintain the sanctity of the league and the intent of the rules set in place.

That's some a very grave bit of attempted abuse on that person's part. I'm all for finding a loophole such as that and pointing it out and getting it corrected and clarified, not abused. Who would want to participate/win a pool because you abused a loophole? Especially one like that.

[andrewklassen]

Couple of thoughts...

What year are you in [assuming it's not the inaugural season]? I'm wondering if precedent can be used as a reason to not allow the acquisition. Meaning, nobody else has taken advantage of the system b/c it's been assumed [correctly so] that to be eligible at all a player must have his rights owned by an NHL club.

Personally, I don't like the Comish making arbitrary decisions on behalf of the league. With this in mind I think you have two choices: a] let it go this season and clarify it for next year, or b] take the loophole to the entire league and get everyone to vote on it.

I like the vote myself as the intent of the rule is not hard to assertain. If a rule is genuinely ambiguous fine let it go and fix it next year. When someone feels they have to look for ways to twist to their advantage rules that are quite clear if improperly worded [or worded in the wrong section] put it to a vote.

EDIT...I wound up echoing 'metaldude's' answer almost verbatim. Sorry I was typing a few minutes behind.

[metaldude26]

EDIT...I wound up echoing 'metaldude's' answer almost verbatim. Sorry I was typing a few minutes behind.

You mean I just Shoelessed you!

[fantasyhockeygeek]

Hmmm... that's an interesting perspective, metaldude (edit: andrewklassen too!).

I'd generally think that a rule is a rule and that it should be amended for the future, but it's hard to handle. I guess a vote is probably the fairest way to go, but I can't really blame the GM for reading the rules closely. No matter the result of the vote, there will be unhappy GMs in the league.

Keep the opinions coming!

[The Comish]

Good post with some great replies.

I'd never let an undrafted player get taken like that. I'd probably use the commish hammer pretty hard on this one, but I would first try to tread lightly and get a consensus.

Call attention to the "intent" of the rule in 10 and tell the guys that it was too expensive to have your lawyers go over every inch of the rule book.

It's clear to me that the intent was that players needed to be at least drafted by an NHL team to be picked up in your league. Yes, it was not picked up until now, but if no one has done it until now, there is still time to nip this in the bud before it gets out of hand.

I like one of the suggestions to take this public and fast. Explain the situation and then explain the intent of the rule(s). Then apologize for not picking it up until now. Put it to a vote and hope everyone does the right thing.

[metaldude26]

Yeah like if that were allowed to happen then mayhem would ensue. If I saw someone grab Taylor Hall, then guess what, Kirill Kabonov and everyone born in 92 and younger I'm signing you right now. And then you wouldn't have an entry draft for like 3 years. Obviously that's out of hand but that's what that is leading up to. And yes I would blame the guy for trying to abuse the rule rather than simply bringing it to your attention, very underhanded move IMO and it would seriously jeopardize his place in the league, if I were the commish.

[strider2k2]

Usually I tend to go with the wait until the offseason approach, but in this case I think I'd go ahead and close this one now for a couple of reasons.

1 - The adding of Taylor Hall to a farm team does not directly impact team's this year. The reason why most people wait is because you don't want to be in a situation where you have to try and undo any number of little consequences of the add/trade/whatever. This isn't the case here. Taylor Hall is not going to contribute anything to this guy's team this year.

2 - By waiting until the offseason you give team's time to add other undrafted blue chippers, which in turn lessens the value of the upcoming draft. That top overall pick, and the draft in general, is going to be less fun if the top guy getting drafted is really the fifth best player coming out.

3 - The way the rule is written, though not expressly stating, implies that farm hands should be property of an NHL team. It has always been my understanding in leagues like this that there is a progression from entry draft to farm team to active roster. Since it is usually assumed that a player should be drafted to the farm it seems shady to assume that there is a large pool of top end prospects that can be added, but not drafted.

That's just my two cents, but I hope it helps.

[mister_mcgoo]

haha interesting in that this is actually the league I commish! This is the first year of the league and as you guys know from starting new leagues with new rules, its near impossible to get it right in one take.

You're right HPG, it doesn't spell it out in explicit detail in both sections, only under the section for the inaugural draft but I'm sure you agree that with all the discussions we had on this and the intent we were going for with the rules was to keep the prospect draft each year for prospects. So while I think you have a good argument to snag Hall given the way the rules read, it would definitely cause a huge stink and backlash among the GMs and would not be good for the league as a whole. Either way I will defer to the league for a vote, since it hasn't yet happened its a voteable tweak