Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Thread: Weird situation - A trade involves "losing this week's matchup"

  1. #16
    Rep Power
    14

    Dobber Sports Apprentice

    Default Re: Weird situation - A trade involves "losing this week's matchup"

    It’s absolutely collusion. Collusion is not limited to only one side benefiting otherwise it would never happen. The first place team is being “paid” to throw a game. There is no sporting activity where this is acceptable. Being open about it doesn’t make it legal, it just means the participants are stupid.

  2. #17
    snipshow101's Avatar
    snipshow101 is offline
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    20

    Dobber Sports Padawan

    Default Re: Weird situation - A trade involves "losing this week's matchup"

    So I think I agree with the majority that this does constitute collusion as it's not in the spirit of simulating being an NHL GM, so I'll vote against. That being said, I'm leaving it to league vote and not overriding that decision as commisioner if they dont veto it. Everyone is in the group chat, is aware of the situation, and knows how to veto, I'm not going to take sole responsibility for the decision.

    Thanks for all the input

  3. #18
    Rep Power
    18

    Dobber Sports Initiate

    Default Re: Weird situation - A trade involves "losing this week's matchup"

    I liken this to a situation that happened in Spanish premier league soccer this year. A rule changed that allowed the goalie to pass the ball on a goal kick to a teammate in the penalty area. An existing rule allowed the goalie to take ball in hand when a teammate didn't "pass" the ball to him. Basically anything where the ball doesn't come off a teammate's foot is not considered a pass.

    So the goalie flicked the goal kick in the air to the defender's head who then headed it back to the goalie who caught it and took his punt. This effectively turned all goal kicks into goal punts. It wasn't illegal (by the strict interpretation of the rules), but everyone watching it knew it was wrong. The referee told Real Madrid not to do it again and I think a new rule was created in relatively short order.

    I say you cancel the "trade" and make a new rule where a team cannot include the throwing of a matchup in the trade. This is not collusion, but it doesn't feel right either.

    Thanks for sharing - very cool situation. I will be proposing a new rule for next year in the off-season.
    In a 10 league where we start 3C, 3LW, 3RW, 4D and 2 G daily. It is a H2H league - we keep 3 players (1 G max), are allowed a max of 2 keeps for each player. The number in brackets is the number of keeps I have left:

    G, A, +/-, PIMs, PPG, PPA and Shots.
    C - Larkin, Couturier, Kopitar, Cirelli
    LW - OV, Panarin (1), Schenn (C), Ehlers (RW), Kreider
    RW - Kucherov (0), Seguin (C), Palmieri, Voracek, Yamamoto
    D - Yandle, DeAngelo

    W, GAA, SV% and Saves.
    G - Rask, Varlamov, Hart, Mrazek
    IR+ - Tarasenko

  4. #19
    Referee3083's Avatar
    Referee3083 is offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Location
    CA
    Rep Power
    32

    Dobber Sports Stud

    Default Re: Weird situation - A trade involves "losing this week's matchup"

    Let’s not overlook the fact that intentionally benching your team to manipulate the standings (regardless of whether it was a condition of a trade) is never the spirit of the league. You play fantasy hockey to PLAY the game. Whether it’s transparent and communicated to the league or not, You should never be allowed to not field a team in an attempt to alter the standings (or as another example, purposely tank for a higher draft pick).
    12 Team Weekly H2H, Daily Lineups. Keep 7 + 1 Prospect (<164 NHL games).
    Scoring:
    PLAYER: G(3), A(2), D Pts(addt'l 0.7), +/-(0.5), PPP(addt'l 1), SHP(addt'l 0.5), SOG(0.4), BLK(0.8)
    GOALIE: W(2), GA(-1.5), Saves(0.3), SO(3)
    Positions - 3C, 2RW, 2LW, 4D, 2G, 5 Bench, 4 IR, 1 prospect

    C - J Hughes(LW), Hintz, Malkin, Pinto
    LW - M Tkachuk(RW), Robertson
    RW - Rust, Necas, Zuccarello
    D - Makar, Fox, Bouchard, Roy, Krug
    G - Oettinger, Thompson, Wedgewood
    Prospect Keeper - L Hughes(D)
    IR - Hill(G)

    2024 Picks - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

  5. #20
    Location
    Philadelphia area
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Grand Master

    Default Re: Weird situation - A trade involves "losing this week's matchup"

    Quote Originally Posted by snipshow101 View Post
    For what it's worth, my current position is that it's not collusion, because I agree that the definition of collusion is to benefit only one team. But I agree with you that it's terrible for the league overall. My worst fear is that it sets the precedent of borderline playoff teams trading players in exchange for matchup wins. I'm currently scheduled to face the current 8th place team on the last week of the regular season while I'm comfortably in a playoff spot. You could easily see this happening often, and it would change the dynamic of the league.

    I really hate stepping in as commissioner though, I've had overactive commissioners before and it almost never works out
    Bolded point #1: Sadly, you are defining collusion incorrectly. Two teams can most certainly collude to benefit both of them. This is one of those cases.

    Bolded point #2: This will be EXACTLY the precedent that it sets. Basically, if you don't nullify this deal, in my opinion, you should resign as commissioner at the end of the year, due to clearly not being cut out for the job where "hard" ( and this one is really easy, honestly) decisions are needed. I know that sounds really harsh, and well, it is harsh. I stand by it, though some people find that they are better off as part of something league, and not in charge.

    Edit: I posted this after reading your first post, and see that many convinced you that it is in fact collusion. I hope for your league's sake the people involved know to veto this.
    Want a Signature? Go to Settings, and you'll find Edit Signature down the list on the left.

  6. #21
    snipshow101's Avatar
    snipshow101 is offline
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    20

    Dobber Sports Padawan

    Default Re: Weird situation - A trade involves "losing this week's matchup"

    Quote Originally Posted by stevegamer View Post
    This will be EXACTLY the precedent that it sets. Basically, if you don't nullify this deal, in my opinion, you should resign as a commissioner at the end of the year, due to clearly not being cut out for the job where "hard" ( and this one is really easy, honestly) decisions are needed. I know that sounds really harsh, and well, it is harsh. I stand by it, though some people find that they are better off as part of something league, and not in charge.
    Christ bud, relax. It's a "league votes" setting, I'm not overriding the league's decision. I'm not going to step in every time I disagree with a league's decision regardless of how egregious. Stepping in against the league's will is the worst thing you can do as a commissioner, and if that's your opinion then I sincerely hope you're not a commissioner.

  7. #22
    Rep Power
    18

    Dobber Sports Initiate

    Default Re: Weird situation - A trade involves "losing this week's matchup"

    Quote Originally Posted by stevegamer View Post
    Bolded point #1: Sadly, you are defining collusion incorrectly. Two teams can most certainly collude to benefit both of them. This is one of those cases.
    This is not collusion. Collusion is where two teams make a trade and the trade unfairly benefits one of the teams. In this case, the leading team gets a top player and has to throw a matchup. The trailing team probably makes the playoffs because of the 12-0 matchup win and loses their top player. Nothing is really unfair to those two teams. The problem is that throwing a matchup is against the spirit of the league. There are probably no specific rules about it, but everyone knows it shouldn't be done.
    In a 10 league where we start 3C, 3LW, 3RW, 4D and 2 G daily. It is a H2H league - we keep 3 players (1 G max), are allowed a max of 2 keeps for each player. The number in brackets is the number of keeps I have left:

    G, A, +/-, PIMs, PPG, PPA and Shots.
    C - Larkin, Couturier, Kopitar, Cirelli
    LW - OV, Panarin (1), Schenn (C), Ehlers (RW), Kreider
    RW - Kucherov (0), Seguin (C), Palmieri, Voracek, Yamamoto
    D - Yandle, DeAngelo

    W, GAA, SV% and Saves.
    G - Rask, Varlamov, Hart, Mrazek
    IR+ - Tarasenko

  8. #23
    Referee3083's Avatar
    Referee3083 is offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Location
    CA
    Rep Power
    32

    Dobber Sports Stud

    Default Re: Weird situation - A trade involves "losing this week's matchup"

    Quote Originally Posted by anthonybeaty View Post
    The problem is that throwing a matchup is against the spirit of the league. There are probably no specific rules about it, but everyone knows it shouldn't be done.
    Dead on. And that’s where the commissioner has to step in and make the hard decisions. Sometimes something is so egregious that the commissioner needs to overrule everyone. But there are ways to do this. Don’t just reverse the trade. Reverse it and send a thoughtfully crafted email to the league explaining your reasoning. The long term health of the league is so important and the precedent this trade sets should be a focus of the message. Maybe follow it up by having a league wide conversation about this over the off-season to discuss if this is the type of activity the league truly wants to allow.
    12 Team Weekly H2H, Daily Lineups. Keep 7 + 1 Prospect (<164 NHL games).
    Scoring:
    PLAYER: G(3), A(2), D Pts(addt'l 0.7), +/-(0.5), PPP(addt'l 1), SHP(addt'l 0.5), SOG(0.4), BLK(0.8)
    GOALIE: W(2), GA(-1.5), Saves(0.3), SO(3)
    Positions - 3C, 2RW, 2LW, 4D, 2G, 5 Bench, 4 IR, 1 prospect

    C - J Hughes(LW), Hintz, Malkin, Pinto
    LW - M Tkachuk(RW), Robertson
    RW - Rust, Necas, Zuccarello
    D - Makar, Fox, Bouchard, Roy, Krug
    G - Oettinger, Thompson, Wedgewood
    Prospect Keeper - L Hughes(D)
    IR - Hill(G)

    2024 Picks - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

  9. #24
    Rep Power
    14

    Dobber Sports Apprentice

    Default Re: Weird situation - A trade involves "losing this week's matchup"

    Imagine a scenario where an NHL team needs a win to make the playoffs on the last day of the season and sends a draft pick to their opponent to throw the game. Off the opening faceoff everyone steps aside and allows a goal into the empty net. Then 60 minutes of skating aimlessly in circles. The goalies sit on the ice. Or perhaps in the dressing room, I don’t know if you are required to have six guys on the ice or not. What would the NHL do?

    The trade is fine. It’s throwing the game that’s the problem.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •