The triumvirate has re-convened and deliberated on the appeal filed by defendant Jameson Stelly. First of all, the triumvirate agrees that there should be more definition to the constitution as the clarity of the roster requirements in Article VI is translucent at best.
The triumvirate disagrees that the “intent of the rule” was to punish “absentee” owners and instead re-affirms that it was primarily written in the constitution as a matter of fairness to the every week’s matchup and therefore fairness to all owners in all games.
Furthermore, the triumvirate finds it interesting to reference “absenteeism” in light of this year’s draft in which the defendant was not present.
Per his second point about the penalization of not filling a roster, the basis for Mr. Stelly’s argument is that deducting 10 points from the week in question’s score provides another team an unfair advantage. This is simply not the case as a penalty is about penalizing an individual for lack of following a particular rule regardless of what the consequential outcome may be.
As an example, had Mr. Stelly’s team scored 1.6 more points in week 14, the 10 point deduction would not have made any difference in the playoff seedings. But, this is purely conjecture and does nothing to provide any reasoning for NOT penalizing an owner when a violation of a rule exists.
Therefore to reiterate. A penalty should always be applied when any owner violates a rule in which the constitution requires a penalty regardless of the impact of further consequences.
The triumvirate remains in their original decision to deduct 10 points from Jameson Stelly’s week 14 score.