Filed by defendant Jameson Stelly.
The intent of the rule is to safe guard the leagues integrity for an absentee owner and if an owner is absentee, they be punished. While I agree with a safeguard for integrity purposes, this rule does not provide the security as it intends.
Firstly, the rule is there to penalize and an absent owner. If an owner is absent, not only do they lose out on the points of the player that would be in that spot, an additional 10 points is an added negative impact. I would argue I am not an absentee owner as I have only done this a couple times over the 12 years I’ve been in this league. Some circumstantial grace should be permitted.
Secondly, another intent is to ensure that the opposing manager does not receive any unfair advantage by gaining a win due to a team having “empty” slots. I agree with the intent; however, what if that manager in fact wins and the opposing team doesn’t receive any advantage from the manager having an empty slot or nonactive player? In my case, I still won and no benefit was given to Scott. But, now Scott and other players are benefiting and receiving an unfair advantage as a result of the -10 impact. This results in multiple players receiving an unfair advantage when the rule was created to protect against that very thing.
Lastly, the negative 10 point impact does not provide sufficient protection against a manager playing a nonactive player. If a manager is absentee and they lose, giving the opposing manager a win, the -10 points means absolutely nothing, no impact on the result to the record of the teams.
I understand the decision given the rules as they stand so I am not necessarily arguing the decision but I am arguing the structure and intent behind the rule. I don’t consider myself an absentee owner and shouldn’t be treated as such. Not only should the rule be reviewed but the determination should also consider my commentary above and reconsider the ruling.