This is an appeal based on a decision made by Head Office prohibiting a position switch done by user, WannaBeFinn (WBF) on the grounds that the user’s ISFL team was never notified as required by the Rulebook and the user was called up to the ISFL on the eve of a game. The grounds for appeal is that the user’s contract was voided due to the user not being tagged in the contract post, and a separate complaint is that the user should be allowed to continue to play in the DSFL at their new position until the matter was adjudicated by Appeals.
Although Appeals Team rendered a decision on this matter quite a long time ago, a decision was not posted because the subsequent trade rendered much of the appeal as moot. Because there is clearly still drama swirling about, the Appeals Team has elected to release their decision anyway.
Appeals Team members Laser and JKortesi81 have recused themselves from voting and discussion.
The following are the Appeals Team findings, which were unanimous:
1) To the Appeals Team knowledge, a pending appeal has never placed a stay on an active Head Office decision, and there is no present intent to change that. Therefore, Head Office decisions should be complied with unless and until they are overturned in an appeal.
2) ISFL teams may call up DSFL players whenever they want.
3) WannaBeFinn accepted the contract. The rule that he needs to be tagged in the post is in order to ensure the player is aware of the contract and can reply to it. He did. There is no material, adverse impact because the contract was missing the tag when WBF clearly responded to the contract already. He did not need to re-accept it because no one was prejudiced by the contract in its original form.
4) That being said, even if it *was* an IA contract, the outcome would not change. His ISFL team still owns his rights (albeit as an inactive player), and they could call him up as an IA player. Section III(D)(1) states “if a player chooses to switch to a new position they must have their GM post in the ISFL GM area that the player is officially switching positions.” Therefore, ISFL teams must still be involved in the position switch process as the rules require since they could still call him up as an IA player. Appeals Team is declining to rule on the rule interpretation. Even if the interpretation is that the ISFL GM just needs to be notified of the switch (as opposed to approve/deny), the rules were still broken, and Head Office's decision is upheld, so it does not change the result in this case.
Because the user was traded and the matter was resolved, no further action is necessary. This opinion is advisory only.
(Post Edited for Clarification on Ruling)
Although Appeals Team rendered a decision on this matter quite a long time ago, a decision was not posted because the subsequent trade rendered much of the appeal as moot. Because there is clearly still drama swirling about, the Appeals Team has elected to release their decision anyway.
Appeals Team members Laser and JKortesi81 have recused themselves from voting and discussion.
The following are the Appeals Team findings, which were unanimous:
1) To the Appeals Team knowledge, a pending appeal has never placed a stay on an active Head Office decision, and there is no present intent to change that. Therefore, Head Office decisions should be complied with unless and until they are overturned in an appeal.
2) ISFL teams may call up DSFL players whenever they want.
3) WannaBeFinn accepted the contract. The rule that he needs to be tagged in the post is in order to ensure the player is aware of the contract and can reply to it. He did. There is no material, adverse impact because the contract was missing the tag when WBF clearly responded to the contract already. He did not need to re-accept it because no one was prejudiced by the contract in its original form.
4) That being said, even if it *was* an IA contract, the outcome would not change. His ISFL team still owns his rights (albeit as an inactive player), and they could call him up as an IA player. Section III(D)(1) states “if a player chooses to switch to a new position they must have their GM post in the ISFL GM area that the player is officially switching positions.” Therefore, ISFL teams must still be involved in the position switch process as the rules require since they could still call him up as an IA player. Appeals Team is declining to rule on the rule interpretation. Even if the interpretation is that the ISFL GM just needs to be notified of the switch (as opposed to approve/deny), the rules were still broken, and Head Office's decision is upheld, so it does not change the result in this case.
Because the user was traded and the matter was resolved, no further action is necessary. This opinion is advisory only.
(Post Edited for Clarification on Ruling)
![[Image: 2LcBLtz.png]](https://i.imgur.com/2LcBLtz.png)
| 
| 
![[Image: iimage_1.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/718143608955600905/1050233166012616804/iimage_1.png)
![[Image: h5Ta7H1.png]](https://i.imgur.com/h5Ta7H1.png)
![[Image: lnVQJFh.png]](https://i.imgur.com/lnVQJFh.png)
![[Image: RottiSig.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/610574797684080653/777265306702970910/RottiSig.png)
