Kansas City Ineligible Player Appeal

[zaynzk]

KCC has appealed their recent suspension for a code of conduct violation. The original punishment can be found here.

KCC was ordered for their GMs to pay a 1M fine and lost a draft pick for submitting a DC with an ineligible 250 TPE QB who was called up midseason. This exceeds current precedent. Head Office stated that, although it is largely found to be an oversight on KCC’s part, there was ample time to correct it, and HO further justified the increased sentence because the precedent does not properly deter the conduct. We disagree.

Precedent is not a cage. If HO identifies the need to change precedential punishment schemes, they have the power to do that. But, suddenly punishing identical conduct more seriously than in the past without notice can be easily interpreted as arbitrary and capricious.


If the basis for the harsher punishment is to deter GMs that may be willing to “pay the price” to win, there is a proper way to do that. A far more appropriate method for rulemaking would be to hand down the appropriate (aka precedential) punishment, but include in the punishment that, for example, all future punishments involving ineligible player violations would receive a fine of __ plus the forfeiting of a draft pick, even if inadvertent. At that point, teams would be on notice of HO’s policy. Alternatively, just like rule changes, announcements could be posted in the offseason so teams are aware of new enforcement guidelines for the upcoming season. Bottom line: HO should announce rule changes before enforcing them, and punishments should rarely, if at all, be retroactively applied.

That said, it is also worth noting that there are numerous examples of far worse conduct that has not resulted in draft forfeiture, including teams outright “gaming the system.” Therefore, if HO intends to rewrite sentencing guidelines, Appeals also recommends that they perform those revisions on a broad scale to ensure there are no scenarios that, as an analogy, has speeding being punished more harshly than murder. This could create additional appealable complications.

TL;DR – Appeals recommends that the draft pick be returned. If HO wants to change precedent, such announcement should be made before new punishments are enforceable. The balance of the punishment falls in line with previous cases and is affirmed.

The vote was unanimous. Tesla recused themselves from the vote.

[jdc4654]

Common Appeals W

[platanocat]

Justice prevailed today.

[McGriddy10]

GG APPEALS TEAM

[TheCC]

Alright who taught zayn all these big words

[electrictree]

 Bottom line: HO should announce rule changes before enforcing them, and punishments should rarely, if at all, be retroactively applied.

That said, it is also worth noting that there are numerous examples of far worse conduct that has not resulted in draft forfeiture, including teams outright “gaming the system.” Therefore, if HO intends to rewrite sentencing guidelines, Appeals also recommends that they perform those revisions on a broad scale to ensure there are no scenarios that, as an analogy, has speeding being punished more harshly than murder. This could create additional appealable complications.

Preach.

[Baron1898]

Alright who taught zayn all these big words

Zayn nervously hiding the dictionary

[TubbyTim69]

HO should require a unanimous vote in order to go away from precedent.

[Kotasa]

W

[Bamford13]

COMMON APPEALS W