BB2016 Rules - Seasons Completed start at zero or one?

[Jorgen_CAB]

Then tell them what it is! And the fact that they don't know what it is doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of rules which require clarification.

allot of people will not read the rules as literally as you do and instead go by what the text infer

First, I think you are making assumptions about how people read the rules - some will read one way, others will read another. That simply shows that clarity is needed.
Second, we infer and the rules imply. You are inferring 2 seasons, the rules do not imply it. In fact, they fairly clearly state when you check (first part of Downtime) and when you add one to the number (last part of Downtime) - it states quite clearly that you "add 1 to the number of seasons they have completed" at the redrafting stage, yet you are somehow concluding that one should be added before that stage.

The reason is that it make perfectly logical sense to do it that way.

It makes perfectly logical sense to roll for the pass before the interception, and yet...
I have to ask, though: why is it illogical that a player should want to retire after 3 instead of 2 seasons? Seems to me the number of seasons is arbitrary.

I don't agree that it is the same as intercepting a pass. The word they use is two seasons but the mechanic make it three... this is clearly different from the interception mechanic which never state one thing and do another with the mechanic in that way. It is only same in that it is illogical.

I still believe that the intent is for it to be two seasons and not three. I firmly believe that they just did not consider the ramification of how it work as worded if rules lawyered.

In my opinion they should have clearly explained that a player only roll once three seasons have passed since that is when they completed two seasons (first season never counts). Because currently it make no sense and not in the way that a pass work, this is much worse. But as I said, I don't think they did becasue it was never the intention.

I can be wrong... until the matter is cleared I will advocate two season and not three. I see the start of the Downtown phase as the off-season which is in between two seasons thus I add one to the value on the roster when I roll for the WTR. That is how I interpret the rules as written.

Why mention the number of complete seasons at all, it just confuses the matter. They should just have stuck with roll less than the value in Completed Season on the roster. But I don't think they actually intended it this way... but again I can be wrong.

[dode74]

The word they use is two seasons but the mechanic make it three...

The wording makes it three. That's the point.

I see the start of the Downtown phase as the off-season which is in between two seasons thus I add one to the value on the roster when I roll for the WTR. That is how I interpret the rules as written.

Then you're doing something which is not written: it clearly states when you add one to the value and it is not when you roll for WTR. You can house rule it all you like, but it's quite clear what is written.

In my opinion they should have clearly explained that a player only roll once three seasons have passed since that is when they completed two seasons (first season never counts).

First season does count. It's the last one played which has not yet been "completed" until Downtime is over.

[Jorgen_CAB]

The word they use is two seasons but the mechanic make it three...

The wording makes it three. That's the point.

I see the start of the Downtown phase as the off-season which is in between two seasons thus I add one to the value on the roster when I roll for the WTR. That is how I interpret the rules as written.

Then you're doing something which is not written: it clearly states when you add one to the value and it is not when you roll for WTR. You can house rule it all you like, but it's quite clear what is written.

In my opinion they should have clearly explained that a player only roll once three seasons have passed since that is when they completed two seasons (first season never counts).

First season does count. It's the last one played which has not yet been "completed" until Downtime is over.

That is how I read it and that is the problem. It is pretty clear from the book when you read in other places that Downtown phase is outside the season so it is completed.

You may read that it requires three seasons, I don't until it is cleared up. Whether I use it as a house rule or not is beside the point... I'm interested to know their actual intent.

First or last season is just wordplay... I understand it is the current season that does not count.

[Darkson]

After this thread I for one am glad I'm sticking to the CRP.

[dode74]

That is how I read it and that is the problem. It is pretty clear from the book when you read in other places that Downtown phase is outside the season so it is completed.

You may read that it requires three seasons, I don't until it is cleared up. Whether I use it as a house rule or not is beside the point... I'm interested to know their actual intent.

First or last season is just wordplay... I understand it is the current season that does not count.

Certainly it's a problem that people like you are misreading it. It is quite clear when the WTR roll happens, and equally clear when you add one to seasons completed: you add one after the WTR roll is made. You're doing something the rulebook does not say to do because you think it makes sense instead of reading the actual rules.

I've already linked to you the best response we have regarding intent.

[CyberedElf]

it clearly states when you add one to the value and it is not when you roll for WTR. You can house rule it all you like, but it's quite clear what is written.

It clearly states when the value on the roster records the change. It is not a good argument, but it can be argued that that is not the same as when the value changes. If I was required to play as written, I agree with Dode. I think that "off-season" means the previous season ended and has been completed. Especially since this matches with the most expected meaning of "For each player on your roster that has completed two seasons." I think the value has increased at the beginning of the off-season, but they didn't tell us to record the change until the end of the off-season.
As pointed out, leagues are not required to play as written. The rules specifically allow variations. (I consider any variation from the rules books suggestions or even specifying optional rules to be house rules.) My league is democratic, I doubt anyone will vote for the change in value at the end of season (except for pixel hugging reasons). But, I will have the issue come up for discussion because I think it does need clarification.

[dode74]

It clearly states when the value on the roster records the change. It is not a good argument, but it can be argued that that is not the same as when the value changes.

No, it states when the value changes. The Redrafting phase states you should "add 1 to the number of seasons they have completed". Note there is no mention of the roster but a direct reference to "the number of seasons they have completed". That is when the value "the number of seasons they have completed" changes. That same phrasing is used in the section about WTR: "if you score less than the number of seasons they have completed".

[Jorgen_CAB]

It clearly states when the value on the roster records the change. It is not a good argument, but it can be argued that that is not the same as when the value changes.

No, it states when the value changes. The Redrafting phase states you should "add 1 to the number of seasons they have completed". Note there is no mention of the roster but a direct reference to "the number of seasons they have completed". That is when the value "the number of seasons they have completed" changes. That same phrasing is used in the section about WTR: "if you score less than the number of seasons they have completed".

I agree with CyberedElf assessment. The value changes when the season ends and is now completed, the refrense in re-draft is a reminder to increase the value since it tells you to copy the line... nothing else.

It is clear to me that off-season is after the season ended and by that all players completed the season. That is how I understand it.

I do agree that you can view it your way as well, i just think it is the wrong way to interpret the rules.

Per definition (your definition) you redraft the player from the "last season" and since the season (according to you) has not yet ended you better get an old roster from last season then. This is in the rules before you change the completed season box. That is if you read the rules as written and the season has not ended yet. When does the season end, before or after that line in the rulebook?

[dode74]

When does the season end, before or after that line in the rulebook?

Not relevant for anything other than your strawman about old seasons' rosters.

What is relevant is when you add one to "the number of seasons they have completed" and when you roll against it. You roll against it before it is changed.

[Jorgen_CAB]

When does the season end, before or after that line in the rulebook?

Not relevant for anything other than your strawman about old seasons' rosters.

What is relevant is when you add one to "the number of seasons they have completed" and when you roll against it. You roll against it before it is changed.

Why is that a Strawman, you keep a separate roster each season.

According to the rules as written if the season has NOT ENDED then LAST SEASON is the season before the CURRENT one. You re-draft players from that season. That IS playing as it is written!?!

Anything else is house rules...

I understand your position but simply don't agree with it.

[dode74]

It's a strawman because it's not the argument I am making, it is one you are making to try to disprove the one I am making but is not actually relevant to it.

The question is what is the number the WTR roll must be below in order for the player to have failed that roll?, and the answer is "the number of seasons they have completed". The consequent question is when does that number change?, and the answer is "in the Redrafting phase".

[Jorgen_CAB]

It's a strawman because it's not the argument I am making, it is one you are making to try to disprove the one I am making but is not actually relevant to it.

The question is what is the number the WTR roll must be below in order for the player to have failed that roll?, and the answer is "the number of seasons they have completed". The consequent question is when does that number change?, and the answer is "in the Redrafting phase".

No... it IS relevant because it supports my interpretation... that is why it is important to understand how the rules are written. It would obviously be stupid to believe that it would work like that because it could not.

I simply don't agree you need to change the value in the roster for the roll to use the new value. But I do AGREE you can make that case... in this case its not the only case. That is why it needs be officially clarified.

[CyberedElf]

Context:

Copy across their entire row from your old roster, including any Niggling Injuries, Star Player points, and whether they want to retire, and add 1 to the number of seasons they have completed.

If you read the entire sentence, it does say it is talking about the roster. That quote is about the value on the roster changing. The value is never mentioned changing anywhere else though, hence, I acknowledge my interpretation is not literal and would be a house rule. Your interpretation is literal without adding external opinions of logic or "common sense." I respect and approve that stance, as those opinions are subjective. My opinion is that the literal interpretation is not what was intended, even after reading James' response. So, I will encourage my league to house rule it.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Context:

Copy across their entire row from your old roster, including any Niggling Injuries, Star Player points, and whether they want to retire, and add 1 to the number of seasons they have completed.

If you read the entire sentence, it does say it is talking about the roster. That quote is about the value on the roster changing. The value is never mentioned changing anywhere else though, hence, I acknowledge my interpretation is not literal and would be a house rule. Your interpretation is literal without adding external opinions of logic or "common sense." I respect and approve that stance, as those opinions are subjective. My opinion is that the literal interpretation is not what was intended, even after reading James' response. So, I will encourage my league to house rule it.

Yes.. that is pretty much my reasoning as well.

The problem is that many people will not read that literally and I also don't think the literal interpretation is correct. There is no wrong in house ruling it either.

Third party ruling on the matter is not enough... I need an official ruling of the intent in order to change my stance.

[dode74]

it IS relevant because it supports my interpretation

But it is NOT relevant to my interpretation. You are using an arbitrary and undefined "season end" to make your point, whereas I am not. If I don't have to invoke some arbitrary, unrecorded thing like "end of season" to support my argument then I am reliant on one less thing outwith the rulebook than you. You are house ruling based on "common sense" (which is neither common nor sensible) as opposed to using the rulebook as written. You are welcome to house rule as you see fit, ofc.

Third party ruling on the matter is not enough... I need an official ruling in order to change my stance.

You could just read the rules as written