I hate to say this, but I think your league's in trouble either way.
If you let things stand as they are, you'll have many upset owners such as yourself and a rule that probably should never have been adopted. Worse yet, adding a utility spot to accomodate these catcher-eligible players opens the door to serious abuse and endless arguments.
On the other hand, if you overturn the rule, you'll have several owners equally justifiably upset that they wasted draft picks on players they believed would help them more than actually will, and future votes your league takes won't evoke much faith if the first one is revoked so easily.
All in all, I think there are probably two things you can do. The first is to agree with the owners of Fick, Phelps & Co. on fair compensation for agreeing to overturn the vote that made them catcher-eligible. Depending on your league's format, this could range from an extra minor leaguer or two to a higher waiver priority or even an extra keeper for next year. It might not be absolutely fair, but you need a compromise that keeps everybody happy.
And if you can't reach a compromise, the best solution might be a redraft...
Thanks for all the feedback folks, really appreciate it
Basically I've decided to just let it be. Out of the 10 people in the league, 8 of them are all from the same area and are friends so I'd have little to no luck convincing them to change the rule. I really have no one to blame but myself because I also cast a vote at the time. I was uneasy about it but even if I said no, I'm still outnumbered.
This doesn't really affect my lineup at all. I've been told that I have the best team in the league anyhow so if they feel they need to come up with zany rules to win then it'll be that much sweeter for me when I beat them
The principle thing to me is fairness. I don't like the situation but there's really nothing I can do. Thanks again for the input!
I think it is a bit wierd but I would just point out that eligibility rules often vary by league. I've never commished on YAHOO so don't know if you can change the eligibility settings. This incident seems warped but a rule's a rule. It's a bit ridiculous that Troy Glaus is eligible at ss in out league after he plays his single game or few innings there but I've played him there for the rest of the season as soon as he meets the single game eligibility.
In my opinion, if you're gonna play on Yahoo! then by god, play by Yahoo's rules. do you have Troy Glaus, he played 2 games at SS last year. that would make more sense than fick or phelps at C. at least he played there. the people who voted for that are idiots and the commissioner should never have let it stand. i mean dont you have a utility spot anyway in your league? why couldnt they just use them in that spot if they wanted phelps and fick so bad and pick a different C ? sounds like a really fun league though......
What you've laid out seems like it would be TOUGH to manage. By putting a utility spot in there, you're trusting everyone in the league to be on the up and up, or requiring the commish to monitor people's lineups daily to make sure people didn't abuse it. If I was commish of such a league, I would have to veto that idea. Opens up too many problems.
Biggio used to be a catcher, so can you use him at that position? Chipper was once a 3b, so will that be allowed? Hell, Tim Wakefield used to be a 1b, so you can use him there, right?
This rule sounds like garbage. If they want to use it to put people in at catcher, than you should be able to move any position player anywhere. You could just turn around and say that they once played that position, so it should work.
It's a stupid, stupid rule I know, or else I wouldn't have tried to fight it. But I've been told by the Commish that I'm the only one who has a problem with it so that's that. Nothing more I can say I 'spose.
I don't like it, won't like it and never will like it but those are the breaks. For everyone who's still not sure, here's the deal, best I can summarize it.
Our positions are C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, 3 OF and a Util. HOWEVER, if there is a player on one of our rosters who we designated as having a position that Yahoo doesn't qualify them at, there is a 2nd Util spot for them. Example, Phelps qualifies at catcher now so his owner will put him in the 2nd util. spot and leave his catcher slot empty, since Yahoo won't recognize him as catcher but will as Util. So basically it's still 9 players in the lineup. Everyone got that?