Ok, but the decision is obviously based on the other owner's opinions so if you disagree then it wont happen will it.
No, it's based on the other people in the league's opinion. He already stated that. And I said it was ok.
The difference is that injuries are a part of sport and are a known risk inherent in selecting a player, hence why you may steer clear of injury prone players because they have a higher risk of sustaining serious injuries. However a player not being part of the competition is not an inherent risk as it is assumed that if a player is available for selection then he will be part of the competition.
But what if I'd picked Cooper Vuna, not knowing that he'd
already sustained a season ending injury? Would you honestly be happy about me getting another pick upon realising?
What high horse? Because I comment on how this comp is being run I'm on a high horse? Get over yourself mate, I'm free to voice my opinion and if you think that's being arrogant or whatever then that's your problem, I guess it's part of this whole 'suck it up' mentality.
The whole, "I'll accept your decision, but only because I'm a better person" angle you're running. Did you think this league wasn't going to be competitive? And Big Mick was the one who took it too seriously, not the rest of us. He had a tanty, several in fact. We have no control over the order of picks so don't even start with the "suck it up" stuff.
Your last sentence is my point, injuries are bad luck and part of the game, someone not being involved entirely in the competition you are darfting for isn't bad luck, they should not be eligible for drafting in the first place.
Look, I can definitely see where you're coming from. Hence why I didn't say you couldn't get another pick. Anyway I'm done talking about it.
