Rizzo,
With all due respect, I think your decision to remove a point from myself and anyone else who had Oakland +27.5 is very wrong and I think the decision should be reversed and the point (re-)awarded.
When I made the pick, I knew the +27.5 spread to be an incorrect flip-flop of the true line. However, I was not making the pick to "cheat" anyone. I simply made the pick because the line was there and I knew it was open to everyone else (who hadn't already made their picks) as well as me. Since the rules (which I re-read immediately before locking in the +27.5) do not clearly state what will happen in the case of a technical error, there was no way for me to determine if a decision by me to not take it for "ethical" reasons would equate to me screwing myself (as the advantage would still remain open to others).
Also, while in this specific case I (and presumably others) could fairly easily identify the existence of a technical error, this could just as easily happen (or have already happened without detection) when the spread is/was -1 or -2 ... making it virtually impossible for any player to identify a technical error over a simple, legitimate line movement.
In the end, this random error was just that. A random error. If you happened to be online for the approx. 3 hours it was available, then lucky for you. Those who will complain that they had already made their picks have no case as the inability to capitalize on this is the same as the inability to capitalize on a large, unexpected line movement (eg. a 10 point swing on the announcement that a QB is not playing). There are pros and cons to picking early, and you can win or get burned by doing so. Everyone knows that.
However, your decision to remove the point is not random and is not based on a clearly defined rule. I understand that you have every right to do it. That I do not question. But considering the lack of a clear rule on how errors such as this would play out, do you not think it better for some players to feel "screwed" (whether they are or not) by random bad luck (and their personal decision to pick early) than by an intentional, subjective decision made by someone else to take their point away?
BTW, your analogy between your decision and a decision made by a sportsbook is incorrect. A sportsbook would give you your money back. The player would not win, but they would also not lose. I do not have my pick back. As you know, a void = a loss in this contest. It would be the same thing as a sportsbook voiding a ticket due to their technical error and then refusing to give the wager back.
Also, for the future, while I understand that technical difficulties like this may be unavoidable, could Covers not have voided all contest plays on this line when it was discovered (approx. 3 hours later) and then messaged all contest players to at least allow the opportunity for a replacement pick since there were at least 5-6 hours left of start times?
Hot Forum Topics
