Defining Collusion

Q:  Trades in our league are subject to veto if it is determined two teams are “colluding”.We have a 5 bench league and last week I had 2 byes Bowe, and Miller while I also had Westbrook, Chambers, and Colston injured. Because of the injuries and byes I did not have enough WRs to fill my roster spots. The solution… to trade RBs to a team that was short on RBs in exchange for WRs with the understanding we would trade back after the week was over. I traded T. Jones and S. Morris for W. Welker, and E. Royal. When we tried to trade back the second trade was vetoed on the claim that we were “colluding”.

Since this trade made neither team superior at the expense of the other team (we both ended up losing last week any way) I didn’t feel like we were colluding, merely finding a solution to a problem. Either I would have had to drop a stud to the waiver wire or fail to fill a roster spot.

If I gave him an extra player from my bench and taken a player he had on a bye week I would consider that colluding, but not an even trade of active WR for active RB.

Does this fall into the category of colluding? I can understand why people think it is, but in the absence of a preexisting definition of collusion is it fair we be forced to keep the players?

A:  Hi Kenny.  Thanks for you inquiry.  The problem here is that the original trade qualifies as collusion just as much as the ensuing ‘trade back’, but the first trade seemed to slip through the system.

Unfortunately, there is no question that this an unethical transaction, and a prime example of collusion.  Just because your team and the the team you traded with got stuck in the middle of this two week transaction, doesn’t give you any legitimate recourse to have the second trade passed.