What is the current Postseason Injuy Rule?

[Cardinals]

We know Pat's argument - it's not in the rules so it's not a rule.
We know the counter argument - we've been playing like this all along and as recently as 2015.

What is the current injury rule?

[Dodgers]

We know Pat's argument - it's not in the rules so it's not a rule.
We know the counter argument - we've been playing like this all along and as recently as 2015.

What is the current injury rule and what is it going forward?

The only important question is what is the *current* injury rule. Going forward is a separate discussion.

[Cardinals]

We know Pat's argument - it's not in the rules so it's not a rule.
We know the counter argument - we've been playing like this all along and as recently as 2015.

What is the current injury rule and what is it going forward?

The only important question is what is the *current* injury rule. Going forward is a separate discussion.

Edited.

[Guardians]

As a clarification, if a player is left off a postseason roster but is not injured, they are also ineligible, correct? This would apply to a guy like Colin McHugh.

[Dodgers]

As a clarification, if a player is left off a postseason roster but is not injured, they are also ineligible, correct? This would apply to a guy like Colin McHugh.

No, only due to injury viewtopic.php?t=1806

[Padres]

... we've been playing like this all along and as recently as 2015.

What is the 205 precedent?

[Cardinals]

In 2015, Brett Cecil was taken off of Pat’s roster in the ALCS when he was off Toronto’s MLB ALCS roster.
The same series, Addison Russel was taken off of Perryman’s roster when the Cubs left him off their NLCS due to injury.

[Rangers]

The same year that I couldn't use Jurickson Profar either even though he was playing in games.

[Dodgers]

Just waiting on Jim to vote here, though it makes sense to me that Pat and JP should be excluded since they both have game results dependent on this outcome.

[Dodgers]

Also, the counter argument here is not complete. The counter argument is that a post was made in 2008 that changed the existing rule (but never made it into the rules doc) and that’s what’s been applied as recently as 2015.

[Padres]

Given the fact that Pat and Stephen have agreed to replay their series without Seager (although if Pat advances and if the Dodgers activate Seager for the WS, Seager is eligible in the IBC WS also), this poll is moot and the thr3ead should be considered closed.

[Dodgers]

Given the fact that Pat and Stephen have agreed to replay their series without Seager (although if Pat advances and if the Dodgers activate Seager for the WS, Seager is eligible in the IBC WS also), this poll is moot and the thr3ead should be considered closed.

I disagree. This outcome should be based on rules, not based on agreements.

[Padres]

MLB playoff injuries count and you must be on postseason roster to play
MLB playoff injuries do not count, and injuries stop after Game 162

We are beating a dead horse ... the questions in the poll only address a specific situation and thus is narrow in it's scope. The question in the poll (which is supposed to address IBC eligibility in post season) does not address a situation such as Uehara who did not suffer a postseason injury and apparently was IBC eligible until the last day of the IBC regular season.

Both series are being replayed and I suggest it is the best interests of the league to play them through and then address the issue of post season IBC eligibility in all encompassing rule revision.

This poll serves no purpose any longer and has no meaning or bearing on this season's post season play, i.e,, it is moot.