Talk:Chandler Catanzaro

Official status on roster

According to the official NFL transactions wire, Catanzaro was placed on the exempt/left squad list on August 11 and moved to the reserve/left squad list on August 17. According to <redact>, players are placed on the reserve/left squad list when they fail to show up to practice without the team's permission.

• In 2001, Terry Glenn did not show up to Patriots training camp and the team placed him on the reserve/left squad list. He was reinstated from the list during the season.
• In 2017, Su'a Cravens announced his decision to retire. The Redskins instead placed him on the reserve/left squad list and he was reinstated from the list in 2018.
• In 2018, Vontae Davis announced his decision to retire. The Bills instead placed him on the reserve/left squad list and he officially became a free agent in March 2019.
• Earlier this year, Bucky Hodges left the Jets while on injured reserve and was placed on the exempt/left squad list. It was reported at the time that he was likely retiring. However, the team released him a month later and he's currently working out for teams and was just selected in the XFL Supplemental Draft.

Bottom line, he may have said he was retired at the time, but the team did not officially handle it as a retirement (like in the above scenarios). Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that he is on the reserve/left squad list (which is often used for retired players who have not yet filed their retirement papers; not just failure to show up to practice). However, articles here have to reflect coverage in reliable sources rather than interpretation of transaction lists. Announcements from the team, the NFL, the New York Times, and countless other reliable sources all clearly state that the player has retired. Consequently, the article here should reflect the same. Perhaps the infobox can reflect the established technical roster status, but the article should reflect what these published reliable sources have already said.

Side note: don't rely on unreliable sources like "The Football Educator". Examples of other players being on the list and not having retired also do not demonstrate anything about this case. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

According to this article, the NFL doesn't use retirement papers anymore. I agree that we should not be interpreting transactions lists, which is what you're doing here. You're interpreting that being placed on "reserve/left squad" means he retired because a few days before he indicated he was retiring. Since the NFL does not provide clear explanations for the intricacies of some of these less well known reserve lists, we need to use past examples to figure out how exactly they work. Can you provide me with examples of players being placed on "reserve/left squad" and never coming back? I keep finding many examples of them coming back: Cole Beasley was placed on the list 7 years ago when he was contemplating retirement as well. Chilo Rachal is another, and I've yet to find a player placed on that list who was never removed from that list.

I wouldn't necessarily consider the team websites to be reliable sources when it comes to reporting transactions. One of many examples from this season: the Redskins website reported that Jehu Chesson was placed on injured reserve straight from the practice squad, which is technically impossible (and disputed by many sources). They even show him on the "injured reserve" list on their roster, which, again, is inaccurate. The NFL.com article just references the Jets' team announcement, and I can't read the NYT article because of the paywall but I'm assuming it's referencing the same announcement.

I'm fine with the current compromise of the article, it has the reported transactions in the body and the technical roster designation in the infobox. If he ends up coming back (and, based on the other uses for this reserve list, it seems like a strong possibility), we can always change it back. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean to take the "reserve/left squad" as meaning that he retired, but to only reflect the reliable source coverage: the sources just state the he retired. The NYT article from November 19 does not reference the Jets' announcement and simply states: Chandler Catanzaro retired abruptly after missing two of three extra points in New York's preseason opener. When it's reported as such (sure, by third-party reliable sources), I think that the article should just reflect that and largely ignore the transaction lists. If they come back, then we can report them coming back.

In some sense, it's more logical to report them as "retired" until demonstrated otherwise rather than report them as a "maybe retired, but kind of not really?" until incontrovertibly retired (which doesn't really exist since players can come back from bona fide retirements anyways). — MarkH21 (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, but isn't your Vontae Davis example precisely a player who was placed on "reserve/left squad" when they effectively retired? — MarkH21 (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Sort of, which is why I worded it the way I did. He was placed on the reserve/left squad list but his contract was able to expire after the season. When players are placed on reserve/retired their contracts are actually frozen and stay with the team forever. The point I was trying to make was that reserve/left squad and reserve/retired lists function differently. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that until demonstrated otherwise whatever transactions or facts we have should be the current state of a player's career. However, after he announced his retirement and was placed on the exempt/left squad list, I used his being placed on the reserve/left squad list six days later as the next event that shows he has not retired. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The second change occurred because Exempt/left only lasts for 5 days, after which Reserve/left just extends that for the season. Plus, the NYT article is from November and just states retirement. It’s not a major issue though, and I agree that this article can just be updated at the end of the season since the reserve/left status will be “expire” in some sense. In general though, I think that the exempt/left & reserve/left transactions should be ignored as contract/roster technicalities for mid-season retirements when reliable sources universally report the event solely as “retirement” (i.e. the RS coverage should take precedence over rare unreported roster transactions) unless the transactions come significantly after the most recent RS coverage. — MarkH21 (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is correct, as Bucky Hodges was on the exempt/left squad list for a month before he was released from it, and he was never moved to reserve/left squad. These reliable sources all end up referencing the official NFL transactions wire indirectly anyway, so I think the wire should take precedence over what's reported in the media since they're wrong or misinformed a lot of the time. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more precise; my last comment on “5 days” was assuming that the intent is to place the player on Reserve/left squad. Per the NFL spokesman quoted in the Washington Times, If a player leaves the team, the team can request a roster exemption for the player if it sends the player a “Left Squad” letter. The letter states that the team will have the right to place the player on Reserve/Left Squad after five days. If the player goes on Reserve/Left Squad, he is out for the remainder of the season.

Anyways, I don’t agree that the wire should always take precedence over media reports. Any “precedence” should be based on the level & unanimity of reliable source coverage. In most cases, it’s probably best to state the report of retirement while also mentioning the specific roster status. — MarkH21 (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I'm good here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)