Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2016 20:16:14 GMT -5
Pittsburgh plays 5 games next week. It was discussed briefly on the shoutbox but I would just like clarification before the week starts on whether or not I'll be disqualified if I don't sit my backup. TampaBayBolts (Josh) @nick
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2016 1:35:15 GMT -5
IMO the rule isn't written correctly, and under no circumstance was it intended to punish a Gm for a normal goalie situation. This isn't you with two starters or benefiting different from a single teams NHL schedule. I would support changing the rule for the logical, intended, fair and repeatable decision. Recently been hearing different messages on that from some members of the RC though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2016 3:45:19 GMT -5
Since the RC will have eyes here, I'm going to hijack this thread. Can someone do 2 things for me...
1) explain the exact process of gp penalty position drops (especially since the 3 worst teams are going to be faced with penalty as it makes it a bit confusing)
Say the lottery doesn't solve anything and the teams with * are penalizaed 3 gp...
The order post penalty is: Toronto*, Boston*, New Jersey*, San Jose, Florida, Dallas, Carolina*, Los Angeles...
What's the order?
2) explain the mystery reparations I've been hearing about if your pick does drop and you don't own it.
|
|
|
Post by TampaBayBolts (Josh) on Feb 29, 2016 9:43:05 GMT -5
Since the RC will have eyes here, I'm going to hijack this thread. Can someone do 2 things for me... 1) explain the exact process of gp penalty position drops (especially since the 3 worst teams are going to be faced with penalty as it makes it a bit confusing) Say the lottery doesn't solve anything and the teams with * are penalizaed 3 gp... The order post penalty is: Toronto*, Boston*, New Jersey*, San Jose, Florida, Dallas, Carolina*, Los Angeles... What's the order? 2) explain the mystery reparations I've been hearing about if your pick does drop and you don't own it. Working on both currently. Slippery slope with the commish not being able to voice an opinion on the matter so I am looking at non-biased sources both inside and outside of this league to help formulate an official ruling. I have my own opinion on this but want to get others as well. This league is modeled after BBKL so I'm pouring through threads there to see how similar issues were handled and the CBA there. I have been a member in there for less than 1 year so it's still relatively new to me. But when in gray areas, I first look at what the intention of the rule is and how it has been handled there in the past. And just in case it is brought up down the line, yes I have a horse in the race since I own the NYI 1st and they will probably miss GP. It is a mid pick but could be an end lottery pick. Because it is nowhere near the top of the lottery I don't consider it a bias issue. But throwing it out there so it's not like I'm hiding anything here.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Tommy Vlasic Pickles (DAL) on Feb 29, 2016 10:07:16 GMT -5
The reason they play 5 this week is b/c the caps-pens game that got rescheduled to this week I thought?
|
|
|
Post by TampaBayBolts (Josh) on Feb 29, 2016 14:43:22 GMT -5
A change that was discussed before the All Star break and our 2 week matchup was the following line: "A team may go over the weekly limit of 4 goalie starts if all starts are from players on the same NHL team. If a team starts goalies from more than 1 NHL team then the hard limit of 4 goalie starts in one week applies at all times."
This change to the wording was brought up by an non-RC member and was received positively by RC members at the time, and again now.
The 5th game Pitt plays this week is a makeup from a snow cancellation earlier this season. So in that earlier matchup the owner of the Pitt goalies took a hit.
The RC feels this is a rare occasion and thus agree with the wording change to the CBA to handle future cases of this instance. This wording falls in line with the CBA's intentions for teams to have a starter and a backup and not 2 starters, and takes away potential punishment to teams fairly rolling with a single teams starter and backup.
This change is effective immediately.
|
|