Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
BRHL Home -> BRHL2 Message Board -> Main Board -> Rule Clarification
Post Info TOPIC: Rule Clarification
PhoenixGM


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 830
Date:
Rule Clarification
Permalink Closed

Ok, first of all, I really don't want this to end up a repeat of Kirk's "WTF" thread... but after looking at his roster violation it seems there is a discrepancy in the rules that needs some clarification.

Here is the exact rule:
A. A general manager may double shift any ONE forward on the fourth line; double shifting a forward on any combination of lines one, two, and three will default that teams lines to AUTO for that days games. Furthermore, a team cannot double shift any more than one forward; this prevents teams with top heavy talent laden lines from abusing the spirit of league parity and fairness.

B. It is recognized and understood that a team will double shift at least two defensemen on the fourth line. And further that a team may dress more than six defensemen and have the seventh simply play the 4th line shift.

So.. Part A is very clear, You can ONLY double shift 1 forward and it must be on the 4th line.

Part B, on the contrary, is very unclear.  Saying that it "is recognized and understood that a team will double shift at least two defensemen on the fourth line" doesn't really make much sense.  If I am allowed to double shift "at least" two defensemen on the fourth line, that implies that I can double shift more than two defensemen on the fourth line.  Since only two defensemen can play on the fourth line, I assume any others who are double shifted will be double shifted on the 3rd line.  So, to me, this statement is telling me that I am allowed to double shift defensemen on the third line.

Now, the problem is that, I believe the rules are being enforced such that defensemen are only being allowed to double shift on the fourth line.  Therefore, there may need to be a re-writing of the rules, or a change in how they are being enforced to reflect how they are written.

Discussion?

__________________
HOTLANTA


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2233
Date:
Permalink Closed

This is 100% what i was trying to explain to eric before the madness happened before game 1.. i have looked it over and i went about binging up the arguement wrong on the board.. but with no willingness from eric to discuss it then to do the auto'd line sim, i reacted wrong and in a total negative way.. i HOPE this thread can generate discussion and a look into what i was trying to explains to eric 1-1..

It is clearly stated that forwards CANT double shift 2nd or 3rd line.. not once is it mentioned that defensemen cant be double shifted 3rd line..

with these being the rules that ar written i felt wronged by my lines not being used after they had been for 2 series and much of regular season.. the reason i had these lines because by my view of the rules (and PHO obviously) it should be legal to use my lines from before..

if the rule has to be changed in the offseason then i am 100% ok with that but i think its criminal to try and change it after two full playoff rounds and right before the biggest showdown in the league (1 vs 2 all year)....






__________________
BluesGM


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 991
Date:
Permalink Closed

I think it's just a simple grammar mistake... it should read "B. It is recognized and understood that a team will double shift at MOST two defensemen on the fourth line."

I think Kirk can sympathize with the use of bad grammar, but I hardly think that it merits a huge discussion. It will only distract Eric from his busy simming duties; as well as supporting a team that will be going out of the playoffs in 5 games.

The way the rule is phrased is confusing, but it's not a valid argument in my opinion to use in an argument. I would like to think that most GM's here have actually some common sense of how to interpret Rule B. Obviously the commishes who came up with the rule were looking to find a short sentence to say that if you dress 6 defensemen, two will be double-shifted on the 4th line. It also implies that the maximum number of defensemen you can dress is 7, as rule A states that you can only double-shift 1 forward.

A simple grammar mistake does not need a huge discussion, nor is it an excuse to for Kirk to complain that the league is against him because his lines were auto'd once in the playoffs.

__________________
Hawks_G


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 861
Date:
Permalink Closed

Just like the goalie minutes and forwards double shifting, it is easy to see how this rule is to be enforced. Although it is simple to claim ignorance.

If it is understood that defensemen will be double shifted on the fourth line because of obvious necessity, the double shifting of defensemen on lines other than the fourth line is not allowed.

The common sense of the rule is quite obvious.

__________________

xtremehockey.wordpress.com
philly


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1184
Date:
Permalink Closed

but is only applied AFTER several series have been played differently???

Where's the common sense in that??




__________________
Get ahold of me soon, or my players will already be dealt!
PhoenixGM


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 830
Date:
Permalink Closed

LOL, count on kirk to be the first to reply... at least he admitted his mistakes in the previous discussion.

I agree 100% that the intent of the rule is quite obvious, BUT I guess what I am trying to get at is that there is actually some ambiguity in the rule that needs to be adressed.  Even if the rule were to say that you can double shift at MOST 2 defensemen on the 4th line, it still won't say that you can't double shift a guy on the 3rd line.

The point is that right now, according to how the rules are written, double shifting defensemen wherever you want does not seem to be illegal.  One way or another, this does need to be adressed, even if we all know what the intent of the rule is, the rules can only be enforced based on what is written, and not on the intent.  Infact, the ability of a GM to pick apart the written rules and find the loopholes is Exactly what makes a schrewed NHL GM.  Just look at how Lou Lamouriello has avoided the cap issues with NJ in the past few seasons.  Do you think that ruining Alex Mogilny's career by sending him to the minors to avoid his salary was the intent of the NHL's rules?

Believe me, I am not trying to help Kirk's case, that's the last thing I'd want to do, I am simply pointing out the loophole that has been found and needs to be closed.

Steve

__________________
Sabres_Luke


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1009
Date:
Permalink Closed

Agreed that it needs to be more well written. Though it seems Eric has made his call on this rule so the way the rule is to be interpretted is pretty clear, maybe it just needs to be rewritten so that new GMs and what not understand how it is to be interpretted.

It seems that a team usually has to pay the price for a rule infraction where a rule is reclarified. Eric still has the call and when it goes against a team's benefit they usually just have to bite the bullet for the league.

It happened with our team with David Perron in the entry draft last year, its happened with contracts with the implimentation of the new RFA system etc... Nothing different here.

__________________
"With Sid on your team, anything is possible" - Mario lemieux
HOTLANTA


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2233
Date:
Permalink Closed

but they didnt allow you to take kane-gagner thensay no to perron...

__________________
Sabres_Luke


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1009
Date:
Permalink Closed

You must not have understood the situation at the time, Kirk. Nonetheless I think you understand the point Im making.



__________________
"With Sid on your team, anything is possible" - Mario lemieux
HOTLANTA


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2233
Date:
Permalink Closed

i did understand the situation luke, but they stopped it on attempt 1... I had used these lines in a series vs rex and montreal, to make a ruling halfway through the postseason is crazy...

The RULES clearly state in my opinion that it ISNT illegal to play chara 1st and 3rd line. i entered (and used) lines with this in mind. again to make the ruling halfway through the postseason seems crazy..

__________________
PhoenixGM


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 830
Date:
Permalink Closed

Ok, enough from BUF and ATL, any other thoughts...

__________________
Eric_Isles


BRHL2 Co-Commish

Status: Offline
Posts: 2768
Date:
Permalink Closed

The rule had never really been brought into contestion prior to this incident. However, the oversight has been clarified further to eliminated doubt.

The rules page has been updated to acknowledge the change.

Thanks and sorry for the confusion.

__________________

"As long as those gnome elite molecules emerge, we certainly can reduce casualties. Their warplanes troops would be nice."
PhoenixGM


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 830
Date:
Permalink Closed

Eric_Isles wrote:

The rule had never really been brought into contestion prior to this incident. However, the oversight has been clarified further to eliminated doubt.

The rules page has been updated to acknowledge the change.

Thanks and sorry for the confusion.


Perfect, thanks Eric.

Discussion OVER LOL.



__________________
HOTLANTA


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2233
Date:
Permalink Closed

thanx for clearing things up eric.. i do disagree with when it was done though.. Philly-Montreal might not be so OK with this decision as these rule changes are all coming about halfway through a postseason in a cash league which could cause some problems...

__________________
Hawks_G


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 861
Date:
Permalink Closed

There is no problem. It would be up to the GM to point it out. The commissioner can not be expected to micro manage. If he notices or it is pointed out by another GM, then he can act.



__________________

xtremehockey.wordpress.com
1 2  >  Last»  | Page of 2  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
BRHL Home -> BRHL2 Message Board -> Main Board -> Rule Clarification
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard