Retroactive Farm-Farm Team Correction?

[Derrick - Senators]

Before the new rule was voted on that allows for a 25 game maximum on the Farm-Farm team, Dillon Dube (20/23)*, Drake Batherson (21/20)*, and Filip Chytil (19/84)* were found to be in violation of the previous rule. Please vote now whether or not these players should be returned, or whether they should be available to be drafted in the upcoming Waiver Draft and/or signed as free agents afterwards.

[Nos - Sharks]

I mean...no, they really shouldn't be returned to their teams because those were the rules at the time, right? Rules are rules until deemed in need of amending and once agreed upon those are the rules and can be followed from that point on. Talk about slippery slopes, retroactively applying things is illegitimate. If you were to retroactively apply the rule then only prospects with 25 games or fewer should be eligible, so that takes Filip Chytil out of the picture. There were also other prospects who fell to Suspended Waivers in this fashion that you fail to list.

Don't worry, I'll be responding to your other post in the other thread later tonight buuud-dy! I just don't have time right now, gotta watch a werewolf movie on this full moon and then go for a run! Will be back!

[Derrick - Senators]

Just because I start a poll doesn’t mean I endorse a particular idea or rule. Sometimes I do it by request and/or as a courtesy to the league.

With that said, what you are saying is not wrong. But in the past, players have been allowed to be returned to their respective teams when GM’s make mistakes for “the betterment of the franchise.” That aside, weren’t you the guy just arguing for the empowerment of weaker teams and how they shouldn’t be forced to lose players? Wasn’t that the entire basis for upping the maximum games played for the farm-farm from 10 to 25?

Ps. No response is needed in the other thread. Just let the other two GM’s vote to keep the rule the same and be done with it. But if you insist, I will preemptively begin preparing my next response. Can’t wait to read your third novel.

[Nos - Sharks]

Woooow dude! There's some good stuff in there! It's a good read! I encourage everybody to check it out! Anyway, yeah I am that guy...but I'm arguing for it in a legal manner. Rules are rules, even bad ones, that's why we have to iron them out and continue from there if problems crop up, sadly. I didn't say you were for or against anything, was just giving my two cents on it. It's sad that rule was in place to begin with and caused these managers to lose talent needlessly. I still don't believe talent should be lost this way, even with 25 games. All I can say at this time is learn from your mistakes.

[Mitch - Ducks]

I get it I made a mistake. I also agree I should lose Chytil with him being way over the limit. However Batherson and Dube are both under 25 games still and just like is being argued in the other poll, 10 games fly by and sometimes you don’t even realize it. I think that losing them is way too harsh a penalty for a mistake like this. If the new rule is put in place, which is looks like it will be, I think I should get Dube and Batherson back.

[Robyn - Flames]

I voted to return the players. I have voted in this direction in every similar situation we've had in NAFHL history (keeping ineligible players dropped accidentally, allowing GMs to submit keepers after the deadline, prospects breaching 10 or 200 gp, Steve Mason, etc.). But with the 25 game rule now in place (?), there should be no more forgiveness if your farm farm players stay beyond 25 games.

[Daniel - Canucks]

The players in question belong on Suspended Waivers and that's how I voted. If we continue to hand out these "free passes" then the league becomes chaotic. We need to follow our rules to a T. Going by the logic if you voted to return the players, then Timo Meier should be retroactively applied back to my team as per that new rule change. Makes zero sense right?

[Nos - Sharks]

So, how would you determine when to apply this subjective allowance? Isn't the rulebook intended to be objective for a reason? How would it be fair to those managers who have lost prospects to this rule in the past? Accidental drops of Minor Leaguers was covered by a rule. No prospect breaching 200 games played has ever been allowed to be returned to a manager's team to my knowledge and it should never take place either. No prospect breaching 10 games on the Farm-Farm team has been allowed to be returned to a manager's team and there is no rule in place for this to take place either. The only exception being in the case of an inactive manager, where it is perfectly acceptable because nobody was manning the team when the violation occurred. The only other exception I could see, perhaps, is if the manager is brand new to the league. Mitch has been here for two seasons. The Steve Mason situation had a misunderstanding of the written rules attached to it, i.e. Games Played vs. Games Started, that wording was corrected but another rule was implemented that was attached to that situation, Babysitter Clause, which caused further needless problems. Submitting Keepers after the deadline had extenuating circumstances surrounding it and was acceptable because nothing else had even happened to make it a real problem. Why do you believe there should be leniency with 10 games but no more forgiveness with 25 games? You can add/change rules but you can't retroactively apply new rules to the old order.