Retroactive Rule Change?

[Derrick - Senators]

Please explain your position.

[Derrick - Senators]

Is anybody even aware this poll exists?

[Chris - Capitals]

Sorry I knew about the poll and thought I had voted and was then going to explain my vote:

I believe there are instances where rules are not so much changed but clarified and then applied retroactively. Such as in this case with Rask, the rule has always been in place and we only clarified the "when" which it appears that the vast majority of the league already viewed in the same way and was operating under that assumption. The whole league was waiting for an official announcement before attempting to sign Rask I know I was.

[Colin - Avalanche]

I voted yes. But I will say it's a case by case basis. Rules like pickups/waivers and yahoo fantasy mechanics can be retroactively changed. Larger league rules probably wait till the offseason. It's not black and white though, I think they should be voted on to be retro actively changed. It more of a pain but it might be the most fair way. And it's doesn't happen so often that it would be overwhelming imo.

[Kyle - Devils]

Ya i agree with the Capitals and Avalanche here certain rules can be changed mid season but some need to happen in the offseason.

If it doesn't affect scoring or roster construction directly then as long as everyone agrees we can do things on the fly.

Ie. Ideally for a guy like Rask there should be a signing window where everyone can put in a waiver claim if they want to pick him up. Just so its as realistic as possible, although in the NHL i think its based on standings if multiple waivers come in.

If we agree on said signing window now with a vote we can enact this as soon as its approved or disapproved.

An example like this rule would make sense to apply in season as it doesn't drastically change everyone's fantasy strategy.

[Daniel - Canucks]

This poll doesn't correlate to the "Rask Situation".  Of course rules shouldn't be changed and applied retroactively.  The entire league was operating under the rule being for an NHL Contract becoming "Official" Upon Announcement of Signing from Team/NHL, except for Mitch (who's obviously going to vote that way) and someone else who I can't grasp why they'd vote that way.  Mitch jumped the gun essentially ruining it for everyone else, it's the same as if he signed Rask a month ago or when he did.  I'm all for trying to devise a solution for the situation however.

Seems like the only solutions are Rask going to Suspended Waivers, or he goes to Regular Waivers where GMs can put in their claim.  Can anyone think of anything else?

Do you guys even like the rule that you can't sign/draft a UFA?  Something to think about and possibly vote on in the future.  I can see the opinion of if Scott - Maple Leafs was able to draft Rask, it would certainly weaken his team even more and could look like a "tank" (just saying because he is currently in 2nd last), but he could've also traded Rask to a Playoff team who could afford the dead roster spot.

Furthermore, do you guys like how Waiver Priority at the beginning of each season is chosen by complete randomness?  Should the standings impact the priority?  Should Waiver Priority carry over each season?  Some things to think about for sure.

[Daniel - Canucks]

Also wanted to throw this out there with the Trade Deadline approaching in the coming months, I know GMs in the past have expressed frustration over the timeliness of PMs on the forum.  Yahoo has a direct messaging section that I've used with success this season where you receive a notification when a fellow GM messages you on there.  Hopefully this helps if other GMs are OK with utilizing it.

[Nos - Sharks]

Some really good responses here that sum it up well. No, I don't think rules should be changed retroactively because the implications of that would be like having a time machine and theoretically you could change outcomes from 5 years ago. I'm not sure why this was the next poll to go up? Like what's already been stated by others, this isn't an instance of retroactively changing anything, the first poll was to gain clarity of the understanding by the league of the rule in question. It turned out to be an overwhelmingly obvious outcome.

Just a side note, I notice many managers benching players they could play, not making goaltending starts, not utilizing all IR spots, etc. You have two IR spots and one IR+ spot, three total, use all of them if you need to. I don't know if certain managers are trying to tank but it certainly looks that way and that's illegal, it affects the standings and isn't fair to others and the league itself. Please try to utilize everything you can to improve your team. Thank you!

[Tyler - Jets]

I voted no but also agree this is a very vague poll. These situations take entirely to long to resolve. What’s the outcome really going to be here??? Mitch loses Tula Rask and the next person online after he gets put back in the FA pool signs him because they happen to be the next person online?? Mitch keeps Tukka Rask and we figure out a new way of managing these types of situations in the off season. Let’s get to a decision and move on. Also I’m the one playing Mitch who is going to lose at least 1 Cat because of that Tukka start. I’ll say it again I’m in favour of some type of waiver priority to give all GM a more equal opportunity to acquire players. I understand we try to model our league after real GM’s and in the real NHL there is no GM looking out for any other GM therefore we could leave the free for all signings alone. If this is the case Mitch signed Rask within the rules the way they were written at the time and we need to be addressing this fully after the year ends. Just some food for thought I’m kind of on the fence with this one.

[Mitch - Ducks]

First off, I didn’t realize you manually sat Rask and wouldn’t have played him if I’d known that.
I don’t see how I’ve broken any rules here either. There is no rule stating that the official announcement has to come from team/NHL. Sportsnet and TSN announce the signing first straight from the team and I’m not allowed to sign him?? Doesn’t make any sense. The rule book states he has to sign an nhl contract and He had clearly signed the contract, there was no chance of dissapproval from the nhl, it was official. If the rule book stated when it is “official” then I understand why ppl would be mad here but I signed him within the rules.

[Nos - Sharks]

This situation is as clear as it possibly can be. This second poll wasn't necessary. The first poll showed what the overwhelming majority of the league understood the rule to be and that places an official lock on how to proceed now and moving forward. Every single manager was watching this situation, multiple managers spoke up stating they had held off signing him because it wasn't official yet. Mitch - Cucks jumped the gun illegally, yes he did, ruined it. No, it was not official, under Rask's news feed at the time Mitch - Cucks signed him it even stated that the contract wasn't official yet. Straight up. Regardless, this is a dumb way to conduct business. I said it a decade+ ago and I'll say it again now.

...oh and, Mitch - Cucks, you're eliminated bud-dy. It's over. Cheers.

[Colin - Avalanche]

Considering the rulebook doesn't say official signing, (after looking it up). I guess its open to managers interpretation as to when that is?? Brutal.Personally I don't like using TSN or Sportsnet as a source because they report things before they actually happen. They're like sports TMZ lol. Hence why I and other gms waited And yes it could've been rejected. Its happened before. But it wasn't and here we are.
I would be for a change to using official sources (teams/nhl) for signings in the offseason or as soon as now to avoid this kind of (rare) confusion from happening again.
I also like the free for all signings and don't think it should change for players signing in season.

Out of curiosity, if Evander Kane's contract is terminated, does he become a UFA in our league? Weird situation.

[Nos - Sharks]

Wild west signings are detrimental to the league. The use of the word 'official' in the rulebook is irrelevant. Evander Kane would become a UFA if his contract is terminated, however, this actually wouldn't affect anything because he would already be on a team. He wouldn't have been signed or drafted while a UFA, he would just already be on the team. Unique situation there. That would also stand to reason that any Keeper would be exempt from this UFA stipulation because it's not a signing or drafting scenario. Another thing, if you're going to have a 'dead spot' like this occupying space on your roster, I believe you should at least be 'in the hunt' for a playoff spot. If you fall out of the Top 8 for 4 weeks in a row I believe you should be forced to relinquish/trade the player creating a dead spot. Tanking is as lame as it gets in fantasy sports, you should be scrambling to avoid being last place, last place should be ridiculed more than it is in our league. For a whole year you're the worst, we need an official The Sacko trophy!

[Colin - Avalanche]

I don't see how 'wild west signings are detrimental to the league'. Frankly I'm not sure what you mean exactly. You may have to clarify. But it already is a free for all. It's how fantasy works, its part of the game. The only time waivers gets involved is if a player is dropped. But 95% of adds are free agents that can be pick up with the fastest fingers

I personally didn't think Kane should be off his team if he became a UFA but was curious on the ruling thank you.

[Nos - Sharks]

What I mean is, all of those other FA players have had a chance to be acquired/drafted by all teams in a fair and orderly manner. They are the leftovers and their signing has nothing to do with having fast fingers and isn't contingent on signing an NHL contract. It basically means whoever is doing nothing at High Noon and sees the signing gets to sign the player. Whomsoever sittin' at the local Saloon sippin' whiskey without a care in the world...sounds great.

^ Johnny Guitar, great film, check it out!

[Colin - Avalanche]

Ok we're on the same page then. I don't really have a problem with it. It's wildly rare that a player would sign mid season that is actually useful for a fantasy team. An overlooked player could have 4 points in his first game and it becomes a fastest fingers scenario. I've seen it this year with a few players where GMs go to sign a guy but he was signed the night before. I've been on both sides, where I grabbed a guy first or was too late. I think it's just part of Fantasy. Tracking the news/games and making moves to help your team before the other GMs

[Derrick - Senators]

This is a very tricky situation. And after much consideration, I believe the fairest solution for everybody involved is to place Tuukka Rask on suspended waivers. I don't like "punishing" a manager who technically did not break a rule, but rather an interpretation of a rule. But clearly that interpretation was not one the majority of the league held. To that end, Mitch - Ducks might not get to roster Rask, but neither will anybody else, and he in theory, will have the same opportunity as everyone else to acquire Rask during the offseason.

Moving forward, all relevant unrestricted free agents who sign during the year will be subject to a normal two day waiver period where managers may claim him before becoming a free agent.

Anybody who has thoughts, comments, or objections can voice them here and/or can further discuss these rules after the season before finalizing them.

[Tyler - Jets]

I think this post is well thought out and a good resolution. The current situation gets resolved fairly and we implement a better way to navigate mid-season FA signings in the future.