|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Sept 18, 2013 3:33:27 GMT -5
Whatever is written in the rulebook has to be exactly the way this issue and any further issues are handled.
Whether the wording is faulty in terms of not representing the original intent, is completely irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Sept 18, 2013 3:55:29 GMT -5
What about Damien Brunner then Tyler - Jets? How do you justify his ownership under this imaginary rule? For one, Damien Brunner (albeit a terrible player) was kept and not picked up out of free agents. The other thing is that, if Brunner doesn't have a contract, will not be able to be rostered on the Yahoo database when the season starts. But once again, he, like Selanne played last year, is exiting a contract, and is/was reasonably expected to sign a new contract. For the last year Thomas has been focusing on the "3 F's" in this bunker in Colorado. Which, by the way, none of which stand for "fantasy hockey." Yes, Brunner, Selanne, Raymond, etc. fall into that gray area of the rule, but their situations are/were reasonably expected to work themselves out without incident, whereas Thomas' was not. Yes, I also understand that it is very likely that Thomas signs and plays, but one can not base a players fantasy availability on his likelihood of playing. It is about the intent of the rule and safeguarding the league. For instance, if a complete fantasy novice were to join the league and draft Aleksy Morozov, Ilya Kovalchuk, Ilya Bryzgalov, etc. would these be allowed to stand? NO, because they don't have NHL contracts and it would be both a detriment to that particular franchise and the league. We can not make a distinction between a "good signing of a player without an NHL contract" and a "bad signing of a player without an NHL contract." A player without an NHL contract is a player without an NHL contract. Take it to a league vote if you wish to discuss the situation further. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Sept 18, 2013 4:00:04 GMT -5
Whatever is written in the rulebook has to be exactly the way this issue and any further issues are handled. Whether the wording is faulty in terms of not representing the original intent, is completely irrelevant. It is impossible to foresee every issue that might arise and/or word every written rule perfectly without ambiguity. The English language simply does not provide those luxuries. The only true way to prevent these nitpicking annoyances is to completely abolish the rulebook and operate under a dictatorship, ruling discrepancies on a case by case basis. |
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Sept 18, 2013 4:28:00 GMT -5
I don't see any nitpicking there. It's written perfectly clear that you can sign either a player with a NHL-contract OR who has been drafted. If you think there's nitpicking maybe you should add and asterisk pointing out that it can only be done at the discretion of the commissioner.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Sept 18, 2013 8:52:26 GMT -5
I don't see why a poll needs to be made, for my side anyway, the rule is clear and this is how it's always operated. The rule in question was designed for undrafted/unsigned prospects/minor leaguers who came into prominence. It wasn't for UFA's. Tim Thomas was signed legally, under the NAFHL rulebook, the signing has also had significant backing from rival managers, which I very much appreciate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on Sept 18, 2013 17:21:47 GMT -5
I'll be honest I got on with the intention of making this signing earlier than Nos actually made it. I quickly while in a rush glanced at the ruling and figured that he was un-signable. However after now rereading the rule Nos' legally signed Thomas and I see no reason or any possible way that he doesn't now own the rights to Timmy Thomas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyler - Jets on Sept 18, 2013 20:31:57 GMT -5
Both Boston and Carolina made good points. Someone could have picked Thomas in waiver draft too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Sept 28, 2013 11:13:00 GMT -5
The 2013 modified NAFHL rulebook has been posted. There are lots of changes, so be sure to read it thoroughly. I am leaving the rulebook thread unlocked and am asking each GM to post their approval (or disapproval) just for the record.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Sept 28, 2013 11:26:24 GMT -5
Lots of changes? You have no right to change anything without league approval, polls need to be set up, etc. Could you list these numerous changes?
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Sept 28, 2013 11:33:12 GMT -5
Lots of changes? You have no right to change anything without league approval, polls need to be set up, etc. Could you list these numerous changes? I could list them, yes. But I am not going to. I have grown quite tired of the hand-holding around here. In addition, I want the managers of NAFHL to be well educated on the rules that govern them league in which they participate. Providing the sparknotes version of the rulebook isn't going to accomplish that. I spend countless hours organizing the league and subsequently writing the rulebook. The least you could do is take a 10 minute break from complaining about everything and read it. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Sept 28, 2013 11:35:31 GMT -5
The least YOU could do is list the changes you've made to the rulebook without approval.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Sept 30, 2013 13:32:32 GMT -5
2013 Draft Pick Overview updated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Oct 1, 2013 13:31:06 GMT -5
"Season Calendar" in the rulebook has been slightly modified to read: Start of Season/Waivers Begin: October 1st (first puck drop).
And just in case you have been asleep at the wheel, don't forget that the fantasy hockey season starts tonight. Set your lineups accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Oct 5, 2013 21:47:44 GMT -5
Re: Ownership of Tim Thomas
Did you dole out the appropriate punishments for missing picks in this poll?
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Oct 5, 2013 23:11:44 GMT -5
Re: Ownership of Tim Thomas Did you dole out the appropriate punishments for missing picks in this poll? Affirmative. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Oct 7, 2013 0:56:45 GMT -5
Re: Ownership of Tim Thomas Did you dole out the appropriate punishments for missing picks in this poll? Affirmative. Three managers didn't vote. The only managers you gave warnings to were Ryan - Avalanche, Scott - Maple Leafs & Tyler - Jets. Tyler - Jets voted in that poll. How do you explain this? |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Oct 7, 2013 13:40:19 GMT -5
Three managers didn't vote. The only managers you gave warnings to were Ryan - Avalanche, Scott - Maple Leafs & Tyler - Jets. Tyler - Jets voted in that poll. How do you explain this? Your presumptuous nature? I gave warnings to all the managers who did not vote in the poll. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Oct 7, 2013 13:44:01 GMT -5
Like I said, Tyler - Jets did vote, he gave a verbal vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Oct 7, 2013 15:20:02 GMT -5
Like I said, Tyler - Jets did vote, he gave a verbal vote. There is no such thing as a "verbal vote." Are we to allow "mental votes?" Or votes submitted via mail? No. Per the rulebook (which will be strictly enforced with no luxury of the "understood" rules of the past), the actual poll is the only acceptable and official means of voting. As we have seen countless times in the past, including this instance, "verbal votes" are privy to flip-flopping and we are ultimately left not knowing where the individuals final vote stands. "Oh he can keep this player." "Well now that you mention it, that opposing argument is a good point." Etc. So, for the third and final time, all managers who did not vote in the poll were issued the proper warning. End of discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Oct 7, 2013 18:24:52 GMT -5
A verbal vote/post is better. He let everybody know exactly how he was voting. Tyler - Jets is also known for using his mobile device and poll voting has been well known to not work with mobile devices. I don't buy your 'flip flopping' argument because anybody can change their vote via the new polling system, at the blink of an eye. You had an agenda, end of discussion.
|
|
So exciting.
You better make that pick or trade it! I'm excited to see if we can use up all the draft picks this year.