S14 Call-Ups and Send Downs - Printable Version +- Simulation Hockey League (https://simulationhockey.com) +-- Forum: League Transactions (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=18) +--- Forum: General Transactions (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=332) +---- Forum: SHL Roster Transactions (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=224) +----- Forum: Call-Ups and Send-Downs (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=359) +----- Thread: S14 Call-Ups and Send Downs (/showthread.php?tid=24706) |
- Buster - 10-29-2013 I just think it's great how Toast said straight up to JY that Riggs wasn't coming back down. The rule was going to finally be upheld…lolnot - Toast - 10-29-2013 Funny how you had no problem with the rule was upheld to allow 701 to stay. You only cause a fuss when your team gets the bad end of it. - Buster - 10-29-2013 Quote:Originally posted by Toast@Oct 29 2013, 12:42 PM 701 was never called up though that I can remember it. Please show me where he got called up. - Buster - 10-29-2013 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8362145...eamScoring.html I see no games played by Winnfield under WKP. - Toast - 10-29-2013 I recall him being right at 325Tpe. If you two have a problem with 325 players being sent down then he shouldve never been allowed to play either. It all falls under the same rule. - JayWhy - 10-29-2013 Quote:Originally posted by Toast@Oct 29 2013, 01:50 PMProblem in your argument here is that he was technically stuck at the 325 and never called up to the SHL. Therefore, he never went over the limit. The rule is that once you're called up, updates take effect and you go over the limit so shouldn't be allowed back down. So Winnfield technically was never illegal to be sent down because he was at the exact TPE total, meanwhile Riggs, 44, Reimer, etc got called up and were then above the TPE limit. - Buster - 10-29-2013 Quote:Originally posted by Toast@Oct 29 2013, 12:50 PM He was below 325 TPE when he got sent down, and got stuck at 325 TPE and did not go over his cap, and he was never called up. Why would I have a fuss over a legal player? - Toast - 10-29-2013 You seem to be missing the point that none of those players went over 325. They had the updates ready to be above but never were officially updated. Much like Winnfield going above 325 but not being updated. As long as its not reflected in the sim and player page not much of an argument can be made against it. - JayWhy - 10-29-2013 Quote:Originally posted by Toast@Oct 29 2013, 01:58 PMThe argument is that as quoted earlier in the thread when a player is called up the updates immediately take effect. Therefore, they do go over the limit. Also, DIDN'T I TELL EVERYONE TO FUCKIN SHUT UP ABOUT IT? God.... it's over, shit happened, more shit keeps happening, nothing's changing apparently, so just quit talking. - Buster - 10-29-2013 Quote:Originally posted by Toast@Oct 29 2013, 12:58 PM I think you seem to be missing the point that a black and white rule clearly states that if a player gets called up, those updates count and they are now an x TPE player. So Winnfield went over, but was not updated because he was not called up. 44 and Riggs got called up. Two different situations. "Not in the sim and player page" is a terrible argument. - Toast - 10-29-2013 Quote:Originally posted by I Am JayWhy75@Oct 29 2013, 01:01 PM If it's so black and white why did everyone I ask say it's okay to be sent back down as long as the player wasn't updated? This is why the rule needs to be changed. There can't be loopholes in it like this one. - Buster - 10-29-2013 Quote:Originally posted by Toast@Oct 29 2013, 01:11 PM A murder kills a family's son and the family says it's okay. Is it still murder? The rule can't be changed now because next time this happens, a shitstorm will be caused because you ignored a clear rule that was in place which you can't seem to understand - Toast - 10-29-2013 You're fucking comparing murder to a sim league thing that barely affects anything. Are you fucking kidding me? - Buster - 10-29-2013 Quote:Originally posted by Toast@Oct 29 2013, 01:33 PM It's a comparison showing that a black and white rule is a black and white rule. Why don't you actually reply to my argument instead of attacking it - Toast - 10-29-2013 Because when you say something that awful you don't reserve a reply. I've made my point countless times. I'm not repeating it. |