Login

CFJ · 05-25-2019, 04:18 PM

Ummm ok then

Thanks to prettyburn, TML, Carpy, JNH, Jepox, Engi, Karey, Flappy, Skolpadder, Mook, DollarAndADream, Smirnov and Toe for the sigs.

Code:
Crossfit's First Career SHL Goal, 4. Manhattan Rage , Crossfit Jesus 1 (Pedro Sarantez, Nucky Toohoots) at 5:51

Code:
Devitt's First Career SHL Goal, 5. Calgary Dragons , Prince Devitt 1 (Barry Batsbak 21, Mike Izzy 14) at 10:43

karey · 05-25-2019, 04:43 PM

Seems like the only appropriate punishment is to forfeit Minnesota's next 3 1sts and immediately change the name of the Stevens.

This it Chiefs.

*Leppish* · 05-25-2019, 04:46 PM

05-25-2019, 04:43 PMkarey Wrote: Seems like the only appropriate punishment is to forfeit Minnesota's next 3 1sts and immediately change the name of the Stevens.

This it Chiefs.

Rather not.

BDonini · 05-25-2019, 04:49 PM

05-25-2019, 04:43 PMkarey Wrote: Seems like the only appropriate punishment is to forfeit Minnesota's next 3 1sts and immediately change the name of the Stevens.

This it Chiefs.

If we can suspend Casimir Stevens for the remainder of the SMJHL playoffs that'd be the move

**.bojo** · 05-25-2019, 04:56 PM

Remember when deener did this that was fun

sarmo · 05-25-2019, 05:19 PM

Lmao I like it. Atleast getting desperate for a young core better than not doing anything like the past few seasons. I mean as long as it's not tampering. The fall out after winning the cup and S40 game 7 finals loss broke the team and still 3 conference finals in a row with a team that probably should have been done rebuilding... give Chiefs a young core and they back in there. It sucks being a bubble team but just had a string of bad luck through drafting tbh too much dead weight and not enough salvaging.

Slappydoodle · 05-25-2019, 05:24 PM

Not saying this was the right thing to do. It is certainly ethically questionable. Nevertheless, it is completely within the rules.

***WannabeFinn*** · 05-25-2019, 05:30 PM

05-25-2019, 05:24 PMSlappydoodle Wrote: Not saying this was the right thing to do. It is certainly ethically questionable. Nevertheless, it is completely within the rules.

It’s within the rules if the public tampering is “within reason”. Don’t see an argument for this being a reasonable tampering comment. It’s a full out essay targeted at a single team’s prospect pool.

ztevans · 05-25-2019, 05:38 PM

05-25-2019, 05:24 PMSlappydoodle Wrote: Not saying this was the right thing to do. It is certainly ethically questionable. Nevertheless, it is completely within the rules.

Honestly, with the revamp to the rules post-Clardy, I'm not sure it is. This is definitely not "within reason" from my point-of-view.

This isn't in the SHL rulebook, but when I was in SMJHL HO we used previously established precedent (see: before my time) to say an offer (see: offering a created player post-draft) as "any approach (e.g. private message, public post, off-platform activity) requesting a user/player to assume an organizational role in or sign a contract to play for a club," a definition which remains in that league's rulebook. While that specific definition isn't in the SHL rules, it's a very reasonable one, and a standard this post meets by establishing the roles several players would play if added to Minnesota's current roster.

dankoa · 05-25-2019, 05:40 PM

FORFEITED looking like a real good prospect in these next 3 drafts, Minnesota should check him out

Slappydoodle · 05-25-2019, 05:41 PM

05-25-2019, 05:30 PMWannabeFinn Wrote:
05-25-2019, 05:24 PMSlappydoodle Wrote: Not saying this was the right thing to do. It is certainly ethically questionable. Nevertheless, it is completely within the rules.
It’s within the rules if the public tampering is “within reason”. Don’t see an argument for this being a reasonable tampering comment. It’s a full out essay targeted at a single team’s prospect pool.

I definitely would not have done it myself. I totally get why it would and should piss you off. It’s not a god look for him at all. Of course you are going to fight for your team. Not in any way trying to say you should not do so. Ultimately though, no dollar amounts were discussed nor anything else that falls under the rules as written, at least that I can see. That being said, the HO has been known to make up new rules as they go along and enforce them retroactively, in the past. We’ll all find It together, I guess

Sleepy · 05-25-2019, 05:41 PM

If this is within reason imagine someone writing one of these every off-season for every RFA for every subsequent season. Imagine that being a thing that's not against the rules.

ztevans · 05-25-2019, 05:44 PM

05-25-2019, 05:41 PMSleepy Wrote: If this is within reason imagine someone writing one of these every off-season for every RFA for every subsequent season. Imagine that being a thing that's not against the rules.

Why stop at RFAs? At least you'd have a shot if you write about UFAs!

Some GM's ass better be writing about me next offseason.

Slappydoodle · 05-25-2019, 05:50 PM

05-25-2019, 05:44 PMztevans Wrote:
05-25-2019, 05:41 PMSleepy Wrote: If this is within reason imagine someone writing one of these every off-season for every RFA for every subsequent season. Imagine that being a thing that's not against the rules.

Why stop at RFAs? At least you'd have a shot if you write about UFAs!

Some GM's ass better be writing about me next offseason.

If the HO wants to outlaw public tampering than they should go ahead and do so already. They had the perfect chance to after they held their public witch-hunt of Clardy. They didn’t, instead opting to write an opaque addendum that clarified very little.

DeletedAtUserRequest · 05-25-2019, 05:52 PM

05-25-2019, 05:30 PMWannabeFinn Wrote:
05-25-2019, 05:24 PMSlappydoodle Wrote: Not saying this was the right thing to do. It is certainly ethically questionable. Nevertheless, it is completely within the rules.
It’s within the rules if the public tampering is “within reason”. Don’t see an argument for this being a reasonable tampering comment. It’s a full out essay targeted at a single team’s prospect pool.

You can go to the RFA page and find every prospect there so it’s not like prospect information is a big secret. I think what it comes down to is did Daco say anything other then hyping up these players that breaks any rules? I don’t see it as being illegal cause nothing about contracts were discussed.. straddling the line doesn’t mean he went over it.

If HO wants to re-evaluate the grey area of this post then they should without retroactively punishing something not against the current rules.

|

|

|

|

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us