10-23-2024, 12:51 PMsköldpaddor Wrote: When the rulebook is not clear on something, we do tend to look to past established precedent in order to determine what a fair ruling will be in the context of how others have been punished for similar offenses in the future.

It is worth nothing that they were *not* over the cap with the players not signed. If we say the players weren't signed in time, then the "over the cap" punishment does not kick in at all, and we could call it "late GM task" if that's what we wanted, but if the players weren't signed, they're not over cap, they just have an illegal roster (which does not have a rulebook punishment aside from us labeling it a missed GM task - and again, we're going to fix that). When it was discovered that they were not signed, TOR was instructed to sign the players immediately in order to avoid continuing to play with an illegal roster. It was after that point, when we had already said "get it done pronto" that it was determined that doing so would put them over cap this season.

I don't think there is a legal justification for levying both punishments here. If the players weren't signed in time, they're not over cap. If the players *are* considered signed, as it is clear the intent was to do (since the players were already paid by the team this season), then they are over cap, but the task wasn't missed. In light of the complexities there, and due to the severity of the issue, we elected to rule in favor of the more severe punishment, but I do not see a world where both punishments would have been issued.

If that's the case then I'm not sure I understand the "clear intent to sign contracts" part of the justification. Did the team intend to be over the cap and have that in their budget, or was the entire thing incomplete?