04-23-2025, 05:59 PMhockeyiscool Wrote: My interpretation of the severity of the punishment is that it is fair in a niche and hopefully never happening scenario. 
I believe the intent of the rule is to protects players from the hopefully never happening case of a GM acting with malicious intent, where a player wants to experience free agency but the GM uses the lack of moving the player to the free agency section to deny other teams the ability to make contact with the player who is desiring to experience free agency and create the illusion that there are no interested teams leading to the player to re-sign with their original team

@taterswc I forgot to include this important caveat. I believe the removal of the player from the roster is only a fair penalty if the malicious intent was proven.