Login

Sean · 11-17-2021, 03:24 PM

Hello SHL!

Something I've been working on during my time in head office is trying to improve the rulebook. Many seasons ago the rulebook was re-written and improved but over time there have been issues noted and we feel we needed to make some improvements. This is a substantial list of changes so the changes have been divided into two categories:

All changes highlighted in green in the provided document have been implemented immediately and the official rulebook has already been changed to reflect these changes. The green changes are mostly clarifications to existing rules, additional explanations, and adding things officially to the rulebook that we have been working under the assumption of for many seasons.

All changes highlighted in orange in the provided document will be officially implemented into the rulebook at the end of this season. We deemed these to be substantial changes and there are a lot of changes. We wanted to give some time for GMs and players to understand the changes and ask any questions before they were officially implemented. HO is not infallible so bring forward any issues you find.

Click here for a list of changes made and to be made to the rulebook.

Highlights of substantial changes

Removal of automatic firings for both GMs and HO members and replaced with new punishments
Combining regression and GM tasks into one item in the rulebook. The regression deadline listed on the regression thread is now for player reference
Adding a rule that states when a team does not own the round of pick they've been punished for in the next 3 drafts, it will be "bumped up" to the next available pick a round earlier
Adding a rule that gives HO guidelines on when and how to fire GMs (to replace auto-firings have been removed from the rulebook)
Adding a system for accountability for GMs breaking rules including an informal warning, a formal warning, a required meeting with HO, and HO investigations into GM performance
Relaxing rules on retained salary
Removal of Jack Crasher rule and replaced with "Enforceable Agreements". GMs can now be punished for trying to back out of an agreement with players.

While orange rules won't be officially implemented until the end of S62, HO has the right to implement them early in specific cases where it makes the most sense. For example, we're not going to continue with an automatic firing for a GM mistake when the rule is scheduled to change in a few weeks.

Our goal is to make things a little easier on GMs and not have them worry about getting fired for making a few specific mistakes. We hope communication with GMs when they break the rules will help us create a better atmosphere for them rather than scaring them into working within the rules we've set out.

Here is the current rulebook for reference if anyone would like more context to the rules that have been changed!

Thanks for your time,
SHL HO

EDM All-Time Leader in Goals, Assists and Points

*AgentSmith630* · 11-17-2021, 03:26 PM

Henrik · 11-17-2021, 03:46 PM

Good stuff HO!

***WannabeFinn*** · 11-17-2021, 03:52 PM

The rewording of the retention rule seems unnecessary, otherwise fair play

Sean · 11-17-2021, 03:57 PM

11-17-2021, 03:52 PMWannabeFinn Wrote: The rewording of the retention rule seems unnecessary, otherwise fair play

Allows teams who have re-signed their own players to retain on a contract. For example, under the current rule If I signed a 1-season extension with Edmonton, they would need to wait until halfway through the season to retain be able to retain if they traded me, now if I sign a 1-season extension, I can be retained by them since I was on their roster in the previous season.

Unless you're talking about the 3-year thing. That was only to remove the "of the contract" part, which I admit was a pretty uneventful change.

EDM All-Time Leader in Goals, Assists and Points

*thiefofcheese* · 11-17-2021, 04:15 PM

I'd like to preface the below with a "I have no idea what I'm talking about", but this piece doesn't make sense to me:

Code:
If a GM has been found to have broken any rule in this rulebook, in addition to the punishment(s) received, they will also:

Receive an informal warning on the 1st offense(DM). 

Receive a formal warning on a 2nd offense within 1 season (Post on site).

Required to attend a meeting with HO if they have committed 3 offenses within 2 seasons. HO will conduct an investigation into GM performance.

For example: If a GM is one day late on their offseason tasks then the rulebook says they'll forfeit a 3rd round pick. But then the section I quoted above says they'll receive and "informal warning" if it's their first offense in addition to the forfeited pick.

Why do they get an "informal warning" and the punishment? What is this supposed to solve? It's not "informal" if they also receive a punishment IMO.

***WannabeFinn*** · 11-17-2021, 04:19 PM

11-17-2021, 03:57 PMTommySalami Wrote:
11-17-2021, 03:52 PMWannabeFinn Wrote: The rewording of the retention rule seems unnecessary, otherwise fair play

Allows teams who have re-signed their own players to retain on a contract. For example, under the current rule If I signed a 1-season extension with Edmonton, they would need to wait until halfway through the season to retain be able to retain if they traded me, now if I sign a 1-season extension, I can be retained by them since I was on their roster in the previous season.

Unless you're talking about the 3-year thing. That was only to remove the "of the contract" part, which I admit was a pretty uneventful change.

The retention rule was intentionally designed to prevent teams from slinging up a cheeky extension and then retaining on it immediately. Why change?

Sean · 11-17-2021, 04:24 PM

11-17-2021, 04:15 PMthiefofcheese Wrote: I'd like to preface the below with a "I have no idea what I'm talking about", but this piece doesn't make sense to me:

Code:
If a GM has been found to have broken any rule in this rulebook, in addition to the punishment(s) received, they will also: Receive an informal warning on the 1st offense(DM). Receive a formal warning on a 2nd offense within 1 season (Post on site). Required to attend a meeting with HO if they have committed 3 offenses within 2 seasons. HO will conduct an investigation into GM performance.

For example: If a GM is one day late on their offseason tasks then the rulebook says they'll forfeit a 3rd round pick. But then the section I quoted above says they'll receive and "informal warning" if it's their first offense in addition to the forfeited pick.

Why do they get an "informal warning" and the punishment? What is this supposed to solve? It's not "informal" if they also receive a punishment IMO.

So the punishment and the warning systems are two separate things. The warning system is a way for HO to keep track of GMs. 1st warning will be us telling them they broke the rule, and to keep an eye out for it in the future(pretty much how we already communicate punishments to GMs). An official warning will involve us making a site post saying that a GM has been given 2 warnings within a season (to keep things transparent with the league) and after 3 we're going to have a sit down with the GM and discuss why these things are happening. There are no real additional punishments that go along with the warnings, it's a system for HO to keep track of potentially struggling GMs, or find ways for us to improve the rules.

EDM All-Time Leader in Goals, Assists and Points

Sean · 11-17-2021, 04:37 PM

11-17-2021, 04:19 PMWannabeFinn Wrote:
11-17-2021, 03:57 PMTommySalami Wrote: Allows teams who have re-signed their own players to retain on a contract. For example, under the current rule If I signed a 1-season extension with Edmonton, they would need to wait until halfway through the season to retain be able to retain if they traded me, now if I sign a 1-season extension, I can be retained by them since I was on their roster in the previous season.

Unless you're talking about the 3-year thing. That was only to remove the "of the contract" part, which I admit was a pretty uneventful change.
The retention rule was intentionally designed to prevent teams from slinging up a cheeky extension and then retaining on it immediately. Why change?

A lot of the players in the league are on 1-2 season contracts which really limits potential retention scenarios. What we didn't want to see was a team with cap space sign a high-end free agent and then instantly trade them 50% off to a contender. We think there's some merit to signing an existing member of your team and then being able to retain on those contracts. It opens the door for IFAs to be retained and for players who sign 1-2 year contracts consistently to be retained. The rule also stops teams from trying to trade for a pending FA so they can extend and retain (as the player actually needs to have been on your roster in the previous season).

If it's something that is abused we will definitely re-visit it.

EDM All-Time Leader in Goals, Assists and Points

Grapehead · 11-17-2021, 05:29 PM

I'm curious why teams only forfeit their own draft picks now, instead of the next available one in their possession?

**bbjygm** · 11-17-2021, 06:35 PM

11-17-2021, 05:29 PMGrapehead Wrote: I'm curious why teams only forfeit their own draft picks now, instead of the next available one in their possession?

Maybe it's just a clarification? From what I remember pick punishments has been the next one they owned

*fishy* · 11-17-2021, 07:49 PM

Which one of these do we call the Ace rule?

Evok · 11-17-2021, 08:14 PM

11-17-2021, 04:37 PMTommySalami Wrote:
11-17-2021, 04:19 PMWannabeFinn Wrote: The retention rule was intentionally designed to prevent teams from slinging up a cheeky extension and then retaining on it immediately. Why change?

A lot of the players in the league are on 1-2 season contracts which really limits potential retention scenarios. What we didn't want to see was a team with cap space sign a high-end free agent and then instantly trade them 50% off to a contender. We think there's some merit to signing an existing member of your team and then being able to retain on those contracts. It opens the door for IFAs to be retained and for players who sign 1-2 year contracts consistently to be retained. The rule also stops teams from trying to trade for a pending FA so they can extend and retain (as the player actually needs to have been on your roster in the previous season).

If it's something that is abused we will definitely re-visit it.

Many players are on 1-2 seasons contract cause the cap is super hard to be navigated. Now we open the door to teams signing players just to trade instead of paying their active or helping lower active users to find a home in the league.

caltroit_red_flames · 11-18-2021, 04:31 PM

Good shit Tommy!

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us