Login

*jeffie43* · 09-18-2022, 04:35 PM

09-18-2022, 03:13 PMLime Wrote:
09-18-2022, 02:52 PMPremierBromanov Wrote: yes
@jeffie43

Nour is pretty hot ngl

Zombiewolf · 09-18-2022, 05:23 PM

09-18-2022, 01:53 PMMerica Wrote: Ain’t tampering ain’t trying

Rule #1: only tamper your friends =don’t get caught

@juke

Thank you Brandon, Fish, GeckoeyGecko, Karey, Kit, takethehorizon, and Ragnar for the sigs!
[Image: Pw202QP.jpeg]

Player Page || Update page

***DrunkenTeddy*** · 09-19-2022, 01:55 PM

This punishment is being appealed. The committee is working on their decision.

|

***Citizen of Adraa*** · 09-19-2022, 03:22 PM

that took a sweet moment to get appealed

***sve7en*** · 09-19-2022, 03:40 PM

09-19-2022, 03:22 PMCitizen of Adraa Wrote: that took a sweet moment to get appealed

Had to see if anyone on the appeals team was IA and wanted to come back to help Buffalo out.

caltroit_red_flames · 09-19-2022, 03:46 PM

09-19-2022, 03:40 PMsve7en Wrote:
09-19-2022, 03:22 PMCitizen of Adraa Wrote: that took a sweet moment to get appealed

Had to see if anyone on the appeals team was IA and wanted to come back to help Buffalo out.

I don't know about BUF, but I'll come back to help DEZ

*Tomen* · 09-19-2022, 04:21 PM

09-19-2022, 03:22 PMCitizen of Adraa Wrote: that took a sweet moment to get appealed

I sent the appeal out yesterday afternoon my time coz I was suffering from Covid and it kicked my butt up until yesterday really.

Thank you all for the amazing sigs & player cards
Germany

3. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 5 (Maximilian Wachter, Alexis Metzler) at 16:25
5. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 6 (Steven Stamkos Jr., Brynjar Tusk) at 19:48
8. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 7 (Brynjar Tusk, Alexis Metzler) at 13:55
9. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 8 (Anton Fedorov, Mikelis Grundmanis) at 15:12
10. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 9 (Dickie Pecker) at 19:43 (Empty Net)

***Leafs4ever*** · 09-20-2022, 04:06 PM

The Appeals Committee has received an appeal and come to a decision in favour of slightly adjusting the punishment. Explanation below:

"After reviewing the case, the appeals committee has decided to slightly alter the punishment and return BUF's 2nd round pick. Everything else in the punishment remains. Our thought process on this was that while this does constitute tampering, we felt the 1st and the cap penalty was sufficient enough for a team-based punishment. There was some miscommunication between GM and player, but there was still a point where the GM could have walked away from the situation and avoided the tampering. We believe their intentions were honest, but GMs need to be held to higher standards, which is why the user-based parts of the punishment have remained.

Our hope is that Head Office will look to include wording on inactives in their re-work of the tampering rule. We understand that inactives returning to the league may not want to be stuck on a contract they didn't agree to, so more communication is needed to let them know there are avenues to void said contract without the need for other GMs to cross a line."

RESULT: It has been voted on to return the 2nd round pick to BUF and keep the rest of the punishment the same.

Guy Incognito - D - #24
Texas Renegades
Season 80
18-8-2
Regular Season - [G 6] [A 12] [Pts 18] [+/- +11] [PIM 29] [Hits 43] [SB 65]
[Image: ERs3IrD.png]

Zombiewolf · 09-20-2022, 04:10 PM

I can’t believe the appeals committee is gonna let corrupt Patty get away with this

Thank you Brandon, Fish, GeckoeyGecko, Karey, Kit, takethehorizon, and Ragnar for the sigs!
[Image: Pw202QP.jpeg]

Player Page || Update page

caltroit_red_flames · 09-20-2022, 04:11 PM

[Image: a564b0e31f82a25f8b9b0c2c9cf693b5.gif]

*Tomen* · 09-20-2022, 04:21 PM

09-20-2022, 04:06 PMLeafs4ever Wrote: The Appeals Committee has received an appeal and come to a decision in favour of slightly adjusting the punishment. Explanation below:

"After reviewing the case, the appeals committee has decided to slightly alter the punishment and return BUF's 2nd round pick. Everything else in the punishment remains. Our thought process on this was that while this does constitute tampering, we felt the 1st and the cap penalty was sufficient enough for a team-based punishment. There was some miscommunication between GM and player, but there was still a point where the GM could have walked away from the situation and avoided the tampering. We believe their intentions were honest, but GMs need to be held to higher standards, which is why the user-based parts of the punishment have remained.

Our hope is that Head Office will look to include wording on inactives in their re-work of the tampering rule. We understand that inactives returning to the league may not want to be stuck on a contract they didn't agree to, so more communication is needed to let them know there are avenues to void said contract without the need for other GMs to cross a line."

RESULT: It has been voted on to return the 2nd round pick to BUF and keep the rest of the punishment the same.

Thank you to the appeals committee on the quick decision making on this matter!

Thank you all for the amazing sigs & player cards
Germany

3. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 5 (Maximilian Wachter, Alexis Metzler) at 16:25
5. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 6 (Steven Stamkos Jr., Brynjar Tusk) at 19:48
8. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 7 (Brynjar Tusk, Alexis Metzler) at 13:55
9. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 8 (Anton Fedorov, Mikelis Grundmanis) at 15:12
10. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 9 (Dickie Pecker) at 19:43 (Empty Net)

***HabsFanFromOntario*** · 09-20-2022, 04:27 PM

I'm kind of befuddled by the wording of the appeal if I'm being honest.

***CampinKiller*** · 09-20-2022, 04:29 PM

09-20-2022, 04:06 PMLeafs4ever Wrote: The Appeals Committee has received an appeal and come to a decision in favour of slightly adjusting the punishment. Explanation below:

"After reviewing the case, the appeals committee has decided to slightly alter the punishment and return BUF's 2nd round pick. Everything else in the punishment remains. Our thought process on this was that while this does constitute tampering, we felt the 1st and the cap penalty was sufficient enough for a team-based punishment. There was some miscommunication between GM and player, but there was still a point where the GM could have walked away from the situation and avoided the tampering. We believe their intentions were honest, but GMs need to be held to higher standards, which is why the user-based parts of the punishment have remained.

Our hope is that Head Office will look to include wording on inactives in their re-work of the tampering rule. We understand that inactives returning to the league may not want to be stuck on a contract they didn't agree to, so more communication is needed to let them know there are avenues to void said contract without the need for other GMs to cross a line."

RESULT: It has been voted on to return the 2nd round pick to BUF and keep the rest of the punishment the same.

I am kind of curious where the honest intentions reasoning comes into play. Obviously I don't have the screenshots, but in my view, if you intentionally tampered by trying to get someone to void their IA contract, as the appeals committee is saying, I don't see what sort of honest intentions you could have there. Just wanting some clarification on that part

ACapitalChicago · 09-20-2022, 05:09 PM

09-20-2022, 04:06 PMLeafs4ever Wrote: The Appeals Committee has received an appeal and come to a decision in favour of slightly adjusting the punishment. Explanation below:

"After reviewing the case, the appeals committee has decided to slightly alter the punishment and return BUF's 2nd round pick. Everything else in the punishment remains. Our thought process on this was that while this does constitute tampering, we felt the 1st and the cap penalty was sufficient enough for a team-based punishment. There was some miscommunication between GM and player, but there was still a point where the GM could have walked away from the situation and avoided the tampering. We believe their intentions were honest, but GMs need to be held to higher standards, which is why the user-based parts of the punishment have remained.

Our hope is that Head Office will look to include wording on inactives in their re-work of the tampering rule. We understand that inactives returning to the league may not want to be stuck on a contract they didn't agree to, so more communication is needed to let them know there are avenues to void said contract without the need for other GMs to cross a line."

RESULT: It has been voted on to return the 2nd round pick to BUF and keep the rest of the punishment the same.

Could you update the post title since this has been updated please?

S66 Damian Littleton

||

||

|

|

***Leafs4ever*** · 09-20-2022, 05:44 PM

09-20-2022, 04:29 PMCampinKiller Wrote:
09-20-2022, 04:06 PMLeafs4ever Wrote: The Appeals Committee has received an appeal and come to a decision in favour of slightly adjusting the punishment. Explanation below:

"After reviewing the case, the appeals committee has decided to slightly alter the punishment and return BUF's 2nd round pick. Everything else in the punishment remains. Our thought process on this was that while this does constitute tampering, we felt the 1st and the cap penalty was sufficient enough for a team-based punishment. There was some miscommunication between GM and player, but there was still a point where the GM could have walked away from the situation and avoided the tampering. We believe their intentions were honest, but GMs need to be held to higher standards, which is why the user-based parts of the punishment have remained.

Our hope is that Head Office will look to include wording on inactives in their re-work of the tampering rule. We understand that inactives returning to the league may not want to be stuck on a contract they didn't agree to, so more communication is needed to let them know there are avenues to void said contract without the need for other GMs to cross a line."

RESULT: It has been voted on to return the 2nd round pick to BUF and keep the rest of the punishment the same.

I am kind of curious where the honest intentions reasoning comes into play. Obviously I don't have the screenshots, but in my view, if you intentionally tampered by trying to get someone to void their IA contract, as the appeals committee is saying, I don't see what sort of honest intentions you could have there. Just wanting some clarification on that part

BUF GM initially reached out not knowing that the player in question was re-signed under the IA contract. That was missed by them when reaching out. That, we believe, was an honest mistake. Then, when finding this out, they may have felt that letting the player know there are avenues to void the contract may seem like helping the player out, but as a GM there is a line crossed there. There was intent to get the player to opt out and hopefully sign with BUF.

That's where the last part of the announcement comes into play. Hopefully find a better way for inactives to understand their options when returning without having opposing GMs feel the need to cross that line.

I hope that's clear.

Guy Incognito - D - #24
Texas Renegades
Season 80
18-8-2
Regular Season - [G 6] [A 12] [Pts 18] [+/- +11] [PIM 29] [Hits 43] [SB 65]
[Image: ERs3IrD.png]

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us