How Utica was forfeited out of the playoffs...

...without breaking any scheduling rules.

I would like to explain my position to the rest of the league. My expectation is that if you read this in entirety and are honest about interpreting the rules as they are written and posted publicly to the league, you will understand how I scheduled my lines without actually breaking any of the rules.

The basic explanation is that because the position lock was removed from the AHL for this season, there are more line configurations possible that meet the 2-in-6 requirements for all roster players and in those some of cases, makes available more games to all players to play in within the series.

The rules were never amended to account for no position lock.

The playoffs rule thread must be assumed to supersede other rules where there is conflict. In general when applying rules, the specific overrides the general.

The playoffs rule thread is broken 2 sections:
Section One : Playoff Scheduling Rules
Section Two : Additional Playoff Violation Rules

Section Two is not actually Rules, despite that being in the title. When you look at Section Two, everything there is actually procedures for applying punishment. While Section Two does include examples of violations, these themselves are not the rules. These are references to rules laid out elsewhere.

As such, all of section two can be ignored until a violation has occurred.


Section One is divided into 7 sub sections.
----: 1.1 Rosters
----: 1.2 AHL Game Times
----: 1.3 Line's Deadlines
----: 1.4 Scheduling Restrictions
----: 1.5 Illegal Substitution
----: 1.6 Forfeits & Game Setup Procedures
----: 1.7 Reschedules


1.4 Scheduling Restrictions

Section 1.4 is further divided into 3 sub-sections, Definitions, Rules, and "Understanding the Scheduling Limitations"
There are only 6 rules. I will apply my own numbering in the order they appear in the Rules Thread.

1.4.Rule-1) ALL players listed on the 17 man roster, MUST be scheduled for one game in the first four games, and two games if the series goes to game six. Game seven anyone can be used.

This rule lays out minimum number of games for each player. It never sets a maximum. We know it never sets a maximum because when it says "one game in the first four" that some players will play twice in the first four. Does that violate this rule? No. This is a minimum requirement.

1.4.Rule-2, Rule-3, Rule-4, and Rule-6 do not apply to this situation, but Rule-5 does.

1.4.Rule-5) Goalie scheduling limitations are the same as players. A Goalie is required to be scheduled / play one game in the first four, and must be scheduled / play a second game if the series goes to a game six. Game seven, any goalie can be used.

The very first sentence is pretty clear, Goalies are the same as players. Again, this rule does not set a maximum number of games played - only the minimum requirements, and again we know that one or both goalies will play more than "2-in-6." Again, this is not a rule violation because the rule only sets a minimum.

There is no rule that defines a maximum number of games a player or goalie can play in a series. Only the minimums each roster player is entitled to.

The assumption that most people make, that a player cannot play more than 2 games in a series, comes from the fact that position lock means that there will be practical limits to games that can be played because there are limited player slots in the games available to satisfy the 1-in-4 and 2-in-6 requirement. If you schedule a RW for 3 games at RW, another RW on the team would not be able to be scheduled for their 2-in-6.

However, there is no position lock this season in the AHL, and with that comes the ability to satisfy the 2-in-6 requirements for games played for all skaters while giving all players access to additional games that they can play if they play goalie.

The minimum requirements for goalies can be satisfied in the first 4 games, meaning there are potentially 3 player slots available in games for the rest of that series. Normally these extra games are restricted to goalies due to position lock, but without position lock there is no rule that says these game slots cannot be used by other players, and in fact 1.4.Rule-5 explicitly says "Goalie scheduling limitations are the same as players."

As there is no maximum number of games for goalies so long as 1.4.Rule-1 is satisfied, there is no maximum number of games for players either so long as 1.4.Rule-1 is satisfied.

If you have read this far, hopefully you understand my position. My goal in writing this is to spur the league towards updating their rules. I believe the league can move forward by accepting that there are deficiencies in the rules and making corrections instead of taking egregious actions that are not supported by those rules.

 

I didn't explain what actually took place with Utica, but I will explain that part further. I am going back to sleep now.

 

Rather than wish about having a updated rulebook, what is stopping you from writing your own?

Take your time and rewrite all of the articles. Eliminate all the contradictions and ambiguity. Clarify what is expected of all players and management and league staff, and spell out what punishment is delivered when a rule is violated.

Write that all down. Then send it directly to the commissioner. Maybe he'll use it or part of it or none of it.

You can do something. It's not against the rules to make the rules better.

 

Sibs it's over, just get over it

 

It is a valid argument, but this situation would have been avoided if you chose to call up active serviceable players vs. rostering inconsistent, non committed "better" players. This situation doesn't fall on the rule book, it falls on you failing to involve your players and communicate effectively to build a stronger team. You had the resources, you chose not to use them. Have a nice day!

 

I do actually agree with your assessment of the rules. The way they are written, does allow for the gray area, but maybe you could have reached out to the league ahead of time before hoping to exploit the rules the way they are written?

 

The bottom line is you failed in your duty as GM for our team. You let down the 16 other guys on the roster and the several active TC players. A simple apology would be nice, but I know we won't get one.

 

I'm confused about what you're even trying to say but I'm guessing it has to do with a player playing Goalie and Skater spot. If that is the case, then that player is only allowed 3 games once he has stepped out of the crease and plays any forward spot. You know, like all season long.

If you follow all the rules then everything falls into place correctly. If you schedule according to the rules then every skater gets 2 games in the first 6 and anyone can play game 7. If you follow the goalie rule then you have one goalie that will play his 2 games requirement while the other gets five. Or you split it up between them as long as every roster player was given 2 games in the first six and one game was in the first four.

Maybe it's nothing about that i don't know; but really it comes down to you not reading the rules and not doing your duty as a GM to fully understand these rules before going in to the playoffs. It's not the rules fault or the league. These rules have worked for 20 something seasons on the Xbox league and all of sudden 1 season on PlayStation everyone thinks blames the rules.

 

Vile, you clearly didn't read sibs' post if you are confused. Every skater/goalie on our roster was scheduled for their 2 games. ECUs were used for games throughout the week, taking those players scheduled games. We did not have an ECU available for the 6th game (sibs' fault), therefore, someone had to play a 3rd game. The rules do not state that a player cannot play a third game on a needed basis, it simply states every rostered player must be scheduled 2x, which was done.

 

You should keep this kind of stuff private not have it posted up on the boards

 

Polska, too many of the rules are private. For example, I expected to be able to make changes to my roster in between playoff series because the playoff rules imply that you can change your rosters between series. When we tried to make roster changes we were told that that is not allowed, and the only explanation offered was "that's how it's been on xbox forever."

If the rules had been updated to reflect that, there would have been no confusion. Instead a rule that is not publicly available was applied.

 

I just wanna figure one thing out are you blaming the rules for Utica getting knocked out of the playoffs or what ? Because I don't know what your trying to get at beside saying the rules don't follow what they say and that it's the leagues fault ?

 

Polska he tried and went into a grey area with the rules where it isn't clearly marked and it came down on the team and he wants to know where it says that rule

 

There was a lot of talk in the shoutbox saying that I broke the rules. As I explained, I did not break them at all. What the league chooses to do, I have no control over. But I can defend what I did, and refute any claims that I broke the rules.

 

Fair enough

 

wow me and this bag of popcorn have been super busy these last two weeks. Regardless of these been officially written or not this same thing just happened to providence giving you a very recent example of what happens when this gray area is used. Also wasn't this game played well past the 15 min mark for you to get your players set making this whole argument meaningless. It sucks that your goalie was mia and i get that you feel cheated out of the playoffs, but this is no one's fault but your own, always have plan b,c, and d on standby if plan a shits the bed.

 

I approached BoG about exploiting this rule for our series vs. Checkers when our primary goalie became unavailable. They told me no, as technically the wording of the rules allowed for it... it broke the intent of the rule. I played one game G and one game LD, and tried to replace a G's extra free game while still allowing for all roster players playing 2 in 6 still and no dice. No brainer best to ask than wing it and risk forfeit.

 

So I'm sense we could of just asked before we acted, could of helped

 

I have a pile of useless Gs in the TC. No one else was online to play game #6. My hand was forced.

 

The rules clearly state if a player can't make their game then an ECU must be used. No one except a goalie who hasn't left the net can play 3 games by game 6. Again it's in the rules and they clearly weren't read.

AHL Substitution (the action of replacing one AHL roster player with another. By doing this form of substitution, the player who was ORIGINAL SCHEDULED will need to be RESCHEDULED for a game based on the scheduling limitations; one game in the first four, second game if the series goes six)

ECU (the action of using an AHL TC player to filling the position of a roster AHL player who was not able to attend a scheduled game. When an ECU is used, the ORIGINAL AHL PLAYER whom was SCHEDULED DOES NOT NEED TO BE RESCHEDULED. THE ECU is used in replacement of the player who was scheduled, and that player can NOT BE RESCHEDULED AGAIN.)

Clearly an ECU was required not a Substituion.