[DEV] ISFL Forums
Brock Landers S16/17 TPE Claim - Printable Version

+- [DEV] ISFL Forums (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Community (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Discussion (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=33)
+---- Forum: ISFL Thunderdome (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=35)
+---- Thread: Brock Landers S16/17 TPE Claim (/showthread.php?tid=17811)

Pages: 1 2

Brock Landers S16/17 TPE Claim - Duilio05 - 01-17-2020

(01-17-2020, 05:02 PM)bex Wrote:Hello @gucci

Thank you for bringing this question to us! We've discussed in Head Office, and upon review of the situation and the rule at hand, we find that you would not be able to claim that TPE, as you were signed to a new contract.

As you brought up, III.A.8 - To be particularly clear about regression: All TPE earned must be put in your update thread before regression and signing new contracts or extensions. This TPE will count towards regression and your contract tier. Any TPE not put in your update thread at those times will be considered void

As to the question of whether or not you could claim up to that contract tier amount, we must turn to similar past cases. Er attempted to claim old TPE, and the original ruling did allow him to claim up to the contract tier amount. However, this ruling was overturned on appeals, and the entirety of the TPE from that time was forfeit.

As such, you would not be able to claim the s16/s17 TPE in question. You were signed to a new contract without the TPE in question on your update thread, making them now void.

As to your argument about the "and" use in III.A.8, "and" here is used to clarify that both situations require all TPE to be accounted for before proceeding. This is confirmed when later the rule states that "Any TPE not put in your update thread at those times will be considered void". "Those times",  as these are the two cases in which you must have all TPE factored in, both when calculating regression and when signing contracts or extensions.

Thank you again for coming to us with the question and providing your argument. Welcome back to the league! Feel free to reach out to me or any other member of Head Office with further questions.

Best,

[Image: 32e31433db39c503e91a14e4a51827b0.png]

Bex
Commissioner of the NSFL

In the cited Er/Jorel Tuck case, Tuck claimed tpe that was over 2 1/2 months old. The Update Page cited from the punishment compared to tpe claimed in that update. In that case Er and SJS was punished not because Er attempted to claim tpe that was too old, but because he over applied before signing the new contract, violating rule VI.D.12. I would like that distinction to be noted. Gucci has yet to claim any tpe, nor does he plan to apply any tpe that would put him over tpe teir:599 tpe. Subsequently the forfeit of earned unapplied tpe was a decision by the appeals committee here, the forfeit of tpe was done inconjunction with the punishment rules VI.D.12 and not because of rule III.A.8. We would appreciate it that HO does not interpret the rulings conducted by the appeals committee, and as such request for the appeals committe instead of HO to clairfy their ruling in review of Gucci's request.
[b]Edit: again gucci should be able to claim and apply up to 27 earned tpe previously unclaimed[b]

Brock Landers S16/17 TPE Claim - gucci - 01-17-2020

^

Brock Landers S16/17 TPE Claim - br0_0ker - 01-17-2020

(01-17-2020, 03:18 PM)Duilio05 Wrote:In that case Er and SJS was punished not because Er attempted to claim tpe that was too old, but because he over applied before signing the new contract, violating rule VI.D.12. [b]

And neither in this case is gucci losing TPE because it is too old, but because Landers was signed to a contract while gucci was IA. It seems pretty cut and dry that the TPE that wasn't applied before the contract was signed is forfeit.

Brock Landers S16/17 TPE Claim - gucci - 01-17-2020

To me its pretty cut and dry that the rule is stated to be about regression, so I don't really even get this interpretation of the rule applying to players outside of regression.

"To be particularly clear about regression:" should be removed if the rule is intended to apply to players outside of regression. This is just punishing me for being inactive, which I'm fine with but let's call it what it is...