(10-16-2017, 01:33 PM)7hawk77 Wrote:Correct.


For example, during S1. Ethan Hunt was traded to the sabercats. He then expressed interest that he did not want to play for this team and wanted to be traded elsewhere. This was not ideal for the sabercats but he was acting on his own and wasn't influenced by an outside force. This isn't breaking the rules.

Now if he expressed this interest because another GM said "hey come play for us" and did it because an outside force was acting upon him in an unfair manner. This isn't ok.  The Varga Cushing bet is an outside force, that resulted in kckolbe being forced to leave against his will. He can still do whatever he wants because he has his autonomy back.

Quote:kckolbe and RavensFanFromOntario - If the Legion win two or more games over the course of S3 and S4, Cushing will sign as a free agent in Las Vegas. If not, Varga has to come to Yellowknife as a free agent.

(10-16-2017, 01:06 PM)ExemplaryChad Wrote:I'm new to the league, and I recognize that many of you aren't. So, I make any and all comments with all due respect. I will not attack anyone personally. These are my thoughts:

Those of you arguing against this ruling have made clear two positions, as I see it. I will discuss each separately.

1. These rules were never enforced before. As a result, enforcing them now is unfair.

This argument makes little sense under scrutiny. Is it unfortunate that these rules were not enforced in the inaugural seasons of the NSFL? Sure, it absolutely is. Does that mean we should never enforce these rules, ever, at all? Of course it doesn't. While some people will decry the timing of this decision, it has to be made at some point. And at that point, regardless of when it is, people will take issue with it. It has to happen. It will suck for someone whenever it does. It sucks for some people that it will happen now. But this is an unfortunate side effect of a necessary step.

2. These rulings are punishing a team that is already bad. As a result, punishing this team is unfair.

Again, this is an argument that holds little weight. What should the league do instead of handing down these rulings now? Must they wait for a good team to break the rules before upholding them? It's unfortunate that a bad team is the one breaking the rules. But the rules are in place, and their enforcement is paramount, even if it was not done before (see above point). It's unfair to say that the Legion are "being made an example of." That would be the case if the punishment being handed down was more drastic than it should be, or will be in the future. Instead, what's happening is that a team has broken the rules at a time when the rules are going to start being enforced.

Anyone remember James Harrison's reaction when the NFL started cracking down on shots to the head? He was furious. He had played his whole career hitting players in the head. It was kind of a trademark of his. It was unfortunate for him that the rules changed while he was playing, and in the later stages of his career. Nevertheless, the rules were always going to be put in place (or, in this case, be enforced) when it would impact someone negatively. If it's not now, it's going to be some other time, and the people impacted then will think it's unfair.

Head office is attempting to make the best of a bad situation. We can all lament that they have to do these things, now, under these circumstances, but to pretend that these things don't have happen is not fair to the league in either its present or its future state.

(10-16-2017, 02:06 PM)ExemplaryChad Wrote:1. These rules were never enforced before. As a result, enforcing them now is unfair.

This argument makes little sense under scrutiny. Is it unfortunate that these rules were not enforced in the inaugural seasons of the NSFL? Sure, it absolutely is. Does that mean we should never enforce these rules, ever, at all? Of course it doesn't. While some people will decry the timing of this decision, it has to be made at some point. And at that point, regardless of when it is, people will take issue with it. It has to happen. It will suck for someone whenever it does. It sucks for some people that it will happen now. But this is an unfortunate side effect of a necessary step.

2. These rulings are punishing a team that is already bad. As a result, punishing this team is unfair.

Again, this is an argument that holds little weight. What should the league do instead of handing down these rulings now? Must they wait for a good team to break the rules before upholding them? It's unfortunate that a bad team is the one breaking the rules. But the rules are in place, and their enforcement is paramount, even if it was not done before (see above point).

(10-16-2017, 12:06 PM)ExemplaryChad Wrote:I'm new to the league, and I recognize that many of you aren't. So, I make any and all comments with all due respect. I will not attack anyone personally. These are my thoughts:

Those of you arguing against this ruling have made clear two positions, as I see it. I will discuss each separately.

1. These rules were never enforced before. As a result, enforcing them now is unfair.

This argument makes little sense under scrutiny. Is it unfortunate that these rules were not enforced in the inaugural seasons of the NSFL? Sure, it absolutely is. Does that mean we should never enforce these rules, ever, at all? Of course it doesn't. While some people will decry the timing of this decision, it has to be made at some point. And at that point, regardless of when it is, people will take issue with it. It has to happen. It will suck for someone whenever it does. It sucks for some people that it will happen now. But this is an unfortunate side effect of a necessary step.

2. These rulings are punishing a team that is already bad. As a result, punishing this team is unfair.

Again, this is an argument that holds little weight. What should the league do instead of handing down these rulings now? Must they wait for a good team to break the rules before upholding them? It's unfortunate that a bad team is the one breaking the rules. But the rules are in place, and their enforcement is paramount, even if it was not done before (see above point). It's unfair to say that the Legion are "being made an example of." That would be the case if the punishment being handed down was more drastic than it should be, or will be in the future. Instead, what's happening is that a team has broken the rules at a time when the rules are going to start being enforced.

Anyone remember James Harrison's reaction when the NFL started cracking down on shots to the head? He was furious. He had played his whole career hitting players in the head. It was kind of a trademark of his. It was unfortunate for him that the rules changed while he was playing, and in the later stages of his career. Nevertheless, the rules were always going to be put in place (or, in this case, be enforced) when it would impact someone negatively. If it's not now, it's going to be some other time, and the people impacted then will think it's unfair.

Head office is attempting to make the best of a bad situation. We can all lament that they have to do these things, now, under these circumstances, but to pretend that these things don't have happen is not fair to the league in either its present or its future state.

(10-16-2017, 03:33 PM)ErMurazor Wrote:It isn't an issue of unenforced rules. The teams that previously violated this rule did not receive THIS punishment (and in reality no real punishment). All 3 instances of cap space abuse occurred under the same set of rules, but one team is receiving a different punishment.  I am completely on board with harsher rules being put in place for failing to abide by the salary cap, but these changes should be done proactively, not retroactively. For example, the Legion broke a rule. They will receive the same punishment as the other teams that broke the rule. Going forward, this is going to be the new punishment for breaking this rule.  The "necessary step" still occurs without the "unfortunate side effect."

(10-16-2017, 04:40 PM)Molarpistols Wrote:I understand there's a salary cap and that it is against the rules in the rulebook.  However, unless I missed it in the rulebook somewhere, there was never a stated punishment for going over.
If the rulebook specifically said "Going over the cap will result in X% salary cap penalties in X number of following seasons" I can totally get behind punishing LVL.
The rulebook says no such thing (that I was able to find), so I don't think LVL should be punished.  The rulebook SHOULD be amended and any future transgressions should face the punishment. The differing punishments for breaking the same rule without an announcement of the change is poor.