Disgrace

[jRuutu 2,426]

 

 

Quebec Meute finished 5th in the standings and made the playoffs, but during the season the backup goalie failed to start the eight games that are required, Quebec´s backup started only five. Because of that, Quebec had to play three games in the playoffs with the backup G starting. Controversial decision, I can remember one case from the past where player who did play in the games and on the lines sent by the GM, we saw re-sims, but now when for whatever reason the lines were not loaded when management sent them in, harsh penalty like this was handed out instead of showing some leniency when simmer or simmers played a part on it.

 

The punishment for failing to start a 2nd goaltender the minimum 8 games, is at the discretion of the league's Commissioners. This punishment can involve loss of draft picks and/or cap space in following seasons, as well as potentially having to start a backup goaltender in the playoffs, for games missed in the regular season.

 

Why backup goaltender games now in the playoffs? Why not cap penalty next year or loss of picks, is it because Quebec faced Toronto, a team that has multiple established members? A team that could use whatever help they can get this year to make it to next round?

 

All I know is that this is an odd time and decision to try and make GM´s pay extra attention on things that should not happen in the first place, especially when we can remember the mentioned case where a player did not appear in the lines, resulting in re-sim.

 

Where is the same understanding now?

 

Some smart guy can ask: why the backup G games were not put in earlier? Why leave it to the last minute, the season has 72 games?  Hey, guess what - the GM already had a plan on when to play the backup, but lines were not put in for three days. Have you thought about that?

 

What if those games where the backup was supposed to play were already marked into the calendar well before as potential games that could be won with the backup?  It´s the general managers right to play the backup whenever he or she wants, now that got denied, where was the re-sim during that time?

 

Instead of simmer or simmers owning up to their pretty big part in the whole case, we now have a three-game penalty where bot G plays in the playoffs.

 

That is crazy, all the time and effort during the season by the number one goalie of Quebec thrown into the bin, all the effort by other players in the team thrown into the bin, purely because now of all moments league decides to put the big boy pants on and show what happens when you ´break´ the rules?

 

Disgrace.

 

Enforcing a backup goalie rule of all rules at the expense of playoffs is as stupid as it gets, should be the last thing you pull from the punishment book and used on those GM´s who just don´t care, but no - you went into the deep end right away.

 

We are talking about a backup goalie rule here, a bot goalie did not play in eight games, a bot goalie. There was a 22 point difference between Quebec and Calgary, the fact that it was originally simmers error that caused the backup goalie to not get played in the first place, then the point difference, which shows that the three games that backup G failed to start meant absolutely nothing in the standings makes it hard to understand the logic behind forcing Quebec to play bot goalie in the playoffs.

Edited February 5, 2019 by jRuutu

[Beketov 8,941]

1. GM’s were notified punishments would be handed out this season for failing to hit the requirements.

 

2. GM’s were notified of the addition to send lines to the regular location as well as @Devise. The fact that this was not done is not the fault of the simmers.

 

3. Beaviss was under the belief that he needed fewer games than he did (since he assumed his backup wasn’t in for the last game which would have put him at 4/8) so even with the above his count would likely have still been off.

 

No right has been denied. The backup was not played, period. This has nothing to do with prominent members on Toronto, has nothing to do with Toronto at all. A case could MAYBE be made if lines were skipped right at the end (especially if they were sent correctly) and that would have resulted in the proper amount. However the lines in question were in the middle of the season. Still plenty of room to get the required games in. And no, we were not going to re-sim those games because of a GM mistake.

 

I get that it sucks for Quebec but we were very clear that the rules have been in place since the league began and we were going to start enforcing them. We could not have been more clear on that and all the GM’s knew it. The onus isn’t on the league here, it’s on Quebec for miss-managing their backup games. I’m sorry but that’s how it is.

[Devise 4,475]

Yeah I never once checked how many games Quebec required, or any team that wasn't Toronto, for back ups left. We load the lines we are given and go forward. I saw in one of Beaviss last line submissions of the season, that he stated he'd get the back up in for one more game, which he thought was the last required as Bek mentioned. As Beaviss said himself in the Discord, he misunderstood the games played stat, and the games started. 

 

In previous seasons it's been entirely on the simmer to micro manage this with no punishment, and it has lead to situations where GM's simply ignore it because they realize it will either A, get done by the simmer, or B, not get done, a quality starter will play a game they shouldn't or a back up won't play a game they should and the GM's who were following the rules were annoyed. Beaviss was one of the members prominent in the punishment discussion behind the scenes. It was decided to leave it up to the discretion of the Blue (of which Will and Bek were the two that ruled on this for both Helsinki and Quebec with absolutely no input from anyone else I might add) which is absolutely fair. Neither Will or Bek have any ties to Helsinki, Quebec or Toronto the teams that they would be facing. Hell could throw Riga in there since Helsinki is forced to play their back up one game against them.

 

It was decided in the BoG thread that among the lists of punishment would come down to what matters to the team most. If your a rebuilding club for example, and you forget, you probably lose a pick instead of a forced playoff back up game. So as to make the punishment actually matter to every team who breaks it. This was the case here. I earnestly had zero idea that this rule was even broken until logging on the other day after Will/Bek had discussed and made their ruling. 

 

Unfortunately because the consensus, BoG etc all agreed that a harsher punishment was in order for this to try and ensure GM's start to realize it is ENTIRELY their responsibility to manage this and if they don't the punishment is severe enough to heavily encourage them to pay attention to how many games their back ups and goalies in general, are starting. 

[Banackock 7,981]

It’s such an easy thing to keep

track of and if your GM did his job 100%, he wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with. I thought I used all mine up and I had him slated to play his final few, must have fucked up my lines and still caught it to have Devise throw my goalie in when i asked him too! So thanks to @Devise  

 

imo, 3 games is a bit much - but I agree with 2. However many games you were under the 8 GP, maybe could be how many he plays in playoffs. Happy the league upheld the rules on this one. Very easy rule that I’ve followed for over 16 seasons straight.. 

 

Unfortunate - but it’s more unfortunate that a GM failed to follow such simple, easy and set out rules as opposed to it being unfortunate it happened. 

[Beketov 8,941]

8 minutes ago, Banackock said:

imo, 3 games is a bit much - but I agree with 2. However many games you were under the 8 GP, maybe could be how many he plays in playoffs.

That is precisely what the punishment was. They were under by 3 games and QUE G was to start the WC round. If it had gone to 3 games he would have been in for game 3 as well.

[Beaviss 4,956]

Yeah it was on me..... I thought 8 games played equaled minimum not 8 games started.

[Beketov 8,941]

23 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

Yeah it was on me..... I thought 8 games played equaled minimum not 8 games started.

I’ll admit that it is a poor way for STHS to handle that stat.

[Banackock 7,981]

8 minutes ago, Beketov said:

I’ll admit that it is a poor way for STHS to handle that stat.

There is a way to see it.. changing what is showed to you stat wise - as I’m sure you know  Just letting Beaviss know.. 

 

Obviously it’s starts and not just appearances. 

 

Eother way, yipeeewee 

[Beketov 8,941]

16 minutes ago, Banackock said:

There is a way to see it.. changing what is showed to you stat wise - as I’m sure you know  Just letting Beaviss know.. 

 

Obviously it’s starts and not just appearances. 

 

Eother way, yipeeewee 

Oh yeah, I know how to see it, it’s on the portal as well if you know where to look. It’s just odd to me that coming into a game counts as a GP. Probably only weird for our specific situation though.

[jRuutu 2,426]

6 hours ago, Devise said:

It was decided in the BoG thread that among the lists of punishment would come down to what matters to the team most. If your a rebuilding club for example, and you forget, you probably lose a pick instead of a forced playoff back up game. So as to make the punishment actually matter to every team who breaks it. This was the case here. I earnestly had zero idea that this rule was even broken until logging on the other day after Will/Bek had discussed and made their ruling. 

How do you judge if someone is a rebulding team or just had a bad year?

 

Or is playoffs the line? You make it - punishment will be playoff related more than likely? If so, why? Surely it would hurt the team even more if you put a cap penalty or force the team to play double the backup games next year?

 

6 hours ago, Beketov said:

 

No right has been denied. The backup was not played, period. This has nothing to do with prominent members on Toronto, has nothing to do with Toronto at all. A case could MAYBE be made if lines were skipped right at the end (especially if they were sent correctly) and that would have resulted in the proper amount. However the lines in question were in the middle of the season. Still plenty of room to get the required games in. And no, we were not going to re-sim those games because of a GM mistake.

 

True, there was still time left on the season, but what gives the league the right to say there was still time? If the GM wants backup games for example on games 25-32, but the changes are not put in, bit silly to start punishing the GM for it? Basing this on Beaviss comment over here,

 

6 hours ago, Beketov said:

 

2. GM’s were notified of the addition to send lines to the regular location as well as @Devise. The fact that this was not done is not the fault of the simmers.

 

 

VHL email is not the regular location?

[jRuutu 2,426]

6 hours ago, Banackock said:

It’s such an easy thing to keep

track of and if your GM did his job 100%, he wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with. I thought I used all mine up and I had him slated to play his final few, must have fucked up my lines and still caught it to have Devise throw my goalie in when i asked him too! So thanks to @Devise  

 

imo, 3 games is a bit much - but I agree with 2. However many games you were under the 8 GP, maybe could be how many he plays in playoffs. Happy the league upheld the rules on this one. Very easy rule that I’ve followed for over 16 seasons straight.. 

 

Unfortunate - but it’s more unfortunate that a GM failed to follow such simple, easy and set out rules as opposed to it being unfortunate it happened. 

Sure, it´s not in the hardest end of things in the GM job, but at the same time, forcing a team to play a bot goalie in the playoffs - really? I mean, there has to be a better way to punish the GM/ team, especially in a case like this where Quebec could have lost 10 points and still made the playoffs.

 

Also out of curiosity, why is there a backup rule? If  GM´s are expected to monitor how many games the goalies are playing, surely they can run their goalie tandem in whatever way they want? Give all the starts to one player or whatever.

Edited February 5, 2019 by jRuutu

[Beaviss 4,956]

4 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

Sure, it´s not in the hardest end of things in the GM job, but at the same time, forcing a team to play a bot goalie in the playoffs - really? I mean, there has to be a better way to punish the GM/ team, especially in a case like this where Quebec could have lost 10 points and still made the playoffs.

 

Also out of curiosity, why is there a backup rule? If  GM´s are expected to monitor how many games the goalies are playing, surely they can run their goalie tandem in whatever way they want? Give all the starts to one player or whatever.

 

I do agree the backup rule is stupid but in the end its my bad.

[Bushito 1,945]

The title of this article should be incompetence 

[Advantage 2,891]

This article just feels like a big pile of whine.