Spirit of Competition

[Quik 4,113]

It has always been an unwritten rule that teams are not to blatantly tank, and were to put forward their best possible roster. Due to there not always having been enough human created players to fill a roster, rules were never formalized to prevent playing CPU players over human created ones, whether the human created player was active, inactive, or retired. That is no longer the case with the introduction of the Spirit of Competition Rule:

 

Quote

14.8 - Spirit of Competition

i. Best Available Roster - General Managers are expected to put forth their best available roster, every game of the season. Managers found to be violating the spirit of competition within the league, especially, but not limited to, any form of tanking, will face punishment, at the discretion of the League Commissioners. Punishment will range up to, and including, but not limited to: Draft Pick Forfeiture, Salary Cap Fines, GM Dismissal.

 

i.e. If a team in S73 is found to be playing CPU Players, or inferior Inactive Players, over better Human Created Players, they may face reduced Draft Lottery Odds, or possibly the loss of their 1st Round Pick entirely, in the S74 VHL Entry Draft. Depending on the severity of their transgression, the General Manager may also face dismissal.

 

ii. CPU Goaltenders - Teams may not start a CPU Goaltender for more than 8 games in a season, when a human created goaltender above 250 TPA is available. If the team does not have a human created goaltender on their roster, they must make a reasonable attempt to acquire one, whether that is through trade, free agency, or the VHL Entry Draft.

 

i.e. If Vancouver does not have a Human Created Goaltender on their roster to start the season, but there is a Free Agent Goaltender, Active, Inactive, or pending Retirement upon season's end, they must make an offer on said Free Agent.

 

iii. Human Goaltenders Below 250 TPA - Human Created Goaltenders who are below 250 TPA may not start more than 8 games in a season. Should they cross the 250 TPA threshold mid-season, this rule will only apply to games started before crossing 250 TPA.

 

You may notice that the cutoff of 250 TPA was noted several times, in regards to goaltenders. For several years now, there has been an unofficial rule (as in, it has not been in the VHL Rule Book, but has been noted for General Managers in the GM Forum) that teams may not play weak goaltenders in the place of bots, which have been set to 200 TPA for many years. Starting in S73, all CPU Goaltenders will be uniformly set to 250 TPA, with matching attributes and bio-metrics for each goal tender, removing any potential for variance in CPU Goalie quality.

 

As well, there will be an amendment to the Louth Rule, to clarify any potential issues with regards to backup games, which will now read as:

 

Quote

14.7 - Keaton Louth Rule

All teams must start a secondary goalie at least 8 times during the season; meaning no goaltender may start more than 64 games, in one season, for a single team. Failure to comply with this maximum will result in punishment, at the discretion of League Commissioners. Punishment will range from draft pick/cap space fines, to being forced to play a backup goaltender for up to 8 playoff games to make up the extra regular season games played by their #1 goaltender.

 

Example

Davos starts Ross 22/22 games, trades for Goalie X. Now, Goalie X is allowed to start 50/50

 

Seattle starts Funk 5/5 games, trades for Goalie Y. Goalie Y may only start 64/67 games, so a 3rd goalie would need to start the remaining 3 games

 

[Quik 4,113]

@VHL GM this mostly applies to you, so only tagging you lot.

[McWolf 3,116]

Rules \o/

[Berocka 2,263]

48 minutes ago, Quik said:

No goaltender may start more than 64 games

What about a goalie that is traded mid season?

 

Lets use an example where Funk is traded with Ross a one for one trade between Seattle and Davos, Funk has played 24 games where Ross has played 22 games. This can happen due to the days of sims. No back up games have been played for either team. Now technically to abide by the rule Seattle only needs to play their back up in 6 games where Davos will need to play their back up 10 games.

 

This could potentially help a team and hinder another. 

[Beketov 9,095]

6 minutes ago, Berocka said:

What about a goalie that is traded mid season?

 

Lets use an example where Funk is traded with Ross a one for one trade between Seattle and Davos, Funk has played 24 games where Ross has played 22 games. This can happen due to the days of sims. No back up games have been played for either team. Now technically to abide by the rule Seattle only needs to play their back up in 6 games where Davos will need to play their back up 10 games.

 

This could potentially help a team and hinder another. 

 

You ended the quote too soon:

 

58 minutes ago, Quik said:

in one season, for a single team

 

So obviously a goalie could have more than 64 starts if they are traded to a team that has completed all their backup games or is simply scheduled behind. However those extra games would be played for a different team. It doesn't affect the backup games at all though. Davos and Seattle (in your example) would both still need to play their backup 8 games each. The starters being traded doesn't change that.

[Berocka 2,263]

6 minutes ago, Beketov said:

 

You ended the quote too soon:

 

 

So obviously a goalie could have more than 64 starts if they are traded to a team that has completed all their backup games or is simply scheduled behind. However those extra games would be played for a different team. It doesn't affect the backup games at all though. Davos and Seattle (in your example) would both still need to play their backup 8 games each. The starters being traded doesn't change that.

Okay yeah I missed that my bad, but in the rulebook does it say you have to play a backup for 8 games?

[Beketov 9,095]

13 minutes ago, Berocka said:

Okay yeah I missed that my bad, but in the rulebook does it say you have to play a backup for 8 games?

That is, in essence, the Louth Rule. We're simply clarifying it with the 64 games part because there has been some confusion in regards to playing a starter X number of times and then trading them to a different team. Ultimately the goalie coming in could have more starts but the team has still started their backup Y number of times which is what's needed.

 

So let's take your above example. Say both teams have played 30 games with Funk starting in 24 of them and Ross starting in 22. Davos is therefore done their required backup games and Seattle has 2 left. Ross will end up playing 40 more games for 62 total starts and Funk will end up playing the remaining 42 games and end up with 66 starts. Neither one is a problem because Funk's starts weren't all with one team and both teams have played their required 8 backup starts. Does that make sense?

[Berocka 2,263]

9 minutes ago, Beketov said:

That is, in essence, the Louth Rule. We're simply clarifying it with the 64 games part because there has been some confusion in regards to playing a starter X number of times and then trading them to a different team. Ultimately the goalie coming in could have more starts but the team has still started their backup Y number of times which is what's needed.

 

So let's take your above example. Say both teams have played 30 games with Funk starting in 24 of them and Ross starting in 22. Davos is therefore done their required backup games and Seattle has 2 left. Ross will end up playing 40 more games for 62 total starts and Funk will end up playing the remaining 42 games and end up with 66 starts. Neither one is a problem because Funk's starts weren't all with one team and both teams have played their required 8 backup starts. Does that make sense?

Yeah it makes sense and I just misread it and I know that every GM knows the rule but no where in the description of the rule does it explain that a back up needs to be played 8 time that's all.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Quik said:

It has always been an unwritten rule that teams are not to blatantly tank, and were to put forward their best possible roster. Due to there not always having been enough human created players to fill a roster, rules were never formalized to prevent playing CPU players over human created ones, whether the human created player was active, inactive, or retired. That is no longer the case with the introduction of the Spirit of Competition Rule:

 

 

You may notice that the cutoff of 250 TPA was noted several times, in regards to goaltenders. For several years now, there has been an unofficial rule (as in, it has not been in the VHL Rule Book, but has been noted for General Managers in the GM Forum) that teams may not play weak goaltenders in the place of bots, which have been set to 200 TPA for many years. Starting in S73, all CPU Goaltenders will be uniformly set to 250 TPA, with matching attributes and bio-metrics for each goal tender, removing any potential for variance in CPU Goalie quality.

 

As well, there will be an amendment to the Louth Rule, to clarify any potential issues with regards to backup games, which will now read as:

 

 

praise to the blues and BOG

this is a fantastic step forward and a rule i am surprised has not been implemented a lot sooner. its clean and direct great job team

[frescoelmo 1,282]

i.e. If Vancouver does not have a Human Created Goaltender on their roster to start the season, but there is a Free Agent Goaltender, Active, Inactive, or pending Retirement upon season's end, they must make an offer on said Free Agent.

 

 

Great example TBH

[Beketov 9,095]

4 minutes ago, Berocka said:

Yeah it makes sense and I just misread it and I know that every GM knows the rule but no where in the description of the rule does it explain that a back up needs to be played 8 time that's all.

The original wording of it was

 

Quote

General Managers must play a second goalie for a minimum of 8 games (may be split by more than one backup goalie). 

 

[Quik 4,113]

39 minutes ago, Berocka said:

Okay yeah I missed that my bad, but in the rulebook does it say you have to play a backup for 8 games?

Example

Davos starts Ross 22/22 games, trades for Goalie X. Now, Goalie X is allowed to start 50/50

 

Seattle starts Funk 5/5 games, trades for Goalie Y. Goalie Y may only start 64/67 games, so a 3rd goalie would need to start the remaining 3 games

[Quik 4,113]

25 minutes ago, Kachur said:

praise to the blues and BOG

this is a fantastic step forward and a rule i am surprised has not been implemented a lot sooner. its clean and direct great job team

 

TBH, as with most rules, it's something that has been understood since the beginning of the league, so there hasn't been reason to even contemplate adding it to the Official Rule Book until something arises that makes you realize it does. It isn't so much that we're making things up as we go along, but after years of knowing an "unwritten" rule (I say it like that because there have been instances where it's been brought up by GMs and told it wasn't allowed), you take for granted that not everyone has that same history, so you can only adjust when it becomes clear that it's necessary, and move forward.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Quik said:

 

TBH, as with most rules, it's something that has been understood since the beginning of the league, so there hasn't been a reason to even contemplate adding it to the Official Rule Book until something arises that makes you realize it does. It isn't so much that we're making things up as we go along, but after years of knowing an "unwritten" rule (I say it like that because there have been instances where it's been brought up by GMs and told it wasn't allowed), you take for granted that not everyone has that same history, so you can only adjust when it becomes clear that it's necessary, and move forward.

Understandable. I didn't mean to offend if I did. I was just happy to see it in writing now is. Hockey has unwritten rules and we are the same. 

 

I'm just praising you all for your hard work and diligence to lay it out in a way that made sense. You all don't get enough credit. 

[Mr_Hatter 1,608]

I don't think this has ever really been an issue, though I could easily be wrong with that, but I suppose having more stuff on the book can't hurt

[Motzaburger 1,590]

I'm all for this I just would like to see a bit of clarification regarding inactive players.

 

Playing your best team may put inactive human created players above active, lower TPE players.

 

For example, 716 TPE Jim Bob is now IA but new rookie, 360 TPE Bob Bob is a new active rookie. Best roster would be Jim Bob > Bob Bob according to the new rule without clarifying that actives should be played ahead of inactives. 

 

I know we all follow the actives > IAs, but I would like to see that reiterated in this new rule so it is more framed as "best active roster" first, rather than just "best roster". Wouldn't want to see actives getting pushed down the line-up due to "best roster" rules because they are lower TPEz

 

 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Motzaburger

[eaglesfan036 4,605]

18 minutes ago, twists said:

 

I agree, and also want to see this answered. This may have large ramifications for the VHLM if we always have to field the best roster in terms of playing inactives.

 

I doubt this would be a problem in the VHLM, actives always play first there

[Beketov 9,095]

17 minutes ago, twists said:

 

I agree, and also want to see this answered. This may have large ramifications for the VHLM if we always have to field the best roster in terms of playing inactives.

This is in relation to the VHL and not VHLM. While we obviously would always prefer actives get ice time it’s ultimately up to GM’s to decide how to run their lines. This is mostly just to avoid teams intentionally running worse lineups to intentionally tank for better draft picks. Outside of that we aren’t trying to micromanage how GM’s handle their rosters.

[Seabass 593]

Great move guys

[Advantage 2,899]

3 hours ago, Mr_Hatter said:

I don't think this has ever really been an issue, though I could easily be wrong with that, but I suppose having more stuff on the book can't hurt

I can confirm we wouldn't be implementing this unless something has caught our eye and made it clear we need to do so.

[Mr_Hatter 1,608]

54 minutes ago, Advantage said:

I can confirm we wouldn't be implementing this unless something has caught our eye and made it clear we need to do so.

yeah I've been filled in in my LR. Like I said though, regardless it seems like something good enough to be on the books, even if it should mostly be common sense

 

[DollarAndADream 3,357]

Kind of shitty to be playing a CPU over a created player in the first place, if you have a created player available. I know for a fact most people would kind of feel screwed over if they found out a CPU was getting their playing time while they're on the roster. It's definitely not a good move to do as a GM.