ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Archive => Backyard NHL => Archive => Backyard NHL: Archives => Topic started by: Drew on February 07, 2014, 02:25:40 PM
-
Please vote and discuss if you wish.
-
If an ir player does not count towards your roster limit, then they should not be considered active.
-
This shouldn't even be a vote. Just wanted some clarification as sometimes the way things are written is confusing. For example: what do you mean by IR player?
A) A player that is on IR
B) A player that is replacing a player that is on IR
Obviously if a player is on IR they are NOT active.
-
:rofl: Seams like a weird vote to me.
-
I can't vote because I'm not certain what is meant by IR player. Seriously.
-
Sorry guys this is for IR replacement players, sorry. So an player placed on IR becomes inactive. This would only affect calling up goalies so if you have 3 goalies on your team and another player gets hurt, you can or can't call up a goalie because you already have 3 active goalies.
-
I reset the votes to make sure everyone actually knows what they are voting on. Any player placed on IR is not active. But this vote is for replacement players whether they are "active"
-
I reset the votes to make sure everyone actually knows what they are voting on. Any player placed on IR is not active. But this vote is for replacement players whether they are "active"
If we vote that replacement players are not active then we would be able to exceed the maximum of 3 active goalies by calling up multiple replacement goalies for anybody placed on IR.
I think we can simplify by stating that: "a goalie can only be used as an IR replacement for an injured goalie and may not be employed on the main roster out of position"
-
I voted Yes, but was a little confused. I believe like Slack that a goalie should only be called up if a goalie is the player on IR.
-
If we vote that replacement players are not active then we would be able to exceed the maximum of 3 active goalies by calling up multiple replacement goalies for anybody placed on IR.
I think we can simplify by stating that: "a goalie can only be used as an IR replacement for an injured goalie and may not be employed on the main roster out of position"
This is the intention of the rule but simply stating that IR replacements are considered active players solves this because you can't have more than 3 active goalies.
-
I'm still confused...This is how I feel. I hope my vote of YES was the same as what this says.
When a goalie is put on IR, he is no long active.
When another goalie is called up as an IR replacement, he is then the active player.
This would still be legal.
Michal Neuvirth, $1.6m (2014-15)
Darcy Kuemper, $0.5m (2014-15)
Pekka Rinne, $8.0m (2015-16) IR
Martin Jones, $0.2m (2015-16) - IR replacement
-
This is the intention of the rule but simply stating that IR replacements are considered active players solves this because you can't have more than 3 active goalies.
This is what everyone wants....and we have just had a pretty clear vote restricting the number of active goalies to three. So I am curious why open up a new vote on this when it could potentially undermine the one we just had by creating a loophole that IR call-ups are somehow exempt from the being counted as active players.
I think clarity is worth going the extra mile for and that officially adopting this statement (a goalie can only be used as an IR replacement for an injured goalie and may not be employed on the main roster out of position) will give us an unambiguous policy even if rendered redundant by a yes vote.
-
I'm still confused...This is how I feel. I hope my vote of YES was the same as what this says.
When a goalie is put on IR, he is no long active.
When another goalie is called up as an IR replacement, he is then the active player.
This would still be legal.
Michal Neuvirth, $1.6m (2014-15)
Darcy Kuemper, $0.5m (2014-15)
Pekka Rinne, $8.0m (2015-16) IR
Martin Jones, $0.2m (2015-16) - IR replacement
I believe a yes vote is what you want.
-
I think clarity is worth going the extra mile for and that officially adopting this statement (a goalie can only be used as an IR replacement for an injured goalie and may not be employed on the main roster out of position) will give us an unambiguous policy even if rendered redundant by a yes vote.
This is what I want!!! :iatp: :iatp: :iatp:
-
This is what everyone wants....and we have just had a pretty clear vote restricting the number of active goalies to three. So I am curious why open up a new vote on this when it could potentially undermine the one we just had by creating a loophole that IR call-ups are somehow exempt from the being counted as active players.
I think clarity is worth going the extra mile for and that officially adopting this statement (a goalie can only be used as an IR replacement for an injured goalie and may not be employed on the main roster out of position) will give us an unambiguous policy even if rendered redundant by a yes vote.
:iatp:
-
I think clarity is worth going the extra mile for and that officially adopting this statement (a goalie can only be used as an IR replacement for an injured goalie and may not be employed on the main roster out of position) will give us an unambiguous policy even if rendered redundant by a yes vote.
:iatp: