|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Oct 18, 2017 12:46:29 GMT -5
If the penalty was less harsh I think the vote goes differently. I see no reason not to penalize teams that broke rules other than the penalty wasn't proportionate to the offence. The problem we created is now lets say a team goes over the cap next week, as a league there is no way we can penalize that team as a precedent has now been set and I guess they would get a warning and have a week to get legal. Wrong Matt. the vote was in favour of penalty. SO BEWARE. I will be ruling with an iron fist for you fukkers!!! My bad, thought the no's were a couple ahead last I checked. |
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Oct 18, 2017 12:48:19 GMT -5
If the penalty was less harsh I think the vote goes differently. I see no reason not to penalize teams that broke rules other than the penalty wasn't proportionate to the offence. The problem we created is now lets say a team goes over the cap next week, as a league there is no way we can penalize that team as a precedent has now been set and I guess they would get a warning and have a week to get legal. To Dave's point, the vote is about whether or not you want to impose the rule to reduce those teams' (mentioned and all others moving forward) entry draft positions by two places for the infractions described in the thread's first post. So you're not voting for the idea of a penalty being imposed - no one disputes the need for a penalty. You're voting for that specific penalty in this specific instance. You're saying a clerical error due to one thing or another or other oversights that resulted in this infraction should be penalized by two spots in the entry draft. So when you note proportionality to the offence, perhaps you thought you were voting for simply the idea of a penalty being imposed as opposed to the severity of the penalty you seem to disagree with that's actually the vote at hand? I would have preferred a different penalty that is for sure. |
|
