Leaderboard

First, I agree that the rulebook is not perfect - in fact, I disagree with many parts of it, an arbitrary roster size rule being one of them. Secondly I am like-minded in thinking it should be applied to the word. Before I go further I would like to just point out that I am not nor have I ever been part of the LA and I have not discussed the case with any members thereof. That being said, I do disagree with your interpretation in this particular case. According to the sections of the rulebook you quoted, I agree it was possible for the assistant captains to move to another team, however only after having secured enough new players to the team within 24 hours, in order to comply with section 13.3 (in bold in quote). Had they managed to do that I do not see an obstacle for the transfer. Furthermore, I do not see how the timing of LA's final decision matters, when the rules clearly state in which cases a team is disqualified and that assistant captains of a disqualified team are not allowed to transfer. Once the roster had been under 8 players for over 24 hours I find very little room for interpretation.

Ok, one question: Where in 13.3 is the part saying a transfer of a player is only legal when his old team has invited enough players to comply with the minimum roster size again? There´s no such condition in the wording of 13.3. It reads “If a player is released or transferred…” which refers to a completed event (the transfer) in the past. So, we need to take the timeline of events into account. The transfer is done (in this case with the exception of 13.4), from that point on, if you take the wording of 13.3 seriously, the player is part of the new team. Period. No conditions apply, not an OK from the league or anything else is necessary. Now the result of the second sentence of 13.3 is: the releasing team is asked to invite enough players to comply with the rules again (13.3 second sentence and 2.2). But how would that bother the previously released player? From the moment his transfer is done he´s part of his new team and cannot be hold responsible for the actions (failing to comply with 2.2) of his old team - even if he was an A on the old team. By agreeing with the transfer (13.4) the C kind of relinquishes the A´s of their duty to their old team, otherwise the consent requirement doesn’t make any sense. Plus, if I remember correct, right before the two A´s left, RAD had still 9 players on the roster. The evening the A´s left, also one of their Goalies left. So, the LA is in my opinion forced to give a concrete timeline, who left at which time, to make a substantiated decision. Let´s say the two A´s left right before the G did. Then the G is the one who puts them under the 2.2 limits. Can that bother already completed transfers afterwards? In that case the material scope of 13.3 is not touched. In fact, by the wording of the rules right now at least one transfer of the A´s was completely fine. There was no infraction with 13.3. Regarding your problems with the timing of the LA decision. Well, it´s the wording of the last part of the second sentence of 13.3 (“… otherwise it will be disqualified.”) implementing a disqualification requires an official act from LA. If they wanted an automatic disqualification for a violation with 2.2 the wording should be more like this: “… is disqualified without further ado/notice.”

In this situation, is it possible that KingOfApes_ could have released everybody from Radical except himself within a 24 hour period and been the only one to face punishment?

Kimmo (Dunza) broke the record last week for most shutouts during a tournament Congrats

Dunza in Synergy got like superstats... topnotch!

#justice4dunza

when you create a new team just think these things: 1. Is he a good guy? 2. Is he a good player? 3. Number 1 question again. my only advice

Confirmed: FCM won't finish 16th in ECL Elite this season 🧐

Only this season? Kinda low ban, we paid lisence with real money on elite and rest season ban? welp