ECL 4 - Playoff pairs (Round 1), summary of the regular season

So its ok if NL scored against us when ur goalie was frozen ? Wtf didnt even mentioned that in this article. Why should I report these cases where is action against rules if u LA obviously dont care... 

Best of seven? 

9 minutes ago, Tuukka.R said:

So its ok if NL scored against us when ur goalie was frozen ? Wtf didnt even mentioned that in this article. Why should I report these cases where is action against rules if u LA obviously dont care... 

Uliuli

Playoffs are best of Seven I assume, or? Cause I can't see anywhere the mode mentioned. 

11 minutes ago, Nahkatoteemi said:

Best of seven? 

10 minutes ago, Hennisch said:

Playoffs are best of Seven I assume, or? Cause I can't see anywhere the mode mentioned. 

Yes, as in the previous seasons, every match-up is best of seven.

It would be nice if the rulings could be explained to the team gms if they shall not be made public. Without explanation the rulings are a not self explanatory 

18 minutes ago, Tuukka.R said:

So its ok if NL scored against us when ur goalie was frozen ? Wtf didnt even mentioned that in this article. Why should I report these cases where is action against rules if u LA obviously dont care... 

You never mentioned this case after the games, in the chatbox or somewhere else. Is it because you play now against Dynasty in the Playoffs instead of Nordic Nightmare?

21 minutes ago, Tuukka.R said:

So its ok if NL scored against us when ur goalie was frozen ? Wtf didnt even mentioned that in this article. Why should I report these cases where is action against rules if u LA obviously dont care... 

I'm sorry if you didn't get a clear message of the ruling. The LA had contradicting opinions on the incident, but the majority deemed the goal to be valid as the goalie made an aggressive play in order to counter the partial breakaway.

We do care, it's just that not every minor incident (that turns out to be within the current rule book) warrants creating a news article.

How is it possible to hand out 0 points in 2 games?

April fools?  

15 minutes ago, Haldeem said:

You never mentioned this case after the games, in the chatbox or somewhere else. Is it because you play now against Dynasty in the Playoffs instead of Nordic Nightmare?

No. I tell LA about this. Dont care who is my opponent really. If wanna win cup u need to beat best teams  And tell about this case to chatbox would just bring more drama. 

1 hour ago, Egyptologen said:

How is it possible to hand out 0 points in 2 games?

You just do it. TAAADAAAAA! 

59 minutes ago, iSvamp said:

You just do it. TAAADAAAAA! 

Yeah its actually in the rules. Never seen it enforced though. The problem is that teams are not able to select opponents. But that will probably be fixed next season I hope

why is it a problem? Always been like this. 
Even tho it would be fun to pic an opponent and lose. 

Edited April 1, 2017 by iSvamp

13 minutes ago, iSvamp said:

why is it a problem? Always been like this. 
Even tho it would be fun to pic an opponent and lose. 

Yes but never been an elite league like this and the rule about 0 points to both teams is apparently new as well.

2 teams fucked things up with their matchmaking, I guess they didn't wanted to let the teams (or one of the) get advantage from it with WO-points in the standings. A good tool to have for the admins.

And I guess they both were guilty in this case.

But I dunno, only a guess.

 

1 hour ago, iSvamp said:

2 teams fucked things up with their matchmaking, I guess they didn't wanted to let the teams (or one of the) get advantage from it with WO-points in the standings. A good tool to have for the admins.

And I guess they both were guilty in this case.

But I dunno, only a guess.

 

Yeah probably, but after some reading I dont find any support in the rules for such decision. 

In fact, section 7 regarding scheduling states

"All league games must be finished 7 days after the end of the regular season schedule. This rule might not apply in case an individual solution needs to be found according to the procedure described above. In case there are any unplayed games after this deadline, the administration will investigate the issue and hand out walkover wins for the team that was more active in trying to get the games scheduled and played in time."

It says walkover wins. If you interpret that both teams are equally at fault this would render one win each. This interpretation is also established by LA by all the earlier decisions in previous ECL-tournaments.

The loss/loss situation is explained under the definitions section. However, such a section should not really contain a new rule...and definitely not one that contradicts a rule under its specific section. Definitions are there to clarify terms used in the rules, not dictate new ones.

Anyway I guess it doesnt matter that much, but Im a firm believer in sticking to the set rules and not wing decisions as you see fit.

I would really like a comment from LA on why the wrote a contradictory rule under the definitions section and then chose to give that rule precedence over the specific rule quoted above.

@gzell60 @Kenu @Ranksu

 

17 hours ago, OxtreeLAT said:

but the majority deemed the goal to be valid as the goalie made an aggressive play in order to counter the partial breakaway.

 

So goalies need to avoid certain things because its more likely to get a freeze? Are you serious? 

1 hour ago, Lauri said:

So goalies need to avoid certain things because its more likely to get a freeze? Are you serious? 

That was the decision by the majority of the LA. Again, as I previously noted, there were contradicting opinions on the incident. I personally thought that the goal wasn't valid and should be called off.

At the end of the day it's not a black and white situation - it could've easily gone either way. That's something people just have to accept.

44 minutes ago, OxtreeLAT said:

That was the decision by the majority of the LA. Again, as I previously noted, there were contradicting opinions on the incident. I personally thought that the goal wasn't valid and should be called off.

At the end of the day it's not a black and white situation - it could've easily gone either way. That's something people just have to accept.

Can the video then be shared, so we know what type of freeze is acceptable? 

And if possible to change the rule about freeze that goalies are exception in some sort of situations. 

Edited April 2, 2017 by Lauri

2 hours ago, Lauri said:

Can the video then be shared, so we know what type of freeze is acceptable? 

And if possible to change the rule about freeze that goalies are exception in some sort of situations. 

Here you are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZf3jvrp9N8

You gotta be kidding me LA with this judgement, goalie got freeze animation because player who didnt have the puck hit him when the play was already done, this must be worst call in the history of ecls. Im so disappointed

3 hours ago, OxtreeLAT said:

That was the decision by the majority of the LA. Again, as I previously noted, there were contradicting opinions on the incident. I personally thought that the goal wasn't valid and should be called off.

At the end of the day it's not a black and white situation - it could've easily gone either way. That's something people just have to accept.

You have got to be f-ing kidding right?

How can you say you wont stand for the decision that LA made. Saying it was a majority and you are not part of the blame. Spineless imo. 

STOP writing shit like "there was contradicting opinions" etc. We are not children, we do not need to know that decisions are not always black or white and we really really don't care if you are 5-0 or 3-2 in the decision making. 

Sorry but its pathetic to excuse yourself...and even worse to blame your fellow LA-mates.

Just now, Egyptologen said:

You have got to be f-ing kidding right?

How can you say you wont stand for the decision that LA made. Saying it was a majority and you are not part of the blame. Spineless imo. 

STOP writing shit like "there was contradicting opinions" etc. We are not children, we do not need to know that decisions are not always black or white and we really really don't care if you are 5-0 or 3-2 in the decision making. 

Sorry but its pathetic to excuse yourself...and even worse to blame your fellow LA-mates.

You know what's pathetic? You screaming from the top of your lungs about how shit everything is without providing any actual contribution to this community. That wonderful circus stream you decided to do during the previous playoffs sadly doesn't count. Creating that circus truly was spineless.

 

People were asking for an explanation, I gave it to them. Whilst you may be able to see everything clearly via your crystal ball, some people aren't aware of the way things work. This ruling could've easily gone either way. Period.

Another thing some of you are overlooking - the potential way for goalies to exploit and abuse the game mechanics in similar situations.

As always - I'm pretty sure there's plenty of space for more staff. Welcome to join.

17 minutes ago, OxtreeLAT said:

You know what's pathetic? You screaming from the top of your lungs about how shit everything is without providing any actual contribution to this community. That wonderful circus stream you decided to do during the previous playoffs sadly doesn't count. Creating that circus truly was spineless.

 

People were asking for an explanation, I gave it to them. Whilst you may be able to see everything clearly via your crystal ball, some people aren't aware of the way things work. This ruling could've easily gone either way. Period.

Another thing some of you are overlooking - the potential way for goalies to exploit and abuse the game mechanics in similar situations.

As always - I'm pretty sure there's plenty of space for more staff. Welcome to join.

Bit confused, are this abusing the freeze or you mean in general? Because this judgement will restrict goalies capability to keep his net clear, as there is nothing that restricts skaters similiar way this is very unfair towards goalies. And futhermore saying that if we are not pleased of the judgement we shouldnt voice are opinions but just accept it or join the staff, thats not acceptable tbh

Edited April 2, 2017 by Lauri

22 minutes ago, OxtreeLAT said:

As always - I'm pretty sure there's plenty of space for more staff. Welcome to join.

@FlyerKungen

11 minutes ago, OxtreeLAT said:

You know what's pathetic? You screaming from the top of your lungs about how shit everything is without providing any actual contribution to this community. That wonderful circus stream you decided to do during the previous playoffs sadly doesn't count. Creating that circus truly was spineless.

 

People were asking for an explanation, I gave it to them. Whilst you may be able to see everything clearly via your crystal ball, some people aren't aware of the way things work. This ruling could've easily gone either way. Period.

Another thing some of you are overlooking - the potential way for goalies to exploit and abuse the game mechanics in similar situations.

As always - I'm pretty sure there's plenty of space for more staff. Welcome to join.

It has nothing to do with the fact that you as a LA should stand for LA decisions and not blame your fellow LA-colleagues. You can still motivate decisions without excusing yourself. I know, cause I too have been tgma. You can ask @iSvamp if I stood by the rules and decisions or not.

So if I understand you correctly...you had no answer and no arguments to my post, except trying to undermine my credibility by bringing up last playoffs (where you are dead wrong...but I won't baited into a lengthy discussion about that, except I told LA weeks before the situation and got the go ahead which was then retracted) and also declaring I have done nothing for the community?

I see Kenus quality control when bringing in new LAs hade taken a dive lately

I would join...but only if some of you leave. 

1 minute ago, Lauri said:

Bit confused, are this abusing the freeze or you mean in general? Because this judgement will restrict goalies capability to keep his net clear, as there is nothing that restricts skaters similiar way this is very unfair towards goalies. And futhermore saying that if we are not pleased of the judgement we shouldnt voice are opinions but just accept it, thats not acceptable tbh

In general. What's preventing me from sitting in the butterfly and screaming "FREEZE" every single time someone bumps into me?

There are lot of things that are far from fair in this franchise. At the end of the day we can only enforce things up to a certain point. Also we're not preventing goalies from playing aggressively. Everyone's more than welcome to challenge the puck carrier, just understand that some aspects of the gameplay are just "EA Sports".

In addition, I've never said that people shouldn't voice their opinions. We appreciate your input, it's welcome. Tho as I mentioned - you do need to look at the bigger picture and see that not everything is black and white. We can't please everyone.

1 minute ago, OxtreeLAT said:

In general. What's preventing me from sitting in the butterfly and screaming "FREEZE" every single time someone bumps into me?

There are lot of things that are far from fair in this franchise. At the end of the day we can only enforce things up to a certain point. Also we're not preventing goalies from playing aggressively. Everyone's more than welcome to challenge the puck carrier, just understand that some aspects of the gameplay are just "EA Sports".

In addition, I've never said that people shouldn't voice their opinions. We appreciate your input, it's welcome. Tho as I mentioned - you do need to look at the bigger picture and see that not everything is black and white. We can't please everyone.

Nothing ofc, but you cant claim making case of this play being aggressive and then say its for potential misuse, that makes exactly the case that you are making goalies unable to play aggresively because then if someone bumps into you if your goalie freezes it doesnt matter the goal will count. If you suspect its false freeze then you need to make differebt kind of judgement 

1 minute ago, OxtreeLAT said:

In addition, I've never said that people shouldn't voice their opinions. We appreciate your input, it's welcome. Tho as I mentioned - you do need to look at the bigger picture and see that not everything is black and white. We can't please everyone.

Depends on the input

You are correct that "people" should see the bigger picture...except time and time and time again people only care about their own self interest. Like that guy with the huppati wo against cog...you think he would have said a word if it didn't cause his team to miss playoffs? That is precisely why you don't need to excuse your decisions to individuals, and that is precisely why you should listen to people like me who has input on things not really fucking concern me or my team...except that also requires an LA that see the bigger picture and don't get insulted too easily cause he happen to be the target for criticism at the moment.

cheers