|
|
Posting this here because General Discussion is gone and the Rules forum appears to be closed to new topics, sorry.
I think we should allow teams a few postponements during the regular season and playoffs (especially the playoffs). There are many times that teams can't field full lineups due to real life obligations, and I think it's kind of weak for a team to have to play a depleted lineup in a critical match. A possible draft of how the system would work:
Each team may use up to three postponements in the regular season, and up to two postponements in the postseason. No postponements are permitted in the preseason save for extraordinary circumstances. Unused postponements do not carry over between the different phases of the season. A postponement may be used by a team for any reason by posting on the Captains Forum (or whatever other procedure the commissioner requests, such as notifying the league through a SL notice) at least 72 hours prior to the time a game is scheduled to start. A postponement results in a scheduled game being rescheduled at a later date. |
|
|
|
I actually like this idea. No foreseen loopholes. Basically, getting captains information well before games instead of abruptly before.
However, how do sub rules come into play? |
|
|
|
A valid idea to be brought up at the meetings, to be sure. It is certainly difficult to manage crazy schedules sometimes and worthy of discussion to see if this is something viable.
The forums areas are closed simply because I and the other managers are taking a break from some abuse of the forums I provide. At some point I may reopen them, but, well, I don't feel like it right now  Feel free to communicate away in-game though, there's always folks around to bounce ideas off and ask questions of. |
|
|
|
the main problem I have with this is that game can really only go one of 2 place on the weekend where more then likely atleast 1 team will have to play 2 games or at the end of the season making the season even longer.
edit: third place an off day(monday/friday)which is the worst of the three places |
|
|
|
| i really dont think this would work. yes its convenient for the team that the player cant make the game. But at the other hand its unfair too the team who is ready and wanting too play. Also i do beleive that it would undermines the captain of the other team. |
Every team gets the same number of postponements and the same ability to use them as they see fit. I don't think it's unfair as long as we give everyone the same abilities.
Real life gets in the way sometimes and I think it's just as unfair to force a depleted lineup to have to play because a few players have work, school, or other RL obligations. At the very least, I would like to see postponements in the playoffs. |
|
|
|
| Noda wrote: | the main problem I have with this is that game can really only go one of 2 place on the weekend where more then likely atleast 1 team will have to play 2 games or at the end of the season making the season even longer.
edit: third place an off day(monday/friday)which is the worst of the three places |
If this idea was to be implemented though, it would be known about when the season was scheduled, so one possibility would be that alternative slots could be left in the calendar for postponed games. If a team requested a postponement then the game could automatically move to the first available postponement slot, subject to the agreement of the captain of the team not requesting the postponement.
In the case of playoff games they would move to the first available date at the end of the series. Unless the series goes to the final game there would not be a need to reschedule anyway.
I can, however, see the possibility that this could end up as some kind of strategic battle where each playoff team is plotting when it will have it's strongest side available and trying to manouvre to get the games rescheduled accordingly.
Definitely an idea worth considering though.
Cili. |
|
|
|
| I like your idea of scheduling dates for postponements. And yeah, allowing a postponement could possibly open up room for teams to attempt to maneuver their best lines, however, I think by limiting the postponements might discourage that. If they are only allowed a specified number of postponements, they might be less likely to use them, as there could be a later game that is more important for them to be used. |
|
|
|
For some reason i see the Polar Bears using a 4th day 
look at it this way. team 'a" playing team "b" cant make a game. it is postponed until a certain date. so we get to that certain date and team b is missing "a key player" do they then have the option of postponement? well sure, where does it end?
I think a playoff format would be hard to do and force on another team. serious, we have so many games in such a short amout of time. how would the team feel that was ready to play on sunday and being told they had to play this game on monday and that team has players that dont skate mondays.Serious, how long would we stretch the playoffs? even a week is way too much time to have a game moved.
worth looking into just not so much in favor of this being used. we deal with RL all the time and sometimes we miss things here in SL that we would much rather be doing.
Kinda sick aint it. |
|
|
|
| I think Kert, the idea behind this *tool* of sorts is to help even out the playing field. I've seen games where almost an entire team is absent because of scheduling, why should teams be penalized for players having a rl? |
|
|
|
| Maybe we could add some sort of roster rule...submit your rosters 72 hours in advance (like you said) and anyone who is marked as a "No" cannot be online during or around the game, unless it is an excused absence of sorts? |
|
|
|
For every change like this adds a whole new array of complexities of unforeseen abuses and uses.
As for the Polar Bear's getting four, thanks Kert, that's an outstanding rule.
Overall I think Nic has covered a lot of bases with this idea that I believe is well thought out. 72 hours before gives everyone enough notice and forces the captains to plan ahead, the open slots in the schedule is a great idea and if not used, could be used for time off.
Maybe we need some built in safety values to allow for a real life for the teams and management. Who says that a season needs to end by such and such date. A captain would need to be very careful on how to use such a limited resource because if used at the wrong time could back fire.
I believe it's a great idea that we should beta in our next season.
|
|
|
|
| League Rules wrote: |
I. STARTING THE GAME:Team captains should assist in getting their teams at the rink and ready to go by scheduled starting time. It is recommended that captains message their team members a full 30 minutes before game times and encourage them to arrive at the rink 20-30 minutes before scheduled time. A team captain may have until 10 minutes past the scheduled game time to round up players for his/her team and be ready to start. At that time, which will be strictly enforced, the captain may either play short-handed or forfeit the game.
|
It's extremely rare for a team to have thier rosters together and subs in place before a game starts. In this thread, we're essentially asking for this to happen days in advance. I'm not sure that, as a whole, this would be successful.
I'm also concerned about the overhead this would put on the management staff. As many of you know, the management staff pays real life money and dedicates a significant amount of time and effort to make all of this available to you. We should consider this when suggesting changes that add to that workload 
With all of that said, the suggestion is out there and available for review. We have scheduled a lot of time before the next competitive season and have plenty of time to investigate. I am certain this would not be implemented for Season 10 playoffs... for the future, we'll just have to see.
|
|
|
|
I have an idea... how about if you can't play, you let your captain know 72 hours in advance and you find a sub or two who could take your place. That way the work is on you and not everyone else. 
I think it is extremely unfair to ask another team to not play that day because you can't make the game. How selfish is that? And seriously you guys.. its a GAME.. in a VIRTUAL world. GO HAVE A REAL LIFE and don't worry about it so much. It all evens out in the end. There is so much that goes on as far as scheduling the games, scheduling the refs, getting the games into events, etc... what about Treet games, are we going to ask Treet to come back another day too? What about everyone who comes out to watch... sorry folks no games tonight, GO HOME.
Sometimes, I think ya'll have too much time on your hands. Go kiss your girlfriends (or boyfriends) instead. 
Nuff said.  |
|
|
|
Everyone has difficulty sometimes making games. Its a given fact of life. As much as winning and giving it your all goes, is fine. However many of us come here for fun. We want to play.
( Using myself as an example) My schedule is very wonky, and changes so fast sometimes I don't know what I'm doing, I was very fortunate that I got to play as much as I have. Many times I have to look over a week or two and try to plan what games I can make, what games I have to skip and what games I can push things around to make. Postponements would likely take away games from me to play, and I don't see whats fair about that. Missing important games? How do you think I feel. I ended up missing the majority of the playoffs ( even the Euro cup) and was so tired during the last game I'm surprised I could even make it down the ice and back. You could say that this rule would benefit me? Well, I don't see it that way at all. We are still here for fun, even in important games, it's selfish to ask others to wait for one person. As Abu said, its a team game. It happens, games are missed, some are made. Teams just have to adapt.
It is not fair to teams that have the players to play. There are always subs available, I don't see an issue. Sure, your star player might not be able to make a game, maybe your goaltender can't come. Everyone deals with these problems, it's not going to end the world. These games are for fun for everyone, but as with all fun things in life, sometimes RL says no, why should it effect everyone else?
I'm not going to raise any further fuss on this, if the league decides to go with it, thats fine. Just adding my two and a half cents. |
|
|
|
Remember that we're only talking about giving teams 2 or 3 of these at the most. I think many of the concerns about teams postponing games left and right are overstated. As someone pointed out, having a very limited number of them means that captains have to be careful when they're using them.
The situation that I'm referring to with respect to teams being shorthanded isn't when they are missing one key player. Rather, its when they are missing key players in every position. I get where people are coming from with their concerns, but we're talking about a game that decides a playoff seed or a potential series-ending game falling on a day when maybe half of the team has real life obligations, which is pretty unfortunate if you ask me.
I think there are ways to write the rule so that teams can't just postpone for one player. If a captain can verify that X players will be missing from a game (whatever X is) we can allow the postponement, or whatever you want to do.
I saw a lot of teams lose critical games this season because they had depleted attendance, which is why I am suggesting this. I don't think its a bad idea but if there is this much opposition then I guess it probably won't fly. Just a suggestion guys, no need to jump to conclusions about who has a life and who doesn't (I kissed Am an hour ago, thank you very much )
|
|
|
|
I would be willing to accept it on those basis if its decided by both Capt's ( not just one, I'll be honest, this is the biggest reason I am opposed to this), and minimum 3-4 players not able to attend, and no more then 2 over the course of the reg season and playoffs ( got to make sure they don't get used blatantly).
( Btw, with 3 postponements over 7 teams theres still the potential your team gets the majority of them against)
I have also seen those games where players missing have decided games. It has happened to everyone. Doesn't change my look on the matter.
This is going to make for an interesting captains meeting for sure lol, almost makes me wish I was still a captain
On a side note, about no games being played in the case of a postponement, the game should still be played with subs. Just off the record as a scrim.
Of course, this is all subject to management discussion |
|
|
|
| Remember that this wouldn't be a spur of the moment thing either. There would have to be 72 hours notice. |
|
|
|
This will help out teams with missing players. But it will also open it up to gamesmanship, as pointed out earlier in this forum. What if a captain knew that one of the opponents' better players is only a weekend player, and the game is on a Sunday ? That captain can "use" the rule to their advantage. For that reason I am against it.
If it was implemented, I would suggest something like this :
One postponement during each playoff series per team. The replay date must be approved by both captains.
None for the regular season. There are enough games during the season for a team to make up any loss, and these type absences must hit each team about the same.
That's my two cents worth.
Where's my change ?
|
|
|
|
| Two more cents - We saw the difference in the type of games that can be played when you look at the playoff series betweeen the Wolves and the Polar Bears, Only one or two games had the core players at both games. |
|
|
|
I'm with Lance on this. I think it's a really good idea, but I can see the potential for abuse and gamesmanship.
If something like this is implemented, it shouldn't be in done in the regular season (it's long enough already) and it should be limited to a maximum of one game per team per playoff series. (And unused postponements from one round should NOT carry over to the next.)
Postponing a game also needs to be decided before the drop of the first puck. I can forsee situations where maybe both teams are missing a crucial player and they decide to play and than the player for one team shows up mid-game and the other team decides they don't want to play....
And games scheduled to be on TREET should not be eligible for postponement.
The other thing for me, is that it's really unfair to the people who do show up when you postpone a game.
It was frustrating how the Moose season ended, and I think that things may have been different in our series with the Cobras if we had been able to get all our "core" people on. I'm sure it was also frustrating to the Cobras: they're a competitive bunch and I am sure they would have preferred to win with both teams playing their best players.
Still, the other players on the team, the refs, the opposing team, etc -- all of these people made time to show up and for them to be told "sorry, there is no game" on the basis of having one or two people not there doesn't sit too well with me.
========================
Weis Hickman's GOHA Hockey Blog:
http://sl-goha.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
I think its a credit to Nick's sportsmanship that he'd raise this topic. I appreciate the intent behind it.
For my two cents, it's a captain's responsibility to get a team together, and get them out in time for a scheduled game. The people that do show are waiting on you, after all. You ice the team you have and try your best. That's part of hockey - overcoming adversity.
When a veteran player can't make it, that's an opportunity for a rook to play an even longer game and show what they can do. "You're starting, kid. Give 'em hell." That's a moment new players dream of. It can make a good rook a great one. It belongs in the game. |
|
|
|
| Thanks for all the great suggestions, and we'll bring it to an upcoming meeting for discussion! |
|
|
|
| Six wrote: | I think its a credit to Nick's sportsmanship that he'd raise this topic. I appreciate the intent behind it.
For my two cents, it's a captain's responsibility to get a team together, and get them out in time for a scheduled game. The people that do show are waiting on you, after all. You ice the team you have and try your best. That's part of hockey - overcoming adversity.
When a veteran player can't make it, that's an opportunity for a rook to play an even longer game and show what they can do. "You're starting, kid. Give 'em hell." That's a moment new players dream of. It can make a good rook a great one. It belongs in the game. |
But as a rookie player, I know I would rather we had been able to have our full line up out for the playoff games. Having played all season, and then to have, for various reasons, several of our core players unavailable for several of the playoff games was disappointing. In our case there was only one of the games where the proposed rule could have been invoked, but it would have been nice to have the option available rather than having to play a depleted team in the playoffs when we had played all season to try and get there.
It is not being fair to those who can make the game if they are struggling to be competitive in key games because a major part of the core line-up is unavoidably absent.
There are definite pros and cons to this idea. On balance I think I would be in favour of something like Nick suggests but it should be something called in advance so we don't get people turning up for a game only to find the other team had postponed. I also think having postponement slots in the schedule and giving the team not calling the postponement the option of which one to chose could get over the problem of games being rescheduled to the advantage of the postponing team.
Cili. |
|