[Kyle]

Umm, not sure what’s happening with the roster, but people who played on Sunday:

No goalie for the team, Graham Phipps-Black covered for us.
Steve Jackson
Larry Wheeler
Rane Phipps-Black
Richard Parr
Kyle Matthews
Larry Can’trememberhowtospellhissurname
Mike Sam
Joe Sale
Pete Sanford

I think Graham, Phil Pielak-Jones are also lined up for the team when they’re over injuries. Possibly also David Bulling, Zanzee?

I’m the weak point in the team. Gave the puck straight back to the other team twice on Sunday, once when a Gore player called for it <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/tongue.gif" alt="” title=”Tongue” /> I covered with a couple of late goals though, so I’m hoping to make the cut <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smiley.gif" alt="” title=”Smiley” /> Actually, not having a goalie and roping Graham into standing between the pipes is probably the major weak point at present.

[Kyle]

I like where they start out by saying “The NHL is the fastest game…”.

C’mon marketing people. NHL isn’t a game, ice hockey is a game. NHL is a league.

[Kyle]

The Ice Blacks kick off today (I think they’re playing at the moment if I’ve got the time difference right) in Ireland. Armenia have pulled out of the tournament due to visa difficulties, so their first game turned out to be a bye.

The Ireland Ice Hockey Association are threatening to webcast the games, but they’ve been having some difficulties, so it’s not up and running yet. Keep an eye on http://www.iiha.org/ and see if they come through however.

Scorecards can be checked out at http://www.iihf.com.

[Kyle]

That video you posted about Bert and Ernie – it’s disappeared. Did you take it away?

[Kyle]

"Ryan":23x9hovu wrote:

"Kyle":23x9hovu wrote:

1. We need to either increase or reduce the size of teams to incorporate more people or to help create an extra team by taking some players out of one or more teams.[/quote:23x9hovu]

That’s not appropriate IMO. If you have a team, you have a team. I can’t see why you’d forcibly change their roster. Kinda like the Beasts in the Easton Cup business. If there’s a team, they may not want to change the number of players on their team just to accommodate a bunch of other teams who are short on numbers. Of course, you could always [b:23x9hovu]ask[/b:23x9hovu] the team to put some of their players back into the draft pool to solve that problem and hopefully they’d be willing to accommodate.[/quote:23x9hovu]

Well in the instance of the DIHL, if we’d had five teams entering rather than four, and all the teams were large (as they are now) then I would have been talking to the largest teams about offering up a couple of players each “for the good of the competition” to help make a 6th team.

That would be entirely appropriate. There’s no good way to run a 5 team competition with the fixed payment and weeks, so we need to be 4 or 6 teams. For the good of the competition, teams would have to be flexible and be willing to help out. I don’t have a problem with that.

"Ryan":23x9hovu wrote:

"Kyle":23x9hovu wrote:

2. To increase (or more likely) reduce the strength of a team to fit into the grade appropriately.[/quote:23x9hovu]
Why the heck would you do that? That’s what the grading system is for. The grading system was introduced so that you wouldn’t need to control the strength of teams.

"Kyle":23x9hovu wrote:

The last thing I’d want when I go to a team and say they need to lose a couple of their best players (as I did twice earlier this season)[/quote:23x9hovu]
That’s because the gradings for 2007 weren’t done in time, not the strength of the team.[/quote:23x9hovu]

No the B grade is an ungraded league, so the only thing a grading would have done would indicate exactly how many A grade players were in the team. But I didn’t ask the Beasts to exclude all their A grade players, I said their team was too strong and they needed to drop two of their top players, they just happened to choose two A graded players.

Because it’s an ungraded league, any idea of balance is done generally by looking at the team, the grading doesn’t help you at all since about 90% of the players in the B grade have never been graded. If it was a graded league you could rely on the numbers, but it’s not, and it’s unlikely to become one soon.

"Ryan":23x9hovu wrote:

"Kyle":23x9hovu wrote:

Anyway, since the League Committee accepts entries, and won’t accept the entry until they’re happy with it, the reality is if the League Committee doesn’t do it, then the team’s going to have to do it themselves.[/quote:23x9hovu]
Not if they’re an existing team which is acquiring players from the draft pool.[/quote:23x9hovu]

That’s not my understanding, but I dont’ have time to read the rules now. My understanding would be that the league committee accepts entries every time a team enters a league. Just because it’s entered a league before, doesn’t mean that the team isn’t looked at each time. Grades may have changed, the balance of the league might have changed etc. I looked at both Beasts and John McGlashan and asked both to make changes from last time, they’re both the same teams as last year, though some players have changed.

"Kyle":23x9hovu wrote:

I’d be tempted to add instead, at the end of the sentence, ‘in consultation with the affected team'[/quote:23x9hovu]

"Ryan":23x9hovu wrote:

How about “with permission from the affected team”? This should never be necessary IMO, except for in extreme circumstances, ie: if a teams gradings were obviously grossly out of wack from reality. Particularly if a team had knowingly obscured the level of the teams players.
[/quote:23x9hovu]

That creates a situation where the league committee refuses to accept the team, and the team refuses to make changes – it’s a standoff. Someone needs to have the power in the situation, and that’s the League Committee.

I don’t think any league committee is going to rewrite a team roster. They’ll do what I’ve done and say “your team is too strong, take a couple of top players out”, or “find a different goalie”. That’s “in consultation” – the team decides the details, the league committee sets the overall direction a team needs to go in to enter.

And if things really broke down, the league committee’s decisions could always be appealed to the DIHA.

[Kyle]

Yeah, I remembered last night that the ice blacks are probably somewhere between italy and ireland.

Still 8-3, that’s really good. Nice job penguins.

[Kyle]

beating queenstown 7-3? That’s a very good start. Both teams full strength? Stampede players and whatnot?

[Kyle]

"Ryan":1oljbwhg wrote:

I’m not sure how to word that in the document so haven’t corrected it. Any suggestions?[/quote:1oljbwhg]

I’d amend 14.12 to read (what I’ve put in there currently is confusing so I’m re-writing as well):

“In order to serve banned games, a player must be listed as on the scoresheet of games as ‘SERVING BAN’, and must have paid the normal fee for the game. It is the responsibility of the Team Manager to ensure that these are done.”

Yeah you’re probably right about the checking thing. Go with what’s there at the moment.

[Kyle]

"Ryan":26cig8wz wrote:

[quote:26cig8wz]9.11 The league committee reserves the right in to alter the player roster of any team.[/quote:26cig8wz]
changed to:
[quote:26cig8wz]9.11 The league committee reserves the right (in extreme circumstances) to alter the player roster of any team.[/quote:26cig8wz]
the word “in” was still there from when I had “in extreme situations” there. I’ve added it back in as I really don’t think that teams should be messed with unncecesarily. The league would have the right to definte “extreme”, but at least the intention is clearly there to avoid this sitatuation wherever possible.[/quote:26cig8wz]

I disagree with this. I can’t imagine where I’d interfere with a team in ‘extreme situations’, indeed I can’t imagine what ‘extreme situations’ would be in relation to a team roster.

The two main reasons we’d interfere with a team roster would be:

1. We need to either increase or reduce the size of teams to incorporate more people or to help create an extra team by taking some players out of one or more teams.
2. To increase (or more likely) reduce the strength of a team to fit into the grade appropriately.

Neither of these are extreme, in fact they’re entirely normal, and will happen to one or more teams every competition. The last thing I’d want when I go to a team and say they need to lose a couple of their best players (as I did twice earlier this season) is for them to say “that’s not an extreme situation”. Of course it’s not an extreme situation, it’s just what happens for the good of the league.

Anyway, since the League Committee accepts entries, and won’t accept the entry until they’re happy with it, the reality is if the League Committee doesn’t do it, then the team’s going to have to do it themselves.

And if extreme is undefined then it’s going to be either useless or argued upon, and then useless.

I’d be tempted to add instead, at the end of the sentence, ‘in consultation with the affected team’ if people are concerned that we move players around according to our own vices (I have this burning desire to put all the short people on one team, and all the tall people on another team for example).

[Kyle]

Some of them were really nice. The goalie was a good player, and not at all impressed with the actions of some of his team. There were a bunch more who weren’t a problem at all out on the ice and just played good hard hockey. Some weren’t such cheery happy fellows however, but I suspect some of them went back bitching about some people on our team as well.

After all, some git boarded me when I played for the Bears the other week, but that doesn’t make all the Beasts arseholes does it? <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink.gif" alt="” title=”Wink” />

But I don’t think that guy in front of the goal liked Stefan skating into him, that’s some serious slashing he did back.

[Kyle]

Ryan,

Those all look good to me.

I’d suggest some more:

The preface on the first page:

1. This should be either given a number of titled ‘preface’ or something, otherwise it can’t be referred to properly.
2. Remove the ‘in-house’ from the first line. This would have the effect of bringing the Easton Cup (there may be others) under these rules. I’d also change ‘organized by the’ to ‘under the authority of’. That would make it clear that SIHL games, or nationals that were hosted here, didn’t come under this rulebook. You could say that DIHA is organising the games tomorrow between SNC Dunedin and Gore, but you couldn’t say that they were being held under the authority of DIHA.

Rule 6.3. The IIHF rulebook now includes body-checking, so instead of what we have there, it should read something like IIHF rule 541 (women body-checking) will be applied to all players. This would go into 6.4 too.

9.2 ‘several rules below do not apply’ should be changed to list the actual rules.

There’s a fair few instances of American spelling – organized rather than organised mostly. Can we fix these?

Re-reading the disciplinary section raises a question for me. If I get banned from X number of games for something, I have to be listed on the scoresheet of those games for a team to serve my ban. Presumably that means that I have to have paid for that game (either pre-paid, or casually paid etc). I think this should be added in ‘listed on the scoresheet and paid for the game in which the ban is being served’ or something.

I think what you have in the tinted visor rule is reasonable, but I’d move it to 2010, for the simple reason that the IIHF rulebook rolls over then, and in the unlikely event that the rule is removed from the IIHF rulebook, then we wouldn’t have put it in place for a year and then have to pull it out again. I think it’s not a big issue in terms of our local play, so another year won’t hurt, and people couldn’t really complain too much about getting at least 4 seasons out of a visor.

[Kyle]

It’s a word document. Fill it in and email it to me. Or bring it on Monday to SNC practice.

[Kyle]

That would be a bummer. ‘No games of hockey for three months until the boat from China gets here’.

Though I guess they could patch a short one up there to cover. But still.

[Kyle]

This is a feature request Ryan.

In the forum, where there’s multiple pages, ‘Go to 1, 2, 3…’ etc is listed down the bottom. Would it be possible to list it at the top of the forum as well?

And the subject line when you’re posting doesn’t seem to do anything except when it’s the first post on a topic. If it doesn’t do anything, could it be taken out except when it’s the first post? I’ve typed stuff in there a couple of times only to find I’ve been wasting my time <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smiley.gif" alt="” title=”Smiley” />

On forums where it lists your name on the left. It would make sense to me if that linked through to your profile. And the Posts count below it, that should link through to that feature that lists every post you’ve made. Currently to get to those two things you have to go through the memberlist.

What I’d really like though would be a link when you go into a forum for each topic that went to the last post on that topic. Or the first post since the last time you went to that topic. Going to the last page and then scrolling to the end… blah.

Just in case you were getting bored and looking for stuff to do!

[Kyle]

And I will be playing SNC this Sunday at 10am and 3pm, and probably doing some lining in the morning (maybe both the 8:30 and 11:30 midgets game). So people can give bits of paper and money to me then.

[Author]

Posts