Adi
Pat Casey
Posts: 340
|
Post by Adi on May 18, 2022 11:54:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bobness on May 18, 2022 12:33:03 GMT
"The maximum number of non-homegrown players that can be signed in a single season, excluding injury reserve, remains at 20."
OK, but how come Steelers signed 21 imports last year? Who were the IR player(s) that didn't count?
I hope that the tracking of injury reserve signings is better next year than this. Flipping IR players to cover different players, when players were formally signed and when not, what about "loan" players, all that should be transparent.
And just for comparison, Panthers' bench sizes across all 54 league games were...
16.33 skaters (16.4 league average, I assume is correct, rather than 18.4, which surely includes 2 n/ms?)
5.70 defensemen (5.6)
10.63 forwards (10.8)
12.94 non-homegrown players (13.1)
|
|
|
|
Post by blackandgold73 on May 18, 2022 12:50:01 GMT
"The maximum number of non-homegrown players that can be signed in a single season, excluding injury reserve, remains at 20." OK, but how come Steelers signed 21 imports last year? Who were the IR player(s) that didn't count? I hope that the tracking of injury reserve signings is better next year than this. Flipping IR players to cover different players, when players were formally signed and when not, what about "loan" players, all that should be transparent. And just for comparison, Panthers' bench sizes across all 54 league games were... 16.33 skaters (16.4 league average, I assume is correct, rather than 18.4, which surely includes 2 n/ms?) 5.70 defensemen (5.6) 10.63 forwards (10.8) 12.94 non-homegrown players (13.1) From what I could make of it last year Steelers *iced* 21 but didn't actually sign 21. As two were loan players still registered with their own league I think that's the work around they used. So those two were never registered with the league I think, thereby nullifying the roster limit. It's the only way it makes sense, and Steelers were keen to emphasize the loan nature and that the players were still registered with their own team abroad |
|
|
|
Post by bobness on May 18, 2022 15:28:35 GMT
"The maximum number of non-homegrown players that can be signed in a single season, excluding injury reserve, remains at 20." OK, but how come Steelers signed 21 imports last year? Who were the IR player(s) that didn't count? I hope that the tracking of injury reserve signings is better next year than this. Flipping IR players to cover different players, when players were formally signed and when not, what about "loan" players, all that should be transparent. And just for comparison, Panthers' bench sizes across all 54 league games were... 16.33 skaters (16.4 league average, I assume is correct, rather than 18.4, which surely includes 2 n/ms?) 5.70 defensemen (5.6) 10.63 forwards (10.8) 12.94 non-homegrown players (13.1) From what I could make of it last year Steelers *iced* 21 but didn't actually sign 21. As two were loan players still registered with their own league I think that's the work around they used. So those two were never registered with the league I think, thereby nullifying the roster limit. It's the only way it makes sense, and Steelers were keen to emphasize the loan nature and that the players were still registered with their own team abroad Yes, I think you're right, but that doesn't seem to be the idea of the signing limit, does it? Point is, the EIHL didn't seem to think of that, and Steelers used it to their advantage. Good for them. While Panthers signed a Brit goalie who couldn't play. |
|
Yotes
Forum Admin 
Posts: 16,620
Member is Online
|
Post by Yotes on May 18, 2022 16:22:38 GMT
Good news, 19 never really made any sense other than to stop the bigger teams playing 4 line hockey.
On the subject of the rules, I agree with Bob that even if the Shysters had worked around them, it should still have been very clear on the official site how they'd got away with it. If you're going to have these limits, at least make it clear how each team stacks up against them.
|
|
|
|
Post by wgray on May 23, 2022 10:05:51 GMT
There’s been no mention of it but I assume there is no age limit involved with 6 Brits we can now sign?
|
|
|
|
Post by bobness on May 23, 2022 12:06:29 GMT
There’s been no mention of it but I assume there is no age limit involved with 6 Brits we can now sign? No mention of it. But I don't think that's the same as a resounding "no limit", is it? |
|
