|
|
Post by swkot on Sept 26, 2014 8:33:17 GMT -6
At the time the 20 year old reduction was announced I heard rumblings that it was not going to be an enforced rule. I thought that maybe there was just going to be some flexibility while making the transition to avoid forcing some GM's to make abrupt changes. We are now into the second season where the limit is 7, yet I see some teams are still dressing 8.
Do any of you "in the know" types have any idea if this is going to persist, and if so what Billy's logic was in creating a rule that isn't really a rule?
|
|
|
|
Post by flinflon123 on Sept 26, 2014 11:58:21 GMT -6
You can have as many 20s as you want, only dress 7 for games.
|
|
|
|
Post by swkot on Sept 26, 2014 12:17:10 GMT -6
We are now into the second season where the limit is 7, yet I see some teams are still dressing 8. |
|
|
|
Post by nofavorites on Sept 26, 2014 14:08:15 GMT -6
whats the punishment and who enforces it?
|
|
luke
Atom Player
Posts: 43
|
Post by luke on Sept 26, 2014 17:41:02 GMT -6
So do tell! Which team dressed 8 in which game?
|
|
|
|
Post by stupendousman on Sept 26, 2014 18:26:34 GMT -6
At the time the 20 year old reduction was announced I heard rumblings that it was not going to be an enforced rule. I thought that maybe there was just going to be some flexibility while making the transition to avoid forcing some GM's to make abrupt changes. We are now into the second season where the limit is 7, yet I see some teams are still dressing 8. Do any of you "in the know" types have any idea if this is going to persist, and if so what Billy's logic was in creating a rule that isn't really a rule? I was under the impression the original goal of getting down to a maximum of 7 20-year-olds that can dress per game was abandoned. In fact, I believe last season was the year it was supposed to be at 7 -- but the decision was made to keep it at 8. |
|
|
|
Post by swkot on Sept 26, 2014 21:48:18 GMT -6
So do tell! Which team dressed 8 in which game? So far this year it is Melville and Melfort that I've noticed. I picked up on it in playoffs last year with the Mils as well. It would be a curious move for the league to kaibosh going down to 7 and say nothing about it. Especially when it appears most teams have been able to make the adjustment. |
|
|
|
Post by stupendousman on Sept 27, 2014 0:03:52 GMT -6
The league quietly decided to keep the limit at eight 20-year-olds following the 2013 AGM. I can't find an article about it, but I'm sure one of the media outlets that covers the SJHL put it on Twitter last year after interviewing Bill Chow. A recent Star-Phoenix article previewing this season says the limit is 8 -- and that's what the latest Parent's Manual on the SJHL website says (although it's two years old). My guess is the SJHL still wanted the perception out there that this was going to be a younger league in order to attract more of the top Midget players.
This wouldn't be the first time league governors had second thoughts about a rule change after the public got wind of it. Off the top of my head, there have been media reports/announcements from league meetings in recent years concerning the 20-year-old limit, a minimum number of young players per team, how the cap on fighting will be applied, the playoff format, and the number of games with two referees that ended up either being scrapped or altered. Usually, it's a plan that's unveiled in a mid-season league meeting that gets tweaked by the time the June AGM is over -- but sometimes it's the other way around. I'm pretty sure that new playoff format that the league used last season was not exactly how it was first announced.
|
|
|
|
Post by lewis94 on Oct 2, 2014 10:23:10 GMT -6
stupendousman is correct.
Hell, they quietly changed the playoff format mid-season last year.
|
|
