Ruling re. Kovalchuk

[TurdFerguson]

Keep the player active if the season is in progress. Don't let the player start a new season without a pro contract.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by MJK

I am suggesting a word change in the rules from NHL to Hockey. That would be the end of the debate. You retire from the NHL it doesnt mean you are done playing hockey. You retire from hockey you are finished.

Two issues here
- Should the rule be changed?
- What should happen in this specific case?

Changing a rule and then retroactively applying it is not what we normally do.

[flamesfan6]

being literal, the rules by the sound of it says "retire from nhl" so he should be retired.

going by what everyone else in this league has said in the past about rules, that we are trying to copy the NHL as much as possible so that should probably include players? So if a player in the NHL says they retired from the NHL should we not then have that player retire in the CPHL?

Hate it or not we can't just keep changing rules when something happens, in the past if a player in the same situation was determined retired and out of CPHL that should be the same way now, no matter how small or superstar the player is.

I don't like the idea of changing the rules because something happens, because then when something else happens someone will try to petition the league to change the rules for this "Special case" and then there is a lot of grey area on "when is he determined retired, etc"

MJK it sucks knowing this happened, the timing is crap, no one saw it coming.. but crap happens. It's happened before but yet apparently you keep saying this is a 'unique situation' ... but read the previous statement... we shouldn't need to implement/change rules on 'unique situations' because where does that stop.

If a player retires from the NHL, even if he plays hockey elsewhere is no longer in the NHL, and the CPHL should follow suit imo, and not make rules/change rules because it happens once to a star player.

[3thirty]

Man Colorado dodged a bullet...

[MJK]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Two issues here
- Should the rule be changed?
- What should happen in this specific case?

Changing a rule and then retroactively applying it is not what we normally do.

IF the CPHL does make a rule change, and I think it should, it should either go one way or the other, no blurred lines.

They are currently players are allowed to play in the CPHL even though they are playing in Europe. This is not following the NHL as closely as possible.

Either the CPHL allows a player currently playing in Europe for 3 years or not. That's my opinion.

The CPHL made a decision, I made an appeal so IMO there is still time to overturn the decision.

If Kovalchuk stays 'retired' from the CPHL I think we retire all players currently playing in Europe in the CPHL and no longer allow those players to play.

No more blurred lines, the rule is black and white because right now I don't believe it is as long as there are players playing in Europe who can still play in the NHL.

[flamesfan6]

Originally Posted by MJK

IF the CPHL does make a rule change, and I think it should, it should either go one way or the other, no blurred lines.

They are currently players are allowed to play in the CPHL even though they are playing in Europe. This is not following the NHL as closely as possible.

Either the CPHL allows a player currently playing in Europe for 3 years or not. That's my opinion.

The CPHL made a decision, I made an appeal so IMO there is still time to overturn the decision.

If Kovalchuk stays 'retired' from the CPHL I think we retire all players currently playing in Europe in the CPHL and no longer allow those players to play.

No more blurred lines, the rule is black and white because right now I don't believe it is as long as there are players playing in Europe who can still play in the NHL.

There's a difference between having your contract run out and no NHL team wanting to sign you so you sign in the KHL/leave for the KHL

vs

A player in the middle of a contract who retires from the NHL and goes to play in the KHL/or just retire

Choosing to retire from the NHL is not the same as leaving for the KHL with no NHL contract, those players didn't retire.

[silentsim]

I think there is a distinction between a player that would "retire" from the NHL and one that would simply leave as a UFA.

A player that "Retires" from the NHL apparently needs all 30 NHL teams approval prior to returning. (apparently according to media reports!)

vs a UFA leaving- the option of them returning is there, where the current rule of 3 year overseas till retired from CPHL is fine. (ie Radulov, though he is probably not returning anymore, but can't really retire him for 3 years since he is a NHL ufa and could technically return at any time)

[MJK]

Well I am done debating. It's as simple as this:

Kovalchuk is done (for now) in the NHL as are many other players currently playing overseas. However, for some of those players currently playing overseas, they are still in the CPHL (those that are still young or GM's holding out hope they will return to the NHL - Radulov comes to mind).

Kovalchuk should be allowed to play in the CPHL if he continues his career in the KHL and news has already come out that this is the case.

[JiriHrdina]

There is also the issue of prospects who sometimes go back and between NA and Europe as they develop

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by MJK

Well I am done debating. It's as simple as this:

Kovalchuk is done (for now) in the NHL as are many other players currently playing overseas. However, for some of those players currently playing overseas, they are still in the CPHL (those that are still young or GM's holding out hope they will return to the NHL - Radulov comes to mind).

Kovalchuk should be allowed to play in the CPHL if he continues his career in the KHL and news has already come out that this is the case.

You are ignoring the rules as it is currently stated and previously applied. That's the issue

[flamesfan6]

Originally Posted by MJK

Well I am done debating. It's as simple as this:

Kovalchuk is done (for now) in the NHL as are many other players currently playing overseas. However, for some of those players currently playing overseas, they are still in the CPHL (those that are still young or GM's holding out hope they will return to the NHL - Radulov comes to mind).

Kovalchuk should be allowed to play in the CPHL if he continues his career in the KHL and news has already come out that this is the case.

you're ignoring the key difference:

They didn't retire from the nhl

[MJK]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

You are ignoring the rules as it is currently stated and previously applied. That's the issue

I am not ignoring the rules, I simply made an appeal, stated my case which is evidently supported by many GM's, and asked that you reconsider. Whatever the outcome is it is.

However, it sounds like you have already made up your mind.

[flamesfan6]

I still stick with saying: We have to go by the rules and can't modify when a star player retires from the NHL to go play to the NHL.. we can't just modify the rules to fit 1 person, otherwise I seriously will start threads about 'unique' exceptions like:

if grabovsky goes to the KHL, I am going to ask for a rule that states: If a player is amnesty bought out in the NHL and goes to the KHL, their CPHL contract is void... It wasn't his choice to have his contract bought out and not able to sign in the NHL. And this is a 'unique' situation

And there is no way you'd argue about this if it was a 4th liner or career AHLer that retired from the nhl and left to the KHL and was no longer in the CPHL. We cannot make exceptions for specific players

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by MJK

I am not ignoring the rules, I simply made an appeal, stated my case which is evidently supported by many GM's, and asked that you reconsider. Whatever the outcome is it is.

However, it sounds like you have already made up your mind.

It's not up to me alone

[Caged Great]

It's a bit of an unusual circumstance. Usually it's players without contracts go overseas, which isn't out of line. We've had that occur dozens of time since I've been in the league and it's not a big deal as their ratings slowly decline and they go away. This is different because he wasn't bought out or was without contract, he just quit and gave up his right to be in the NHL. All 30 teams have to agree to allow him back in the league, and NJ will have his rights, which if you're in the same division as NJ, you wouldn't want them to get a star player for nothing, so it's extremely doubtful that he will ever return.

It's very difficult because by the letter of the law, the ruling is correct, but man that is really crappy for Dave.

[Flickered Flame]

I feel for Dave but based on the rule, he is retired.

[RT14]

I'll be honest, I don't really feel bad for MJK as I think it's kind of charma's way of paying him back for being such a nice guy through all of his trade talks.

I think the rules are pretty black and white and if you retire, you're retired. End of story.

If the league wanted to change the definition from "NHL" to "hockey" in the future I would understand and be fine with it but as the rules apply right now, he should be retired from the CPHL.

[JiriHrdina]

OK final decision made - Ilya stays retired.
The rule is being applied as it is both written and as it has been applied in the past.
Considerations to changing the rule will be made separate from this individual case keeping in mind that the vast majority of the time the rule has worked really well and provided the league with clear criteria of what makes a player retired.

[MJK]

Thanks to the CPHL for considering my appeal. Apologies to Doug because you had a legitimate argument.