

Literally 11 against 1 then that it shouldn't have been allowed.
BUT! Again, as I said, you starting an inactive guy that week should not have led to punishment as Kyle and Minnick have both said too. It wouldn't have mattered and there was clearly going to be no intent. It's not like you were trying to tank.
Just like I said in my previous post, we need to discuss this crap during the off-season this year. I am not at all for having blanket punishments. Canada starting a surprise inactive player should not hold the same penalty as someone benching a player and tanking purposefully.
Jimbo drunk trade offers LITE wrote:You know a lot of this could have been avoided if you losers just went with my idea and swore an oath....
To the Oath!

Super Casual wrote:
And quit acting like over the past 19 years you've been all about starting full lineups and doing everything else by the book when you're one of the biggest tank guys in the league and have done the most shady shit for the "good of the league".
Super Casual wrote:
Jim, you'll never cease to amaze me. I feel like I'm talking to Ken Ott again.
Keep posting stupid shit Jim. Just please go back and look at messages when Pete, Winks, EB, Minnick and GU all agreed with me when you took Canada's lineup in your own hands.