Emergency recalls are clearly defined in section 13.12(m) of the CBA. Roster emergency exceptions are clearly defined in section 50.10(e). They are two completely separate things, similar to how IR and LTIR are different. The entire article details how the Canucks were able to use a roster emergency exception, not an emergency recall, to call-up Jack Studnicka last season. It brings up section 50.10(e) of the CBA, but not 13.12(m).
Every single time it uses the term "emergency recall" it's actually referring to roster emergency exceptions.
"In plain terms, the Canucks qualify for an emergency recall because they don’t have enough cap space to make a regular recall." Nope. section 13.12(m) has nothing to do with not having enough cap space to use it. That's REE.
"The emergency recall rule has changed a little bit over the years, and it now specifies that a “roster emergency” is only official when a team has already “Club played its previous game with fewer than 18 and 2.”" Nope. The Leafs didn't need to actually play a full game short to use an emergency recall. That's REE.
"First and foremost, emergency recalls do not count against the salary cap." They sure do. That's REE.
Ultimately this is all incredibly meaningless and I'll drop the topic after this but the author is just wrong. To his credit he does a fantastic job explaining what a roster emergency exception is in layman's terms, but in doing so calls the process something that contradicts another CBA mechanism. It'd be exactly like if someone did a bang-up job explaining LTIR but called it just the "injured reserve" throughout the article.
