[USML Announce] Rules

[Richard E. Robbins]

I join with Mark, Mark and Andy simply because the rule seems clear on its
face.  Nevertheless, that could still be the minority view on this issue.
 
Jeff -- can you reissue your list so that the ROY eligible players are
separate from the non-ROY eligible players?  
 
That way, if a majority want to refine the rule we'll use the larger list,
otherwise, we'll go with the rule as currently drafted and we can use the
subset.
 
I don't see this as a huge substantive issue either way, but with
officer-Klein on patrol we need to be ever-vigilant about the rules. He's
such a stickler.  :-)
 
Kerber -- keep your perversions to yourself.
 
-- Rich
  _____  

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf
Of MBBlocker at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 6:54 PM
To: announce at usml.net
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Rules


In a message dated 3/30/2006 6:47:38 PM Central Standard Time,
SpringKerb at aol.com writes:


I agree with Andy, and I think strict construction has been our general
policy.  (Buddha, you gotta be down wit dat!)  I agree with Jeff that it's a
bit perverse as applied to the Boone Logans of the world, who will likely
make the opening day roster, but I've always liked a bit of perversion (or
preversion, to quote Doctor Strangelove).
 
Mark

 
I agree with Mark and Andy (and Jeff: how often does THAT happen on rules
issues?).  The vets are okay, and that, as I recall, was the reason the
provision was inserted into the constitution, not to allow additional
prospecting at the draft.
 
  -- Mark B.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lyra.siteprotect.com/pipermail/announce/attachments/20060330/14be000a/attachment.htm