[USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

[Mark Blocker]

I agree with Jeff on the rule change.  We forget about all these issues in
the off-season.  When someone starts off their e-mail with "does anyone
remember how we handled X" last time it occurred, I think that's a sign that
we should simply codify our resolution.  I am not talking about massive
re-writes of the rules.  I just want to tweak the small things that occur
occasionally.  As for rules that affect the draft, the perfect time to tweak
them is right after the draft.

 

 

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf
Of jhwinick at aol.com
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 2:43 PM
To: announce at usml.net
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

 

Since Jim faced this situation before and we waived the player and made him
wait until the first FAAB, I think we should consider this discussion
closed.  There's absolutely no reason to deviate from past practice.  I took
Mark B's proposal as a request to codify the league's prior practice.

 

Jeff

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard E. Robbins <RERobbins at iTinker.net>
To: 'USML Announcements' <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Sun, Mar 21, 2010 2:39 pm
Subject: RE: [USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

Can we deal with the current issue on an ad hoc basis right now and then
deal with rules proposals and text amendment during the deep off season?

 

Right now people may vote one way based on how it impacts their current
situation and another if dealing with the issue in the abstract.

 

I don't have strong feelings either way about the substance of this one --
but I really do prefer to keep in line with our well established framework
for amending our now, pretty stable rules.

 

Would we need a substantial super majority or will a simple majority carry
the day?

 

Over and out.

 

-- Rich

 

  _____  

From:  <mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net> announce-bounces at usml.net [
<mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net?> mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On
Behalf Of  <mailto:jhwinick at aol.com> jhwinick at aol.com
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 2:30 PM
To:  <mailto:announce at usml.net> announce at usml.net
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

Mark,

 

I like the rules proposal and vote yes.

 

As for my roster:

 

1.  You have the correct Josh Fields

2.  You're missing Ramon Castro at $2

 

Thanks.

 

Jeff

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Blocker < <mailto:mbblocker at aol.com> mbblocker at aol.com>
To: 'USML Announcements' < <mailto:announce at usml.net> announce at usml.net>
Sent: Sun, Mar 21, 2010 1:59 pm
Subject: [USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

Since the problem of teams acquiring players from the NL has occurred in the
past, and will likely occur in the future, I propose we codify our proposed
solution in the rules for future reference.  Here is a proposed rule, to be
inserted as section 5.6 of our rules:

 

5.6  If a team acquires a player in the Rotation Draft that does not meet
the criteria set forth in Section 5.2, the player will, upon discovery, be
deemed waived effective as of the conclusion of the Rotation Draft.  Such
team shall have no right to select a replacement player, but instead may
acquire a player for that slot in accordance with Article XIV.

 

_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
 <mailto:announce at usml.net> announce at usml.net
 <http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce>
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
 <mailto:announce at usml.net> announce at usml.net
 <http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce>
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lyra.siteprotect.com/pipermail/announce/attachments/20100321/94911110/attachment-0001.htm