[USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

Sun Mar 21 15:23:45 EDT 2010

I vote against this proposal because I do not think it is timely and would
prefer that we deal with this informally as we do so many other things until
it's time to codify the result.  Think about how our rules concerning early
drafting came into being -- a few years of informal trial followed by timely
formal rule voting.

I believe that amending the rules in season, for any reason, sets a very
dangerous precedent that could one day result in bitter difficulties for the
league.  It makes it too easy for people to toss out possible rule changes
at any time.

If I'm the only one who feels this way then so be it.  However, if there's
even a single other person who agrees with me I'd ask that the proposal be
withdrawn and that we just deal with this instance informally and not tinker
with the text of our rules now.

Now I need to find me a closer. . .

-- Rich

  _____  

From: announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf
Of Jim Barrett
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 3:00 PM
To: USML Announcements
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

I agree as well.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 21, 2010, at 3:46 PM, "Mark Blocker" <mbblocker at aol.com> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce at usml.net
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lyra.siteprotect.com/pipermail/announce/attachments/20100321/6dc740a5/attachment-0001.htm