[USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

[springkerb at aol.com]

I agree that any rule change will not affect the current situation.


Mark





-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Blocker <mbblocker at aol.com>
To: 'USML Announcements' <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Sun, Mar 21, 2010 2:46 pm
Subject: RE: [USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification



I agree with Jeff on the rulechange.  We forget about all these issues in the off-season.  Whensomeone 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 ourresolution.  I am not talking about massive re-writes of the rules. I just want to tweak the small things that occur occasionally.  As forrules that affect the draft, the perfect time to tweak them is right after thedraft.
 
 

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 andmade him wait until the first FAAB, I think we should consider this discussionclosed.  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 andthen deal with rules proposals and text amendment during the deep off season?
 
Right now people may vote one way based on how it impacts theircurrent situation and another if dealing with the issue in the abstract.
 
I don't have strong feelings either way about the substance of thisone -- but I really do prefer to keep in line with our well establishedframework for amending our now, pretty stable rules.
 
Would we need a substantial super majority or will a simplemajority carry the day?
 
Over and out.
 
-- Rich
 


From: announce-bounces at usml.net[mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net]On Behalf Of jhwinick at aol.com
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 2:30 PM
To: 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 <mbblocker at aol.com>
To: 'USML Announcements' <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 hasoccurred in the past, and will likely occur in the future, I propose we codifyour proposed solution in the rules for future reference.  Here is aproposed rule, to be inserted as section 5.6 of our rules:

 

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

 


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



_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce at usml.net
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/20100321/9b9d4015/attachment-0001.htm