[USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

[Jeff Winick]

Rich,

I respectfully disagree. While I agree with the premise that we ought  
not make changes to the rules during the season, I don't see this as a  
change. It merely codifies our practice. Worse than in-season rule  
changes is ad hoc decisionmaking and potential inconsistency. If  
you're really concerned about bitter difficulties then I encourage you  
to drop your objection to resolving this particular issue once and for  
all.

Jeff


Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 21, 2010, at 1:24 PM, "Richard E. Robbins"  
<RERobbins at iTinker.net> wrote:

> 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 the proposal be withdrawn and that we just deal with this instance  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 rul 
>> es.  I just want to tweak the small things that occur occasionally 
>> .  As for rules that affect the draft, the perfect time to tweak t 
>> hem 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: 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 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
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100321/55159eda/attachment.htm