[USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

Sun Mar 21 15:58:55 EDT 2010

Given that we seem to have precedent, I don't see any doubt that we follow the precedent for now.

However, as noted in my other e-mail (with my updated and clarified proposal), I think it makes sense to put the matter to a vote now, for future years, just because the issue is fresh in everyone's minds now.  I disagree regarding the best way to handle it (again, for the future), but the majority can decide that as always.  Don't worry, if I'm on the short end of the issue, I won't be inciting a bunch of half-wit, racist rabble to picket your offices.

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Winick <jhwinick at aol.com>
To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Sun, Mar 21, 2010 3:50 pm
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

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  However, if there's even a single other person who agrees with me I'd ask that the proposal be withdrawn and that we just deal with this instance informally and not tinker with the text of our rules now.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 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: 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

=

_______________________________________________
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/d2513f33/attachment-0001.htm