[USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

Sun Mar 21 16:07:25 EDT 2010

Upon review, I shouldn't have said once and for all. Instead I meant  
to say until a timely proposal to change the rules is made, I.e. not  
now.

Jeff

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 21, 2010, at 1:52 PM, "Jeff Winick" <jhwinick at aol.com> wrote:

> 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 the proposal be withdrawn and that we just deal with this instance  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 occurr 
>>> ed, I think that?s a sign that we should simply codify our    re 
>>> solution.  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/f8e5bb63/attachment-0001.htm