[USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

Sun Mar 21 16:39:14 EDT 2010

I'm not concerned that dealing with this issue in a manner that only  
applies prospectively presents any problem whatsoever.  That should  
also address Rich's concern. I think the greater risk is that if we  
don't do something now we'll forget about it and not address it before  
it arises again.

Jeff

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 21, 2010, at 2:27 PM, springkerb at aol.com wrote:

> I agree, if you mean that we don't change the rules on the fly.   
> However, don't you think it makes sense to go ahead and bring the  
> matter to the vote for the future, since it's already teed up?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey H. Winick <JHW at steinrayharris.com>
> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
> Sent: Sun, Mar 21, 2010 3:58 pm
> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification
>
> 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 occu 
>>>> rred, I think that?s a sign that we should simply codify our r 
>>>> esolution.  I am not talking about massive re-writes of the ru 
>>>> les.  I just want to tweak the small things that occur occasio 
>>>> nally.  As for rules that affect the draft, the perfect time t 
>>>> o 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ac61103c/attachment-0001.htm