[USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification

Sun Mar 21 19:09:58 EDT 2010

to avoid such stuff, here's idea for 2011:
let's just draft AFTER THE SEASON STARTS

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Richard E. Robbins
<RERobbins at itinker.net>wrote:

>  Figure out what you guys want and let me know if I need to vote on
> anything.  Don't worry about my objections as I suspect I'm alone.
>
> Now please offer me a closer.
>
> -- Rich
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* announce-bounces at usml.net [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Jeff Winick
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 21, 2010 4:37 PM
>
> *To:* USML Announcements
> *Subject:* Re: [USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification
>
>  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>
> 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><RERobbins at iTinker.net>
> 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> <announce-bounces at usml.net>
> announce-bounces at usml.net [ <announce-bounces at usml.net?>
> mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net <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><mbblocker at aol.com><mbblocker at aol.com>
> 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> <announce-bounces at usml.net><announce-bounces at usml.net>
> announce-bounces at usml.net [ <announce-bounces at usml.net?>
> mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net <announce-bounces at usml.net>] *On Behalf
> Of * <jhwinick at aol.com> <jhwinick at aol.com> <jhwinick at aol.com>
> jhwinick at aol.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 21, 2010 2:43 PM
> *To:* <announce at usml.net> <announce at usml.net> <announce at usml.net>
> 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> <RERobbins at iTinker.net><RERobbins at iTinker.net>
> RERobbins at iTinker.net>
> To: 'USML Announcements' < <announce at usml.net> <announce at usml.net><announce at usml.net>
> 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<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* <announce at usml.net>
>
> *http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce* <http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> announce mailing list
>
> *announce at usml.net* <announce at usml.net>
>
> *http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce* <http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> announce mailing list
> <announce at usml.net> <announce at usml.net> <announce at usml.net>
> announce at usml.net
> <http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce><http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce><http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce>
> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
>
>  _______________________________________________
> announce mailing list
> <announce at usml.net> <announce at usml.net>announce at usml.net
> <http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce><http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce>
> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
>
>  _______________________________________________
> announce mailing list
> <announce at usml.net>announce at usml.net
> <http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce>
> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
>
> _______________________________________________
> announce mailing list <announce at usml.net>announce at usml.net <http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce>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/20100321/938ec58d/attachment-0001.htm