[USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification
springkerb at aol.com
springkerb at aol.com
Sun Mar 21 20:00:56 EDT 2010
Brad:
You're no fun.
All:
Let's just put Blocker's proposal and mine to a vote now--for future application only. Otherwise, we'll just waste more time watching basketball.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Jansen <bljansen at gmail.com>
To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Sun, Mar 21, 2010 7:09 pm
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] USML - Proposed rule codification
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> 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 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
_______________________________________________
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/20100321/086f6250/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Announce
mailing list