|
Post by Mike Rizzo on May 16, 2008 11:49:38 GMT -5
I've been thinking a lot about going back through the rules and adding rules that aren't in there that should be and perhaps revising the wording a bit. But instead, I came up with this rule change proposal to speed up any rule interpretation problems.
For anything where the interpretation of a rule is questioned or there is not a rule that exists, a committee will be made to (quickly) decide either whether or not the rule applies to the situation or to create the rule that best suits the needs of the league. I personally think this should include every rule proposal, so they can be done during the season, but if you guys would rather have the referendum votes after the season, we can just keep this for small things that can't wait (i.e. trades, in-season FA, etc.)
This committee could either be a fixed group of 6 (with the commish or a league official serving as the tiebreak) or maybe made up of the first place team in every division (with the commish or a league official as a tiebreak), just so the same teams aren't always on the committee.
The point of this really is to have a "balance of power" of sorts so that the league officials can't take the league in a direction that the owners think is a bad direction to go. It would speed up the process of changing rules and possibly allow us to get rule changes done during the season (when a lot of times they need to be done).
But as always, I want to know everyone else's thoughts on this.
|
|
|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on May 16, 2008 16:50:46 GMT -5
well def. not the first place team in each division because that creates bias. If this were to happen it would have to be a trade committee type of thing that gets appointed for each scenerio
|
|