Topic: 2019 Rule Amendments-Discussion

[Dodgers DS]

After promising to get some thoughts online, it's time to get things started.  I've gone through the rules a couple times and keep getting drawn back to Chapter V-Roster Management as a place that could use a little cleaning up.  Please include your thoughts, on other areas of the rules, or even those contrary to mine so that we can collectively provide the EC with a good set of suggestions and justifications for their consideration.

Let the party begin.

[Dodgers DS]

I have a few suggested modifications to Rule Section V, dealing with roster management.  Each will be submitted through an individual post for ease of review.

Existing Rule Language
V. Roster Management
A.   Overall Roster Each Team will be allowed a franchise roster not exceeding 50 Players (maximum roster size will increase to 52 immediately following the 2016 season and increase by an additional player for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 season). The franchise roster will consist of an Active Roster and a Reserve Roster.

1.    Roster limits are enforced all year, including during the offseason, and Teams may not exceed the maximum roster size.

A couple suggestions here, with the first tempered by a little confusion as to what the existing language intended to say.  That uncertainty is focused on the choice of the word "following" in concert with "for", which (to me) implies beforehand.  As currently worded, the league increased roster size from 50 to 52 following the 2016 season and then (based on one interpretation) added one more player slot for each of the 2017, 2018, and 2019 seasons.  As worded we boosted the rosters by two once 2016 ended and then added one more at some point prior to the 2017 season.

My guess has been the language was actually intended to increase roster size by one after each of the listed seasons which would have allowed 52 for 2017, 53 for the most recent season, and 54 for 2018 with one more increase slated for 2019.  The only reason I’m not sold on that interpretation is that one team is already at 54 players.

That long preface aside, my initial suggestion is that V.A. be simplified.  Each team will be allowed a franchise roster not exceeding (this number) players.  Known future additions can still be referenced, but if the Executive Committee opts to not continue roster expansion I think things will be much clearer if a single number is provided as a reference point.

Secondly, sub-item A1 was added last year, and seems to somewhat contradict language in following items (which can be addressed in one or more other messages) and as such it seems to be put in the wrong place.  I believe an edited version of this point better fits in V.B. or perhaps V.C, which also remedies the point that a V.A.2. would be needed to accompany V.A.1. should it remain in its current location.

I suggest moving the purpose of that existing sub-item to V.C. and will offer a separate message further detailing that move.

[Dodgers DS]

Existing Rule
C.   Roster Violation Penalties General Managers must maintain their Active and Reserve Rosters to ensure they meet the following criteria when rosters are frozen each Friday during the regular season and at other times mandated by the Executive Committee (e.g. prior to Week 1).
1.   A valid 25-man Active Roster (no fewer and no more than 25 players).
2.   No more than 50 players on the Overall Roster.
3.   If either of the roster maintenance criteria in Section V.C.1 or Section V.C.2 are not met the Executive Committee will apply a penalty as follows:


Suggested Change
C.   Roster Violation Penalties Year-round compliance with maximum overall roster size is required by all teams, monitored by the Executive Committee, and subject to penalties as described in this item.  General Managers must maintain their Active and Reserve Rosters to ensure they meet the following criteria when rosters are frozen each Friday during the regular season and at other times mandated by the Executive Committee (e.g. prior to Week 1).
1.   The Overall Roster limits are defined in Item V.A.
2.   A valid 25-man Active Roster (no fewer and no more than 25 players, except as allowed in Item V.B.)

Furthermore, I suggest an additional clause for sub-sub-item V.C.3.a, as follows:
3.   If either of the roster maintenance criteria in Section V.C.1 or Section V.C.2 are not met the Executive Committee will apply a penalty as follows:

a.   First Instance A warning will be sent to the General Manager, and the Executive Committee will not approve any trade or waiver claim that would increase the roster size until the offending team is compliant with all requirements of this section.

[Dodgers DS]

Existing Rule

F.   Post-Season Rosters Any player with a guaranteed contract (4th through Full) on the Reserve Roster, without regard for Active Roster usage during the regular season, is available for the playoffs as long as the player being replaced is placed on the Disabled List. Post-season rosters can be comprised of any 25 Players from the 50-man roster provided each Player selected was on the 25-man regular season Active Roster for at least one day prior to September 1 in the simulation.

1.   In the event a Player is injured to the extent he becomes unavailable for more than one day during the post-season, he may be replaced by any other Player with a DMB rating and the replacement will not accumulate service time.
2.   Any Player replaced due to injury during the post-season is ineligible to return during both the series in which he was replaced and the following series in the same year.

Comment/Question
The strike through in the final sentence of V.F. indicates the deletion of that language in last year’s rule amendments.  Was the language that replaced Item V.F. actually intended to replace V.F.1?  If not the item and sub-item contradict each other, and the size of active playoff roster is not addressed. 

[Dodgers DS]

Minor Edits
I recommend removing dated references in Items IV.B.2. and V.H.8.b. and c.  Maintaining some sort of historical reference is a good idea, but I just suggest keeping the rules focused on the present.

[Mariners BW]

Minor Edits
I recommend removing dated references in Items IV.B.2. and V.H.8.b. and c.  Maintaining some sort of historical reference is a good idea, but I just suggest keeping the rules focused on the present.

100% agree... keeping historical reference is a good idea, but I think current rules should absolutely be based on the present.

[Mariners BW]

I have a few suggested modifications to Rule Section V, dealing with roster management.  Each will be submitted through an individual post for ease of review.

Existing Rule Language
V. Roster Management
A.   Overall Roster Each Team will be allowed a franchise roster not exceeding 50 Players (maximum roster size will increase to 52 immediately following the 2016 season and increase by an additional player for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 season). The franchise roster will consist of an Active Roster and a Reserve Roster.

1.    Roster limits are enforced all year, including during the offseason, and Teams may not exceed the maximum roster size.

A couple suggestions here, with the first tempered by a little confusion as to what the existing language intended to say.  That uncertainty is focused on the choice of the word "following" in concert with "for", which (to me) implies beforehand.  As currently worded, the league increased roster size from 50 to 52 following the 2016 season and then (based on one interpretation) added one more player slot for each of the 2017, 2018, and 2019 seasons.  As worded we boosted the rosters by two once 2016 ended and then added one more at some point prior to the 2017 season.

My guess has been the language was actually intended to increase roster size by one after each of the listed seasons which would have allowed 52 for 2017, 53 for the most recent season, and 54 for 2018 with one more increase slated for 2019.  The only reason I’m not sold on that interpretation is that one team is already at 54 players.

That long preface aside, my initial suggestion is that V.A. be simplified. 
Secondly, sub-item A1 was added last year, and seems to somewhat contradict language in followiEach team will be allowed a franchise roster not exceeding (this number) players.  Known future additions can still be referenced, but if the Executive Committee opts to not continue roster expansion I think things will be much clearer if a single number is provided as a reference point.
ng items (which can be addressed in it seems to be put in the wrong place.  I believe an edited version of this point better fits in V.B. or perhaps V.C, which also remedies the point that a V.A.2. would be needed to accompany V.A.1. should it remain in its current location.

I suggest moving the purpose of that existing sub-item to V.C. and will offer a separate message further detailing that move.

Bolded/underlined above... 100% agree.

[Diamondbacks LL]

The rule that allowed teams to go over the roster limit during the draft was an obvious miscalculation of the morality of a GM and needs to be changed back immediately. Most leagues have a provision that if a GM is not willing to obey roster regulations that the league will make the necessary adjustments for him.

Larry
Arizona

[Dodgers DS]

Another point I'll offer for discussion and Executive Committee consideration deals with Item III.D. addressing the league schedule, particularly that portion focused on the postseason.

Existing Rule
III.D  Schedule The schedule for each Team will mirror its MLB counterpart (with the exception of weather rescheduling and double-headers) and will be generated and made available by the Executive Committee prior to the start of the regular season.

1.   Each year the All-Star Game will be hosted by the DMBO counterpart of the MLB All-Star Game host.

2.   Each year the post-season schedule will reflect the MLB post-season and tie-breaking procedures with the exception the World Series (see MLB Postseason and MLB Tie-Breakers)

a.   For the World Series, home field advantage will be awarded to the Team representing the league with the greater winning percentage during regular season inter-league play.


Rationale
First, if the league is no longer going to feature an All-Star Game (something I never really saw as much of an enhancement), then remove it from the rules.

Second, (and once again risking coming across as a Grammar Nazi) let’s clean up the “hanging sub-sub-item of III.D.2.a. without an accompanying “b.”  Frankly, I believe the rules were stronger on this front when the stated process for “seeding” was published for all to read.  Reverting to that more thorough description of the process not only allows for correction of the grammatical issue, but offers greater regulatory transparency.

The rules provide a mechanism for the Executive Committee to make decisions for issues not specifically addressed in writing, but it is my belief that a thought-out, vetted process is an overall improvement than knowledge not equally available to all members.

Finally, I suggest removing language that places some degree of responsibility on the Executive Committee for disseminating any team’s league regular-season schedule to them.  That hasn’t happened in years, if ever, and was put into rule nearly two decades ago when this league was in a formative stance.

Suggestion/Proposed Change
So, if were to remove All-Star Game references and duties improperly assigned to the Executive Committee, and include language previously deleted, III.D. could read:

Schedule The regular-season schedule for each Team will mirror its MLB counterpart (except for weather rescheduling and double-headers).  The annual post-season schedule will reflect the general structure of the MLB post-season, but with home-field advantage for various stages of post-season being determined as follows:

1)   In the event that at the end of the regular season more than one team has an equal number of wins and no other post-season opportunity exists, a single play-in game will occur to determine which team qualifies for the post-season.  The home field advantage for this game will be awarded to the team with the greater number of wins between the two during head-to-head competition.
a)   If no win advantage can be determined through head-to-head competition, the league shall award home field advantage to the team with the greater run deviation, i.e. number of runs allowed subtracted from runs scored during the regular season.
b)   If no advantage can be determined through head-to-head competition or run deviation, the league shall award home field advantage to the team with the greater winning percentage during the regular season intra-league play.
c)   If no advantage can be determined through head-to-head competition, run deviation, or intra-league winning percentage the league shall award home field advantage as a result of a coin flip

2)   In the event that three teams have an equal number of wins and no other post-season opportunity exists, using the “seeding” system described in Item III(D)(2)(a) to determine the lowest two teams for a single play-in game with home field award to the higher of the two, and the winner going on the road for a second single play-in game against the highest rated of the three based on the same formula.

3)   In the event that more than three teams have an equal number of wins and no other post-season opportunity exists, using the “seeding” system described elsewhere within Item III(D)(2) a seeding process will be determined to establish a series of home field advantage scenarios for play-in games for post-season qualification where no other means is available to an effected team to qualify for the Divisional Series post-season play.

4)   Seeding for the Divisional Series shall be for the team with the highest winning percentage in the league to have home field advantage in a series with the Wild Card qualifier.
a)   If the Wild Card qualifier and the team with the highest winning percentage are from the same division, the team with the next highest winning percentage shall have home field advantage in a series with the Wild Card qualifier.
b)   All other seeding issues will be determined based on the description found in within Item III.D.

5)   Seeding for the League Championship Series shall be determined based on the description found within Item III.D.

6)   Home field advantage for the World Series shall be awarded to the team representing the league with the greater winning percentage from the regular season’s inter-league play.

[Dodgers DS]

Two moderately related issues deal with draft eligibility.  The first one may already be on Atticus’ list of pending issues and is only raised in this thread to make certain it’s on the EC’s radar.

The current wording describing player eligibility for the summer draft (specifically Item VIII.C.1.b) and the winter draft (specifically Item IX.B.1.) create a bit of a “twilight zone” of qualifying/disqualifying MLB-level plate appearances or innings pitched.

This seems an easy one to rectify.  Either align both at 100 PAs and 30 IPs or 130 PAs and 50 IPs.

The second one isn’t complex but is something I think warrants being formally included in rule.

Beyond the lack of qualifying MLB-level experience to qualify for the winter draft, eligible players have been limited to those appearing on an EC-published list.  While that list may catch all qualifying players, some have and do slipped/slip through the cracks.

At one point in the history of the DMBO winter draft, those players remained eligible for the following summer draft, but do they still qualify for that means of entry into the league?  I suggest there should be the availability of a league-wide understanding of the answer to that question.

[Dodgers DS]

The rule that allowed teams to go over the roster limit during the draft was an obvious miscalculation of the morality of a GM and needs to be changed back immediately. Most leagues have a provision that if a GM is not willing to obey roster regulations that the league will make the necessary adjustments for him.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but when someone finds and uses a loophole or inadquate restrictions I feel we owe them a tip of the cap more than questioning their moral turpitude.  I assure you that when the rule governing roster limits was originally written it was done with intent to somewhat control behavioral economics.

Whether or not someone pushes the envelope to a point where it becomes problematic should be open to discussion, and potentially rule revision if deemed necessary by the EC.  Regardless, this past season is not the first time one GM looked at a practice or restriction through a different lens than the rest of us, and I doubt it is the final instance.

Maybe, just maybe that how the league becomes stronger in the long run.

[Diamondbacks LL]

This is where you and I disagree. When you join a league that is fun it is physically impossible to have a set of rules that all encompasses everything. This is why the IRS tax code is 4,000 pages or whatever is is. These leagues are dependent upon what the rules were intended and that each and every GM understands and follows the intent. This is not a really hard premise. There are unfortunate circumstances when a loophole is found and someone thinks  they are better than everyone else in the league and they become a sneak. They know they are not following the intent of the bylaws but do it anyway. To congratulate someone on exploiting a gray area is ludicrous. This is when strong and decisive leadership is needed. When confronted with a violation of the the intent of the rules the leadership has two choices. One is to enforce the intent of the rule. The other is to stick your head in the sand, say that there is nothing in writing against the act and promise to deal with it later.  Our leadership chooses to do the latter. They failed us and the league is weaker because of it.

Larry
Arizona

[Dodgers DS]

Existing Rule

III. League Structure

D.   Schedule The schedule for each Team will mirror its MLB counterpart (with the exception of weather rescheduling and double-headers) and will be generated and made available by the Executive Committee prior to the start of the regular season.

1.   Each year the All-Star Game will be hosted by the DMBO counterpart of the MLB All-Star Game host.

2.   Each year the post-season schedule will reflect the MLB post-season and tie-breaking procedures with the exception the World Series (see MLB Postseason and MLB Tie-Breakers)

a.   For the World Series, home field advantage will be awarded to the Team representing the league with the greater winning percentage during regular season inter-league play.

Same existing rule, different issue at hand.  I’ve chosen to present the existing rule language instead of what has been proposed.  If the decision is made to retain the exiting rule language above, the two sub-sub items could be adopted as presented.  Should that proposal be adopted, the following could be adopted as III.A.2.a. and b.

Proposed Change/Addition to Rule

b.   For each round of the postseason the Executive Committee shall identify one member whose team is not involved in any given series to simulate the games of that series.

c.   If a round of the postseason has no member of the Executive Committee whose team is not involved in said round, a general manager from another team shall be selected to simulate games until which point a member of the leadership group has no conflict of interest.

[Dodgers DS]

I’m going to make a conscious attempt to break from proposing rule changes for EC consideration…but after just one more, and an open discussion on this one may get a little dicey. 

Trust me, this is not directed toward any one GM.  Many of us (myself included) have likely crossed a line that threatens the league’s ability to remain compliant with the initial and foundational statement in our rules. 

Item I.A. clearly states the purpose of DMBO is to “offer an entertainment opportunity”, but (to my knowledge) there has never been a sub-rule or even an EC statement expressing the intent to support an entertaining experience.  If a GM gets chastised or attacked within our league, it certainly isn’t entertaining to him.  The questions then become or at least include:  Should the league monitor such a situation and accordingly act?  If so, what steps or measures will be taken to rectify such an offense?

Is this best addressed by rule, or by a predetermined set of guidelines for the EC? 

Frankly, I find the first question the simplest, and my answer is “yes”.  From there, the other two float into grayer areas.

[Diamondbacks LL]

I would need a better example. Was there a valid reason why someone's feelings were hurt ? Did he cry ?

The liberal answer to your question would be something along the lines of talking to the offending GM, giving him a hug and then a candy bar.

The conservative answer to your question would be to privately admonish the offending GM, explain to them the theory of progressive discipline and apply the first step if deemed necessary.

Lets be realistic, we are 30 grown men with 30 different personalities playing a game. As Jon C put it back in August I am an older conservative male who was in law enforcement for 26 years. I believe in right and wrong, there is very little gray area in the interpretation of rules. I also have a problem with people who think they are better than anyone else and look to exploit gray areas. With me you get honesty, you will never doubt where you stand. That comes from supervising a group of detectives for 10 years.

When someone disagrees with the EC do we really want to muzzle them ?

I hope everyone has a happy and safe holiday season.

Larry
Arizona