[IBL] Rules Proposal...

[Joel Roberts]

 The placement runner is from Hades. I will vote NO forever on that rule.

    On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 10:22:32 pm GMT-5, Mike Monostra <monostram1 at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 I guess I'll bring up the question no one else has (surprisingly) brought up yet ... wouldn't adding the placement runner in extra innings cut down on the number of long games? 

It's too late to talk about adding the placement runner for IBL 2023, especially because it's not coded into GRS and would require a new version. But it's something that I think we should at least address or vote on down the line since this is a permanent MLB rule now. 

NJR Mike

On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 3:46 PM Sean Sweda <sweda at ibl.org> wrote:

Since it would appear that support for this rule change has increased  
substantially the simplest solution would be to fast-track it via the  
Commissioner's edit process.  Essentially this change to 4.1.2 could be  
proposed as an edit and as long as no owner objects it could be added to  
the Constitution immediately.  IOW, if support for this is unanimous then  
no vote is necessary.

I wrote the rule and it is designed to work exactly the same as emergency  
injury replacements, you simply report it with your other transactions

Sean


On Mar 3, 2023, at 2:21 PM, Brent Cunningham  
<gettysburg.generals at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not a fan of making rules changes after the draft (they should be  
> decided on for the following season during the playoffs/prior to the  
> draft IMHO), but I'd vote for this, especially if there are going to be  
> rules implemented limiting the use of position players as pitchers.
>
> That said, if it's a mess for anyone administrating transactions, I'd  
> reconsider voting yes.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brent Cunningham
> Owner/Manager
> Gettysburg Generals Baseball Club
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 3:36 PM George Blas <glblas7 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Now that it is the offseason is there a possibility at the minimum of
> putting this proposal from below up to a vote again?
>
> I would think the ability to recall pitchers after long extra inning
> games or DH would be at the minimum a required change - especially
> with MLB recognizing the need to minimize long games with the rule
> changes and the permanent ghost runner now.
>
> Other options of course could be considered but I'd think at the
> minimum we need to do something.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2016-01) Allow teams to make in-series pitcher transactions due to extra
> innings or double-headers
>
> add section 4.1.2:
>
> 4.1.2  Special Pitcher Activations
>
> A team may replace pitcher(s) on the active roster with pitcher(s) on the
> inactive roster after any game that extends beyond the 9th inning, after  
> the
> completion of a suspended game played on the same day as another game, or
> anytime during a series with a double-header (including between DH games).
> Any pitcher activated in this fashion must have been eligible to be
> activated for
> the current week (as per 3.2.2).
>
> Teams may not sign free agents in this situation, only players on the
> inactive roster at the start of the series are eligible replacements.
> Special transactions should be reported with the GRS for the series.
> Players deactivated in this manner must remain inactive for the next two
> weeks, just as if they were deactivated after the conclusion of the series.
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:11 PM Patrick Gibbs <pjgibbs at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Seems reasonable to me except for the between DH part.
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 7:22 PM Sean Sweda <sweda at ibl.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Apr 23, 2022, at 10:05 PM, Andrew Selder via Members
> >> <members at lists.ibl.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I’d like to propose emergency transactions be allowed after extra  
> inning
> >> > games.
> >> >
> >> > Jed and I played a 15 inning game in game 2, which left me exactly one
> >> > available reliever in gm 3. In real life, this would never be  
> allowed to
> >> > happen. Relievers would be optioned and other recalled from AAA.
> >> >
> >> > The relievers optioned would be ineligible for the next two weeks.
> >> >
> >> > Andrew
> >>
> >> FYI -- I wrote a rule change proposal to allow this in 2016 but it was
> >> voted down.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2016-01) Allow teams to make in-series pitcher transactions due to extra
> >> innings or double-headers
> >>
> >> add section 4.1.2:
> >>
> >> 4.1.2  Special Pitcher Activations
> >>
> >> A team may replace pitcher(s) on the active roster with pitcher(s) on  
> the
> >> inactive roster after any game that extends beyond the 9th inning,  
> after the
> >> completion of a suspended game played on the same day as another game,  
> or
> >> anytime during a series with a double-header (including between DH  
> games).
> >> Any
> >> pitcher activated in this fashion must have been eligible to be  
> activated for
> >> the current week (as per 3.2.2).
> >>
> >> Teams may not sign free agents in this situation, only players on the
> >> inactive roster at the start of the series are eligible replacements.
> >> Special transactions should be reported with the GRS for the series.
> >> Players deactivated in this manner must remain inactive for the next two
> >> weeks, just as if they were deactivated after the conclusion of the  
> series.
> >>
> >>
> > --
> > Sent from Gmail Mobile



  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20230307/2574c8be/attachment.htm>