RC Decision - rule proposal

[Dan Wood]

Plus our ip limit was 20 higher last season... Most weren't reaching the loophole

[Corey]

Over 65 doesnt count. If someone goes over we look at there lineup and find out the last pitcher to pitch and then remove those points.

Simple!

[h4cheng]

Over 65 doesnt count. If someone goes over we look at there lineup and find out the last pitcher to pitch and then remove those points.

Simple!

This is what I suggested as well...I don't mind doing the adjusting if someone report the cases to me.

[Corey]

This is what I suggested as well...I don't mind doing the adjusting if someone report the cases to me.

Id help you look for them. Wont be hard at all

[Colby]

OR put the onus on the GM.  If their score is zero because of the hard cap then they must post within a week in the transactions board to have their lineup fixed.  They receive three chances per year.

[KDoc09]

Now I am not on the RC, but as a longtime member I thought I might chime in on this. I don't think that most of our staffs would be able to make the 65 IP in a week without some sort of lineup manipulation so if you are active enough to change your lineup that frequently, you should be able to within some sort of reasonable measure, be able to figure out of you are going to be over the limit. Or maybe I am wrong, but what I am saying is that if you are that on top of things, passing the limit is not something that would happen by accident. As Dan has stated and most of you have agreed, it is a loophole and I do think that it is being exploited by some owners. I propose that we cap the IP at 65 so that any points over that are null and void. I do like Colby's suggestion for a three strikes rule as well. Perhaps we can use that to establish which GM's are using this loophole for nefarious means and which ones are simply an oversight. I also agree with Corey in that I sometimes set my lineups on Friday and while I am not in jeopardy of passing this mark, I think a complete forfeiture or something as severe may be a bit harsh. However, if this happens frequently (3 times or more0 then perhaps the RC and the other GMs have a right to enact such a penalty. Like a tiered penalty system (a la MLB PED testing); Once, points do not count above 65. Twice, points do not count above 65 IP and a penalty of some sort; for example -100 points for the week. And then third and all future offenses would be the doomsday rule, forfeiture of the week or something to that. Seems like a lot I know but it seems to balance fairness to those who follow the rules but might make a mistake one week while penalizing repeat offenders who may be seeking to exploit a loophole. Just my two cents, thank you all for your time.

[Corey]

Now I am not on the RC, but as a longtime member I thought I might chime in on this. I don't think that most of our staffs would be able to make the 65 IP in a week without some sort of lineup manipulation so if you are active enough to change your lineup that frequently, you should be able to within some sort of reasonable measure, be able to figure out of you are going to be over the limit. Or maybe I am wrong, but what I am saying is that if you are that on top of things, passing the limit is not something that would happen by accident. As Dan has stated and most of you have agreed, it is a loophole and I do think that it is being exploited by some owners. I propose that we cap the IP at 65 so that any points over that are null and void. I do like Colby's suggestion for a three strikes rule as well. Perhaps we can use that to establish which GM's are using this loophole for nefarious means and which ones are simply an oversight. I also agree with Corey in that I sometimes set my lineups on Friday and while I am not in jeopardy of passing this mark, I think a complete forfeiture or something as severe may be a bit harsh. However, if this happens frequently (3 times or more0 then perhaps the RC and the other GMs have a right to enact such a penalty. Like a tiered penalty system (a la MLB PED testing); Once, points do not count above 65. Twice, points do not count above 65 IP and a penalty of some sort; for example -100 points for the week. And then third and all future offenses would be the doomsday rule, forfeiture of the week or something to that. Seems like a lot I know but it seems to balance fairness to those who follow the rules but might make a mistake one week while penalizing repeat offenders who may be seeking to exploit a loophole. Just my two cents, thank you all for your time.

Very well said Kris.

[kungfuwig]

I agree w a 3-strike rule. I do think that the punishment for it happening the first two times is to remove those points. I went over the limit this week by two innings but didn't even know I was going to because I had never before. If those last relief pitcher points were taken off and I was given one strike I would keep a better eye and not hate the league for losing me match ups in a tight race.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?4wscpz

[Dan Wood]

OK so lets tally up...

1. Corey and Howe will be the adjustment bureau - yay for me
2. 3 strike rule - Yay for me
 - 1st and 2nd time offense - loss of points over 65
 - 3rd time offense - loss of points over 65 plus an additional 100 points for the week
 - 4th time and after - loss of all pitching scoring for that week

goes into effect starting next week

[shooter47]

OK so lets tally up...

1. Corey and Howe will be the adjustment bureau - yay for me
2. 3 strike rule - Yay for me
 - 1st and 2nd time offense - loss of points over 65
 - 3rd time offense - loss of points over 65 plus an additional 100 points for the week
 - 4th time and after - loss of all pitching scoring for that week

goes into effect starting next week

 

As many others have stated I think that losing all pitching points the first time is too harsh of a penalty.  I like the three strikes system.  I don't think that every team that goes over the IP limit is trying to do that.  You could technically be 24 innings from the limit and start 3 pitchers who all pitch Complete games and you would go over.  Now the chances of that happening are slim but it could happen and I would hate to see a GM get penalized all of their points for something like that.  This is why I support the three strikes approach.