VOTING RESULTS (2009-10 Rule Proposals)
Rule Proposal 2, Ongoing Waiver Wire - Option B, is the only rule proposal that passes. This becomes effective immediately for the 2009-10 season (Doug, let’s talk about updating the covenant). Thanks everyone for your votes. Good try Cam on the proposal about a rule moratorium – it was almost passed!
Interesting note – we would have had a bit of an issue if rule 1 had passed … as 6 GMs said if there is a single waiver draft, they would want it at the one third point of the season and 6 said they would want it at at the halfway point.
Richard – I agree with your point about “abstentions” … however, the rules state we need 9 votes to implement a new rule or a rule change. Something to talk further about (hey, a rule proposal for next year! ;-)
Details on voting below:
RULE PROPOSAL #1 - FAILS
Reduce the number of waiver drafts to one a year. 7 YES, 5 NO
Regardless of how you voted for the above, if it is implemented then which of the two systems below would you prefer? (majority wins for a or b below)
a) the single WD will be held at the 1/3 mark of the season as per the setting of WD1 in past years (i.e. early December; around week 9 based on 27 week NHL schedule). [6 VOTES n/a]
b) the single WD will be held at the 1/2 mark of the season which would be approximately week 13 (i.e. early January). [6 VOTES n/a]
RULE PROPOSAL #2 – Option B - PASSES
Do you accept the concept of a continuous waive wire? 10 YES, 2 NO
Regardless of how you voted for the above, if it is implemented then which of the two systems below would you prefer? [majority wins for a or b below]
a) waived players remain on waiver wire for the remainder of the season. [1 YES]
b) waived players lose RFA or prospect status if not claimed in first week on wire. The waiver wire is dissolved at end of week prior to the WD(s) so that waived players are available for the WD(s). The waiver wire then starts with a clean slate after the WD(s). The waiver wire is dissolved permanently at the trade deadline. [11 YES]
RULE PROPOSAL #3 - FAILS
Reduce the number of prospects to 6 effective for the 2010-11 season. 2 YES, 8 NO, 2 ABSTAIN
RULE PROPOSAL #4 - FAILS
Prospects must be 18 years of age or older when drafted. 1 YES, 8 NO, 3 ABSTAIN
RULE PROPOSAL #5 - FAILS
There will be a moratorium on rule changes for 5 years unless all GMs unanimously agree to a rule change AND/OR some change within the NHL seriously affects the FUNHL which would trigger a FUNHL vote 8 YES, 4 NO
RULE PROPOSAL # 6 - FAILS
Members of the dispute committee sit for three years with one member changing each year. If there is more than one candidate to take over the vacating member’s place, then there will be a vote. 7 YES, 5 NO
5 comments:
Forgot to add that, just as a reminder, 3.75 gaa is the goalie baseline for the upcoming season (according to my calculations).
Yes the GAA standard to confirm both, Brian and Doug's earlier calculations will be 3.75 pts for a Shutout as we had last year.
Re: Abstentions
I would think the sensible thing to do is interpret this as "you need at least 3/4 of voting GMs to pass the new rule." And always round up or hit the number on the head.
e.g. if 3 GMs abstain or fail to vote, as in vote #4, then the number of votes necessary to pass it reduces to [(12-3) x 3/4] = 6.75, 7 votes needed.
It just seems brutal for the purposes of improving the league to interpret every "I don't care" as a "likely no."
R.
(And, as I said, with proposal #5 not passing, I'm willing to serve on the disputes committee this year.)
I definitely agree with this way of addressing abstentions and/or GMs who don't send in a vote.
I don't agree though that an abstention is an "I don't care vote". At least when I use it.
Agreed Brian, but I think it's a bit much to ask a "aye-nay-abstain" vote system to read anything into anyone's votes. When someone abstains, they are clearly voting neither no nor yes, whatever their motives or logic.
I think plain and simple, a vote to abstain, or a ballot not cast, should impact the denominator, not the numerator. (Ahh... grade 3 math. What do you know, it turns out I did need to know these kinds of things. :)
See everyone Saturday!
R.
Post a Comment