Post by Derrick - Senators on Feb 20, 2009 19:37:36 GMT -5
In the ruling of Nos -Sharks v. Robyn-Flames[/b] concerning the rights of David Perron, the court hands down this judgement:
As stated in the NAFHL Constitution: Section 8, Article C
This would indicate that prospects, and only prospects (not minor leaguers or free agents) can be called up and sent down to the farm at will, providing immunity from the waiver system. With that said, Yahoo can not recognize "prospects" in its database, as we do in our jurisdiction. Therefore the "waiver" status placed upon prospects in the Yahoo system is arbitrary and thus, void.
Furthermore, Section 8, Article F states:
Article F is not as selective in wording and would seem to contradict the aforementioned Article C whereas "prospects" have become "players." Two scenarios arise out of this. "Players" can then be interpreted as "all remaining players other than prospects" or as an all inclusive term meaning "prospects, minor leaguers, and free agents." Although, only prospects and minor leaguers may be sent to the farm. Without question however, this rule explicitly states that a message for assignment be declared.
If analyzed, the NAFHL Constitution is written alphabetically, with each subsequent letter of a section detailing A.) a new rule or; B.) a further explanation or modifier of the previous rule (s). Thus, if we are to interpret the term "players" to mean "all other players other than prospects" a message detailing the assignment of a "prospect" to ones farm team would not be necessary; Only a message declaring a minor leaguer who is passing through waivers to be assigned to the farm. However, if we are to assume that the term "players" is an all inclusive term, then a post need be made to assign ANY player, both Prospect and Minor Leaguer to the farm.
In addition, Section 8, Article G states:
Since we have A.) established the hiccup in the overlay between our database and Yahoo's database concerning prospects and unavoidable waiver time after being released/assigned (unless the waiver date is changed by the commissioner) and; B.) established the alphabetical hierarchy of the NAFHL Constitution, Article G can be interpreted as such.
Following the alphabetical hierarchy theory, it would appear as if Article C is not a modifier or precursor to Articles F and G. However, Articles F and G are strongly correlated and do qualify as modifiers to Article E. Thus, Section 8, Article E introduces a new rule or concept, Article F modifies Article E, and Article G then modifies Article F even further.
On the surface, this appears to be a case of written law. However, what it really is, is a case decided on interpretation and more importantly, the mores of this league. While we have grown accustomed to posting farm transactions for every prospect and minor leaguer, it is not explicitly stated, and in fact, not even listed as a "rule" in the NAFHL Constitution outside of the now ambiguous, Section 8 Article F.
For instance, one must consider the "Voracek Incident" earlier in the season.
Yahoo Forum Posts #93-103
1/13/09 - 1/14/09
Post #97 Columbus Blue Jackets
Post #99 Atlanta Thrashers
Even though a specific rule had not been established, this exchange shows that it, along with other "unspoken" customs have become league norms. While Section 8 Article F does call for a post to be made when assigning a "player" (now determined to be a minor leaguer) it does not specify where, and certainly does not require a post to be made on both the Yahoo message board and league forum.
Furthermore:
Post #101 Columbus Blue Jackets
It is true that this has been an ongoing "issue" with one or both message boards. Let me draw your attention to the times it has gone unnoticed, once, with the player that is now in question.
Dec 19 12:37pm Drew Doughty
Dec 28 8:18am Brandon Dubinsky
Jan 28 6:01pm David Perron
While these transactions are just those of Calgary, this has been an obligation that has been ignored many times, off and on, since the inception of this league. To rule in favor of Nos amidst the insurmountable ambiguity and tremendous inconsistency of this league would be unjust and lead to the investigation of every account of this instance that has been unnoticed, overlooked, and passed by without revocation. As it stands, not every problem has a solution, and not every more has a rule. The simplest of solutions is to amend the Constitution so that it is explicit in further stating the rules for farm transactions, and the posting that is REQUIRED along with it. Furthermore, as this seems to be a mounting problem, specifically for the defendant, it is my decision to place GM Robyn on league "probation" until further notice.
OVERRULED
As stated in the NAFHL Constitution: Section 8, Article C
C) Prospects can be called up to the active roster and back down to the farm system without needing to clear waivers until they reach 150 career games played.
This would indicate that prospects, and only prospects (not minor leaguers or free agents) can be called up and sent down to the farm at will, providing immunity from the waiver system. With that said, Yahoo can not recognize "prospects" in its database, as we do in our jurisdiction. Therefore the "waiver" status placed upon prospects in the Yahoo system is arbitrary and thus, void.
Furthermore, Section 8, Article F states:
F) If you want to assign the players from the active roster to the farm, you have to drop the players to the waiver wire first. If no one claims the player after 2 days, the player will be assigned to your farm team. You must make a room for the player in the farm. YOU NEED TO POST A MESSAGE TO DECLARE THE TRANSACTION IS FOR ASSIGNMENT NOT RELEASING TO THE FREE AGENT.
Article F is not as selective in wording and would seem to contradict the aforementioned Article C whereas "prospects" have become "players." Two scenarios arise out of this. "Players" can then be interpreted as "all remaining players other than prospects" or as an all inclusive term meaning "prospects, minor leaguers, and free agents." Although, only prospects and minor leaguers may be sent to the farm. Without question however, this rule explicitly states that a message for assignment be declared.
If analyzed, the NAFHL Constitution is written alphabetically, with each subsequent letter of a section detailing A.) a new rule or; B.) a further explanation or modifier of the previous rule (s). Thus, if we are to interpret the term "players" to mean "all other players other than prospects" a message detailing the assignment of a "prospect" to ones farm team would not be necessary; Only a message declaring a minor leaguer who is passing through waivers to be assigned to the farm. However, if we are to assume that the term "players" is an all inclusive term, then a post need be made to assign ANY player, both Prospect and Minor Leaguer to the farm.
In addition, Section 8, Article G states:
G) If you want to assign a prospect to the farm, you can just send the players to the farm directly. PROSPECTS DON'T NEED TO GO TO WAIVER WIRE and can be sent directly to the farm.
Since we have A.) established the hiccup in the overlay between our database and Yahoo's database concerning prospects and unavoidable waiver time after being released/assigned (unless the waiver date is changed by the commissioner) and; B.) established the alphabetical hierarchy of the NAFHL Constitution, Article G can be interpreted as such.
Following the alphabetical hierarchy theory, it would appear as if Article C is not a modifier or precursor to Articles F and G. However, Articles F and G are strongly correlated and do qualify as modifiers to Article E. Thus, Section 8, Article E introduces a new rule or concept, Article F modifies Article E, and Article G then modifies Article F even further.
On the surface, this appears to be a case of written law. However, what it really is, is a case decided on interpretation and more importantly, the mores of this league. While we have grown accustomed to posting farm transactions for every prospect and minor leaguer, it is not explicitly stated, and in fact, not even listed as a "rule" in the NAFHL Constitution outside of the now ambiguous, Section 8 Article F.
For instance, one must consider the "Voracek Incident" earlier in the season.
Yahoo Forum Posts #93-103
1/13/09 - 1/14/09
Post #97 Columbus Blue Jackets
I don't see a message here that says he was being sent to the farm vs. dropped outright
Post #99 Atlanta Thrashers
[text removed]...Haha yea my bad I forgot to post on here...but I did post on the boards...
Even though a specific rule had not been established, this exchange shows that it, along with other "unspoken" customs have become league norms. While Section 8 Article F does call for a post to be made when assigning a "player" (now determined to be a minor leaguer) it does not specify where, and certainly does not require a post to be made on both the Yahoo message board and league forum.
Furthermore:
Post #101 Columbus Blue Jackets
Obviously its posted in the Atlanta Farm Transactions forum. That's not the point. I was making the point to remind people that posts need to be made on here regarding the status of dropped prospects and minor leaguers. He's not going to lose the player. It was just a point, a point that deserves to be made. It's not my responsibility to go find out if he's sending this player down. It's his responsibility to make it clear both on the league forum and on yahoo. This has happened several times and I'm tired of the leg work.
It is true that this has been an ongoing "issue" with one or both message boards. Let me draw your attention to the times it has gone unnoticed, once, with the player that is now in question.
Dec 19 12:37pm Drew Doughty
Dec 28 8:18am Brandon Dubinsky
Jan 28 6:01pm David Perron
While these transactions are just those of Calgary, this has been an obligation that has been ignored many times, off and on, since the inception of this league. To rule in favor of Nos amidst the insurmountable ambiguity and tremendous inconsistency of this league would be unjust and lead to the investigation of every account of this instance that has been unnoticed, overlooked, and passed by without revocation. As it stands, not every problem has a solution, and not every more has a rule. The simplest of solutions is to amend the Constitution so that it is explicit in further stating the rules for farm transactions, and the posting that is REQUIRED along with it. Furthermore, as this seems to be a mounting problem, specifically for the defendant, it is my decision to place GM Robyn on league "probation" until further notice.
OVERRULED
So exciting.
You better make that pick or trade it! I'm excited to see if we can use up all the draft picks this year.