Team 45 45 League

Problem. It has not always been clear, to either players or TDs, who is protected by the 24 hour rule for accepting an offer. TDs have ruled improperly, and players have objected to rulings that were correct.

Solution. Revise the statute to add a note regarding who is protected, and revise the rest of the statute for clarity.

Ed note. Current suggestion is to combine 10.C.vii and 10.C.viii into one paragraph with two subparagraphs, as shown below Suggested edits and additions in bold.

Section 10.C vii The 24-hour rule.

       a. If an offer that was made more than 24 hours from game time is accepted less than 24 hours from game time, the time must be confirmed by the one who made the offer. (This means, if I make an offer and you accept it less than 24 hours before the game, I must confirm your acceptance, or I cannot be held to my initial offer). This rule applies only to the player who made the offer, as the player who accepted it within the 24 hour period has already confirmed the time by accepting it.

      b. Exception to (a). If a player offers a time that is within 24 hours of the time of the post, and it be accepted, it is presumed that he intended to honor it even if he did not see the acceptance, unless he placed restrictions on the time of acceptance (e.g."I can play at 1700 tonight, if you respond by noon"). Absence of either player at the “agreed” time will result in a forfeit.”  The offer must be accepted before game time, or before the start of a range of times that included the offer.

Submitted by Rules Subcommittee.

Approved 10 October 2012 8-1-1 abstain

Item 3 11/4/12 Chief TD issued Administrative Rule.

Because loss of power resulting from Hurricane Sandy continues to be a widespread problem affecting many league players, the Chief TD DaveTheRook issued an administrative rule extending the deadline for team entries to 22:00 Nov. 11, and start of round 1 to 22:00 Nov. 13.

Problem. In the rescheduling statute there have been varying interpretations of what constitutes the end of a round, either the first week's Game Completion Deadline or the end of the adjournment week. A request to reschedule any game can be honored as late as the end of the grace period of any scheduled game, whether it was to be played before or after the Game Completion Deadline (first Tuesday). Obviously the new date would have to be in the adjournment week if the game had already been scheduled to be played after the GCD.

Solution. Rules Subcommittee recommends that the ending phrase in Section 10.G.i.a be changed from “deadline for the round” to “end of the adjournment week.” Such a change would not override a player’s other rights, such as not wanting to play in the adjournment week, but would give the players and the TDs a clear deadline for the game to be rescheduled and played.

Section 10.G.i.a (revised) The agreement to reschedule, if any, must be made (as evidenced in the Game Forum) prior to the end of the 30-minute grace period. The actual rescheduling discussions may take place later, and if rescheduled, the game must be completed by the deadline for the round end of the adjournment week.

Submitted by Rules Subcommittee December 9, 2012

This is an editorial revision that does not essentially change the meaning of the statute. It will be approved in one week unless a member of the Steering Committee objects. December 16,2012 Approved. No comments.

Item 5. Administrative Rule stating acceptance of an offer not made does not count.

Problem. There have been differing views of how to handle acceptance of an offer that was not made. Administrative Rule 14 was written to address this, by adding a statement in the Players Handbook, Part 4.C.,sixth bullet, as follows:

Be sure the time you accept is correct. If you should mistakenly accept a time that has not been offered, that time does not count as an acceptance, is not counted as an offer made by you, and does not fulfill any of the scheduling requirements or deadlines.

Written and posted December 16, 2012

Item 6. Clarification of rejected offer.

 Under our editorial revision policy, unless a SC member wishes to bring it up for further debate, this change will be incorporated into the Statutes in one week. Posted December 26, 2012

Problem. On occasion, much later in the negotiations for scheduling a game, a player will “accept” a time that he had previously rejected. TDs have ruled that such an acceptance does not meet the criteria for an offered time, as it had specifically been rejected earlier in the negotiations, and thus should require confirmation to be binding. In effect, it becomes a new offer by responder. The argument has been made by players affected that the rules do not cover this.

Solution. Rules proposes that Section 10.C.iii be amended to clarify what constitutes a rejected offer and how it should be handled.

Section 10.C.iii (amended, in red) Offers still outstanding by either player may be removed or amended until accepted. Rejected offers: If Player B should accept an offer that he had previously rejected in text (eg. "I can't possibly play that early" or the equivalent), the time must be confirmed by Player A to be binding; such a time becomes a new offer by Player B. Back and forth offers are not considered specific rejections of prior offers.

 January 3, 2013 No comments. Approved and posted to statutes.

Item 7. T55 Playoffs, original seeding