The final tally for Friday’s vote to change the existing rule regarding the impact of cancelled games, per a source with knowledge of the numbers, went like this: 25 yes, three no, four abstentions.
That’s only one more “yes” than the rules require to change rules. As to the abstentions, one of them reportedly came from one of the teams directly impacted by the rule change.
Jeremy Fowler of ESPN.com reports that the Chiefs abstained from voting on the rule change. The Chiefs, per the report, believed that teams directly impacted by the changes shouldn’t cast a vote.
If accurate, it’s a passive-aggressive way of voting no. With 24 yes votes required, anything but yes is no.
The Chiefs’ overall interests pointed toward voting no. Under the prior rule, they would have been the No. 1 seed, with a week off and home-field advantage throughout the playoffs, with a win later today over the Raiders.
The mere fact that any specific teams are helped or hurt by in-season rule changes helps make the case against revising rulebooks or bylaws or manuals or any other settled provisions until after the season has ended. If, as explained yesterday, the league wants the Commissioner to have the flexibility to fashion specific rules and/or procedures based on the specific circumstances surrounding the cancellation of a game, that’s what the rule should be revised to say. After the season ends.
Before then, the existing rule -- crafted at a time when the folks who make very good money to be proactive and to imagine potential outcomes and permutations -- should have been good enough.
Friday’s vote didn’t even change the rule. If created a one-time, on-the-fly exception. It will be interesting to see whether the relevant policy manual changes in March to give the Commissioner flexibility for the future, or whether they’ll be content to try to cobble together enough votes on a case-by-case basis in the future.
Given that the league came within two votes of having its effort to tweak the AFC playoff tree fail, it would make sense to try to craft a new rule that lets the Commissioner make these decisions without having to hope at least 24 owners will agree with it.