Monday, November 14, 2011

Polls: 2011 Rules Summit

The Umpire Ejection Fantasy League has concluded its week-long Rules Summit discussion and now it is time to vote for rules modifications and additions as we continue our preparations for the 2012 baseball season.

The following matters have been proposed during the Rules Summit discussion this past week and are now ready for a membership vote. You will notice several polls within this post, one for each proposed rule modification. Each poll carries its own set of instructions, including whether you may select one or multiple options. Please consider your options and vote prudently: upon Commissioner approval, all passing proposals will become rules for the 2012 UEFL season. The Rules Summit polls will close Monday, November 21, at 12:01 am PST.

Proposal 1: Restructuring the Primary and Secondary Umpires

  • Poll 1: Shall the UEFL expand to four drafted umpires? This would result in the drafting of a crew chief, who would receive one point for any non-incorrect ejection by any person on said crew chief's crew (incorrect ejections would receive zero points). The primary umpire would remain and the secondary umpire would be expanded to two secondary umpires.
  • Poll 2: Shall the UEFL employ an injury provision? If so, how shall this system function? This would result in the replacement of an umpire mid-season if said umpire becomes injured.
  • Poll 3: Shall draft order be pre-assigned? Shall the secondary draft be conducted in a live format? This would result in a preseason process to determine draft order. League signups would need to be completed by the beginning of March in order to create and distribute this draft order.
Proposal 2: Creation of a UEFL Appeals Board

  • Poll 4: Shall an Appeals Board be created? This would result in the creation of a 3/5/7 person board which would routinely rule on QOC challenges.
Proposal 3: Elimination of the Post-Inning Exemption, Balls/Strikes Exemptions

  • Poll 5: Shall the post-inning exemption be removed from the rules? This would result in all post-inning ejections (other than ejections regarding the third out) to be ruled unsportsmanlike.
Proposal 4: Elimination of QOC for "6.b.ii.e" Unsportsmanlike/Throwing/Fighting and Check Swing Ejections

  • Poll 6: Shall QOC be eliminated from "6.b.ii.e" ejections? This would result in only two base points per ejection (three for a AAA umpire), instead of four or five (2+2=4 becomes 2+0=2).
  • Poll 7: Shall QOC be eliminated from check swing ejections? This would result in only two base points per ejection and the elimination of determining QOC for check swing calls.
Proposal 5: UEFL Posting Guidelines and Commissioners as League Participants

  • Poll 8: Shall posting guidelines be adopted? This would add standard guidelines for acceptable/unacceptable posts and comments.
  • Poll 9: Shall Commissioners be permitted to participants in the UEFL? This would allow UEFL Commissioners to draft umpires and participate in the league. Commissioner picks would remain mutually exclusive from one another and commissioners would be prohibited from ruling on their owned umpires' ejections and participating in case play discussions.
Polls 1-9: You may place your vote below using the following polls
If the following polls do not load, you may use the following links to access the polls: Poll 1Poll 2Poll 3Poll 4Poll 5Poll 6Poll 7Poll 8Poll 9.


tmac said...

I think it's interesting that 65% of people want a board to oversee tough judgement calls but the current system of the commish making all rulings is tied for the top.

Lindsay said...

Call it Simpson's paradox if you like, but what will end up happening is the most popular "Yes, create a # member board" option will receive extra votes from the less popular "Yes, create a # member board" options. That will very likely defeat all the "No"s. A similar procedure is in place for some of the other polls.

tmac said...

Gil it would appear you are too smart for your own good shouldn't you be doing quantom phsyics or brain surgery!

Anonymous said...

agreed. by the way, how will the board members be decided. tmac has proven to be one of the more insightful posters, I would think he should be given a spot

Lindsay said...

So far, it looks like we will have a pre-determined draft order (Poll 3) along with an Appeals Board of 3 (Poll 4). That would mean a Commissioner + 2 UEFL'ers (4 Board members for a 3-person panel).

As the UEFL will maintain the restriction on having Board members abstain from voting on ejections in which their umpires or affected crews may be involved, that would potentially exclude one person from each individual appeal due to umpire involvement. Due to Commissioner restrictions (Poll 9), there would be no umpire overlap among the Commissioners with any other Board members.

Because the pre-assigned draft order looks to be passing, we would start UEFL signups in December. Those signups would be open until the draft period in March and would double as a forum in which you would be able to nominate yourself for the position of Appeals Board member. The Appeals Board voting would then take place in March prior to the draft.

Dan said...

Any word on any umpire retirements going into the 2012 season? I know there had been some rumors during this past season, but I haven't seen or heard anything since the season ended.

Big Marc said...

Gil, I would enjoy being on the Appeals Board. The reason I'm tossing my hat around is because of the conflict of interest issue. Even if a board member were to be ruling on a play that doesn't involve their umpire, a conflict of interest may surface. Directly ruling on a play that would keep or relinquish a lead in the points total could appear as the conflict. Remember it isn't actual, provable impropriety that is the issue, it's the appearance of impropriety that is the problem. I really have no interest in participating in the UEFL, not that it's not interesting, or fun, it's just that I very much enjoy the discussions and content of the site. Everything is just a click away, from videos to rules and rule precedents. I remember being the one who suggested a Panel be set up. I can honestly say I voted against the panel, after suggesting it. Why? At the time I was unhappy with your ruling. But then you showed the utmost integrity and made a second, and then a third review of Alan Porter's call, per my requests. I was shocked, and amazed that you would make a judgement, post your thoughts, and then objectively re-re-review your own ruling. After you did that, I decided that whether I agreed or disagreed with one of your rulings from that point forward, I could live with your final word as I was satisfied that you do indeed objectively come to your determinations. I now regret suggesting an Appeals Board be instituted. This maybe a case of the grass looks greener on the other side. But with the way the voting is going, it's a fore gone conclusion what will happen. And I would love to be part the new board. Of course a review of my qualifications should be visited. I would be happy and confident to submit to such a request. One way or another I'll be posting my opinions next year, member of the board or not. I was just thinking this would give me a chance to be more involved. Plain and simple, I like the action.
Great site, and I'll say it again, I hope you some how get filthy rich doing this, it was a great idea!

tmac said...

Anon: Thank you for the nomination... as someone who spent the majority of my adult life to teaching young umpires and helping them get further in professional baseball then i Did it would be an honor... But unfortunately i could never participate in the "ejection fantasy" aspect of this league which i believe is a prerequisite. If it wouldn't be i'd be open to it.

jrd said...

@tmac:unfortunately i could never participate in the "ejection fantasy" aspect of this league which i believe is a prerequisite. If it wouldn't be i'd be open to it.

I also think you have contributed to this site with news/commentary that others do not have. I second you nomination.

You would not have to be involved with "umpire fantasy league". You would simply rule on QOC of Gil's decisions that were appealed. Your reasoning for not taking part is weak.

Lindsay said...

The Appeals Board requirements and expectations are not yet set in stone (as it hasn't officially passed yet), but they will likely include...

Requirements for Nomination and Expectations of Position
*Ability to separate subjectivity from objective analysis;
*Extensive rules knowledge or ability to attain proficiency without significant disputation of UEFL rule interpretations;
*Ability to objectively and thoroughly analyze plays to determine Quality of Correctness;
*Availability to respond to the "Office of the UEFL Commissioner" in a timely fashion. Generally, within 48 hours of being notified of the appeal;
*Board members, including Commissioners, will be required to abstain from ruling on plays involving their drafted umpires (or crews, if applicable);
*Board members with no drafted umpires may request ample abstention from a limited number of appeals if so desired, which may be comparable to appeals abstained from by Board members with drafted umpires.

tmac said...

Well Thank you JRD, I appreciate it! if those are the requirements I think I meet them... Considering I watch baseball almost all the time!

Post a Comment