Sunday, November 4, 2012

Discussions: 2012 UEFL Rules Summit

As baseball's offseason begins, the Umpire Ejection Fantasy League presents the 2012 Rules Summit. The purpose of the UEFL Rules Summit is to discuss any controversial issues which have surfaced during this past season and to set forth a framework for rectifying these issues by modifying the existing UEFL Rules Book in advance of next season.

This discussion thread is an open forum for proposing, discussing and debating potential rules changes. The 2012 Rules Summit discussion thread shall remain open for 1/2 week, which should provide ample time for the discussion of possible rules changes heading into the 2013 season.

The following matters are already on the docket for the 2012 Rules Summit, though any UEFL'er or guest may contribute an idea by replying to this thread. Modifications are identified by plaintext, while deletions are identified by italics and additions are identified by bold text. >> Indicates a proposition & vote.

Rule 1 (Selection of Umpires), Deletion, Modification or Addition.
>> Section 3 & 4-a. Abolishes/deletes the permutation restriction (mutual exclusivity) related to secondary umpires. This deletion would allow two members to draft the same combination of secondary umpires. Accordingly, if this proposition passes, Rule 2-4-b-4 and all associated provisions will be repealed. Alternately, adds a second primary umpire to form a "crew" of two primaries, two secondaries + crew chief (crew division).
>> Section 4-b-1. Deletes "In the case of a new member, he is assumed to have finished the previous season with a score of zero" and adds "New members shall draft following all returning members and in the order in which registrations have been received."

Rule 4 (League Scoring), Modification.
>> Section 2-b. Changes point structure from (-4 Incorrect, -2 Incorrect [crewmate], +1 Correct [crewmate], +2 Correct) to (+0 Incorrect, +2 Incorrect [crewmate], + 5 Correct [crewmate], + 6 Correct).

Rule 5 (Statistics), Addition.
>> Section 3. Adds three conditions to the top of "ties" so that the primary determining factor in breaking a tie is primary umpire points, the secondary determining factor is total secondary umpire points and the tertiary determining factor is crew division points.

Rule 6 (Challenges and Appeals), Modification and Addition.
>> Section 1. Adds to §6-1 the requirement that all challenges shall be accompanied by a charge of appeal (e.g., "... I appeal on the grounds that..."). Establishes that validity of challenge shall be determined by the UEFL Commissioners (in the event of a 1-1 tie, the challenge will be accepted). Alternately, adds a requirement that only league participants may challenge a ruling.
>> Section 2-b-2. Modifies Miller Rule for the sake of improving accuracy in determining vertical balls/strikes QOC; converts normalized units to feet, using sz_top, sz_bot and pz, instead of norm_ht.
>> Section 6-b-5-c. Adds throwing of equipment to Unsportsmanlike/Irrecusable status. Places the burden of proof on demonstrating the act is NEC and not concerning one specific call.
>> Section 6-b-8. Adds a section addressing ejections wherein umpiring mechanics are incorrect, though the call itself may be correct. Allows for Appeals Board review of killed plays. Known as "Scott Rule." Would authorize the elimination of QOC for this class of ejection.
>> Section 4-a-4. Adds a section clarifying that appeals board members are elected during the pre-season via plurality-at-large voting with optional sixth and seventh positions that may be elected or appointed with UOC discrection. Specifies that in the event of re-election/retention, conducted during the Rules Summit, an absolute majority vote is required for each candidate.
>> Section 4-b. Modifies language: "Upheld (Affirmed)" => "Reveresd" / "Denied" => "Affirmed."
>> Section 5-c. Adds "Pitching Change Exemption" in similar language to the existing "Post-Inning Exemption. This would add an exemption similar to the existing §6-5-d-2 for Balls/Strikes Ejections.
>> Section 5-c-3. Specifies that QOC for an irrecusable call that otherwise would have been ruled "incorrect" shall carry a one point deduction as penalty for the previously ruled incorrect call.

Rule 7 (Unresolved Classifications and References), Addition.
>> Section 2. Adds a "clear and convincing" provision in which official box score information may be overturned if evidence surfaces to suggest the box score is erroneous (e.g., umpire name, etc.).

Rule 8 (Umpire Odds & Ends and Community Issues), Addition.
>> Section 1. Deletes reference to "UEFL shall not impose a set of posting guidelines" and adds a rudimentary set of guidelines in which certain actions (name-calling) are prohibited. Additionally, >> should all commenters be required to post with a name (not anonymously)?

Appeals Board Membership: Re-Election Ballot (Click here to view 2012 Appeals Board decisions)
The following 2012 UEFL Appeals Board Members are seeking re-election via the 2012 Rules Summit.
>> Shall Albertaumpire be re-elected to the UEFL Appeals Board for the 2013 season?
>> Shall RichMSN be re-elected to the UEFL Appeals Board for the 2013 season?
>> Shall tmac be re-elected to the UEFL Appeals Board for the 2013 season?
>> Shall yawetag be re-elected to the UEFL Appeals Board for the 2013 season?

Again, this post is the discussion phase of the UEFL Rules Summit and will remain active through 11/4, after which proposals will be officially drafted and voting will commence. Please do not vote in this thread.


cyclonehokiece said...

I am all in favor of a set of guidelines for these posts. Some of the attacks are not necessary and should be able to be deleted speedily. Also, I am in favor of the added challenge criteria, it should make people think twice when challenging.

Cricket said...

I will add my ideas for the summit in a separate post, but I agree with the above poster that a "guidelines for posts" should be adopted.

JRD said...

I would be in favor of adding a second primary umpire. so each draftor has a team of 2 primarys 2 secondarys and a crew chief. more points. more action. more fun

Cricket said...

Here are my suggestions:

1. Voting Method of the Board of Appeals. The methodology behind voting should be altered to either an absolute majority, or a fixed majority. Under the fixed majority principal, a vote of 3-2-1 would not be sufficient to reverse the original QOC; in this scenario, at least 4 votes would be required.

If this method is deemed unacceptable, at the very least the current method should be expressly written in the UEFL Rules (probably somewhere in 6.05).

2. The Terminology in UEFL 6.04(b)(1-3) and 6.05(a). The terminology in these sections should be changed to simplify the understanding of a Board decision. I recommend:

"b. After a decision has been rendered by a Commissioner or the QOC Appeals Board, the QOC may be:
(1) Affirmed, in which the initial ruling is upheld.
(2) Reversed, in which the initial ruling is overturned.
(3) Deferred, through which the initial variable is listed as inconclusive."

UEFL 6.05(a) would be re-written to reflect this language.

3. Electing Board Members. A method of election/appointment for Board Members should be added to UEFL 6.04(a). It appears we will use a retention system this year, which is acceptable in my eyes. But this needs to be written in the UEFL Rules.

Also, a method of replacement is needed. In most judicial retention systems, a voted-out judge is replaced by a Head-of-State appointed judge. This new judge serves until the first available election, at which time he/she is placed on the ballot for retention. However, I would argue against this method of replacement. I believe an open ballot should be placed before UEFL participants, and they will then (by plurality vote) select a replacement.

It appears that one Board Member will not be returning, and this open ballot should be offered so UEFL participants can replace him.

4. The 006: Dale Scott (1) (2012) "Mechanics Ejection." A specific provision regarding ejections caused by improper umpire mechanics should be added (perhaps as UEFL 6.02(b)(6)(b)). The "mechanics ejection" should be given a "0" net point value: while the umpire may have used an improper mechanic, if his ultimate judgment is correct, he should not be penalized. The rule would logically flow with the theme of UEFL 6.02(7).

5. UEFL Reference Labels. The UEFL Commissioners should place UEFL Rule reference tags at the bottom of each post so that ejections regarding specific UEFL Rules are easier to find.

Well, there's my food for thought. Any comments?

Anonymous said...

The only opinions I have is I think to challenge a call it should have to be by someone that is actually in the league and not some random anon. Plus I am in favor of having more umpires. More umpires = more points and more fun. Just like JRD said.

tmac said...

I would like to add we need to do something about the comments... I'm not in favor of say deleting them but the anom comments have to go.. people can make up a screen name... I would say the vast majority of the useless spam trolling comments are anons.

I'm not in favor of deleting every non relevant post but the umpire crew guy and the little league players are better then MLB guy they need to be deleted ASAP maybe someone intelligent to oversee that aspect.

As for the appeals board i think it went well. Most had well thought out discussions. But i think any advice to the future of it is helpful.... What were the followers upset with what needs to be tweaked.... Is it perfect as it?

Anonymous said...

I personally think that any "irrecusable" call that has been determined as a correlation to a call that would have been deemed incorrect should result in a -1 penalty to the umpire, as opposed to a 2 MLB + 0. It should be 2 MLB + -1, or maybe even 2 MLB + -2 to void it out.

Umpires should not gain two points for a deemed 'irrecusable' call if the call in question is determined incorrect.

Anonymous said...

Will we be voting on a points system again? I still dont understand why there should be negative points for an ejection even if it is wrong. The League is based on ejections. Id rather draft someone that is prone to eject rather than someone that isnt just because I dont want to worry about having negative points. Seems like most people disagree with me so I'm sure it wont change.

I agree with tmac that it would be nice to get rid of anon post if possible.

Lindsay said...

Added the above to the docket. As for the reference tags, we'll just go ahead and do it from here on out, no vote needed.

cyclone14 said...

@kickersrule 1:12- i fully agree with the points comment. We want to draft someone who ejects a lot AND is correct. So, maybe bonus points for a correct call, and the 2 for MLB umpire regardless of the QOC?

JeremyJ said...

I respectfully disagree with kickersrule about the points system. While I agree that I want to draft an umpire that ejects a lot. The entire point of this league as stated on the masthead is to analyze close and controversial calls in sport, with great regard for the rules and spirit of the game. I want to see ejections, but also, I think the umpires and therefore their "owners" should be rewarded only when the ejections are correct. IMHO

wwjd said...

I am in favor of anything that cleans up the language and name calling in the posts and I like the idea I of changing the way challenges work cuse done were just pointless

wwjd said...

I would like to propose That if a player is ejected for throwing equipment i.e. glove bat helmet i.e the mark reynolds ejection and that if video evidence supports that it is for the throwing of equipment and not arguing the call than the qoc should be irrecusible and be unsportsmanlike NEC because if u spike ur helmet after being punched out on a close cell and the spiking of the helmet is all u do u don't say anything to the umpire then ur not arguing the call

Lindsay said...


Cricket said...

WWJD, I respectfully disagree. That is asking UEFL to judge intent, which I do not believe is analytical.

Gil, if we adopt a new scoring system, I would amend my "Scott Rule" to award a net of 2 pts.

Also, this post seems to be getting buried.

wwjd said...

That's why I wrote it in a way that I fell takes the judgment out of the call

cyclone14 said...

is there a way to only allow posting by registered members? even if a username is required, anyone can still just add one.

James said...

I'll tend to agree. Even if the username is as elementary as "Ump1" or "Ump 2," at least there's that element of identity that might deter some of these people who come in just to bash everyone else.

JeremyJ said...

I don't think that we should ban all anon's altogether. I started that way before becoming a member of the league. However, I do believe that we should have a set of guidelines and actions, such as deleting posts, that can be taken once the conversation becomes abusive and irrelevant rather than further the goals of this league. Although, I do think everybody should have to post under some kind of username, at least for tracking purposes.

Cricket said...

Is the ballot going to be out later today?

Lindsay said...

Yes, I'm putting it together as we speak.

Post a Comment