This discussion thread is an open forum for the proposal, discussion and debate of potential rules changes. This thread will remain open through Friday, November 15, which will provide ample time for the proposal and subsequent discussion of possible rules changes for the 2014 season. If necessitated by certain below decisions, a Summit runoff ballot may be presented after the initial voting closes.
The following matters are presently on docket for 2013 Rules Summit consideration. Any UEFL'er or guest may contribute an idea by replying to this thread; in turn, the following list will be updated to reflect the added item(s). Proposed rules modifications or changes are identified by plaintext, deletions by italics and additions by bold text. Editorial changes underlined. Individual propositions are identified by the ">>" symbol.
Rule 1 (Selection of Umpires).Rule 2 (The Season).
Rule 3 (Crew Division).
>> Section 3-a. Adds provision: "Each incorrect ejection committed by a UEFL crew chief's crew shall result in the assignment of negative one (-1) points toward a UEFL member's overall score."
>> Section 3-b. Adds provision: "Each upheld instant replay challenge during a Crew Chief's purview shall result in the addition of X points toward a UEFL member's overall score. Each overturned instant replay challenge shall result in the addition of -X points." If this measure passes, precise points assignment will be determined during the Summit's runoff (supplemental) ballot. Also see proposal 4-7.
Rule 4 (League Scoring).
>> Section 2-b-6. Adds "or instant replay review" to each instance of the phrase "consultation" so the phrase will read "consultation or instant replay review."
>> Section 2-b-8. Adds the proposed text: "Quality of Correctness for an ejection that occurs after instant replay review and reversal shall be adjudged as to whether the call after reversal is correct or incorrect."
>> Section 2-c-1-a. Adds "or instant replay review" to "umpire consultation" so the phrase will read "...umpire consultation or instant replay review."
>> Section 2-c-1-b. Adds the phrase "home run" before "instant replay review" to reflect the grandfathered home run review procedure so the phrase will read "...home run instant replay review..."
~~~~~~ If 2-c-b is modified, the associated Approved Ruling will also be modified to reflect HR review.
>> Section 4-i. Adds provision: "X points shall be awarded to any umpire who passes away during the season. Known as the 'Wally Bell Memorial Award.'" Note: If this provision passes, precise points assignment will be determined during the Summit's runoff (supplemental) ballot.
>> Section 7. Adds section "INSTANT REPLAY CHALLENGES." "Points shall be assessed as a result of instant replay challenges throughout the championship and post-season pursuant to the following schedule: X" If this measure passes, precise points assignment will be determined during the Summit's runoff (supplemental) ballot. Also see proposal 3-3-b.
Rule 5 (Statistics).
Rule 6 (Challenges and Appeals).
>> Section 1. Editorial change: Replaces "Challenges" with "UEFL Challenges." This change reflect's MLB's adoption of instant replay challenges and is meant to clearly delineate an on-field instant replay challenge from an online UEFL challenge or appeal.
>> Section 1. Removes the phrase "or visitor/guest to the UEFL." Removes the ability of a non-participant to appeal an Original Ruling.
>> Section 1. Adds requirements for challengers. (1) Must be logged in, and/or (2) balls/strikes [pfx] cannot be challenged, and/or (3) adds a penalty and/or reward for (un)successful challenges. If points penalty/rewards are incorporated, precise assignment will be determined during the Summit's runoff (supplemental) ballot.
>> Section 1. Adds sentence: "A challenge denied on QOC grounds may be renewed as irrecusable and vice versa."
>> Section 2-b-5-a. Editorial change: Adds the phrase "and/or argument" to complete the lede "repeat visit and/or argument ejections." This change reflects the Approved Ruling that an ejection that does not qualify as a repeat visit, but does as a repeat argument, may be deemed irrecusable.
>> Section 2-b-5-c. Adds provision: "Ejections exclusively for the throwing of equipment not related to actions indicating overt resentment at an umpire's call shall be deemed Irrecusable."
>> Section 2-b-5-d. Adds provision: "Ejections exclusively concerning the call of check swing (ball or strike) shall be deemed Irrecusable."
>> Section 5-a. Editorial change: Replaces the phrase "upheld or denied" with "upheld or overturned." This change reflects the wording of "denied" to signify challenges summarily struck by the Appellate Interpreter while "overturned" signifies a challenge considered and voted down by the Appeals Board. The word "appeal" shall be changed to "Original Ruling."
>> Section 5-b-8. Adds provision: "UEFL post language shall routinely and directly reflect the associated Quality of Correctness. APPROVED RULING: If QOC is reversed as the result of a challenge, the original ejection post shall be edited such that its language reflects the revised QOC value."
>> Section 5-c. Adds formal clarification the "realistically resulted in a different outcome of the at-bat" standard as it relates to balls/strikes called during a single at-bat pursuant to the following schedule, given that such contributing pitch has preceded a decisive pitch (not necessarily consecutively):
~~~~~ YES (Offense) = x-1, x-2 or 3-x ==> Called Strike (Unless x-2 results in a foul ball); or
~~~~~ YES (Defense) = x-2, 1-x, 2-x or 3-x ==> Called Ball; and
~~~~~ NO (Offense) = 0-0, 1-0, 2-0 ==> Called Strikes / NO (Defense) = 0-0, 0-1 ==> Called Ball.
Rule 7 (Unresolved Classifications and References).
Rule 8 (Umpire Odds & Ends and Community Issues).
>> Section 3. Adds section requiring entry fee. If passed, terms will be drafted during runoff ballot.
Rule 9 (Unaddressed and Authorized Provisions).
>> Section 2. Adds APPROVED RULING: "Challenges may be reinstated based on newly discovered evidence not present at the time of the initial decision."
Appeals Board Membership: Re-Election Ballot (Click here to view 2013 Appeals Board decisions)
The following 2013 UEFL Appeals Board Members are seeking re-election via the 2013 Rules Summit.
>> This section will be completed in advance of Rules Summit voting.
Again, this is the discussion phase of the 2013 UEFL Rules Summit and will remain active until 11/15, after which proposals will be officially drafted and voting will commence. Please do not vote in this thread.
I think if you initiate a challenge and it isn't overturned, you lose. 2 pts.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest in situations such as the one regarding runner placement that the "calling umpire" be considered whichever umpire gives the signals regarding placement after review (which will probably be the crew chief anyway, but this provides a little flexibility in case a strange scenario crops up).
ReplyDeleteI dislike the idea of awarding half points. Increase other values for balance if necessary.
I would also suggest a special point award for an ejection following a challenge. We've seen managers get ejected after home run reviews, we're probably going to see at least one ejection following one of the new reviews.
A few things. Some of these I think are really good ideas. Some I think are just "meh" but it doesn't hurt letting everyone vote on them anyway.
ReplyDeletePROPOSAL #1
I second the proposal for a point penalty for a non-overturned challenge.
PROPOSAL #2
Penalties should be imposed for users who Challenge frivolously, such as submitting a Challenge without proper reasoning or one that is in violation of the rules (ex. challenging the Irrecusable ruling on a HBP ejection or the PitchFX numbers because "it looked good on TV").
PROPOSAL #2B
Allow no challenges regarding ball/strike calls except at the request of an Appeals Board member.
PROPOSAL #3
Only UEFL members may Challenge.
PROPOSAL #3B
Only logged-in UEFL members may challenge (since Guest users can specify whatever username they wish).
PROPOSAL #3B COMMENT
Since Guest users can specify whatever username they wish, there is nothing stopping a random anonymous user from requesting a challenge under Proposal #3 by changing their username to that of a UEFL member. Proposal #3B is meant to solve that.
PROPOSAL #4
Check swing calls should be deemed Irrecusable since the rulebook definition of a swing means the umpire can't be wrong.
PROPOSAL #5
Clarify Rule 6-2-b-5-b regarding the definition of a "visit" and "repeat visit".
PROSPOAL #5 COMMENT
Rule 6-2-b-5-b currently defines a "visit" as requiring one to "[leave] the dugout or his position to argue a call with an umpire". In Ejection 070 Baker (3) the Appeals Board determined a second visit had occurred despite the fact that the definition of a "visit" under UEFL rules had not been met for a second time. The player viewed a replay in the clubhouse and was ejected from the dugout; while the player did leave the dugout after his initial visit the player did not do so to argue the call with the umpire and when he did argue the call he did so from within the dugout (which was also his position at the time) and therefore never fulfulled both of the rule's requirements.
PROPOSAL #6
Define and enforce point penalties, suspensions, and/or bans for conduct in violation of Rule 8-1. Due to the ability of Guest users to specify usernames at will, this would need to be limited to logged-in users.
Nice to see we agree on the challenge proposal. There were just so many last year, and I agree that it should be done in a way that only UEFL participants can 1.) challenge and 2.) must announce their name with the challenge.
ReplyDeleteI also like the idea for challenge justification, as opposed to just "Challenge!"
Does anyone have any interest in putting some money into this, like all other fantasy leagues? I know this has been brought up before (maybe last year?), but with such a large participant pool, even a small entry fee could result in some nice prizes??
ReplyDeleteAdded; as for Proposal #5 Comment, we have an approved ruling "After an initial argument, an ejection from the dugout for undoubtedly arguing the same play may be considered irrecusable." This is likely where the 070 Baker 3 decision comes into play. As an editorial change, the phrase "repeat argument" can be added.
ReplyDeleteMy main problem with that particular Board decision was that the majority opinion specifically referred to it as a repeat visit because he went to see a replay, not because of the approved ruling. However, if that phrase is added to the approved ruling (or an argument from the dugout after disengaging from an argument on the field is also specifically defined as a "repeat visit" by rule) that would resolve the issue as far as I am concerned.
ReplyDelete