Over the next few days, this discussion thread will be a living document reflecting proposed changes to UEFL rules. Relevant dates as follows:
> Mon 11/16 thru Fri 11/20: Rules Summit discussion open.
> Sat 11/21: Rules Summit ballot prepared, voting begins.
You may propose a change to the UEFL rules by replying in a comment to this post and, accordingly, the document will be updated to reflect such proposals. Nonmaterial modifications and editorial changes will be underlined, deletions will feature strikethrough text, and material additions will be bold faced. Rationale for proposed changes and comments not part of the rule itself will be indicated in italics. See the UEFL Rules Book for reference.
Rule 1 (Selection of Umpires).
>> 1-2. Prior to the beginning of the year’s regular season, and during the spring training period of the pre-season, each member of the league shall select one two MLB crew chiefs to serve as UEFL crew chief.
Rationale: To have two umpires in every category (2 cc + 2 PRM + 2 SEC). Proposed by: wwjd2200.
>> 1-4-b. Umpires classified as AAA call-ups are not eligible for draft in the secondary round.
Rationale: If a call up umpire can be a primary draft pick they should be able to be a secondary draft pick. Proposed by: wwjd2200.
Rule 2 (The Season).
Rule 3 (Crew Division).
>> 3-3. Each non-incorrect ejection committed by a UEFL crew chief’s crew shall result in the addition of one (1) point toward a UEFL member’s overall score. Each incorrect ejection shall result in the subtraction of two points (-2) toward a UEFL member's overall score.
Rationale: To treat the cc the same as the ejecting umpire by assigning negative points. Proposed by: wwjd2200.
Rule 4 (League Scoring).
>> 4-2-b-1. 2 points for an ejection occurring as a result of a player/coach arguing a correctly ruled call by the ejector that would be confirmed by replay.
4-2-b-2: 1 point for an ejection occurring as a result of a player/coach arguing a correctly ruled call by a crewmate of the ejector that would be confirmed by replay or a call by the ejecting umpire that would stand or be inconclusive via replay.
4-2-b-5: 0 points for an ejection occurring as a result of a player/coach arguing a crewmate's call that is inconclusive or would stand after replay.
Rationale: An Ejection call that is 100% correct should be rewarded with a higher point reward than a call that some may logically view as incorrect. Proposed by: Lstaben.
>> 4-2-b-4. -2 -1 or +0 points for each ejection occurring as a result of a player/coach arguing an incorrectly ruled call by a crewmate of the ejector.
Rationale: I don't think that an umpire who ejects over a crewmate's incorrect call should be penalized by two points. Maybe make it -1 or 0, a good umpire should stick up for his crew, especially young guys, when they make a mistake. Proposed by: Yeehaw.
>> 4-3-d. Postseason Replay Reviews shall be worth an additional point in both directions, such that an affirmed call shall result in +2 points while an overturned call results in -2 points. The same +2/-2 scheme shall apply to postseason Crew Division. Editor's Note: If the 4-2-b-1 / 4-2-b-2 / 4-2-b-5 proposal for ejections is adopted, 4-3-b shall be revised to indicate ejection points of: +3 QOCY (self/confirmed), +2 QOCY (crewmate/confirmed or self/stands).
Rationale: Calls made in the postseason weigh greater on the outcome of the game and series due to the small amount of games. Therefore should carry more weight in point values. Proposed by: Znyhusmoen.
>> 4-4-c. An umpire recognized as Bernice Gera Honorable Umpire of the Year (min. 0 / max. 1 umpire 2 umpires) will receive 2 bonus points.
Rationale: For those who don't know Gera, she was the first female to umpire a professional game. Proposed by: tmac.
>> 4-4-h. An umpire whose season is recognized as Most Disappointing Season (min. 0 / max. 1 umpire) will receive -1 bonus points. An umpire recognized as Comeback Umpire of the Year (min. 0 / max. 1 umpire) will receive 1 bonus point. OR change description of Most Disappointing Season to reference 'regrettable on-field incidents.'
Rationale: The disappointing award seems to be trending towards tracking a social and/or political stance with one wrong sequence rather than the expectations and results of a full season. Many of us are regulars, so we know who's okay, good, excellent, top of the class. Comeback correctly recognizes a usually good ump who had a bad previous season(s), but performed well {this} season. It could even be recognized as the Eric Cooper Comeback Award, as he had an off-year in 2018 & exceeded expectations in 2019. Proposed by: BkSl14812.
>> 4-6. Prop predictions are forecasts of what might occur during an upcoming season, series or game. They may be numerical (e.g., "On what date will the first ejection of the MLB season occur?") or objective (e.g., "What umpire will finish the season with exactly 10 ejections?").
Rationale: I propose that the section pertaining to prop predictions be eliminated as in the last couple of seasons we've not been given any prop predictions to vote on. Proposed by: wwjd2200.
>> 4-7-a-1. Calls affirmed or upheld as correct or inconclusive will result in the addition of one (1) point confirmed via replay will result in the addition of two (2) points and calls that stand via replay will result in the addition of one (1) point.
Rationale: A Replay Review call that is 100% correct should be rewarded with a higher point reward than a call that some may logically view as incorrect. Proposed by: Lstaben.
Rule 5 (Statistics).
Rule 6 (Challenges and Appeals).
>> 6-2-b-5-a: All ejections of players/coaches not on the active roster (e.g., Disabled List) as well as ejections of bench personnel shall be associated with a reason listed under aforementioned UEFL Rule 6-2-b-5 assigned a QOC of Correct.
Rationale: This shall be referred to as the "Bob Davidson Go Ump Slow Pitch Softball" rule. Proposed by: Turducken.
>> 6-4-a-1: This board shall be comprised of two UEFL Commissioners and five through seven at-large members. Board members shall rotate abstentions such that no less than three board members adjudicate each QOC appeal.
Rationale: Make 7 at large members permanent to make the appeals board always have 9 members. Proposed by: Guest.
>> 6-4-a-2-a. The pre-season election shall take the form of a plurality-at-large ranked choice voting system such that top vote recipients are elected voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots.
Rationale: I would like to propose for appeals board openings that the winner get 50% of the vote so if there is more than 2 candidates the candidate with the least votes gets eliminated after each round until someone is above 50% of the vote. [Editor's Note: Ranked Choice ensures only one cast of ballots is necessary as least-vote candidates are eliminated, if applicable. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate is declared the winner, removed, and the process repeated for subsequent vacancies. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated, applicable second-preference votes elevated as applicable, and so forth, until the winner(s) are declared.] Proposed by: Uefl Observer.
>> 6-4-a-4: At the conclusion of the season and during the Rules Summit, Appeals Board members may sit for re-election/retention. An absolute simple majority is required for re-election. If a Board member fails to ascertain this during a first ballot, a run-off may be initiated. Any vacancies remaining after the re-election process shall be subject to pre-season nomination and vote, as in 6-4-a-3.
Rationale: Because Appeals Board re-elections are conducted as separate items with only YES / NO options, a runoff is not necessary. Language should be changed from "absolute" to "simple" majority to reflect that a candidate need achieve a YES vote greater than 50% for re-election to be affirmed. Any vacancies shall be decided as part of a pre-season nomination process concurrent with registration/draft, as specified by existing rule 6-4-a-3. Proposed by: Gil.
Rule 7 (Unresolved Classifications and References).
Rule 8 (Umpire Odds & Ends and Community Issues).
Rule 9 (Unaddressed and Authorized Provisions).
>> 9-2. All decisions regarding challenges shall be final unless overwhelming evidence surfaces to overturn the challenged decision. This overwhelming clause challenge may only be initiated by the appellate interpreter or Appeals Board of the UEFL.
Rationale: Allow the appeals board to invoke the Finality and Overwhelming Exemption.
The final portion of the Rules Summit ballot will feature 2020 UEFL Appeals Board members seeking re-election for 2020, pursuant to UEFL Rule 6-4-a-4. Click here to view UEFL Appeals Board decisions from the 2020 season.
The following list includes 2020 UEFL Appeals Board members and indicated statuses for 2021.
> Gil. 2021: Yes (not subject to election), Ex-Officio Member.
> tmac. 2021: Yes (not subject to election pursuant to 2016 Rules Summit vote), Ex-Officio Member.
> Jeremy. 2021: Yes (not subject to election), Ex-Officio Member.
> Arik G. 2021: Seeking re-election via 2020 UEFL Rules Summit.
> cyclone14. 2021: Seeking re-election via 2020 UEFL Rules Summit.
> MarkCanada. 2021: Seeking re-election via 2020 UEFL Rules Summit.
> MLB Umpire Observer. 2021: Not seeking re-election via 2020 UEFL Rules Summit.
> jvick2017. 2021: Seeking re-election via 2020 UEFL Rules Summit.
Voting will occur following the 2020 Rules Summit's discussion phase. The ballot will be finalized no sooner than Saturday, November 21 and voting itself will be open for no less than three days.
No comments:
Post a Comment