WAUCONDA – Office of the Director of Officiating: It is my pleasure to announce the 2019 Executive Board of the National Collegiate Dodgeball Association. Jacob Leski (CMU) and Kevin Bailey (GVSU) will remain on the Board, and Hunter Ford (VCU Alum) moves into a voting position as the Board’s newest and youngest Director. All three will hold a term of two years (July 1 2018 to July 31 2020), serving as leaders of dodgeball at the collegiate level.
2019 NCDA Executive Board:
Felix Perrone, President
Mike McNicholas, Treasurer
Colin O’Brien, Director
Dylan Fettig, Director
Kevin Bailey, Chief of Content
Jacob Leski, Director of League Expansion & Retention
Hunter Ford, Director
Director of Nationals, TBD (PSU)
I would like to take a moment to thank the rest of the Candidates for running in this election. It’s still quite amazing we have this amount of quality leadership willing to step into a national role. Colby Briceland, Erik Zander, and Brandon Meisel, thank you again for being candidates for this League’s Exec Board.
And as always, thank you to our 31 Member Teams that voted in this preferential election (of our the 37 eligible Member schools). An extra special thanks to the 19 Alumni that voted, your continued support and involvement is crucial to this organization.
Preferential Election Results: 32 valid ballots, including one Alumni ballot determined by a Borda count. Electing 3 candidates. Threshold to win is 9 votes. There were no ties. Jacob Leski (17) and Hunter Ford (9) were elected in the first round of counting. Leski’s surplus votes were transferred to down ballot preferences as fractions in the second round. In the third, Kevin Bailey (4) reached the threshold and was elected in the third round. Full details can be found in our records archive.
Thank you, and good luck to the new board.
There are three positions on the eight Director Executive Board that need filling. Following the NCDA’s voting policy, the vote will be preferential.
Teams will submit their ballot by ranking each candidate in order of their preference. The three most preferred candidates will be offered the respective position on the Executive Board.
Captains, submit your team’s ballot via Google Forms:
Voting will run from 2018-06-26 until 2018-06-30. The new board will be announced no later than 2018-07-01, with the start of the NCDA fiscal year.
Continue reading “2019 Executive Board Election”
RICHMOND – Office of the Director of Nationals.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Below are the results of the preferential election for the 2018/2019 NCDA Rulebook and select Policies. The Rulebook is scheduled to be released prior to the start of the 2019 Season. Extra special thanks to the 33 Member Teams that submitted ballots. Overall there were 37 Member Teams with voting rights.
2019 Executive Board elections will occur at the end of June, Candidate Campaign Paragraphs due 2018-06-25 with a ballot release 2018-06-26. Continue reading “Ballot Results for the 2019 Season”
Voting will run from May 29th to June 5th, 2018 11:59PM Pacific, or will end early if each Member Team casts a ballot via Google Forms. Each Member Team has one ballot. The NCDA uses a preferential voting system. If you do not wish to vote on a specific rule or option, just leave it blank.
Each option on the form is accompanied by a link to the original proposal that was voted into consideration at the 2018 Captains’ Meeting. Below are the campaign paragraphs for each bid to host Nationals 2019. Continue reading “Summer 2018 Off Season Voting”
Rule Proposal submitted by Colin O’Brien
Amendment to rule 3.7.3 Yellow Cards
If a player receives a Yellow Card while not currently a Live Player, a Live Player must be removed from the court and enter the Jail. The player removed is at the choosing of the team of the offending player. The player receiving the Yellow Card is ineligible to reenter the point at any point, regardless of the number of catches. The Live Player removed from the court is eligible to return to the court if the necessary amount of catches occur.
Amendment to rule 3.7.4 Red Cards
If a player receives a Red Card while not currently a Live Player, a Live Player must be removed from the court and enter the Jail. The player removed is at the choosing of the team of the offending player. The player receiving the Red Card is ineligible to reenter the game at any point, and their team must play at a man disadvantage the rest of the game. The Live Player removed from the court is eligible to return to the court if the necessary amount of catches occur. If the offending player was not a Live Player at any point during the current point, the Live Player removed from the court would be ineligible to return to the court until a new point begins, in which the offending team would continue to play at a man disadvantage.
Rationale: Currently, if a player receives a Yellow Card while already eliminated, the only penalty the team suffers is that player is ineligible to return to the point. As most players receive yellow cards in this situation, there really is no penalty to the team in practice. This change would ensure that acts warranting Yellow Cards would indeed be penalties to the offending team, no matter if the offending player is currently a Live Player or not.
Rule Proposal submitted by Dylan Greer
If two balls thrown from the SAME team collide in mid-air, both balls stay live until ruled dead.
Currently these balls would be considered dead. I feel like this rule is often forgotten and ignored as its near impossible to see from a ref’s perspective on team throws. Changing this rule hopefully makes reffing easier and clarifies the “Two for the Show” rule.
Policy Proposal submitted by Adam Pfeifer
This rule pertains to the current forfeit rule. In the event a team cancels less than 10 days before a tournament and no replacement can be found the team will be assessed a forfeit for each match they were scheduled to play unless the reason for the team backing out is justified. This will count as a loss for them and a win for the team they were set to play. Currently if the board votes the reason for a teams inability to travel to a tournament was justified, the team is not given a forfeit. If all teams in attendance play three matches they are also not granted a forfeit. Teams that back out are still able to recieve a forfeit if they back out last minute and the board votes they to give them the forfeit. They are assigned a forfeit loss over a ghost team with a rank of 40.0.
In the event a team backs out less than 10 days prior, and the board rules their reason is justified, and the team they were set to play only has two games, a forfeit will be awarded. The team in question that backed out will not be assigned a loss, but the team not playing three game will be awarded a win over a ghost team with rank of 40.0.
In addition to this rule I vote that the rule on forfeits is the rule. Travel time should not be a factor on if a team is assigned a forfeit or not. If a team was guaranteed to play three matches, and because of a team backing out results in them only playing two, the team should be awarded a forfeit.
Rules proposed by Zachary Parise
Rule 1: There should automatically be a running clock in the second half if a team is down by at least 5 points. (I looked to see if this was already a rule and couldn’t find it in the manual)
Rule 2: If a team is down 7-8 points at any time in the second half, the game is called.
Rule proposal submitted by Colin Sporer
Rule Proposal: Rosters can be altered between days during 2-day tournaments
Rationale: Promotes depth for teams and gives players who are lower on the totem pole an opportunity to step up in the case of arm soreness or injury. I believe it is better to tell someone that they are an alternate rather than saying they are not going to play.
Policy Proposal submitted by Mario Romanelli
Rule Proposal: People can sumbit rule proposals at any time.
Rationale: New idea for rules can occur whenever. If player A thinks of an idea that can improve gameplay, that rule should be discussed; regardless if the idea was proposed after April 13th
Policy proposal submitted by Austin Michael
Miami Policy Proposal:
If a team that was once inactive/defunct for one year or more decides to re-enter the league, their Gonzalez Points will be adjusted to reflect those years away as such:
1 season – 50% of old rating, 50% of league average
2 seasons – 25% of old rating, 75% of league average
3+ seasons – 100% of league average
We believe that this system would provide a more fair rating for team than just receiving a rating exclusively based on the performance of prior years. The reasoning behind the scaling system is because it represents the percentages of each class that would have likely been removed from the team (i.e. if a team was inactive for 1 season, their senior and junior classes from the active year are presumably graduated, translating to 50% of the roster).
With this in place, it would provide a more balanced system for teams that were either above or below the league average prior to being inactive, and still provide teams ample opportunity to earn their Gonzalez Points over the course of the new active season.
Colin O’Brien is re-upping on his policy proposal from 2017 in that member teams must pay league dues in order to vote on league matters.
Policy Proposal – Member Team Voting Rights
Policy Proposal by Brandon Meisel
The ballot for voting on rule changes must be dispersed to all voting teams no later than 3 weeks after nationals. If the eboard disperses the ballot after the allotted 3 weeks (even if just a day late), they lose their power to veto the newly passed rules for the upcoming year.
Rationale: I know the eboard, especially Felix Perrone, puts in an immense amount of work to make nationals happen, and this rule is not to be a dick and try and pile more on to them, I promise. The intent of this rule is to have voting on the new rule set occur when the opinions, and details of the rules are fresh in everyone’s mind. Last year we voted on the new rules months after nationals and the new rule proposals were made. Months of summer make you forget what the ins and outs of the rules are, and even how you feel about them. If we want this league to succeed we need the teams to be making informed decisions, with their thoughts/opinions on the rules, still fresh in their mind.
The rationale for taking away the eboard’s right to vote isn’t so that we can just pass anything we want to, but instead, it’s to really put the pressure on them to make this get done. Having the right to veto rules is a huge deal for the eboard, and I know they won’t want to relinquish that power, so they will surely comply with the 3 weeks rule.
Lastly, the rationale for the 3 weeks is so that it gives them a week or so to destress from nationals, and then get the rules together in whatever format that they so choose. Anything under 3 weeks isn’t enough time, and anything over 3 weeks is starting to be a little too long to have everything still fresh in the captains minds’.
Rule Proposal by Kevin Frye
Shotclocks – be required to have a handheld stop watch (phone app, watch, etc) to count down time. (instead of guesstimating the seconds and pissing people off).
While doing so they should be speaking into a megaphone directed toward their team.
Instead of the annoying screaming Dodgeball player who gets exhausted screaming the shot clock and loosing their voice.
1. Megaphones are cheap, like $30.
2. No more “I couldn’t hear the shotclock”
3. No more “they’re counting too slow or too fast”
4. It would be a lot more professional
I believe if each team had their own team megaphone & stopwatch to bring to a tournament, things would be more professional and accurate.
Accurate + audible shotclock = happy teams
Rule Proposal by Jude DuPart
Current: Two 25 minute halves (5 minute break in between), point is scored by eliminating all players on opposing team.
Proposal: 5 – 10 minutes periods. A point is scored by eliminating the other team OR Having the most players on the court at the end of the period. A team wins best of 5 but all points are to be played for record keeping (similar point system as exists) and to allow equal playing time. Additionally later points can be forgoed for sake of time or at discretion of captains.
One of the most antiquated policies in the NCDA is the game clock. Originally designed to ensure that everyone gets equal play time is getting cut short during games of extreme disparity and influences stall ball in close games. This makes games drag on and are not only boring, but stall growth.
This change would not only promote game speed (an incentive to actually throw a ball with the intent of getting people out, players stepping out when there’s no chance of scoring a point), but promote equal playing time of newer players (putting in B team for last two points after match is decided) and reduce the loss of enthusiasm from getting stomped 7-0. Additionally it would assist in keeping tournaments on schedule and would remove the need for an overtime scenario.
This might be unpopular because of the “comeback mentality”. I haven’t looked at the data but I doubt there are many instances where a team has been down 3-0 and won the match, but since this is a huge overhaul I’m interested to hear other opinions.
As previously mentioned this is a very loose proposal that has plenty of gaps. For instance, this does not currently as written address a tie in remaining players at the end of 10 minutes. But my intent is to start the discussion.