CHICAGO – Office of the Director of Officiating:
Below are the results of the preferential election for the 2017/2018 NCDA Rulebook and select Policies. The Rulebook is scheduled to be released prior to the start of the 2018 Season. Extra special thanks to the 30 Member Teams that submitted ballots, with only two Member Teams missing. Continue reading “Results of the 2018 Pre-Season Proposals”
Good People,
2018 Proposal Ballot Form: http://goo.gl/forms/a6o5p1AnPaktsUMy1
Ballots must be submitted through the form no later than August 1, 2017 11:59PM Pacific. Each Member Team has one ballot to submit. The NCDA uses a preferential voting system. If you do not wish to vote on a specific rule or option, just leave it blank.
It is important every Member Team voices their opinions on the changes that relate to this organization. Please relay this information to your Team as well, to see what the inheriting generation’s preferences are.
If you would like to hold your own preferential election within your Team to determine your end ballot, talk to us.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask!
Continue reading “Ballot for Proposals affecting the 2018 Season”
As we enter the voting season that defines our rulebook, policy, and bylaws for the upcoming season, Hunter and Zig took some time to discuss a couple of the proposals that made it onto the ballot.
Make sure your team has voted!
*I’m sorry for all the plosive explosions (the least interesting explosion there is in all of media). Couldn’t fix all of them in post.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
A constitutional proposal to alter the process of electing members to the Executive Board has been passed 5 of 5. This is a build off the proposal to expand the number of Directors serving on the board that was proposed by Fettig, which was passed for consideration in the 2017 Captains’ Meeting.
1. The NCDA will move to seven voting members on the Executive Board; an additional non-voting Director of Nationals makes the Board a total of eight people.
2. Two positions, President and Treasurer, are directly elected. Qualified Candidates explicitly run for the position of President and Treasurer.
3. The remaining 5 positions are “open” positions. Candidates run for the Board as a general directorship.
More details and the full process: Continue reading “Executive Board to Expand to Eight Directors”
2017 Executive Board
Felix Perrone – League President
Mike McNicholas – League Treasurer
Zigmas Maloni – Director of Officiating (and Records)
Kevin Bailey – Chief of Content
Jacob Leski – Director of League Expansion & Retention
Colin Hiatt – Director of Nationals 2017
Present Member Teams: DePaul, Kent, OSU, MSU, GVSU, UK, BGSU, SVSU, WKU, CMU, UWP, Miami, NSU, UMD, JMU, Towson, VCU, PSU, Akron, Ohio, UVA, UNG, CSU, and featuring SU, GSU, and UWW
Non-present Members: UNL, UNT, BW, Pitt, NIU, MC
Felix Perrone – League President
Mike McNicholas – League Treasurer
Zigmas Maloni – Director of Officiating (and Records)
Kevin Bailey – Chief of Content
Jacob Leski – Director of League Expansion & Retention Colin Hiatt – Director of Nationals 2017
Present Member Teams: DePaul, Kent, OSU, MSU, GVSU, UK, BGSU, SVSU, WKU, CMU, UWP, Miami, NSU, UMD, JMU, Towson, VCU, PSU, Akron, Ohio, UVA, UNG, CSU, and featuring UWW
Non-present Members: UNL, UNT, SU, BW, Pitt, NIU, GSU, MC Continue reading “2017 Captains’ Meeting Agenda”
Kevin Bailey and Brandon Meisel did an excellent job of coming up with negatives against this, but I felt they missed some so I decided to take it upon myself to bring them up so that when it comes time to making a decision you’re able to consider all the factors involved. The arguments that I came up with deal with recruitment, health, and alternative solutions to help expand the league.
Policy proposal UPDATE:
The Executive Board shall be comprised of eight Chairs. Seven of the Chairs that make up the Board will be voting members, and one of the Chairs of the Board will act as a nonvoting member.
This would be increasing the board by 2 voting members.
The proposed executive board is
President
Treasurer
Director of Officiating
Chief of Content
Director of League Expansion and Retention
Director of Nationals (Nonvoting)
*NEW* Director of Technology and Internal Affairs
*NEW* Director of Marketing and League Development
Supporting information and reasoning is included provided by Colin O’Brien
Rule proposal: The game is played in two 20 minute halves. Each half will only end with a point being scored. If there are less than 4 minutes left in the first half, the half will be called and the time will be rolled onto the second half. If a point is started, play will continue past the 20 minute time limit until a point is scored. If the winning team is up by 2 or more points in the second half the game will end with the time limit.
Reasoning: This rule encourages teams to play to eliminate the opposing team. Currently the team that scores the first point is able to sit back and stall the game out in order to win.
Example: The national championship game last year. GV was up by a point on CMU and time ended with a few GV players holding out CMU’s entire team. In all likelihood CMU would have taken the point with a few extra minutes and the game would have been settled in overtime.
Closing Argument: The game of dodgeball should be settled by fully eliminating a team, not by stalling out the clock.
Policy Proposal (defined by NCDA Policy, but not Constitutionally defined)
I propose a minimum of 3 games to be eligible to participate at Nationals.
I’ve debated proposing this but I have considered it seriously over the past four years. In one point, I wanted to wait until we were geographically ready to implement something like this. And on the other, I didn’t want to prevent teams from joining at any point in the season. We’ve had a few teams who’s induction matches have happened at a Nationals (8-9 of our 46 schools). Now, the NCDA is becoming so large and active that a team that hasn’t played much that season is a hindrance to scheduling fairly for Nationals. Continue reading “Policy Proposal – Min Games Required for Nationals Participation”
Slight modification of the team catch rule.
I think this is best explained with an example. Right now lets say its me on team 1 and Colin and Wes on team 2. There are a couple of scenarios where a team catch can be made. I hit Wes, Colin catches it clean. I throw at Wes, he blocks into himself, ball bounces off, Colin catches it. It should be noted that once my ball has hit Wes that it can hit any number of possessed balls and/or live players and still be eligible for a team catch. The wording used in the rule book is that a team catch can be made whenever a player is at risk of being out. Here’s where my proposal comes in. If Wes and Colin are grouped together and one of them blocks the ball, the ball hits Wes, and is caught (by either), it becomes the refs decision whether the ball hit Colin or Wes’ ball to determine if it was a team catch or a dead ball. I propose that any ball that has hit a teammate or a teammate’s ball is eligible for a team catch. I believe this would be easier to ref. Sorry if this was confusing, I wasn’t sure how to go about this proposal.
We propose to adjust the current ranking system to a more balanced and fair method.
Listed below is the most in depth ‘rationale’ section in the history of NCDA rule/policy proposals:
Written by: Kevin Bailey
The National Collegiate Dodgeball Association’s current ranking system (Gonzalez) has some great aspects, but as a stand-alone system, it is not what we need as a league right now. Continue reading “Hybrid Ranking System Proposal”
Brandon Meisel: Rule changes are meant to spark conversation, it is good for the league. However, what is not good for the league is when people start attacking one another in the comments section, just because they have opposing viewpoints. If after reading this article you still do not agree with our logic, that is fine. Not everyone will always have the same opinion on things. This article is meant to open your eyes on a few topics of a rule change that you may have not thought about otherwise. The rule I am referring to is of course the reducing of roster sizes down to 12 v 12. Before you close this article out, give it a chance. It may change your mind on a few things that Kevin Bailey and I would like you to consider.
Written by: Wesley Peters
Rule Proposal: When a stoppage of play is called (of any variety), balls which are in the air remain live until they are either caught, team caught, or hit a surface/object/etc that renders them dead, regardless of whether they have hit a live player or not at the time of the timeout being granted. (AKA they remain live until they are dead, not instantly ruled dead) Further, if a referee is GENUINELY UNABLE to determine whether or not balls were airborne before or after the timeout is called, the balls will be considered to have never been thrown, and given back to the team that threw them in the first place.
Rationale: The rule is currently broken, and can be exploited in the following way: Team A throws (any number of balls, the more you throw the worse it gets) at Team B. Team B calls timeout as soon as Team A throws and the balls have entered Team B’s zone, but not close enough for them to be near anyone on Team B’s LAZ. Therefore, Team B is awarded those balls (Because they are dead upon timeout since they have been throw but not made contact with anyone on Team B, and Team A’s shot clock resets down to the lowest increment of 5.
So to summarize, Team B get’s Team A’s balls for the cost of their timeout, and Team A still needs to throw to reset their initial shot clock because even though Team B gets those balls that they threw, their throws legally do not count. The way the rule is currently written not only hurts Team A tremendously, but that effect is exacerbated if it happens on the throws immediately following a balls over call, thus effectively nullifying the effects of the balls over altogether.
I don’t recall why we initially changed this rule to balls in the air are dead off the official’s whistle, but I think it was because it was difficult for the official to rule whether they had been thrown before the timeout call. I think personally it is not that difficult to tell as an official if you are paying attention, so the pros should vastly outweigh the cons by changing this rule.
Also, I would like for this to be voted upon and changed ASAP so that any matches that may happen next weekend or at nationals are not subject to this possibly happening.
Rule proposal: Shot clock officials are responsible for distinguishing a legitimate throw vs. a non legitimate throw.
My reasoning for this is that there have been multiple occasions this year where the shot clock official stops his/her count thinking it was a legitimate throw, then realizes the head ref thought it wasn’t, and then begins to pick up their count again causing confusion for the throwing team. Typically resulting in balls over.
I hope that wasn’t too wordy. But this is the scenario. Team A’s shot clock is at 12, team A makes a throw attempt that the shot clock counter deems legitimate, he/she stops counting. Team A continues play as if their shot clock has been reset. However the shot clock official then realizes the head ref deemed the throw illegitimate. The shot clock official then begins to either pick up their count from the time of Team A’s throw (at 13) or skips ahead to compensate for the time that elapsed (14 or 15). Leaving little to no time for Team A to react. In numerous occasions this scenario causes confusion for team A resulting in a balls over, because they’re listening to the count not watching the head refs signaling.
