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”
School is out, and it’s warm outside so you know that means voting for the host school of the NCDA Nationals 2019 is coming soon. As a board, we would like to send out some suggestions for you to take into consideration when making your decision. Continue reading “Nationals Host Considerations”
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