|
Post by WKU-Perrone-76 on Apr 22, 2015 6:06:53 GMT -6
Per Felix Perrone and Zigmas Maloni:
Forfeits
If a Club cancels their previously confirmed attendance to an Event ten (10) days prior to the start time of the Event in question, they will forfeit all games in said Event. A Forfeit Loss will be imposed on the Club who cancelled, which counts as zero (0) points and one (1) loss added to their record. A Forfeit Win will be rewarded to all of the other teams participating in the Event, which counts as one (1) point and one (1) win will be added to their record. A Forfeit may be waived if all teams participating in said Event unanimously agree to allow the team to Forfeit without penalization. A Forfeit may also be waived if another legitimate Club from the NCDA agrees to take the spot of the original forfeiting team. If a Club decides not to attend an Event, but announces their absence more than ten (10) days prior to the start time of the Event in question, no penalization will occur.
|
|
|
Post by Zigmister on Apr 23, 2015 16:00:42 GMT -6
The Spirit behind this is to prevent teams from just canceling on events by penalizing a forfeit. But there's a point. We want to protect extreme conditions that may prevent teams from traveling or that may happen while on the road. Say a team's car gets into a deadly crash. Applying a forfeit automatically is in ...poor taste and inappropriate. Also, we don't want teams to risk their health or seriously violate the law by trying to attend an event by fighting through a giant hurricane, tornado, or snowstorm. That is a serious legal consideration on the NCDA's end.
Thereby my suggestion is to favor not automatically assigning forfeits, to let the participants sort it out by vote, with a clause for the Exec Board to step in. Because this also touches the records and thereby the standings, there's a slight additions that need to be made.
--------
Forfeits: 1. If a Member Team has previously committed to attend an event, but decides not to attend an Event, they must announce their intention to cancel within a defined time period. 1.1 If a Team cancels more than ten days prior to the Event, no forfeits may be imposed on that Team. 1.2 If a Team cancels less than ten days prior to the Event, but another Team replaces the scheduled Team, no forfeits may be imposed on the canceling Team. 1.3 If a Team cancels less than ten days prior to the Event, and no other Team can replace the scheduled Team, a forfeit may be applied to the canceling Team's matches. 1.3.1 Determination of Forfeits - A participating team may propose a forfeit be applied to the canceling Team's matches by submitting a written request to the League. An Executive Board vote will determine the application of forfeits. (Do we include example criteria? Extreme weather, majority of teams allowing cancellation without penalty, etc?) 1.3.2 Application of Forfeits 1.3.2.1 Forfeit Loss - When imposed, a Forfeit Loss is imposed on the Member Team who cancelled. It is recorded as one (1) loss with a 0-0 result. 1.3.2.2 Forfeit Win - When imposed, a Forfeit Win is awarded to all of the other teams participating in the Event. Recorded as one (1) win with a 0-0 result. 1.3.2.3 Box Score - [Participant] def [Forfeiting Team] 0-0 (F)
|
|
|
Post by Dylan Fettig on Apr 23, 2015 16:42:47 GMT -6
I agree with everything besides the attending team vote. Leave it for the executive board to decide in the result of a forfeit. This way captains will not get angry at each other for accepting or declining the forfeit. The board is elected to make these types of decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Zigmister on Apr 23, 2015 18:59:59 GMT -6
i redid my policy consideration. Although the numbering may need to be reworked, but the core points are there.
|
|
|
Post by peters27 on Apr 25, 2015 0:57:14 GMT -6
I agree 100% with Dylan.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer Jardine - SVSU on May 11, 2015 13:28:35 GMT -6
I love this. And I agree with Dylan. We have needed something like this for years, so many times tournaments that would be set up for multiple games turns into just double headers or single matches because teams drop out the morning of. The teams that do show up need to be rewarded.
|
|
|
Post by WKU-Perrone-76 on Jul 14, 2015 17:30:09 GMT -6
Another clause I would like to add to this is a team can only be penalized up to three losses per event. I will use the following example to illustrate my point:
Situation One: UCLA is hosting a small round robin event. Arizona, New Mexico, and UNLV have committed to attend. Three days before the event UNLV drops out. UCLA, Arizona, and UNM will each receive one win from UNLV's forfeit. UNLV will have three forfeit losses added to their record.
Situation Two: UCLA is hosting a large tournament. Arizona, New Mexico, UNLV, Oregon State, Washinton State, and Texas A&M have committed to attend. Three days before the event UNLV drops out. UNLV will have three forfeit losses added to their record. The other schools will not gain a forfeit win unless they are unable to play a third game.
Essentially, teams will only benefit from another team's forfeit at an Event if it inhibits their ability to play a third game against a unique opponent at that event.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Spencer Jardine - SVSU on Jul 14, 2015 22:21:00 GMT -6
So with the 2nd situation UNLV is only given loses for the games they would be scheduled to play correct? And the only teams to get wins are the teams that would of played UNLV.
|
|
|
Post by WKU-Perrone-76 on Jul 15, 2015 10:37:05 GMT -6
No, I was thinking that UNLV would have three loses added to their record, but no other team would gain a win. Basically, UNLV would have three losses added to their record from a ghost team as a penalty. If the remaining 7 teams that were attending the tournament in situation two still got at least three games in, no one would benefit from UNLV's forfeit. UNLV would be penalized, but the other teams wouldn't gain anything from it because they still got their three games in. Now, if 6 of those teams got 3 games in, but one team only got to play 2 because UNLV didn't attend, then that team would gain a win on their record.
I just don't want to give everyone a free win at a large tournament. I also don't want some teams to benefit and others miss out because of a predetermined schedule. Teams don't drop out of tournaments because of who they see on their schedule, it's usually another factor that causes their absence.
Does that make sense? I'm doing this from my phone so it may not be as clear as I think it is haha
|
|
|
Post by WKU-Perrone-76 on Jul 15, 2015 10:43:06 GMT -6
The theoretical outcome of the tournament would look like this:
UCLA, Arizona, New Mexico, UNLV, Oregon State, Washington State, and Texas A&M
UCLA 2-1 Arizona UCLA 4-3 UNM UCLA 2-0 Oregon State Arizona 4-1 UNM Arizona 1-0 WSU UNM 2-1 TAM Oregon State 4-1 WSU Oregon State 2-1 TAM WSU 2-1 TAM
UCLA 3-0 Arizona 2-1 UNM 1-2 Oregon State 2-1 WSU 1-2 TAM 0-3 UNLV 0-3 [Forfeits]
Since all the other teams were able to get in three games, UNLV's 3 losses come from a ghost team. But they are still penalized for not attending.
|
|