NAQT rules and policy changes for 2019-2020

Anything that's on topic but doesn't fit elsewhere, including related events that might be of interest to quizbowl players.
Post Reply
User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5522
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

NAQT rules and policy changes for 2019-2020

Post by Important Bird Area » Thu Aug 01, 2019 9:40 am

NAQT has made a number of changes to its rules and policies for the 2019–2020 season.
naqt.com wrote:We made the following changes to the NAQT Gameplay Rules (highlighted on the page):

Significantly reduced the role of the captain. The rules previously recommended that the captain give bonus answers and allowed only the captain to ask the moderator to skip multiple parts of a bonus at once. Now the rules do not prescribe any role for the captain in bonus answering, unless multiple players simultaneously direct answers at the moderator (in which case the captain is still responsible for choosing the team’s answer, per rule H.2), and any player may ask the moderator to skip multiple parts of a bonus at once. The resolution of simultaneous directed bonus answers is now the only role for the captain prescribed by the rules (rule D.4), though teams may give the captain additional duties. This involved minor rephrasings to a number of rules.

Rephrased rule F.2.b to clarify what matches are untimed and how untimed matches work.

Changed rule H.3 to indicate that on a bonus part that allows an amount of time other than 5 seconds, the moderator will ask for an answer 1 second before time expires (rather than after 4 seconds regardless of the total amount of time). This was always the intent of the rule, and we expect moderators were already doing what was intended, but now the text is correct.


Eligibility Rules

We made the following changes to NAQT Eligibility Rules (Middle School, High School, Community College, and Collegiate Eligibility):

In all four, added the following rule:
In a given competition year, a player may only compete at NAQT championship events at the secondary or post-secondary levels, but not both. The secondary-level NAQT championships are the Middle School National Championship Tournament, Small School National Championship Tournament (SSNCT), High School National Championship Tournament (HSNCT), and Individual Player National Championship Tournament (IPNCT); the post-secondary-level NAQT championships are the Community College Sectional Championship Tournaments (CC SCT), Community College Championship Tournament (CCCT), four-year Sectional Championship Tournaments (SCT), and Intercollegiate Championship Tournament (ICT). For example, a player may not play both the HSNCT and CC SCT (but may play both the MSNCT and HSNCT, if otherwise eligible). This applies regardless of dual-enrollment status and does not affect eligibility to compete in events other than the aforementioned NAQT championships, even if they use NAQT eligibility rules.

In all four, consolidated and clarified the procedure for requesting exceptions. All requests for special rulings are now covered by the last section of each set of eligibility rules (highlighted).

In all four, introduced a new (highlighted) section explaining bans and (in broad terms) how they work. The Community College Eligibility Rules and Collegiate Eligibility Rules already had a brief section addressing bans (which has been amended); the Middle School Eligibility Rules and High School Eligibility Rules did not.

In the Middle School Eligibility Rules and High School Eligibility Rules, adjusted the definition of “school” that we introduced last year. The changes are highlighted on the respective pages.

In the Community College Eligibility Rules and Collegiate Eligibility Rules, copied section G from the Middle School Eligibility Rules and High School Eligibility Rules, which concerns competing at multiple levels. We also removed a phrase referring to question sets produced for different levels, since the rules in that section should apply based on whether question sets are identical or overlapping, regardless of whether the sets were produced for different levels.

In the Collegiate Eligibility Rules, added a section (highlighted) regarding consortia of schools as recognized by the NCAA, NAIA, and USCAA.


Qualification Rules

For the Small School National Championship Tournament, Middle School National Championship Tournament, and High School National Championship Tournament…

We have specified that “singles” (or “solo”) and “doubles” tournaments cannot be qualifiers. (This was always our policy, but we wanted to make sure that was clearly supported by the text of the rules.)

We have added a general clause that “NAQT reserves the right to decide that a tournament is not a qualifier if NAQT believes that the tournament deviated very strongly from acceptable quiz bowl practices or involved substantial aspects that are not quiz bowl, or otherwise at NAQT’s discretion.”


Other

We amended our Terms of Use to require that anyone with an naqt.com account be at least 13 years old.

We anticipate clarifying our Privacy Policy with additional ways we use data to promote quiz bowl and teams’ and players’ accomplishments. We’re still working out the details and will highlight them on that page when they’re finalized, but we wanted to make sure to announce the rest of these changes at the very beginning of the competition year.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

Salazar
Lulu
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: Hartsville, South Carolina

Re: NAQT rules and policy changes for 2019-2020

Post by Salazar » Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:05 pm

I would like to gain some clarity on the NAQT Gameplay Rules G.10.b. please. This rule focuses on the procedure for when a student gives an answer response when a student on the opposing team has signaled. Rules G.10.c-e do a good job of explaining what to do based on when the wrong teammate spoke relative to the one who signaled. Does the order of events matter when the two players are on opposite teams? While I do understand that the non-signaling team doesn't get a chance to earn points, do they lose points through a Neg 5 penalty? Can the signaling team get a neg 5 penalty if they answer incorrectly?
Gary Salazar
Academic Team Coach
SCGSSM

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5522
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT rules and policy changes for 2019-2020

Post by Important Bird Area » Mon Aug 05, 2019 3:10 pm

Salazar wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:05 pm
While I do understand that the non-signaling team doesn't get a chance to earn points, do they lose points through a Neg 5 penalty?
Yes, this situation is treated like any other illegal conferral (to include the five-point penalty if the tossup has not yet been completed).
Salazar wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:05 pm
Can the signaling team get a neg 5 penalty if they answer incorrectly?
No; only one minus-five is possible per tossup.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

Salazar
Lulu
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: Hartsville, South Carolina

Re: NAQT rules and policy changes for 2019-2020

Post by Salazar » Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:02 pm

I am looking at 3 possibilities for my hypothetical scenario in which student X on the opposite team answers when student A buzzed in first.
From my experience when this happens the inappropriate responder is usually ignored and the correct person is asked to provide the answer (and they are usually right in almost all cases). I don't believe that a neg 5 penalty has been issued to the offending team in these circumstances though.

For scorekeeping purposes, it seems like it would matter who spoke first.

1) If X answers before A, then it makes sense to indicate somehow that X is incorrect (with penalty if applicable) and then student A answers with no neg 5 possibility.

2) If X and A speak simultaneously, then whose action is applied first? The moderator is instructed to ignore X, but on the other hand, X's actions have made his team ineligible to answer the question. Does the tie go to A in which case it seems that X does not get a penalty, but A could get a Neg 5 (if appropriate)?

3) If X answers after A, then it seems that A could be eligible for a penalty depending on their response and the situation, but X would not be subject to any penalty. Otherwise, this would mean that X's actions always are applied before A's actions regardless of when they occur.
Gary Salazar
Academic Team Coach
SCGSSM

Salazar
Lulu
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: Hartsville, South Carolina

Re: NAQT rules and policy changes for 2019-2020

Post by Salazar » Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:25 pm

Based on the fact that rule G.10.b. is not already broken up into cases and from how these scenarios have played out in the past, I am currently interpreting this rule to say that student X's team only becomes ineligible AFTER student A's team has answered incorrectly. This would mean that Student X's team can never receive a neg 5 penalty, but student A's team could. Student X's team doesn't go completely unpunished as they have forfeited their right to answer the question and likely just "gave" the right answer to A's team.
Gary Salazar
Academic Team Coach
SCGSSM

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5522
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT rules and policy changes for 2019-2020

Post by Important Bird Area » Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:53 pm

Here's how we would rule on this setup. In all cases, we are assuming that Player A has buzzed in (and their light is on); Player X, on the other team, is shouting an answer.

1) Player X says an answer before player A says an answer.

Player X incurs a five-point penalty for conferral (if the moderator has not yet finished reading the tossup). The moderator will note that, and then evaluate the answer given by Player A. Note that Player A does not incur a five-point penalty for a wrong answer in this scenario (because there is a maximum of one such penalty per tossup).

2) Players A and X say answers simultaneously.
3) Player A says an answer; Player X shouts an answer before the moderator rules on the correctness of Player A's answer.

For both of these cases: the moderator will evaluate the answer given by Player A. If that answer is correct, it is accepted and Player X's statement is ignored. If Player A is incorrect, A may or may not incur a five-point penalty. X does not incur a penalty, but has illegally conferred, so the tossup is over and the moderator will proceed to the next tossup.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

Salazar
Lulu
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: Hartsville, South Carolina

Re: NAQT rules and policy changes for 2019-2020

Post by Salazar » Wed Aug 07, 2019 6:31 pm

Thanks, Jeff. This is the exact procedure that I envisioned a couple of days ago because it aligns with the procedure for when a teammate inadvertently speaks and is based on who speaks first. If someone answers before the one who signaled, then the over-eager student's team automatically misses the question (due to illegal conferral). The over-eager student could be a teammate or opponent of the signaler. If someone speaks at the same time or later than the signaler, then you first determine the correctness of the signaler's answer.

However, considering the painstaking detail that the rules go to in order to spell out the procedure for the case when the over-eager student is a teammate of the signaler (Rules G.10.c-e), I do find it doubtful that Rule G.10.b (which comes before) was meant to be interpreted in the same manner with an emphasis on who spoke first. This would mean that the rule writers thought that the quizbowl community would inherently know that the order of events (which is not mentioned) dictated what action needed to take place when the two students are opponents, but they somehow felt the need to explicitly state the procedure (based on the order of events) when the two students are teammates.

This is why I mentioned earlier today that my interpretation of the original intent of G.10.b must have been that regardless of order, the first thing you do is determine the correctness of the signaler's answer. The last part of this rule is just emphasizing that there cannot be a follow-up action if the signaler is wrong, due to the untimely response by the other side.

Both of the mentioned interpretations of G.10.b agree except for the case when Student X answers before Student A. I can assure you that I am not trying to be difficult with these posts, I am just trying to learn the rules more thoroughly so that I can prepare my tournament moderators properly.
Gary Salazar
Academic Team Coach
SCGSSM

joshxu
Lulu
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:25 pm
Location: Santa Monica, CA

Re: NAQT rules and policy changes for 2019-2020

Post by joshxu » Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:20 pm

NAQT Rule G.10.b wrote:If the player who responds is not on the same team as a player who did signal, the moderator will ignore the response (even if it is correct), and will recognize the player who actually signaled. Only that player will have a chance to respond, as the non-signaler has disqualified his team on that tossup question by illegal conferral (see Rule G.12).
I, too, have found this rule ambiguous, and I've seen it interpreted very differently by moderators. A situation where player A buzzed in but player X on the opposing team yelled out the correct response happened twice in the same tournament. The first time, player X gave their entire response before player A began responding, but the moderator didn't neg player X and gave player A the points. The second time, players A and X began their responses simultaneously, and the moderator (a different one—not the same moderator from the first situation) negged player X for illegal conferral.
Here's how we would rule on this setup. In all cases, we are assuming that Player A has buzzed in (and their light is on); Player X, on the other team, is shouting an answer.

1) Player X says an answer before player A says an answer.

Player X incurs a five-point penalty for conferral (if the moderator has not yet finished reading the tossup). The moderator will note that, and then evaluate the answer given by Player A. Note that Player A does not incur a five-point penalty for a wrong answer in this scenario (because there is a maximum of one such penalty per tossup).

2) Players A and X say answers simultaneously.
3) Player A says an answer; Player X shouts an answer before the moderator rules on the correctness of Player A's answer.

For both of these cases: the moderator will evaluate the answer given by Player A. If that answer is correct, it is accepted and Player X's statement is ignored. If Player A is incorrect, A may or may not incur a five-point penalty. X does not incur a penalty, but has illegally conferred, so the tossup is over and the moderator will proceed to the next tossup.
According to this, neither of those moderator decisions were correct. But the wording of the rule is unclear. The phrase "the non-signaler has disqualified his team on that tossup question by illegal conferral" could be interpreted as this: regardless of when player X yelled out their response in relation to player A's response, illegal conferring is called on player X, which means an interrupt penalty is assessed if player A does not answer incorrectly and this occurs before the end of the question. This is how the moderator in my second situation interpreted this rule, and was how I initially viewed it.

So essentially, the procedure for when any player who hasn't buzzed yells out a response is almost the same regardless of which team that player is on (neg if they begin their answer first, ignore if they answer simultaneously or after the player who buzzed). But as Mr. Salazar pointed out, the rules go much more into detail for when the "over-eager student is a teammate of the signaler (Rules G.10.c-e)". I think that for the sake of clarity rule the exact wording of G.10.b could/should be slightly modified, for the reasons listed above and in Mr. Salazar's post.
Josh Xu

Santa Monica High School (Class of 2021)
Quiz Bowl Captain
"Club President"

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5522
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT rules and policy changes for 2019-2020

Post by Important Bird Area » Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:33 pm

Additional update with some revisions to our privacy policy.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

Post Reply