Zebra Huddle™

Older Rulesets => 5/26/2010 Rules => General Ref Discussion 5/26/2010 => Topic started by: Professor Murder on April 13, 2009, 03:29:28 pm

Title: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Professor Murder on April 13, 2009, 03:29:28 pm
I suspect we've all been there before.  20-25 seconds following the end of the previous jam: "Susie Q has four!"

GAH!  Susie Q's not in this jam!  Why couldn't you get this information to me faster?!?!?!?

I have my own thoughts on how to sort this situation out, but I want to get your input here before I open my mouth.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Great Barrier Ref on April 13, 2009, 03:46:53 pm
I suspect we've all been there before.  20-25 seconds following the end of the previous jam: "Susie Q has four!"

GAH!  Susie Q's not in this jam!  Why couldn't you get this information to me faster?!?!?!?

I have my own thoughts on how to sort this situation out, but I want to get your input here before I open my mouth.

I had this on the weekend, and it was the worst-case scenario: Susie Q was jamming the prior jam, and I didn't get the word out in time to do anything about it (or get a timeout) before the pack start.

What I did - start Susie Q in the box as a jammer on the following jam (luckily the intermediary jammer was not also sent there).

One thing I thought about later as a possibility: if I'd had my wits about me, which I fully admit I did not as I was a little confused working with a different NSO/tracking setup than I've seen before - I might have ushered the replacement jammer off the track before she got to the pack, and sent Susie to the box promptly. That's slightly unorthodox though, so I wanted to throw it out there for potential ridicule before adding it as a possible practice.

Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Jessticular Fortitude on April 13, 2009, 03:48:51 pm
You didn't call a timeout, and waited until the next jam?
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Great Barrier Ref on April 13, 2009, 03:53:49 pm
You didn't call a timeout, and waited until the next jam?

I would call a timeout if there was time - obviously with a timeout this can be fixed easily.
In my case the pack was started as I was trying to call it, so this was the cleaning up after-the-fact solution.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: JoeXCore on April 13, 2009, 04:06:44 pm
It shouldn't happen with a jammer because pack refs shouldn't be calling minors on jammers and your jam ref should be aware of how many minors the jammer has.

For pack skaters I call a timeout and pull the skater from the bench to the penalty box. If the following jam has already began then we allow them to stay on the bench and then pull them the end of the jam.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Jessticular Fortitude on April 13, 2009, 04:08:00 pm
Should you have called off the jam and adjusted the skaters on the track instead of waiting until the next jam?
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Great Barrier Ref on April 13, 2009, 04:19:58 pm
Should you have called off the jam and adjusted the skaters on the track instead of waiting until the next jam?

That would have been the Head Ref's call. I alerted him to the situation after the start and he elected to roll with it, especially as the jammers were on the pack by then. I think that was a fair call on his part - we'd had a rocky start with a lot of timeouts for procedural issues already. Our officiating settled down a bit after that, we got the rhythm going.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Bishop on April 13, 2009, 04:24:42 pm
I suspect we've all been there before.  20-25 seconds following the end of the previous jam: "Susie Q has four!"

GAH!  Susie Q's not in this jam!  Why couldn't you get this information to me faster?!?!?!?

I have my own thoughts on how to sort this situation out, but I want to get your input here before I open my mouth.

I certainly have.   :-[  That's why I'm thinking I'm going to make it part of my practice as a Jammer ref to see how many minors my Jammer has prior to each Jam AND let her know by holding up the appropriate number of fingers.  As the Head Ref and ref coach of my league, I'm instructing my Jammer refs to do the same.  I will also incorporate that as something to address in the pre-bout meeting.  I know that doesn't address your "what to do about it" question, but I'm trying to think about how to prevent it from happening.  It's rather emabarassing and it appears "unprofessional" when it does happen.   And if there's one thing I've learned in recent weeks is that you definitely want to make all appearances of being professional and on top of things.  Otherwise, you end up giving coaches more ammo for requesting a change of Jammer ref - even if it's a totally unwarranted.

  
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Tootie Tinwhistle on April 13, 2009, 04:42:36 pm
I suspect we've all been there before.  20-25 seconds following the end of the previous jam: "Susie Q has four!"

GAH!  Susie Q's not in this jam!  Why couldn't you get this information to me faster?!?!?!?

I have my own thoughts on how to sort this situation out, but I want to get your input here before I open my mouth.

Drop it.  Wasn't reported in fast enough.  All non-reported minors should be dropped at the beginning of the next jam-  if it wasn't reported by then, it never happened.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: DayGlo Divine on April 13, 2009, 04:52:11 pm
It shouldn't happen with a jammer because pack refs shouldn't be calling minors on jammers and your jam ref should be aware of how many minors the jammer has.

Unless, of course, you have the misfortune of having an outside pack ref who calls minors on jammers because s/he doesn't know better or knows better and just doesn't care. I had that happen at a bout once. I was not pleased, and the fact that it was also a bad call didn't help matters. >:(
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Jessticular Fortitude on April 13, 2009, 04:56:55 pm
I suspect we've all been there before.  20-25 seconds following the end of the previous jam: "Susie Q has four!"

GAH!  Susie Q's not in this jam!  Why couldn't you get this information to me faster?!?!?!?

I have my own thoughts on how to sort this situation out, but I want to get your input here before I open my mouth.

Drop it.  Wasn't reported in fast enough.  All non-reported minors should be dropped at the beginning of the next jam-  if it wasn't reported by then, it never happened.

Yeah... I'm gonna have to disagree with you there...

Sometimes so many penalties are reported in at one time that the penalty tracker may not be able to keep up and have them all written down  before the 30 seconds is up. Just because there is a bottleneck, or maybe there was a disputed call that is taking up time, doesn't mean the penalty that had to wait to be reported "didn't happen." If a skater earned a penalty, you can't just ignore it.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Conan on April 13, 2009, 05:06:43 pm
As a Pack Ref, one way to cut down on these late 4th which lead to the dreaded Official's Timeouts is to be more disciplined with the 3 Board. 

It won't help in every situation, but if it prevents even one Official's Timeout, it's worth it.   
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: JoeXCore on April 13, 2009, 05:53:11 pm
Should you have called off the jam and adjusted the skaters on the track instead of waiting until the next jam?

If the jam starts I'll let it go. It's not worth interrupting a jam in progress in my opinion for the "4th minor log jam" as I call it.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Professor Murder on April 13, 2009, 06:40:53 pm
As a Pack Ref, one way to cut down on these late 4th which lead to the dreaded Official's Timeouts is to be more disciplined with the 3 Board.

more specifically meaning...?
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Conan on April 13, 2009, 07:18:39 pm
As a Pack Ref, one way to cut down on these late 4th which lead to the dreaded Official's Timeouts is to be more disciplined with the 3 Board.
more specifically meaning...?

Lots of leagues out here use a "3 Board", a medium sized hand held Marker Board.  An NSO works to keep the board updated with the Number of any skater who has 3 fouls.
Between jams, IPRs have access to this info at a glance.  IPRs compare the info on the 3 Board to the lineup of skaters on the floor.  The goal is to shortcut having to call the fourth minor foul in to the PTs, then having them call back to the IPRs.  Instead, IPRs can just call the minor, directly call the skater to the PB, then report the foul to the PTs after.

It is one small way to cut down on Late Forths.   
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Jessticular Fortitude on April 13, 2009, 07:26:25 pm
While that helps the IPRs, that doesn't help the OPR--> Outside Whiteboard (if there is one)--> Penalty Spotter (if there is one)--> Penalty Tracker potential bottleneck. All sorts of factors in there to slow down reporting if things get backed up.



So Murder- what would you do?
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: noidd on April 13, 2009, 07:29:53 pm
It's rather embarassing and it appears "unprofessional" when it does happen.

It may be embarrassing, but it's not unprofessional.  Professionals make mistakes BUT they distinguish themselves by the way that they rectify them.

Let me emphasize my lack of experience in this area, but my gut feeling is this.  If team A's jammer got her forth minor, then whether the following jam has started or not team A's new jammer has no business being on the track.

If they haven't started scoring points yet my gut would be to call off the jam and reset the period clock.

Which is more important, Refs and NSOs being embarrassed or the integrity of the game?

If they started scoring points now you're in a lot deeper...

Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Great Barrier Ref on April 13, 2009, 07:40:21 pm

Lots of leagues out here use a "3 Board", a medium sized hand held Marker Board.  An NSO works to keep the board updated with the Number of any skater who has 3 fouls.

This was the source of much of my confusion last weekend, when I encountered it for the first time. Under our local system and the other remote games I've done, our minor-boards list every skater along with their current number of minors, 0-3. We also have blank boards that just list the skaters that are accumulating majors. This crucial difference wasn't covered pre-bout, and took a while to iron out.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Rev. Riot on April 14, 2009, 12:17:45 am
When this happens to me, I tell the other pack ref to pull a skater and immediately get the offending skater to the box.

I think what Conan meant by being familiar with the 3-board is that you should be regularly checking the hot board to see who's at three, and the more of them you know, the more they can be pulled faster.

Tootie, the question isn't about a penalty not recorded or reported, the question is about a reported fourth, which the penalty trackers, getting through the penalties reported between jams, only get around to noticing that someone has four just before the jam starts.

Worst case scenario, I enforce it in the next jam.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Tootie Tinwhistle on April 14, 2009, 01:40:22 am
When this happens to me, I tell the other pack ref to pull a skater and immediately get the offending skater to the box.

I think what Conan meant by being familiar with the 3-board is that you should be regularly checking the hot board to see who's at three, and the more of them you know, the more they can be pulled faster.

Tootie, the question isn't about a penalty not recorded or reported, the question is about a reported fourth, which the penalty trackers, getting through the penalties reported between jams, only get around to noticing that someone has four just before the jam starts.

Worst case scenario, I enforce it in the next jam.

Right...  Now this thread makes a lot more sense.  Though I'm still confused how a Jammer gets her 4th and finishes the Jam not on her way to the box.

If it's just a matter of trackers collecting data, what can you do?  Call her out as fast as possible, call a quick OTO if you need the time, and if the next Jam has begun, enforce in the next Jam.  At halftime, and/or after the bout, see if there is a correctable problem that is leading to a lack of efficiency.  Other than that, delayed 4th reports are an inherent problem with the minor system.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Bishop on October 28, 2009, 06:45:09 pm
Here's a tip for handling 4th minors that I stumbled upon: When that 4th gets reported at the end of a jam or near the beginning of the next, tell that team's Blockers first.  What I mean is, tell that team's Blockers who are on the track or are on their way to the track, "[Hey Team] Pink, so-and-so has four minors, you're going to need to send a player off."  The more Blockers who hear this, the better.  When I do this, I usually wave my arms in front of them the way players do when they're trying to get a referee's attention for an intentional fourth minor.  This gives them the chance to figure out who best to send off.  I've noticed that a lot referees usually will head to the team's bench first and fail to inform the team's fielded Blockers until after the fact.

After I inform the fielded Blockers, I head to the team's bench provided that team's player isn't already on her way to the box.  This way, I can get this situation sorted out even if the jam happens to start.  I've had very few official timeouts since I've started doing this.  :)
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: FNZebra on October 28, 2009, 07:06:15 pm
Ooooo. Nice use of personal interest there, Bish.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: DayGlo Divine on October 28, 2009, 07:24:32 pm
Here's a tip for handling 4th minors that I stumbled upon: When that 4th gets reported at the end of a jam or near the beginning of the next, tell that team's Blockers first.  What I mean is, tell that team's Blockers who are on the track or are on their way to the track, "[Hey Team] Pink, so-and-so has four minors, you're going to need to send a player off."

Um, no. That borders on coaching. It's the skaters' and coaches' responsibility to be aware of who is in the box at all times, including between jams. It is their job to figure out that if a teammate goes to the box between jams, someone needs to leave the track.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: FNZebra on October 28, 2009, 07:31:35 pm
So just tell them "[Hey Team] Pink, so-and-so has four minors and is going to the box." as you're heading to the appropriate bench. Let them figure out that they now have too many.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: DayGlo Divine on October 28, 2009, 07:42:04 pm
So just tell them "[Hey Team] Pink, so-and-so has four minors and is going to the box." as you're heading to the appropriate bench. Let them figure out that they now have too many.

They can also figure out that someone was sent to the box on their own, and they usually do.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Great Barrier Ref on October 28, 2009, 08:32:54 pm
A lot of being a professional ref is appearance.

I look at the group on the track and yell "Red 58, to the penalty box.". That's because Red 58 is possibly on the track. If she's not, I turn to the bench and yell "Red 58, to the penalty box", as I scan the bench to find her and make sure she's going.
Those are necessary statement/actions. Even though adding "you'll need to send someone off" is really no additional information, by the nature of the communication it sounds like coaching, and therefore inappropriate.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: the pantichrist on October 29, 2009, 01:30:56 am



So Murder- what would you do?

I'm also curious to know?  WWMD?
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Bishop on October 29, 2009, 02:01:33 am
A lot of being a professional ref is appearance.

Absolutely agree with this statement!

I wasn't avoiding the official timeout for my own self interest.  Frankly, if I thought that I needed to take a official timeout after every jam in order to keep the bout "safe and fair", I wouldn't hesitate to do so.  The reason that I communicate the sitaution to the skaters is so that they feel they are being treated fairly.  Fairness is a critical aspect of being a professional referee.  In fact, according a survey of officials conducted by the National Association of Sports Officials, the fourth most important trait of officiating excellence is being fair (Evaluating Officiating Performance, p. 10).  From my own personal experience, fairnes is often a matter of perception.  Another important aspect of being a professional referee is being transparent.  That's what I was trying to do by communicating the situation to the skaters who most needed to know.  This is related to having good communication skills which was ranked 11th in the same survey I referenced above.

Telling skaters, "[Hey Team] Pink, so-and-so has four minors, you're going to need to send a player off" is taking care of an administrative detail in the most timely manner possible in a fair and transparent way.  What I didn't mention was that I do calibrate this to the audience (the Blockers) as needed - if, after I say, "So-and-so four minors" and there is instant recognition, I'll go forth post haste to the team's bench and find the skater.  I could see where with certain well-established teams, any additional communication would be unnecessary.  Since Bishop from Bumfuck most often officiates bouts involving newer leagues with inexperienced skaters, it's more important to ensure the comprehension takes place than it is to worry about something being perceived as "coaching".  Also, since I handle both teams the same way, I'm consistent which is the second most important trait mentioned in the survey I referenced above.      

Incidently, this does not necessarily mean the the team will realize that they have fielded too many skaters.  I'm saying that "you have to send one off" - I'm not saying "you have too many skaters."  In fact, this past weekend, a team had one player in the penalty box, fielded four Blockers when I informed them they'd need to send one off.  They sent exactly one Blocker off.  Fortunately for them, a Blocker realized this at the last second and stepped off the track.  


I was at Easterns this year and it was great to see that referees could officiate bouts involving their home leagues.  It was explained to me that derby is getting past the over-concern with potential bias on the part of the officiating crews.  It would be nice to see derby officials get past over-concern with "coaching" and "over-communication" as well.






  
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: mick hawkins on October 29, 2009, 02:35:07 am
Telling skaters, "[Hey Team] Pink, so-and-so has four minors, you're going to need to send a player off" is taking care of an administrative detail in the most timely manner possible in a fair and transparent way.  What I didn't mention was that I do calibrate this to the audience (the Blockers) as needed - if, after I say, "So-and-so four minors" and there is instant recognition....

i'm with DGD - this borders on coaching

refs should provide skaters with information they need -- not then tell the skaters what to do with that info

telling the 4th minor skater she has 4 minors and sending her to the box, then telling her team "player x is in the box for 4 minors" is enough

what the team does or doesnt do with that info is up to them
if they dont resolve it befor the jam starts youd then use the "return to your bench signal" and issue an IP minor

by telling them they need to remove a player from the track you are helping them to avoid a penalty
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Bishop on October 29, 2009, 02:39:33 am
Telling skaters, "[Hey Team] Pink, so-and-so has four minors, you're going to need to send a player off" is taking care of an administrative detail in the most timely manner possible in a fair and transparent way.  What I didn't mention was that I do calibrate this to the audience (the Blockers) as needed - if, after I say, "So-and-so four minors" and there is instant recognition....

i'm with DGD - this borders on coaching

I respectfully disagree.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Major Wood on October 29, 2009, 03:41:58 am
I'm with DayGlo here as well.
I tell the skater she has 4 minors and needs to report to the box. If I can't find her quickly, I tell the captain or alternate that skater XX needs to go to the box for 4 minors. I leave it at that. Anything beyond that is coaching.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that referees need to stop worrying about coaching. When we are out there with our referee hat on, we are not supposed to be giving any help in preventing penalties. The only warnings that should be given are those specified in the rules. And yes, "you need to send someone off the track" qualifies as a warning not specified in the rules.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: JoeXCore on October 29, 2009, 03:52:23 am
Agreed with Wood, DayGlo.. etc.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: noidd on October 29, 2009, 12:24:14 pm
[rule]9.2.1.1.3 Referees do not warn teams when too many skaters line up on the track.[/rule]

Warning players they have too many on the track is specifically prohibited in the rules.
(Captain Literal again).

In a more broad sense there is refereeing culture which is specific to this sport and warnings and lack of preventative refereeing is one of them.

Another example of good refereeing in said book is to quietly warn skaters is they're playing style is getting out of hand.  I wish in a way we can do that because I would rather say "reign it in" to a skater than have to eject one 10 minutes later for an elbow to the face (happened to me when I was HR this week).

I saw so many close calls but what can you do?

Yet another example is a quiet "Great job" to a player who did an exceptional play.  In officiating in other sports this is seen as good communication.  In derby, it would be seen as bias.

We saw an accusation of bias a few weeks ago because a ref was dancing to the music at half-time.  Her team was 50 points up and the visiting team saw that as celebrating and consequently bias.

I'm rarely concerned by referee bias, I'm concerned with skater and audience perception of referee bias.  Abolishing the practice of introducing referees as being from their home team would be a good start with this.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Bishop on October 29, 2009, 02:44:19 pm
[rule]9.2.1.1.3 Referees do not warn teams when too many skaters line up on the track.[/rule]

Warning players they have too many on the track is specifically prohibited in the rules.
(Captain Literal again).

As I've already pointed out, I'm not warning them that they have too many - they to figure that out on their own.  What I am doing is giving them the opportunity to comply - the same way they are given the chance to comply with fielding too many players once the jam has started.  It would be unfair to the skaters not give them that opportunity to comply to a literal last second officiating task.  The only other fair and transparent way to handle the situation would be to take an official timeout. 

Noidd, thank you for bringing up the cultural differences between derby and well, any other sport I can think of.  That's exactly what I mean when I say that it would nice to see derby get past this over-concern with perceived "coaching".

If we're going to continue this discussion, I think it would be best split off into a different thread.  I've found a way of handling an administrative task that is congruent with the type of official I wish to be.  Obviously, some have issues with that because it isn't congruent with the type of official they wish to be perceived as.  At least, I guess that's what it is anyway.  Honestly, I've always been puzzled with the whole "coaching" thing. 
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Professor Murder on October 29, 2009, 03:03:04 pm
Yet another example is a quiet "Great job" to a player who did an exceptional play.

In what sports is this acceptable?
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Captain Gorgeous on October 29, 2009, 03:21:05 pm
Yet another example is a quiet "Great job" to a player who did an exceptional play.  In officiating in other sports this is seen as good communication.  In derby, it would be seen as bias.

Sorry Noidd, but I disagree w/ the part of the statement that this would be seen as good comm. in other sports. Every sport I've played or partcipated in one fashion or another, the umpires or referees never commented on game play. Regardless of the sport, referees/officials should not be saying "great job" to anyone but maybe other referees at the end in talking about how each other did.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Great Barrier Ref on October 29, 2009, 04:02:45 pm
Yet another example is a quiet "Great job" to a player who did an exceptional play.

In what sports is this acceptable?

Little league? If that?
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: DayGlo Divine on October 29, 2009, 04:15:35 pm
As I've already pointed out, I'm not warning them that they have too many - they to figure that out on their own.  What I am doing is giving them the opportunity to comply - the same way they are given the chance to comply with fielding too many players once the jam has started.  It would be unfair to the skaters not give them that opportunity to comply to a literal last second officiating task.  The only other fair and transparent way to handle the situation would be to take an official timeout.

Or handle it the way Great Barrier Ref does. Announcing very loudly that a skater is due for a trip to the box gives everyone the information they need to make their own decisions.

Here's a tip for handling 4th minors that I stumbled upon: When that 4th gets reported at the end of a jam or near the beginning of the next, tell that team's Blockers first.  What I mean is, tell that team's Blockers who are on the track or are on their way to the track, "[Hey Team] Pink, so-and-so has four minors, you're going to need to send a player off."

The example you provided is a warning to the skaters, which is against the rules. Whether you agree with that or like it is neither here nor there.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: MaxxChaos on October 29, 2009, 04:52:25 pm
Chiming in to agree and endorse the simple giving of information, skaters can do with it what they will.
GBR's announcement style is also what we employ... the concern is first to get the skater who owes to the box, it is up to her bench to make adjustments, once the whistle blows our job is to recognize the situation (i.e. too many skaters on the track, too many pivots, whatev.) and handle it as the rules guide us.

Trust me, I get the idea of 'facilitating game play' (warnings, over-informing) and it quickly moves into "hosting" category for a ref. You are not a party host(ess), it is not up to you to make sure skaters have a pleasant time at your party; skaters have chosen and agreed to a rules set and all of the intricacies that come with that, there are jobs other than reffing that ensure teams will be in compliance with the rules. I would love to tell Pink team that they have too many on the track prior to the whistle so that they could remedy it and we wouldn't be in for the Too Many on the Track dance... but it's not my job. The rules and clarifications have been clear on this. My job is to know what to do when the whistle blows and a team is in violation and to ensure that it is enforced correctly, consistently and in a timely manner.

Beyond that and more to the issue at hand:
Isolated, late fourth scenario has been covered here. Yes, it's worth investigating where that fourth came from. If her jam ref didn't check her minors before she took the line, address that problem so that it won't happen again. If it came from the outside and it's not your policy to take minors on the jammer from pack refs, that can be mentioned in the 30 seconds between jams or during a team time out.

I also agree that you can't make a penalty go away (duplicate calls are a different matter). If there is a clusterfluck in the penalty relay system, rather than call a million official time outs to pull that skater with four over and over again. Call an official time out (or ask your head ref for one) and ask the NSOs what's going on. Seriously, might take longer than 5 seconds but it's investing in the future of the bout. Maybe the inside trackers aren't looking to the outside, okay- what's going to happen that remedies that problem now, for this bout? We all know what it feels like when the system is working, I hope, so when it is clearly *not* working, take the time out to make changes real time to pull it out of the can.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Bishop on October 29, 2009, 07:46:49 pm
Here's a tip for handling 4th minors that I stumbled upon: When that 4th gets reported at the end of a jam or near the beginning of the next, tell that team's Blockers first.  What I mean is, tell that team's Blockers who are on the track or are on their way to the track, "[Hey Team] Pink, so-and-so has four minors, you're going to need to send a player off."

The example you provided is a warning to the skaters, which is against the rules. Whether you agree with that or like it is neither here nor there.

I am directing a player off the track.  I am not warning them about the number of players that they have fielded.  I am well aware of rule 9.2.1.1.3 and I doubt that it was written with handling a fourth minor seconds prior to the start of a jam in mind. 

The point of saying anything to the fielded Blockers is so that they hear and comprehend the situation.  One of my hobbies is studying communication skills.  It is understood that if you approach someone who has their mind on something else, the first words out of your mouth are likely not to be heard much less understood.  So, my point in saying what I said was to ensure that communication was taking place.  I suppose I could achieve the same thing by repeating "so-and-so has a fourth minor" and I might try that the next time to see what happens.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: DayGlo Divine on October 29, 2009, 08:15:00 pm
Here's a tip for handling 4th minors that I stumbled upon: When that 4th gets reported at the end of a jam or near the beginning of the next, tell that team's Blockers first.  What I mean is, tell that team's Blockers who are on the track or are on their way to the track, "[Hey Team] Pink, so-and-so has four minors, you're going to need to send a player off."

The example you provided is a warning to the skaters, which is against the rules. Whether you agree with that or like it is neither here nor there.

I am directing a player off the track.  I am not warning them about the number of players that they have fielded.  I am well aware of rule 9.2.1.1.3 and I doubt that it was written with handling a fourth minor seconds prior to the start of a jam in mind. 

Telling a team to remove a player from the track constitutes warning them that they are playing too many skaters. And yes, 9.2.1.1.3 does cover any instance when there are too many skaters on the track.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Great Barrier Ref on October 29, 2009, 08:25:25 pm
I am well aware of rule 9.2.1.1.3 and I doubt that it was written with handling a fourth minor seconds prior to the start of a jam in mind.  

If there are seconds left, then just call the time out, yell for the player to get to the box, make sure she's going, wait a small but appropriate amount of seconds to let the players on the track realise what has happened, then start the jam regardless. This is how it's done. A small OTO here is not a terrible thing.

9.2.1.1.3 was intended to cover all forms of warning the players that they have too many on the track - it was explicitly voted in to the WFTDA rules by the skaters, because it's what they want.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Duncan Disorderly on October 29, 2009, 09:05:57 pm
Yet another example is a quiet "Great job" to a player who did an exceptional play.

In what sports is this acceptable?

Cricket. No, really.

EDIT: hmm, in the sense of "nice shot, son" when a batter plays a good shot, I mean - relatively non-committal, and plainly stating what is obvious to everyone (that there was a good shot played). The nature of cricket is that it's so technical and so firmly divided into separate segments of play that a very mild praising comment like that, even one made by an umpire standing in the game, will have no effect on the player's game. In fact, the opposite team will often praise a player's shot in the same manner.

However, I don't believe this would be appropriate to derby at all, and even in cricket, it'd have to be a pretty bloody special shot to earn that kind of response.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Great Barrier Ref on October 29, 2009, 09:07:50 pm
Cricket. No, really.

Cricket is not a sport as the rest of the world understands it - sport, I mean. Because they definitely don't understand cricket.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Duncan Disorderly on October 29, 2009, 09:17:06 pm
Cricket. No, really.

Cricket is not a sport as the rest of the world understands it - sport, I mean. Because they definitely don't understand cricket.

Heh, true - see long-winded edit above. ;)
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Professor Murder on October 29, 2009, 10:27:33 pm
Drat!  You two stole my American ethnocentric thunder right from under my feet!
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: mick hawkins on October 29, 2009, 11:31:17 pm
"[Hey Team] Pink, so-and-so has four minors, you're going to need to send a player off."

The example you provided is a warning to the skaters, which is against the rules. Whether you agree with that or like it is neither here nor there.

I am directing a player off the track.  I am not warning them about the number of players that they have fielded. 

sorry bishop, got to disagree with you (and agree with dayglo, again)

by saying "you're going to need to send a player off" is not only warning them about the number of players they have fielded - it's actually telling what they need to do to correct it

that's coaching

as stated earlier - you would direct a player off the track because there's too many when the jam has started. use the "return to your bench" signal and issue an IP minor
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Bishop on October 30, 2009, 02:00:29 pm
I am well aware of rule 9.2.1.1.3 and I doubt that it was written with handling a fourth minor seconds prior to the start of a jam in mind.  

If there are seconds left, then just call the time out, yell for the player to get to the box, make sure she's going, wait a small but appropriate amount of seconds to let the players on the track realise what has happened, then start the jam regardless. This is how it's done. A small OTO here is not a terrible thing.

9.2.1.1.3 was intended to cover all forms of warning the players that they have too many on the track - it was explicitly voted in to the WFTDA rules by the skaters, because it's what they want.

[rule]2.6.4 Referees may call an Official Timeout at any point. This will stop the clock so that referees have time to review a call or adjust the number of skaters on the floor. [/rule]
OTOs - The phrasing of that rule is interesting isn't it?  Referees are allowed to adjust the number of skaters on the floor within the context of an OTO.  My willingness to take an OTO depends a lot on the confidence I have in the person operating the scoreboard.  That's just a reality in a DIY sport and having to train NSOs on the spot. 

If there happens to be too many players after the jam starts, IP minor per:
[rule] 6.12.5 Too many skaters on the track–skater is pulled without stopping the jam. (The penalty is issued to the pulled skater.) [/rule]
Does anyone see an issue with the literal interpretation of that rule?


Hmm, I seem to have lost three stat points over the last few days - that's sad.  Not the lost points, mind you, but rather the larger picture of what that seems to indicate.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: mick hawkins on October 30, 2009, 02:56:43 pm
best i can offer is that the rules have to be taken as a whole

as jz recently told me... see the forest, not just the trees

[rule]9.2.1.1.3 Referees do not warn teams when too many skaters line up on the track.[/rule]

consider that the wording you refer to in 2.6.4 might (just) apply when the jam needs to be called off due to too many players... and the number of players has to be adjusted
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: noidd on October 30, 2009, 03:53:57 pm
Hmm, I seem to have lost three stat points over the last few days - that's sad.  Not the lost points, mind you, but rather the larger picture of what that seems to indicate.

Although there may not be the intention to stifle discussion that is the affect.

I would really like to see future karma bumps being public.  The anonymous majors with no explaination serves to limit discussion, not support it.
Title: Re: The Late Damned Fourth
Post by: Johnny Zebra on October 30, 2009, 08:12:45 pm
best i can offer is that the rules have to be taken as a whole

[rule]9.2.1.1.3 Referees do not warn teams when too many skaters line up on the track.[/rule]


Yep. If you have to assemble parts of different rules to argue for a refutation of one simple and clear rule, you are a: overthinking it, and b: missing the point.

~j.z.