Zebra Huddle™

Older Rulesets => 5/26/2010 Rules => Rules Discussion 5/26/2010 => Topic started by: Zombi on July 26, 2012, 12:24:00 am

Title: Falling Small?
Post by: Zombi on July 26, 2012, 12:24:00 am
Falling small is defined as: Falling with the arms and legs controlled, tucked in to the body, and not flailing. I have been instructed and have been judging LBs on small falls being the skater tucked in a fetal position (so to speak). However, the rule does not define a small fall but by the position of the arms and legs. The reason I bring this up is because at a recent scrimmage a skater and a ref questioned a pair of LB calls I made. A black blocker tripped over a white blocker who had fallen with her arms and legs in control and "tucked", but her head and torso straight up. The skater said that was how she was instructed to fall by the referees at her league (none of which were there). The ref also said he was not instructed the way I was, but the head ref for the venue we were at was not there either. Have I been calling this wrong? A small fall being the skater's arms, legs, head and torso tucked in the fetal position? Thanks!

      Zombi
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Invader Jim on July 26, 2012, 02:47:27 pm
Falling small is defined as: Falling with the arms and legs controlled, tucked in to the body, and not flailing. I have been instructed and have been judging LBs on small falls being the skater tucked in a fetal position (so to speak). However, the rule does not define a small fall but by the position of the arms and legs. The reason I bring this up is because at a recent scrimmage a skater and a ref questioned a pair of LB calls I made. A black blocker tripped over a white blocker who had fallen with her arms and legs in control and "tucked", but her head and torso straight up. Thanks!

I see that as small. Sitting on her butt tucked in fetal position takes less floor space than the same position with face near the floor. It both positions, she is tucked and not flailing or sprawling. That is my 2c.
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: PackMan on July 26, 2012, 07:09:19 pm
In my experience "small" is a down on all fours position with arms and legs tucked, resembling a Turtle with appendages pulled in.  If the
torso is upright I would not consider that skater small.  Small is not just about floor space, but air space as well.
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Zombi on July 26, 2012, 08:36:32 pm
Thanks for your input, refs. To clarify, I didn't mean a skater being on her behind, but sliding or down on her knees...
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Entropy on July 27, 2012, 03:24:29 am
In my experience "small" is a down on all fours position with arms and legs tucked, resembling a Turtle with appendages pulled in.  If the
torso is upright I would not consider that skater small.  Small is not just about floor space, but air space as well.

I am not sure this is true, floor space is what matters here, not air space.

By your logic skater who took a single knee with her arms and legs pulled in would be subject to the low blocking penality since she is taller then a skater who has falled on both knees hunched over.

I have always took this rule as a floor space rule because skater need to swerve around to avoid the fallen skater, jumping being a questionable optional extra.

I am happy to be corrected however.
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: PackMan on July 27, 2012, 05:18:50 am
In my experience "small" is a down on all fours position with arms and legs tucked, resembling a Turtle with appendages pulled in.  If the
torso is upright I would not consider that skater small.  Small is not just about floor space, but air space as well.

I am not sure this is true, floor space is what matters here, not air space.

By your logic skater who took a single knee with her arms and legs pulled in would be subject to the low blocking penality since she is taller then a skater who has falled on both knees hunched over.

I have always took this rule as a floor space rule because skater need to swerve around to avoid the fallen skater, jumping being a questionable optional extra.

I am happy to be corrected however.
By my logic both of the skaters described here would be subject to low block penalties because neither has fallen small.  Unfortunately, we will have to wait for some more experienced refs to put their two cents in since the rules don't define small in the detail you require.
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Entropy on July 27, 2012, 05:41:55 am
Quote
By my logic both of the skaters described here would be subject to low block penalties because neither has fallen small.  Unfortunately, we will have to wait for some more experienced refs to put their two cents in since the rules don't define small in the detail you require.

Actually the rules do define small as

Falling with the arms and legs controlled, tucked in to the body, and not flailing.

I have always taken this literally to mean arms and legs pulled into the body, nothing in this mentions high of the fall, so even without clarification the criteria for a small fall are listed.
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: mick hawkins on July 27, 2012, 05:42:49 am
In my experience "small" is a down on all fours position with arms and legs tucked, resembling a Turtle with appendages pulled in.  If the
torso is upright I would not consider that skater small.  Small is not just about floor space, but air space as well.

I don't consider that the only way to fall small.

I think it's entirely possible for a skater to do a single or (in particular) double knee fall/slide and satisfy the definition of falling small.
... likewise for curled up in a ball as described above

Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Photo Bomb on July 29, 2012, 08:58:53 am

No impact/no penalty does state 6.3.1 - A skater who "falls small" in an effort to avoid tripping.

most refs like to let these go. but even if we all get a consensus on what small is, don't be too to quick to let these go-

6.3.9 says habitual falling they get a penalty even if they fell higgs boson. no small is small enough.

Also under 6.3 "downed skaters re-entering the track are subject to low blocking even on the first instance and even if the downed skater has fallen small." This rings especially true to me when a jammer comes screaming back into the pack like a cannon ball sliding through the apex.  if she takes out the whole pack like bowling pins at the ankles that spells impact and dangerous to me even is she's an amputee and has no limbs.

There are cases when a fallen small skater gets the low block call. Just tossing that out.

(I just have an odd sense of humor and writing style, not being hostile in any way, I just always try and provoke a laugh.)
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Darkjester on July 29, 2012, 09:01:18 am
And possibly an expulsion if she screams through the pack like a cannonball taking everyone out at the ankles.

In one of those "You know it when you see it moments" I might have to consider that a slide tackle.
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Riff Reff on July 29, 2012, 09:58:16 pm
Quote
There are cases when a fallen small skater gets the low block call. Just tossing that out.

Correct. E.g. if the the initiator of a (otherwise legal) block goes down in the process and trips the blockee there will be a low block call even if the blocker fell small. If the blockee goes down and falls small and falls in front to the blocker then it's no impact.


And a double or single knee fall with the torso upright is not falling small in my humble opinion.

PS: DJ will you stop with those expulsion scenarios ;)
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Darkjester on July 30, 2012, 03:22:22 pm
Sorry Riff ;-)
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: HIM-roid on August 24, 2012, 01:49:18 am
Yes, I know this is 24 days ago, but I am going to add my two cents.
What you are quoting Photo about sliding back in is just a definition. You have to look at the penalty section. Under No Impact/No Penalty, 6.3.2 states: A skater who “falls small” in an effort to avoid tripping.I personally would not call a low block penalty on a skater who fell with her arms and legs tucked in or under her, rather it be Turtle style or Rock Star style. I agree with Mick that "air space" is not taken into consideration when judging small. Sometimes we have to look at the logic behind a rule. This is a contact sport and when there is contact, there is going to be people falling. If this exception was not in place, it would be easy for a team to keep knocking an opposing skater down into the hitters team mate to draw a penalty. 6.3.9 was established as a safety aspect. If a skater is constantly falling, she is a safety hazard to all of the other skaters on the track. However, we must also look at how she got to the floor. If a 100 lb skater was constantly getting owned by a 175-200 lb skater, I would tend to be a little more lenient on the number of falls.  And DJ, if a skater comes sliding through the pack in a SMALL position, how would you deem that a slide tackle? If her legs are tucked in, she can't be slide tackling. If there would be anything that I would consider expulsion on, it would be for intentionally tripping. I know, the dessert heat has got you wanting to eject someone.  See you when you get back.  ;)
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Darkjester on August 26, 2012, 04:32:34 pm
With the description provided of 'screams into the track like a cannonball taking people out' it sounds like a 'take out'. I'd 'possibly' consider it a slide tackle based on a 'you'd have to see it to call it' frame.
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Major Wood on August 26, 2012, 09:52:26 pm
Quote
There are cases when a fallen small skater gets the low block call. Just tossing that out.

Correct. E.g. if the the initiator of a (otherwise legal) block goes down in the process and trips the blockee there will be a low block call even if the blocker fell small. If the blockee goes down and falls small and falls in front to the blocker then it's no impact.


And a double or single knee fall with the torso upright is not falling small in my humble opinion.

Agreed on both counts. I would also add, falling small doesn't matter if the fallen skater slides across the track into an opposing skater.
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: PackMan on August 30, 2012, 06:51:57 pm
In my experience "small" is a down on all fours position with arms and legs tucked, resembling a Turtle with appendages pulled in.  If the
torso is upright I would not consider that skater small.  Small is not just about floor space, but air space as well.
Will somebody please weigh in on this?  I don't need to be right, I just want some clarification.
I am not sure this is true, floor space is what matters here, not air space.

By your logic skater who took a single knee with her arms and legs pulled in would be subject to the low blocking penality since she is taller then a skater who has falled on both knees hunched over.

I have always took this rule as a floor space rule because skater need to swerve around to avoid the fallen skater, jumping being a questionable optional extra.

I am happy to be corrected however.
By my logic both of the skaters described here would be subject to low block penalties because neither has fallen small.  Unfortunately, we will have to wait for some more experienced refs to put their two cents in since the rules don't define small in the detail you require.
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Bob Lloyd on August 30, 2012, 07:37:12 pm
I may not be the experienced ref you are looking for, but I would consider it small if the skater falls (from the glossary definition for Fall Small):

[rule][Falling] with the arms and legs controlled, tucked in to the body, and not flailing.[/rule]

Emphasis mine.  The use of "and" here in this context means the skater must meet all three.  Single knee falls are not small falls, as the legs aren't tucked.  Generally (and there maybe exceptions) the leg that is down is sticking out behind the skater, and is prime for other skaters to fall over.  Even if it's controlled, it's still a safety hazard to other skaters.

I would consider small the way PackMan describes it, small and tucked, upright (not on her side), controlled, and not sliding.

I wouldn't consider height a factor in a small fall based on the logic that for your (low blocking target zones or) skates to contact a tall skater, you'd have to skate through the same space on the floor as a small skater.  If she's tucked, tall or turtle, she still fits the definition above.
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Major Wood on August 30, 2012, 08:52:13 pm
Disagree. Both by definition and practice.

Upright is not small. A skater on both knees and upright is not small and does not have her legs tucked. Legs tucked is knees pulled in toward the chest.

Have you not seen a skater do a double knee fall and create impact on another skater through contact with her back?

Have you seen a skater have an opposing skater fall small in front of her leaving only time to jump over her, or skate over her, with one skate on either side of the fallen skater? What happens if that fallen skater is upright?
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Bob Lloyd on August 30, 2012, 09:00:46 pm
I can buy that.  I'll rescind my comments about height.  I'm having trouble visualizing the skater's back during a double-knee fall having impact on another skater who wouldn't be impacted by the small skater, other than the example you gave of "skating over her" with the downed skater going between her legs.  But, like I said, I change my previous thoughts on "tall" vs "small" :)

Though, I would argue that jumping the downed skater would be a more dangerous action than a (safe & controlled) fall over her.  A jumping skater is a risk not only to herself if the jump isn't high/wide enough, but also her skates contacting the downed skater are a risk.  If I were to (and have) seen a skater attempt to jump a fallen skater (small or not), and failed to some extent, I would feel a Misconduct penalty would be warranted for airborne contact.  But that's besides the point of a small fall.
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Major Wood on August 30, 2012, 10:48:49 pm
Not sure I agree with a misconduct for attempting to avoid a downed skater by jumping and making contact. Exception being if she clearly took an opportunity to jump over a skater when she didn't need to. If that were to happen, I would argue it's more serious than a misconduct penalty.

Sometimes a safe and controlled fall is not possible. Sometimes a jump can be the only option other than hitting your face on the ground at a high rate of speed.
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Bob Lloyd on August 30, 2012, 11:18:10 pm
I'm not arguing to argue, just to understand. :)

Wouldn't that be counter to 6.15.3?

[rule]
6.15.3 - Initiating contact with both skates off of the ground. Jumping and leaping contact is unsafe for the initiator and the receiver.
[/rule]

We don't judge why her skates left the ground, just that they left the ground and she initiated contact with another skater.  It's an unfortunate penalty, but one that meets the criteria.  If she clears the skater, no penaltyr, but I don't see justifying one unsafe action (falling big) with another (jumping).

And yes, I agree that if she had reasonable opportunity to avoid the down skater by going around, jumped anyway, and made contact, it's more serious than misconduct.  And also that there are situations where a jump *may* be safer, but it doesn't jive with the rule.
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Shaun Ketterman on August 31, 2012, 12:00:26 am
Upright is not small. A skater on both knees and upright is not small and does not have her legs tucked. Legs tucked is knees pulled in toward the chest.

I disagree with this.  Upright can most certainly be small, based on the definition of falling small.  Falling small has to do with what one is doing with her arms and legs, not what her torso is doing.  If the legs and arms are controlled and tucked, I would certainly not see a larger vertical profile because the skater didn't then ball up as not falling small.  This also includes if the player has landed on her side or is positioned horizontally across the track.  As long as her arms and legs are tucked and pulled into herself as much as possible I do not consider that a low block.

Not sure I agree with a misconduct for attempting to avoid a downed skater by jumping and making contact. Exception being if she clearly took an opportunity to jump over a skater when she didn't need to. If that were to happen, I would argue it's more serious than a misconduct penalty.

I also disagree here.  It's never a necessity to jump a downed player.  Reacting to downed players is a part of derby and every player needs to be able to do it to pass minimum skills.  One can skate out of bounds, stop, skate around or take a controlled fall (or even an uncontrolled fall).  If the downed player is small, that is no impact.  It's just part of the game.  If someone decides to leap and she hits the person she's jumping I will always give a misconduct.
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Major Wood on August 31, 2012, 01:28:09 am
Upright is not small. A skater on both knees and upright is not small and does not have her legs tucked. Legs tucked is knees pulled in toward the chest.

I disagree with this.  Upright can most certainly be small, based on the definition of falling small.  Falling small has to do with what one is doing with her arms and legs, not what her torso is doing.  If the legs and arms are controlled and tucked, I would certainly not see a larger vertical profile because the skater didn't then ball up as not falling small.  This also includes if the player has landed on her side or is positionaed horizontally across the track.  As long as her arms and legs are tucked and pulled into herself as much as possible I do not consider that a low block.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. The way I see it, it is not possible for someone to be upright and have their legs tucked.

Not sure I agree with a misconduct for attempting to avoid a downed skater by jumping and making contact. Exception being if she clearly took an opportunity to jump over a skater when she didn't need to. If that were to happen, I would argue it's more serious than a misconduct penalty.

I also disagree here.  It's never a necessity to jump a downed player.  Reacting to downed players is a part of derby and every player needs to be able to do it to pass minimum skills.  One can skate out of bounds, stop, skate around or take a controlled fall (or even an uncontrolled fall).  If the downed player is small, that is no impact.  It's just part of the game.  If someone decides to leap and she hits the person she's jumping I will always give a misconduct.

Again with the agreeing to disagree. In my personal experience, there have been many times where my only options were to jump, or take a digger.
In this type of case, I would view the fallen skater as the initiator.
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Darkjester on August 31, 2012, 10:20:56 am
FWIW. I CAN see a position where a person could be 'tucked' yet not down into the fetal position as small as possible to avoid the low block ala falling small.

Buttocks sitting on feet, knee's pressed together, back of the thighs along calf, arms pulled rightly into the chest, shoulders and head tucked in. 

I would consider that different than 'back straight head up' as attempting to be 'small'.


I would also allow for a skater in fetal position on her 'side' to be considered small.
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Bishop on August 31, 2012, 03:19:11 pm
Upright is not small. A skater on both knees and upright is not small and does not have her legs tucked. Legs tucked is knees pulled in toward the chest.

I disagree with this.  Upright can most certainly be small, based on the definition of falling small.  Falling small has to do with what one is doing with her arms and legs, not what her torso is doing.  If the legs and arms are controlled and tucked, I would certainly not see a larger vertical profile because the skater didn't then ball up as not falling small.  This also includes if the player has landed on her side or is positionaed horizontally across the track.  As long as her arms and legs are tucked and pulled into herself as much as possible I do not consider that a low block.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. The way I see it, it is not possible for someone to be upright and have their legs tucked.
FWIW, I attended a clinic last year (with Wood?).  I recall a presenter saying that falling and landing with torso and head upright should be called as a low block if there is impact. 

I believe I have video of an excellent example of this.  I'll see if I can find it so that we can discuss.
Not sure I agree with a misconduct for attempting to avoid a downed skater by jumping and making contact. Exception being if she clearly took an opportunity to jump over a skater when she didn't need to. If that were to happen, I would argue it's more serious than a misconduct penalty.

I also disagree here.  It's never a necessity to jump a downed player.  Reacting to downed players is a part of derby and every player needs to be able to do it to pass minimum skills.  One can skate out of bounds, stop, skate around or take a controlled fall (or even an uncontrolled fall).  If the downed player is small, that is no impact.  It's just part of the game.  If someone decides to leap and she hits the person she's jumping I will always give a misconduct.

Again with the agreeing to disagree. In my personal experience, there have been many times where my only options were to jump, or take a digger.
In this type of case, I would view the fallen skater as the initiator.
I agree with MW here.  I think this an entirely acceptable use of referee discretion.

*Edited for clarity
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: FNZebra on August 31, 2012, 09:36:32 pm
Consider the image below; is this small?

(http://www.derbynewsnetwork.com/files/2012/08/article_images/DSC_9707.jpg)
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Shaun Ketterman on August 31, 2012, 09:52:56 pm
I can't see for sure what the downed player's legs below the knees are doing, so I'm not prepared to say that it is not a small fall.  If her legs are tucked up behind her, yes, I think it is.  If the knees are bent at a 90 degree angle, I'd say it's not.  If that jammer made the contact while airbourne, I'd give a major to her. 

Bishop and Major Wood: I just don't see the rules justification for your stance. 

EDIT: I've re-read some of your posts again and I get it now.  You feel that if the player isn't hunched up she's not pulling her limbs into her body as much as possible.  I'm still not on the same page but I understand what you're saying.  I guess we will have to agree to disagree, haha!
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Darkjester on September 02, 2012, 09:02:23 am
Regarding the picture..

IMO, its 'almost small' but not quite there yet..

One arm, from this angle so YMMV, doesn't appear to be pulled into the body, and as Shaun pointed out, hard to see where the legs are.

Now.. Because its hard to see if it IS or ISN'T small, from this angle I could not call a Low Block penalty, because I have to err on lawful in that case.
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Coitus Interruptus Of The Roman Empire on January 29, 2014, 12:10:13 pm
I may not be the experienced ref you are looking for, but I would consider it small if the skater falls (from the glossary definition for Fall Small):

[rule][Falling] with the arms and legs controlled, tucked in to the body, and not flailing.[/rule]

Emphasis mine.  The use of "and" here in this context means the skater must meet all three.  Single knee falls are not small falls, as the legs aren't tucked.  Generally (and there maybe exceptions) the leg that is down is sticking out behind the skater, and is prime for other skaters to fall over.  Even if it's controlled, it's still a safety hazard to other skaters.

I would consider small the way PackMan describes it, small and tucked, upright (not on her side), controlled, and not sliding.

I wouldn't consider height a factor in a small fall based on the logic that for your (low blocking target zones or) skates to contact a tall skater, you'd have to skate through the same space on the floor as a small skater.  If she's tucked, tall or turtle, she still fits the definition above.

I like this explanation.

Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Vanilla VICE on January 29, 2014, 01:16:53 pm
I may not be the experienced ref you are looking for, but I would consider it small if the skater falls (from the glossary definition for Fall Small):

[rule][Falling] with the arms and legs controlled, tucked in to the body, and not flailing.[/rule]

Emphasis mine.  The use of "and" here in this context means the skater must meet all three.  Single knee falls are not small falls, as the legs aren't tucked.  Generally (and there maybe exceptions) the leg that is down is sticking out behind the skater, and is prime for other skaters to fall over.  Even if it's controlled, it's still a safety hazard to other skaters.

I would consider small the way PackMan describes it, small and tucked, upright (not on her side), controlled, and not sliding.

I wouldn't consider height a factor in a small fall based on the logic that for your (low blocking target zones or) skates to contact a tall skater, you'd have to skate through the same space on the floor as a small skater.  If she's tucked, tall or turtle, she still fits the definition above.

IF all three are met why can all of these not be met on her side?
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: Sax Cymbal on January 29, 2014, 11:05:27 pm
[rule]6.16.4 Initiating contact with both skates off of the ground that forces the receiving opposing skater off balance, forward, and/or sideways, but does not cause the opposing skater to lose their relative position.[/rule]

So would the contact with the "small" skater pictured be NI/NP? (Assuming she was in that position prior to the contact)
Title: Re: Falling Small?
Post by: QED on January 29, 2014, 11:20:52 pm
Sax Cymbal, that would be a blocking a downed skater penalty (6.16.7 in the 15/06/2013 release)