Zebra Huddle™

WFTDA => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: llama of death on February 06, 2017, 10:56:27 pm

Title: 4.1 missing something?
Post by: llama of death on February 06, 2017, 10:56:27 pm
The issue:
The casebook makes limited mention of knocking an opponent down/OoP/OoB as a trigger for a penalty due to illegal contact, but the rules make zero mention if it as far as I can see. So unless I am blind (would not be the first time I failed to see what was infront of me), they wrapped it into 4.1 opening paragraph, or they missed it out of the rules by accident.

Am I seeing/not-seeing things or is this worth writing a timeout.WFTDA msg?

WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
4.1. Contact Penalties
Gaining position on an opponent or causing an opponent to lose position to
another teammate, due to illegal contact is always considered to have sufficient
impact on the game.
Title: Re: 4.1 missing something?
Post by: Axis of Stevil on February 07, 2017, 12:48:56 am
Being forced down, out of bounds, and/or out of play are all ways to lose position.
Title: Re: 4.1 missing something?
Post by: AdamSmasher on February 07, 2017, 12:37:08 pm
Also, the casebook IS part of the rules.  If something is in a "Keep in Mind" in case 4.37, that's still considered an official, enforceable part of the rules.
Title: Re: 4.1 missing something?
Post by: llama of death on February 07, 2017, 03:28:47 pm
I don't mean to be a bother if anyone is thinking it, I am merly becoming concered as I have an entire league who is now far enough into reading these new rules that they are asking hard questions of me and my refs and I cannot even make an answer satisfactory to myself much less convince them.

I was under the impression that established and relative position where separately defined and have not seen them combined before. I am still mildly confused over it.
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Relative Position
    A Skater’s location, when in bounds and upright, in relation to other Skaters involved in the action. Relative position is said to be “gained” or “lost” if said location changes in a way that gives or loses some advantage (for example, one Skater passing another, or being knocked down, out of bounds, or out of play). Relative position is only measured in the counterclockwise direction.

Established Position
    Where a Skater is physically; an area of the track where the Skater has secured their place. Examples include up, in bounds, down, out of bounds, in play, and out of play.


Issue two:
I do know that the casebook is the rules too, that's not in question. However, I thought the whole point was to make the rules easier to digest for new fans and players than the old rules. (if every fan and player is expected to read the casebook to infer from it that knocking a player down or out is significant impact the goal has failed). The case book is nice and very necessary for refs but is WAY too dense for even some of the refs around here to parse without assistance. It just  feels overly vague to not mention loss of established position within 4.1, forces everyone even fans to read a huge casebook which is difficult to process even by refs.



Third, (more of a devils advocate here than the rest of what I am pressing for):
The rules only use the phrase "gain/lose position" when talking about gaining/loosing relative position. It is not once used in the casebook examples for loss/gain of established position. This leads one to the conclusion that gains position means gains [relative] position only, and further more, that 4.1 needs to look like this to fit the casebook:

WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
4.1. Contact Penalties
Gaining position on an opponent, or causing an opponent to lose position to
another teammate, due to illegal contact is always considered to have sufficient
impact on the game. *Causing an opponent to lose established position, due to illegal contact is always considered to have significant impact.*
*added part


--edit--amended for explanation of my intentions
Title: Re: 4.1 missing something?
Post by: Speedy Convalesce on February 07, 2017, 03:41:00 pm
The glossary entry you cite explicitly states that "being knocked down, out of bounds, or out of play" constitutes losing relative position. The Glossary is part of the rules. (It has always been.) So no need to read the casebook to learn that being knocked down is impact.
Title: Re: 4.1 missing something?
Post by: llama of death on February 07, 2017, 06:22:30 pm
So what yall are saying is that Relative Position says a skater has lost position to an opponent if that opponent knocks them down? Why then does them s

If so does that not then mean they have gained position on them? Does that not then mean the the following are true?

This whole thing breaks a basic concept of technical writing for me. 'NEVER use the dame phrase to describe two distinct concepts'.

"Gaining position" is NEVER used by the rules to describe an opponent being knocked down, like ever. So why would we as readers suddenly think to understand  that is should be.

---

I get that the definition of Relative position contains the words "or being knocked down, out of bounds, or out of play."

But reading the paragraph entirely it does not say that this change is a change in relative position. it says:

WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
A Skater’s location, when in bounds and upright, in relation to other Skaters involved in the action.

I then explains what constitutes a gain or loss of position:
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Relative position is said to be “gained” or “lost” if said location changes in a way that gives or loses some advantage
*added emphasis

So you see my reading here (right or wrong) is not that Relative Position is lost or gained by an opponent being knocked down or out of bounds. Instead it reads as 'this is a list of things that when their state is changed they constituent an advantage having been gained or lost.

It then goes on to say that
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Relative position is only measured in the counterclockwise direction.

Making it even harder for me to accept the reading that knocking an opponent down is a gain of relative position.



--edit--

Look I'm sorry to those of you who this feels like explaining something to a brick wall. I have clearly had this concept wrong for years and it takes a fair bit of effort on my part to sort it out and correct it. I am not trying to be stubborn I am just having to rebuild this entire concept from the ground up and it is admittedly frustrating. exacerbated by the fact that I have others asking the same question.

In the end I don't think the rule 4.1 is clear enough. The rule doesn't need to be long drawn out and black and white it just needs to be clear and concise, it isn't. Inference is opposite to clarity in writing.
Title: Re: 4.1 missing something?
Post by: SeerSin on February 08, 2017, 04:32:18 pm
The new rules format requires a more holistic approach. If we look at the overarching concepts it becomes clear how to decide if something is a loss or gain of advantage.

From the Glossary:
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Relative Position
A Skater’s location, when in bounds and upright, in relation to other Skaters involved in the action. Relative position is said to be “gained” or “lost” if said location changes in a way that gives or loses some advantage (for example, one Skater passing another, or being knocked down, out of bounds, or out of play). Relative position is only measured in the counterclockwise direction.

Established Position
Where a Skater is physically; an area of the track where the Skater has secured their place. Examples include up, in bounds, down, out of bounds, in play, and out of play.

WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
4.1. Contact Penalties
Gaining position on an opponent, or causing an opponent to lose position to another teammate, due to illegal contact is always considered to have sufficient impact on the game.

4.1.2. Impact with an Illegal Blocking Zone
Making contact with an illegal blocking zone should be penalized based on the impact it has on the target. (see 2.4.2)

Using an illegal blocking zone also has sufficient impact to warrant a penalty if the contact puts an opponent significantly off balance, or significantly alters their trajectory or speed (for example, significantly holding them back). Teammates who form a wall by linking or grasping, or who otherwise form an impenetrable wall, thereby become an illegal blocking zone. This action warrants a penalty if an opponent attempts to get between them and fails to do so due to the illegal formation.

The casebook provides additional specific examples:
Casebook 4.3 - Illegal Block that allows the jammer to pass someone
Casebook 4.6 - Back Blocking Initiation and Established Position
Casebook 4.13 - Taking an Assist off an Opponent
Casebook 4.15 - Impeding with Forearms

So all the concepts that we know and love and are familiar with are there in the new rules, we just have to think about it a little differently now.
Title: Re: 4.1 missing something?
Post by: llama of death on February 08, 2017, 07:27:25 pm
The new rules format requires a more holistic approach. If we look at the overarching concepts it becomes clear how to decide if something is a loss or gain of advantage.

From the Glossary:
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Relative Position
A Skater’s location, when in bounds and upright, in relation to other Skaters involved in the action. Relative position is said to be “gained” or “lost” if said location changes in a way that gives or loses some advantage (for example, one Skater passing another, or being knocked down, out of bounds, or out of play). Relative position is only measured in the counterclockwise direction.

Established Position
Where a Skater is physically; an area of the track where the Skater has secured their place. Examples include up, in bounds, down, out of bounds, in play, and out of play.

WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
4.1. Contact Penalties
Gaining position on an opponent, or causing an opponent to lose position to another teammate, due to illegal contact is always considered to have sufficient impact on the game.

4.1.2. Impact with an Illegal Blocking Zone
Making contact with an illegal blocking zone should be penalized based on the impact it has on the target. (see 2.4.2)

Using an illegal blocking zone also has sufficient impact to warrant a penalty if the contact puts an opponent significantly off balance, or significantly alters their trajectory or speed (for example, significantly holding them back). Teammates who form a wall by linking or grasping, or who otherwise form an impenetrable wall, thereby become an illegal blocking zone. This action warrants a penalty if an opponent attempts to get between them and fails to do so due to the illegal formation.

The casebook provides additional specific examples:
Casebook 4.3 - Illegal Block that allows the jammer to pass someone
Casebook 4.6 - Back Blocking Initiation and Established Position
Casebook 4.13 - Taking an Assist off an Opponent
Casebook 4.15 - Impeding with Forearms

So all the concepts that we know and love and are familiar with are there in the new rules, we just have to think about it a little differently now.

Which all works well for Illegal blocking zone but I seem to missing the point for unexpected blocks in 4.1.3.

Which I am realizing in my haste I neglected to mention, which is my fault for being unclear.

I was under the impression that 4.1 governs the generalities of all contact blocking, thus it should cover the basics for unexpected blocks. It did not seem to do so. So I asked an overly broad question.

So the remaining solution I am being given is unexpected blocks use the same metric as...? Illegal target zones? (we look holistically and apply all of the same metrics of Illegal targetzones to ALL contact blocking?) or do we add the Illegal Blocking zone metrics and include speed and momentum?

I should have prefaced my original question with this and saved some time, sorry.
Title: Re: 4.1 missing something?
Post by: SeerSin on February 08, 2017, 08:28:13 pm
Casebook scenarios for unexpected contact:

Section 4
18 - Blocking an out of bounds  skater
19 - Blocking an on track skater from out of bounds
20 - Assisting from out bounds

So yes, you're looking for a gained advantage, then if that action is illegal penalize accordingly. For instance if I'm out of bounds and actively prevent a jammer from returning to the track by maintaining a position between the jammer and the track have I illegally gained an advantage? If I push a jammer clockwise away from a wall have I prevented the jammer from playing legal roller derby? I'd say yes, it's enough game impact to warrant a call.
Title: Re: 4.1 missing something?
Post by: derby medic on February 19, 2017, 08:20:45 am
I am going to throw a huge wrench into this...

Quote
Format of Rules:

The February 15, 2017 version of The Rules of Flat Track Roller Derby will introduce a new format, with the rules presented via two separate documents: the actual Rule Set (The Rules of Flat Track Roller Derby Rule Set) and an accompanying Casebook (The Rules of Flat Track Roller Derby Casebook), which complements the Rule Set and presents detailed scenarios and guidance for Skaters and Officials. The Casebook is easily updatable so the WFTDA Rules Committee can add further guidance and scenarios as needed, without requiring an update to the rules document.
emphasis mine*

this quote is from:
https://wftda.com/wftda-releases-february-15-2017-rules-of-flat-track-roller-derby/

This specifies that the casebook is separate from the rules.
Title: Re: 4.1 missing something?
Post by: AdamSmasher on February 19, 2017, 12:42:48 pm
The release notes are NOT an official part of the rules.  This, however, is:

WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
4. Penalties
...
The following types of penalties are addressed in detail in the sections listed below and in the Rules of Flat Track Roller Derby Casebook. These sections hold specific examples that are to be followed explicitly.

This includes the casebook by reference, and gives it the same force as the rules.

Even if you don't find that argument 100% persuasive, please rest assured that there is overwhelming consensus that the casebook IS part of the rules.
Title: Re: 4.1 missing something?
Post by: derby medic on February 20, 2017, 04:00:53 am
I very humbly disagree, and there are a multitude of reasons.

1) Design: The rules website distinguishes that there is a difference between the rules and the casebook in a few obvious ways. There is a set of tabs in the upper right that distinguish the casebook as a separate category from the rules; there is a dividing line in the middle of the page that separates the glossary (one of the most definitive ends of the rulebook) and the casebook section; there is also a dividing line between these two if you view everything as a single page; the fact that the casebook starts over at section 1 as opposed to continuing to 6 in the numbering system of the rules;and the biggest difference is that if you are in a section of the rules the header on the site states, "The Rules," as opposed to the header when in the casebook that states, "Casebook."

2) Enforcement: The rules are enforced, while the casebook is referenced. When calling a penalty, (for example a position gained illegally) you are enforcing rule 4.2.2. You can use the casebook C4.28 as an example to back your call, but you are not enforcing the casebook. The casebook is just a clarification of the rules, and is no different than the WFTDA Q&A's used to be. Even in this example:
The release notes are NOT an official part of the rules.  This, however, is:

WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
4. Penalties
...
The following types of penalties are addressed in detail in the sections listed below and in the Rules of Flat Track Roller Derby Casebook. These sections hold specific examples that are to be followed explicitly.

This includes the casebook by reference, and gives it the same force as the rules.

Even if you don't find that argument 100% persuasive, please rest assured that there is overwhelming consensus that the casebook IS part of the rules.

It uses the word followed, not enforced.

3) Redundancy: In theory, a person could read the rules only and become proficient. The casebook could be omitted and they would still have a decent working knowledge of what is enforceable or not. The casebook just gives a deeper understanding of what has already been stated in the rules, and even lists said rule at the start of each section.

4) WFTDA: While the release notes are obviously not the rules, (I never said it was) they do come from the same organization that does write the rules. Being that they come from WFTDA, they are therefore, official. If WFTDA itself states that the casebook is not the rules, but instead a companion, then there should be no argument at all.

While I believe that the casebook is a wonderful resource, that gives great insight in the judgement of gameplay, it is only a reference and not the rules.
Title: Re: 4.1 missing something?
Post by: Speedy Convalesce on February 20, 2017, 04:05:10 pm
I think you are confusing "the rules" in the narrow sense of the document titled such with "the rules" in the broader sense of all documents or other publications that have to be adhered to in order to call a game according to the WFTDA rules of flat track roller derby.

This distinction is not new: For previous rule sets "the rules" in the wider sense included the clarifications that were published by the WFTDA. And you would often have people say that "clarifications are the rules" with the implied understanding that this should not mean that they were part of the rules document but that they were just as mandatory to be followed as the rules document. When people now say that the casebook is part of the rules they are referring to the same concept. And with the new rules and the casebook this should be even less of a problem because they are published on the same page and presumably they will be published as a single pdf later this year, whlie the clarifications for earlier rule sets were published on a separate page.
Title: Re: 4.1 missing something?
Post by: AdamSmasher on February 20, 2017, 10:15:16 pm
3) Redundancy: In theory, a person could read the rules only and become proficient. The casebook could be omitted and they would still have a decent working knowledge of what is enforceable or not. The casebook just gives a deeper understanding of what has already been stated in the rules, and even lists said rule at the start of each section.

This is just not the case any more.  Here's a simple example:  Could you be certain that two people, reading the rules alone, would come to the conclusion that ceding cuts is now legal?  It never was in the past, so that intuition is not present.  I certainly don't think you could depend on that happening.

But ceding cuts IS now legal, and we are expected to attempt to enforce it consistently.  Without carefully reading casebook 4.37, it's very unlikely that we would do so.

Another example - the rules strongly imply that impact spectra have been equalized for all contact penalties.  However, reading the casebook makes clear that high blocks are still to be treated differently, even though they are not mentioned in the rules.  Again, not something that you could count on all officials doing consistently without the guidance of the casebook.

I could send you a *list* of items that are in the casebook that are not in the rules. (I made one for my own reference the week after they came out.)  However, those items are mandatory, and as such there's just no argument to be made that you are fluent in the rules if you haven't also internalized the casebook.
Title: Re: 4.1 missing something?
Post by: Axis of Stevil on February 22, 2017, 07:44:36 am
The rules lay the foundation of how the game is to be operated and what constitutes a penalty.  The casebook is filled with examples that both promote understanding of rules concepts while also changing the severity of certain actions.

Adam pointed out the ceding cuts exception, which downgrades a penalty to no call.  High blocking is an example of an action that can be upgraded from no call to a penalty. 

As far as the Rules are concerned, high blocking is only a penalty if it forces the target down, out of bounds, out of play, or causes a change of relative position.  It requires the Casebook to understand that forceful contact to the head is an automatic penalty because of the safety issues involved.
Title: Re: 4.1 missing something?
Post by: llama of death on February 22, 2017, 09:28:14 pm
As far as the Rules are concerned, high blocking is only a penalty if it forces the target down, out of bounds, out of play, or causes a change of relative position.  It requires the Casebook to understand that forceful contact to the head is an automatic penalty because of the safety issues involved.
I don't quite agree that the casebook is required to upgrade a high block to a penalty.

High blocks are under illegal blocking zones, yes.
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
4.1. Contact Penalties

Gaining position on an opponent, or causing an opponent to lose position to another teammate, due to illegal contact is always considered to have sufficient impact on the game.
So yes the rules make the actions you ascribed it immediate penalties.

However the wording is such that we should read this to say that 'these results are ALLWAYS significant impact but others could become significant as the situation arises. One of the biggest changes of the rules to my eye is the emphasis put on safety.

The word "safe" or "safety" is used 6 times in the rules, each time it is in context of safety being an underpinning requirement of the game.

Most relevant of which to this topic is the summary section on page 1. Which says
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Play that is unsafe or illegal may result in a Skater being assessed a penalty, which is served by sitting in the Penalty Box for 30 seconds of Jam time.

This shows that safety is by default a result worth measuring for ALL contact, not just illegal contact. It stands then to reason that a penalty is triggered by a significant impact on either relative/established position or safety.
Title: Re: 4.1 missing something?
Post by: derby medic on March 12, 2017, 12:01:50 pm
The rules lay the foundation of how the game is to be operated and what constitutes a penalty.  The casebook is filled with examples that both promote understanding of rules concepts while also changing the severity of certain actions.

This right here is exactly what I am talking about. There is a distinct difference between the rules, and the casebook. Yes, I know that I am arguing semantics, but there is a reason why I am trying to distinguish the difference. If there is ever a scenario in which the rule book says X and the casebook says Y, which should be followed? For me this is very similar to court proceedings, where you have the written law, but you also have the case studies as examples of how the law should be interpreted. If there is a discrepancy, the law is reexamined and a new case study might result. If the casebook disagrees with a rule, then the scenario in the casebook may need to be edited.

An example could include this little bit still in the books
Rulebook Errata
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Removed on 2016-12-19: “For example, if a team with legal means to stop the period clock (specifically, Team Timeouts or Official Reviews remaining) commits an action that results in the period clock stopping, they should be presumed to have used legal means to do so (and thus would not be penalized).” As the provided example introduced unintended and adverse consequences to the interpretation of related rules.
Casebook
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Scenario C4.46
White team has used three Team Timeouts during the game. White Captain calls for a Team Timeout. Officials, mistakenly believing that White team has timeouts remaining, grants the request.

Outcome: If White team has an Official Review remaining, they should be considered to have used it as a timeout. If not, White Captain is penalized and the next Jam is started as soon as possible, but at least 30 seconds after the end of the previous Jam.

Rationale: White Captain’s successful, but illegal attempt to stop the period clock prevented the next Jam from starting in a timely manner. If White Captain had legal means to prevent the Jam from starting, legal means should be assumed.

Keep in Mind: Officials should deny requests for a Team Timeout if that team has none remaining. No penalty is warranted if an invalid request for a Team Timeout is denied.
Title: Re: 4.1 missing something?
Post by: AdamSmasher on March 12, 2017, 12:52:41 pm
An example could include this little bit still in the books
Rulebook Errata
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Removed on 2016-12-19: “For example, if a team with legal means to stop the period clock (specifically, Team Timeouts or Official Reviews remaining) commits an action that results in the period clock stopping, they should be presumed to have used legal means to do so (and thus would not be penalized).” As the provided example introduced unintended and adverse consequences to the interpretation of related rules.
Casebook
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Scenario C4.46
White team has used three Team Timeouts during the game. White Captain calls for a Team Timeout. Officials, mistakenly believing that White team has timeouts remaining, grants the request.

Outcome: If White team has an Official Review remaining, they should be considered to have used it as a timeout. If not, White Captain is penalized and the next Jam is started as soon as possible, but at least 30 seconds after the end of the previous Jam.

Rationale: White Captain’s successful, but illegal attempt to stop the period clock prevented the next Jam from starting in a timely manner. If White Captain had legal means to prevent the Jam from starting, legal means should be assumed.

Keep in Mind: Officials should deny requests for a Team Timeout if that team has none remaining. No penalty is warranted if an invalid request for a Team Timeout is denied.

The intent of the errata was to clarify that ALL Delay of Game penalties were not to be replaced with timeouts.  For example, under the previous wording, if one team failed to field a jammer, it would have been justifiable to charge them a timeout rather than penalize the captain.  That was NOT the intent of the rule, and there are approximately 3 casebook entries that made that clear.

In this case, the rules were fixed to match the intent.  I don't see a conflict with the remaining rules and allowing ORs to be subbed for TTOs to avoid penalties.

To your more general point - my sense is that the intent of the new ruleset is that there should be no direct conflicts between the casebook and the rules, so the question "is the casebook part of the rules" vs. "does the casebook modify the rules" is intended to be moot.  That said, every single person I have spoken with in a position to offer an opinion is adamant that the casebook is part of the rules.
Title: Re: 4.1 missing something?
Post by: llama of death on March 14, 2017, 01:12:52 am
@Derby Medic

to be succinct: Any direct conflicts from rule to casebook (and reverse) are errata and should be reported as such. In the mean time use your best judgment based on the entirety of the rules as a guide for "Correct interpretation" of which one is the error.