Zebra Huddleâ„¢

WFTDA => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: 3Beers on December 28, 2019, 06:04:00 pm

Title: Rule clarification
Post by: 3Beers on December 28, 2019, 06:04:00 pm
In a "no pack" scenario, the front group is expected to disengage contact with the jammer, and return to the pack.
When the blockers fail to do so, I have been calling "Failure to Reform" penalties. My colleagues are insisting that it is "blocking out of play". Which, yes, is an appropriate penalty, if there is impact ( loss of position).
Comments?
Title: Re: Rule clarification
Post by: Bluebeard on January 17, 2020, 05:26:46 am
I get into that "argument" around here also.  It boils down to "what is the impact that you are penalizing?"

If you are penalizing someone for forcing an opponent out of bounds, or down, during a no pack: that is a loss of position -> Out of play block (no gerunds here).  ;) 8)

If the impact you are penalizing is that the pack did not reform quickly enough and this player was not acting to reform the pack -> failure to reform.

Some people try to say that "the blocker was impeding the jammer, so it is a contact penalty" to make the case for out of play block.  Impeding is only a penalizable metric for illegal blocking zone penalties (forearms, leg blocks, head blocks). 
Title: Re: Rule clarification
Post by: 3Beers on January 26, 2020, 08:09:00 pm
thanks...:-)