intruder

Menu

ZH Classifieds
ZH Files
ZH Staff
WFTDA 12/1/2014 Rules
WFTDA 3/1/2014 Rules

Donate

Please Support Zebra Huddle!

Recent Posts

Re: Clarification of 'Initiator' of a block requested by General Hellativity
June 17, 2018, 09:47:56 pm

Re: Clarification of 'Initiator' of a block requested by Bluebeard
June 16, 2018, 05:13:02 am

Re: Clarification of 'Initiator' of a block requested by Stony Hawk
June 15, 2018, 10:33:11 pm

Re: Clarification of 'Initiator' of a block requested by Bluebeard
June 15, 2018, 09:51:22 pm

Clarification of 'Initiator' of a block requested by Stony Hawk
June 15, 2018, 05:27:58 pm

Re: Ceding Position by Skate Invader
June 13, 2018, 04:46:12 pm

Re: Ceding Position by Bluebeard
June 12, 2018, 10:59:22 pm

Ceding Position by nueces
June 12, 2018, 08:19:34 pm

Re: Early Hit by Bluebeard
June 08, 2018, 10:27:46 pm

Re: How to deal with players that are also referees? by Bluebeard
June 08, 2018, 09:18:48 pm

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1

• the contact by white Jammer to white blocker causes the white blocker to move forward into the back of a red blocker
• Red blocker falls as result of white blockers illegal contact

Who is the initiator in this case?  Who should be penalized?   Does it matter if White Jammers contact with white blocker is to a legal or illegal blocking zone?


The rule you're asking about is 2.4: "Blocks and Assists."

WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
2.4. Blocks and Assists
“Blocking” refers to any physical contact made to an opponent.... Actions that meet the above description are considered blocking, even if accidental. Contact made to teammates is not considered blocking even if it is a disadvantage to the initiator or teammate.

All contact between opponents has an initiator, though it is possible for two or more Skaters to mutually initiate blocks against one another.

What this means is that the word "initiator" has a very specific meaning in the rules of roller derby. The "initiator", first of all, is a skater who has initiated contact between herself and an opponent. And of those opponents in contact, the initiator is the one (or ones) whose body caused the action to happen.

White Jammer cannot possibly be the initiator of the block, because White Jammer never made contact with an opponent. White Blocker is the initiator of the block, because it was the motion of her body that caused the block to happen. Since the block was a penalty, that penalty goes to White Blocker. We often say, "it's the bullet, not the gun" that gets the penalty.

Thanks Bluebeard,
If I alter Scenario C4.1.1.G to be:
•  White Jammer skates fast and directly into Red Blocker’s back, who was not prepared for the contact.
•  Red Blocker falls wildly and slides into the skates of another Red Blocker

Is white jammer is responsible 2 penalties?   (One back block to the first red skater and one low block to the second red skater) 

I know the second part is a teammate taking out a teammate.  But, are we holding white jammer responsible for this second action based on this case (rule?, clarification?, exception?) 

White Jammer is assessed one penalty. Since it was Red Blocker that took out Other Red Blocker, White Jammer cannot be penalized for that. Notice that the rules always say things like "making contact with an illegal blocking zone", etc. Since White Jammer didn't make illegal contact with Other Red Blocker, there can be no additional penalty. Blocking penalties are penalties for blocks, which are defined to be contacts between opponents. White Jammer was never in contact with Other Red Blocker. Skaters are responsible for the legality of their own contact with opponents, not contact between other skaters.

We also traditionally only assess one penalty for any single given blocking action: either the contact was illegal and impactful, or it wasn't. If it was illegal in several different ways, that is an input to the expulsion metric if that is called for.
2
Rules Discussion / Re: Clarification of 'Initiator' of a block requested
« Last post by Bluebeard on June 16, 2018, 05:13:02 am »
The rationale section of C4.1.1.G is where that "domino rule" is described. 

In your follow up, one back block penalty to white jammer.  The additional skater getting knocked down could be taken as evidence of the recklessness of the action should someone decide to make a case for expulsion for white jammer for the block in question.
3
Rules Discussion / Re: Clarification of 'Initiator' of a block requested
« Last post by Stony Hawk on June 15, 2018, 10:33:11 pm »
Thanks Bluebeard,

Do I have to look at the 2017 version to see this rule?  Or, can you help me find where this is stated in the current rule-set.   I couldn't find it in the 2018 version.

I didn't realize that the casebook would be describing 'exceptions'.  I thought these were introduced to provide clarifications of the rules

Also, if I can ask a follow up question on the exception regarding illegal contact that the case C4.1.1.G describes.

If I alter Scenario C4.1.1.G to be:
•  White Jammer skates fast and directly into Red Blocker’s back, who was not prepared for the contact.
•  Red Blocker falls wildly and slides into the skates of another Red Blocker

Is white jammer is responsible 2 penalties?   (One back block to the first red skater and one low block to the second red skater) 

I know the second part is a teammate taking out a teammate.  But, are we holding white jammer responsible for this second action based on this case (rule?, clarification?, exception?) 


4
Rules Discussion / Re: Clarification of 'Initiator' of a block requested
« Last post by Bluebeard on June 15, 2018, 09:51:22 pm »
In your situation:  Back block to white blocker.

A skater is always responsible to be in control of their own bodies.  The only exception is if an illegal block from an opponent forces the player to unavoidably commit an illegal act.  And that was only put into the rules in the 2017 edition.  The old saying is to penalize the bullet, not the gun.
5
Rules Discussion / Clarification of 'Initiator' of a block requested
« Last post by Stony Hawk on June 15, 2018, 05:27:58 pm »
Zebra's

I couldn't find a definitive clarification to the below question within the 4 corners of the current rule-set and casebook.   Maybe I'm just missing it.  I'm looking for the current accepted theory as to who the 'initiator' a block should be in the below gameplay example:

• White Jammer approaches the engagement zone at high speed and misjudges the effort needed to check her speed as she enters the pack.   
• White jammer makes forceful contact with a white blocker who was not ready for the contact (assume to a legal target zone for the moment)(not sure that matters with teammates)
• the contact by white Jammer to white blocker causes the white blocker to move forward into the back of a red blocker
• Red blocker falls as result of white blockers illegal contact

Who is the initiator in this case?  Who should be penalized?   Does it matter if White Jammers contact with white blocker is to a legal or illegal blocking zone?

My thinking is that white jammer is fully responsible for the 'initiation' of that track action in this example and should considered be the initiator, regardless if the contact with the teammate was to a legal zone.

The closest case book example that I could find seems to suggest that a skater (in this case, a jammer) can retain the initiator status and be responsible for what happens to secondary skaters after her initial contact.  But, there are caveats regarding legality of the initial contact.

WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Scenario C4.1.1.G
White Jammer skates fast and directly into Red Blocker’s back, who was not prepared for the contact. Red Blocker falls wildly and slides into the skates of the wall of White Blockers in front of them, who fall.

Outcome: White Jammer is penalized. Red Blocker is not penalized.

Rationale: White Jammer made illegal contact to the Red Blocker. Due to this illegal contact, Red Blocker was unable to avoid committing their illegal action. As such, Red Blocker should not be penalized.

Keep in Mind: If White Jammer had pushed Red Blocker forward into a White Blocker’s back, causing said White Blocker to fall but not Red Blocker, nobody would receive a penalty. In this case, the White Jammer’s illegal action is what caused their own teammate to fall. Red Blocker should not be penalized for this.
 
6
Rules Discussion / Re: Ceding Position
« Last post by Skate Invader on June 13, 2018, 04:46:12 pm »
I think a safety issue could also be brought up that crawling back to the inside of the track would be a tripping hazard for other skaters. If the most expeditious way to exit the track was outside then totally legit.
7
Rules Discussion / Re: Ceding Position
« Last post by Bluebeard on June 12, 2018, 10:59:22 pm »
I would not issue either a cut or a skating out of bounds for exiting the track to the outside to cede after being knocked OOB to the inside (so long as it was a timely exit).  I might consider a cut for someone exiting the track to the inside to cede after being knocked OOB to the outside depending on the skill level at the game in question.

Background :
There was a play in a game probably around 2014 (I do not remember exactly where/when) where the jammer was knocked OOB to the outside by the other jammer (I believe this was just after the jam start).  The in bounds jammer started heading backwards to recycle the OOB jammer back to the prior pass.  The OOB jammer crawled across the track from the outside to the inside on their hands and knees.  This gave them a much shorter path to re-enter behind the in bounds jammer without getting caught up in the pack on the prior pass.

The rules committee decided that that was not playing derby and the next rules set (2015 if i recall correctly) included a rule under the "Skating Out Of Bounds" family that stated that crossing the track from outside to inside while down was a penalty.  This is why the other ref you mentioned was making the case for a skating out of bounds penalty.   That does not, however, apply here because that was specifically for crossing from outside to inside to shorten the recycle distance.
8
Rules Discussion / Ceding Position
« Last post by nueces on June 12, 2018, 08:19:34 pm »
This happens the last week in a game.

Red Pivot blocks White Jammer to the inside and forward, across the apex. For the momentum of the block the and  after being returned to the track upright the White Jammer falls down close to the outside line. The White Jammer leaves the track crawling to the outside, skate clockwise and then re-enters into the track behind the Red Pivot .

??? Is this a proper way to cede a cut? 

I think that the White Jammer is taking advantage of their position in the track at the moment that was down, and choose to "cede the cut"  going to the outside, because was the more quickly way for him to re-enters into the track, but in the same way he could choose go back to the inside, that was a bit more far. For this I belive that the White Jammer get some advantage in detriment of the time that the Red Blocker would have to recycle it.

I penalize the White Jammer with a cut track, because it not properly cede their cut and explain this posture in a Official Review of the White Team. After the OR other Official pointed out that it should be issue with Skating out of bound penalty instead.

Cheers and thanks in advance for your time.
9
Rules Discussion / Re: Early Hit
« Last post by Bluebeard on June 08, 2018, 10:27:46 pm »
To elaborate on Smasher's point: 
There was a rule set (I believe around 2013/2014 time frame) that said to penalize line up time penalties as blocker.  Then the 2015 rule set came out and said to penalize pre-jam penalties as the position the skater was lining up as and post-jam penalties as the position they had been playing.  The 2017 rules set (+revisions) is silent on the issue.

To argue against penalizing as blocker:
The most likely scenario I see for the situation you describe involves the contact taking place co-incident, or just after the "Five second" verbal cue.  By the time the penalty is issued followed by a "report as blocker" directive, there is no time for the white team to field a new jammer resulting in an Interference (Delay of Game) penalty to white captain for failing to field a jammer.  This amounts to two penalties for the one action.  Like so:
    "Five Seconds"
    White player #23, lining up as jammer and wearing the star hits red skater knocking them out of legal starting position.
    "White two three Early hit"  <hand signal>
    "Report as blocker"
    *Tweet* -- jam starting whistle


Edit: grammar
10
Rules Discussion / Re: How to deal with players that are also referees?
« Last post by Bluebeard on June 08, 2018, 09:18:48 pm »
I recently heard of a recent similar, though much less extreme, situation.  In that situation, the skater was issued an Insubordination penalty.  I do not know that that was necessarily warranted in that situation.  But,  It sounds like it might be in yours.

I would, however, try to head that off before it gets to that point.  After about the second occurrence, I would talk about it within the crew and let HR talk to the skater and/or their captain to explain that that is not acceptable behavior for the reasons you stated and warn that future occurrences could be penalized.

That will probably resolve situation.  If the warning does not do the trick, the first penalty should help the player understand that they should segregate their behaviors based on what shirt they are wearing.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

Featured Product

 

Zebra Huddle Head Referee Bout Booklet

 

Featured Classifieds


ZH Files

How to Score a Point in Roller Derby
Rating: *****
Downloads: 2135
Views: 3647
Filesize: 327.61KB
Date: January 17, 2017, 04:21:03 am
Comments (0)
By: AdamSmasher
June 2013 Ruleset situational questions
Rating: *****
Downloads: 1817
Views: 3714
Filesize: 29.71KB
Date: February 07, 2014, 04:57:32 pm
Comments (2)
By: Crash Test Ref
Rules Q&A and Publications for 6/15/13 Document
Rating: (None)
Downloads: 1896
Views: 4101
Filesize: 26.27KB
Date: August 02, 2013, 04:10:40 pm
Comments (0)
By: Shaun Ketterman
Rules Q&A and Publications for 1/1/13 Document (4/24/13 Updates)
Rating: *****
Downloads: 2733
Views: 4214
Filesize: 28.07KB
Date: April 25, 2013, 05:45:34 pm
Comments (0)
By: Shaun Ketterman

Powered by EzPortal