1
Gear / Re: New dress code for NSOs
« Last post by Rafael Brandão on August 08, 2017, 02:59:00 pm »Thanks, Smasher! I'll be advertising them here soon, then.
Recent Posts
2
Gear / Re: New dress code for NSOs
« Last post by AdamSmasher on August 04, 2017, 02:47:30 pm »I checked, and there is at present no information publicly available on this topic from the WFTDA. Worth noting is that the WFTDA tournament uniform policy is only actually enforced for WFTDA playoffs and champs - other tournaments and games can choose to use the WFTDA policy (whatever it may be), but WFTDA does not (and can not) require anyone else to use their policy.
The only requirement specified in the rules is that referees must be identifiable.
The only requirement specified in the rules is that referees must be identifiable.
3
Gear / New dress code for NSOs
« Last post by Rafael Brandão on August 03, 2017, 05:20:14 pm »Hello,
My national officiating group is thinking about making new shirts now that ours are nearly sold out.
I had heard of the dress code changing and NSO uniforms being black instead of pink; I have no access to the WFTDA forums, so I figured I'd ask here: is it really gonna change to black, is it gonna stay pink, or is that still under discussion? Did the Officiating Commitee say anything definitive about that change?
My national officiating group is thinking about making new shirts now that ours are nearly sold out.
I had heard of the dress code changing and NSO uniforms being black instead of pink; I have no access to the WFTDA forums, so I figured I'd ask here: is it really gonna change to black, is it gonna stay pink, or is that still under discussion? Did the Officiating Commitee say anything definitive about that change?
4
General Ref Discussion / Communicating Position Status in WFTDA Play
« Last post by AdamSmasher on July 31, 2017, 08:43:44 pm »From WFTDA OffCom. Not NDA. I am sharing purely for information, and am not affiliated with OffCom.
(Clarification: this is an officiating standard practice, not a rule. It is required for sanctioned play, and a best practice in other cases. - Smasher)
Communicating Position Status in WFTDA Play
Published 7/28/2017
An official should proactively communicate information about a skater’s position status to maintain the flow of the game if:
A. it is before the five second warning for the jam. Or,
B. the action is penalty-worthy. However, an official isn’t required to warn a skater if the act is deliberate. Officials should use discretion to determine what is deliberate in the context of the game. Or,
C. a skater asks about their position status.
Position status is defined as the act of taking a position in the game by means of physical location at the start of the jam, or possessing or wearing a helmet cover.
Communication should always be concise, factual, and without instruction. An official should not include how to rectify the issue, only what the issue is.
Acceptable:
Your star is not visible.
You are not wearing a helmet cover.
You are not the Jammer.
Unacceptable:
Pull the back of the cover down.
Your cover came off in Turn 2.
The Jammer is in the box for a penalty.
Officials should attempt to warn a Pivot who is not the Jammer but acting like the Jammer.
An incomplete star pass results in the Pivot’s possession of the star. They put on the star and begin to skate out of the engagement zone.
Outcome: Officials should inform them of their status. For example: “You are not the Jammer. Out of play.”
Keep in mind: If a Pivot intentionally wears the Star and behaves as a Jammer after being clearly told they are not the Jammer, they should be issued a penalty.
Keep in mind: If the pass is incomplete, the Pivot is still eligible for resulting penalties after the warning (like Failure to Return), even if they are wearing the Jammer Cover.
Officials should prioritize their primary responsibilities over delivering information about the flow of the game that isn’t required by the rules. Failing to deliver information around position status is not an officiating error.
Example A
A Jammer lines up on the jam line with the helmet cover on inside out, with the stars not visible.
Outcome: If an Official notices and it doesn’t inhibit their ability to complete immediate tasks, they should inform the skater concisely, factually, and without instruction. For example, (“[Color], [Number], Your star is not visible.“)
Keep in mind: After the five second warning, Officials should focus on being ready for the upcoming jam. If a warning is required, it should be delivered after the jam starts.
Keep in mind: A skater is considered the Jammer as long as the Jammer helmet cover (“The Star”) is visible. The actual stars on the helmet cover aren’t required to establish the Jammer’s position, but do impact whether a Jammer is considered active or inactive.
Example B
A Jammer takes off the helmet cover and the cover is barely visible in their hand.
Outcome: Officials should warn “[Color], [Number], show your star”. If the skater doesn’t make an attempt to show the cover in their hand, they should be penalized.
Keep in mind: Jammers and Pivots can only carry the cover on their helmet or in their hand. If the Jammer had removed the cover and stuffed it in their jersey before immediately engaging the pack, they should be immediately penalized. The act was deliberate with intent to conceal the star.
Example C
An active Jammer removes their helmet cover with intent to pass, but later decides to put it back on and resume active Jammer status. When they put the cover back on, the star is not visible. They notice they are not scoring points and ask the official why they don’t have any points.
Outcome: An official is empowered to answer concisely, factually, and without instruction; for example, “Your star is not visible”.
Keep in mind: The Official should only communicate this information when asked, because the jam has already started and the skater is not at risk of being penalized.
(Clarification: this is an officiating standard practice, not a rule. It is required for sanctioned play, and a best practice in other cases. - Smasher)
Communicating Position Status in WFTDA Play
Published 7/28/2017
An official should proactively communicate information about a skater’s position status to maintain the flow of the game if:
A. it is before the five second warning for the jam. Or,
B. the action is penalty-worthy. However, an official isn’t required to warn a skater if the act is deliberate. Officials should use discretion to determine what is deliberate in the context of the game. Or,
C. a skater asks about their position status.
Position status is defined as the act of taking a position in the game by means of physical location at the start of the jam, or possessing or wearing a helmet cover.
Communication should always be concise, factual, and without instruction. An official should not include how to rectify the issue, only what the issue is.
Acceptable:
Your star is not visible.
You are not wearing a helmet cover.
You are not the Jammer.
Unacceptable:
Pull the back of the cover down.
Your cover came off in Turn 2.
The Jammer is in the box for a penalty.
Officials should attempt to warn a Pivot who is not the Jammer but acting like the Jammer.
An incomplete star pass results in the Pivot’s possession of the star. They put on the star and begin to skate out of the engagement zone.
Outcome: Officials should inform them of their status. For example: “You are not the Jammer. Out of play.”
Keep in mind: If a Pivot intentionally wears the Star and behaves as a Jammer after being clearly told they are not the Jammer, they should be issued a penalty.
Keep in mind: If the pass is incomplete, the Pivot is still eligible for resulting penalties after the warning (like Failure to Return), even if they are wearing the Jammer Cover.
Officials should prioritize their primary responsibilities over delivering information about the flow of the game that isn’t required by the rules. Failing to deliver information around position status is not an officiating error.
Example A
A Jammer lines up on the jam line with the helmet cover on inside out, with the stars not visible.
Outcome: If an Official notices and it doesn’t inhibit their ability to complete immediate tasks, they should inform the skater concisely, factually, and without instruction. For example, (“[Color], [Number], Your star is not visible.“)
Keep in mind: After the five second warning, Officials should focus on being ready for the upcoming jam. If a warning is required, it should be delivered after the jam starts.
Keep in mind: A skater is considered the Jammer as long as the Jammer helmet cover (“The Star”) is visible. The actual stars on the helmet cover aren’t required to establish the Jammer’s position, but do impact whether a Jammer is considered active or inactive.
Example B
A Jammer takes off the helmet cover and the cover is barely visible in their hand.
Outcome: Officials should warn “[Color], [Number], show your star”. If the skater doesn’t make an attempt to show the cover in their hand, they should be penalized.
Keep in mind: Jammers and Pivots can only carry the cover on their helmet or in their hand. If the Jammer had removed the cover and stuffed it in their jersey before immediately engaging the pack, they should be immediately penalized. The act was deliberate with intent to conceal the star.
Example C
An active Jammer removes their helmet cover with intent to pass, but later decides to put it back on and resume active Jammer status. When they put the cover back on, the star is not visible. They notice they are not scoring points and ask the official why they don’t have any points.
Outcome: An official is empowered to answer concisely, factually, and without instruction; for example, “Your star is not visible”.
Keep in mind: The Official should only communicate this information when asked, because the jam has already started and the skater is not at risk of being penalized.
5
Rules Discussion / Re: Uninvolved skaters and track cuts
« Last post by Garrotin Keillor on July 31, 2017, 04:51:31 am »I've honestly wondered about this, too. If, for example, red blocker is able to block out white jammer, and red blocker also goes out, but is able to get back on the track before the jammer, then why not?
My *guess* is that the initiator of the block already has multiple advantages over the recipient of the block, and this might be a check on crazy blocks, and an incentive for blockers (as in anyone initiating a block, not just the position) to go for forceful but *controlled* hits.
Even if both go out, the initiator will almost always be closer to the track than the recipient. The transfer of momentum to the recipient will almost always allow the initiator to recover more quickly, as will the fact the initiator will likely be more expecting of going out of bounds than the recipient. Their faster recovery is almost a given - and if position could be re-established, the harder, further the hit they give, the more probable it'd be.
With the non-initiators, with the exception of being closer to the track, they don't have these advantages or incentives, nor is there any check that needs to be placed on their actions regarding safety.
That's my guess, anyway.
My *guess* is that the initiator of the block already has multiple advantages over the recipient of the block, and this might be a check on crazy blocks, and an incentive for blockers (as in anyone initiating a block, not just the position) to go for forceful but *controlled* hits.
Even if both go out, the initiator will almost always be closer to the track than the recipient. The transfer of momentum to the recipient will almost always allow the initiator to recover more quickly, as will the fact the initiator will likely be more expecting of going out of bounds than the recipient. Their faster recovery is almost a given - and if position could be re-established, the harder, further the hit they give, the more probable it'd be.
With the non-initiators, with the exception of being closer to the track, they don't have these advantages or incentives, nor is there any check that needs to be placed on their actions regarding safety.
That's my guess, anyway.
6
Rules Discussion / Uninvolved skaters and track cuts
« Last post by QED on July 31, 2017, 03:33:28 am »It's spelled out clearly in the rules that if a block sends and opponent OOB, the initiator of the block can't re-establish their position after they go OOB, OOP or down, but an uninvolved skater ahead of the action *can* (except for OOB as far as I'm aware)
What is the rationale behind this - it breaks my key belief about position, and I'm trying re-adjust. Specifically, what is the reasoning behind making the initiator *less* privileged in these scenarios?
I'm anticipating some reasoning to do with earning superior position, but what if the initiator *already had* superior position before the block?
Some relevant Rules and Casebook entries (there may be others):
_______________________________
What is the rationale behind this - it breaks my key belief about position, and I'm trying re-adjust. Specifically, what is the reasoning behind making the initiator *less* privileged in these scenarios?
I'm anticipating some reasoning to do with earning superior position, but what if the initiator *already had* superior position before the block?
Some relevant Rules and Casebook entries (there may be others):
_______________________________
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
If a Skater is put out of bounds due to an opponent’s block, the Skater must return in bounds behind that opponent, even if the Skater was in front of the opponent before being blocked. That opponent gives up this advantage if they go down, out of bounds, or out of play (or more than 20 ft (6.10 m) from the last defined Pack if there is no Pack) prior to the Skater re-entering the track.
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Scenario C4.30
White Pivot and White Blocker are ahead of Red Pivot. Red Pivot is forced out of bounds by White Pivot. White Blocker skates clockwise behind both Skaters. White Blocker loses their balance, takes a knee, and returns upright. Red Pivot re-enters the track behind White Pivot and ahead of White Blocker.
Outcome: Red Pivot is penalized.
Rationale: Although White Blocker lost their superior position briefly while down, they returned upright before Red Pivot re-entered. White Blocker was not the initiator of the block that forced Red Pivot out of bounds, and thus is able to re-establish their superior position.
White Pivot and White Blocker are ahead of Red Pivot. Red Pivot is forced out of bounds by White Pivot. White Blocker skates clockwise behind both Skaters. White Blocker loses their balance, takes a knee, and returns upright. Red Pivot re-enters the track behind White Pivot and ahead of White Blocker.
Outcome: Red Pivot is penalized.
Rationale: Although White Blocker lost their superior position briefly while down, they returned upright before Red Pivot re-entered. White Blocker was not the initiator of the block that forced Red Pivot out of bounds, and thus is able to re-establish their superior position.
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Scenario C4.35
White Pivot, White Blocker, and Red Jammer are 18 ft (5.48m) ahead of a stopped Pack. Red Jammer is blocked out of bounds by White Pivot. White Pivot and White Blocker roll forward, and both are given an Out of Play warning. White Pivot and White Blocker skate clockwise back to the Pack. Red Jammer re-enters the track ahead of both Skaters.
Outcome: Red Jammer is penalized.
Rationale: White Pivot, as initiator of the block, lost their superior position on Red Jammer by leaving the Engagement Zone. Although White Blocker lost their superior position briefly by going out of play, they regained it by returning to the Engagement Zone before Red Jammer re-entered. White Blocker was not the initiator of the block that forced Red Jammer out of bounds, and thus is able to re-establish their superior position.
White Pivot, White Blocker, and Red Jammer are 18 ft (5.48m) ahead of a stopped Pack. Red Jammer is blocked out of bounds by White Pivot. White Pivot and White Blocker roll forward, and both are given an Out of Play warning. White Pivot and White Blocker skate clockwise back to the Pack. Red Jammer re-enters the track ahead of both Skaters.
Outcome: Red Jammer is penalized.
Rationale: White Pivot, as initiator of the block, lost their superior position on Red Jammer by leaving the Engagement Zone. Although White Blocker lost their superior position briefly by going out of play, they regained it by returning to the Engagement Zone before Red Jammer re-entered. White Blocker was not the initiator of the block that forced Red Jammer out of bounds, and thus is able to re-establish their superior position.
7
Rules Discussion / Re: Two Pivots and a star pass
« Last post by Garrotin Keillor on July 28, 2017, 07:32:52 am »
Also, just like the previous post, we know if the jam is called off somebody has to go to box, right?
5.2 of the rules state jams can be called for "illegal play that cannot be rectified via penalty assessment". While I'm reckoning that's mainly referring to expulsions, since it doesn't explicitly say "expulsion", I would assume something like this scenario could fall under this. The rules (5.4) also state officials need to be CERTAIN a penalty is warranted before assessing it. Not "reasonably sure", but certain.
So if you see a jam that's out of control, I say you should definitely call it as soon as you recognized it's FUBAR in the interest of avoiding more damage. But if you're not certain which penalty is warranted and to whom it should be assessed, don't feel a pressure that someone *needs* to go to the box just because the jam was called.
In the cold light of day it's easy to look back (and double-check the rule book!) and see that, yes, it was an illegal pass and deserves a penalty. But while you're in the heat of the game and this is the first time you're seeing this specific scenario and you're pretty sure that was an illegal star pass, but not certain, honestly you (personally) shouldn't penalize.
8
Rules Discussion / Re: Is it still a "star stash" if the helmet cover is mostly visible?
« Last post by Vanilla VICE on July 23, 2017, 03:43:01 pm »c4.60 is under the unsporting conduct section of the rules (4.3), so that makes sense to me
4.2 covers illegal procedures, so I believe this to use the misconduct verbal cues
4.2 covers illegal procedures, so I believe this to use the misconduct verbal cues
9
Rules Discussion / Re: Is it still a "star stash" if the helmet cover is mostly visible?
« Last post by Triop on July 22, 2017, 10:39:56 am »QuoteI believe it was an illegal proceure call as "unsporting conduct "
Could you please explain how did you come up with this conclusion?
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Scenario C4.60
The Jam starts and White Jammer quickly earns Lead. Red Jammer immediately pulls off their Star and tries to pass it over their opponents’ heads to Red Pivot, but is unable to do so. Red Jammer stuffs the Star into their jersey so they don’t have to hold it as they work their way through the Pack.
Outcome: Red Jammer has hidden the Star from their opponents, also hiding the fact that they are their team’s Jammer. Red Jammer is penalized.
Rationale: It is unsporting to attempt to hide your role in the Jam.
Keep in Mind: If Red Jammer had held onto the Star instead of hiding it in their jersey, no penalty would be issued because they would still be visibly in control of the Star.
The Jam starts and White Jammer quickly earns Lead. Red Jammer immediately pulls off their Star and tries to pass it over their opponents’ heads to Red Pivot, but is unable to do so. Red Jammer stuffs the Star into their jersey so they don’t have to hold it as they work their way through the Pack.
Outcome: Red Jammer has hidden the Star from their opponents, also hiding the fact that they are their team’s Jammer. Red Jammer is penalized.
Rationale: It is unsporting to attempt to hide your role in the Jam.
Keep in Mind: If Red Jammer had held onto the Star instead of hiding it in their jersey, no penalty would be issued because they would still be visibly in control of the Star.
Could be that wording?
10
Rules Discussion / Re: Is it still a "star stash" if the helmet cover is mostly visible?
« Last post by Heisenbout on July 22, 2017, 12:28:48 am »Quote
I believe it was an illegal proceure call as "unsporting conduct "
Could you please explain how did you come up with this conclusion?
