The clarification you are thinking of was from before there was such a thing as ceding a cut. It referenced an incident where at the beginning of a jam one jammer knocked the other jammer OOB to the outside and started skating clockwise for a runback.  The OOB jammer crawled across the track to the inside to avoid skating the much longer distance on the outside of the track.  Rules clarified that under that ruleset that action should be a penalty (I believe it was Skating Out Of Bounds).

The action you describe, I do not see a penalty there.

For the variation where a skater gets knocked to the outside, re-enters, then exits to the inside to cede;  it depends on context.

Context 1: Rookie scrimmage to get people fresh out of boot camp some game experience. The skating skills are probably such that it is quicker and easier for them to exit to the inside than to stop, turn around, and exit to the outside.  In that case I do not see a penalty to issue there either.

Context 2a:  Sanctioned game with post season ramifications. Those skaters I expect to have the skating skills to stop, turn around, and cede properly.  If the skater did not realize they stepped out, and as soon as their teammate told them, they exited the closest way.  Maybe not a penalty, but maybe depending on how long they were in bounds before exiting.

Context 2b: Same as 2a except they are trying to skirt the rules and unfairly shorten the distance they have to skate to re-enter legally, like the example in that now defunct clarification.  This one is probably a penalty.


The current ruleset format gives us some leeway to consider if the skater is trying to play legally and make things right. Or, are they trying to gain an unfair advantage when deciding whether or not to penalize.

Just doing it may not warrant a penalty, but doing it and then some amount of time later if you see it is impeding the Jammer's progress, then a Forearm penalty should go to the blocker. Officials should be certain that the clamp is happening, and not just some product of a jammer sticking their arm there on purpose.

Unrelated: Elbows were removed as a verbal cue and penalty code.

I don't think so, because of the Rationale in C3.1.A

Rationale: As a result of the successful Star Pass, the White Jammer and White Pivot exchange status in terms of scoring and being scored upon. Since the Red Jammer had already scored on the original White Pivot before the Star Pass, they have the point for the White Blocker (originally the White Jammer) in this trip and cannot score it again.

emphasis mine.

Ohio Roller Derby needs refs and NSOs for our upcoming home season. We do offer a travel stipend for our visiting officials. Sign up here! https://goo.gl/forms/5xxoTi21c2dHcp2J3

Game dates:
Mar 23 - Home Opener vs. Toronto
April 6 - vs. Roc City
May 11 - vs. Gem City
June 8 - vs. Brandywine
June 29 - vs. Classic City

I think you may be overthinking this a little bit.  Blockers are allowed to position themselves however they like on the track, as long as they aren't linked.  Turning one shoulder away from an opponent turns the other shoulder toward them, after all.

Initiation is a separate question from positioning.  Initiation just asks "who made the last move which caused this contact to happen the way it did?"

If a jammer is coming in at high speed and the blocker suddenly jumps in front of them such that the jammer couldn't change course, the answer to that is "the blocker."

On the other hand, if a jammer who *could* have changed trajectory *doesn't*, then the answer is "the jammer."

And it is definitely possible for there to be two initiators for a contact, if both people move simultaneously in a way that determines the final situation.