• 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."


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.

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?) 

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.

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.

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