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


Please Support Zebra Huddle!

Recent Posts

Re: Clockwise or Stopped Block by Ref Leppard
April 20, 2017, 12:38:08 am

Re: Clockwise or Stopped Block by SeerSin
April 19, 2017, 08:35:43 pm

Re: Clockwise or Stopped Block by Mav'Ricky
April 19, 2017, 04:58:44 pm

Re: Clockwise or Stopped Block by Vanilla VICE
April 19, 2017, 02:09:25 pm

Clockwise or Stopped Block by Ref Leppard
April 18, 2017, 09:49:26 pm

Re: Zebras in contacts by Mav'Ricky
April 15, 2017, 10:51:36 pm

Re: Zebras in contacts by Metsmerized
April 15, 2017, 12:14:09 am

Re: Ceding Question by Major Oversight
April 13, 2017, 01:34:01 am

Re: Ceding Question by AdamSmasher
April 12, 2017, 04:23:56 pm

Re: Ceding Question by Stray Taco
April 12, 2017, 03:32:33 pm

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Rules Discussion / Re: Clockwise or Stopped Block
« Last post by Ref Leppard on April 20, 2017, 12:38:08 am »
Thanks all.  It's a lot clearer now. 
Rules Discussion / Re: Clockwise or Stopped Block
« Last post by SeerSin on April 19, 2017, 08:35:43 pm »
I can see where you're coming from on the casebook entry. There are quite a few negatives in that phrasing, "had not", "would not have". The rationale is that had the White Pivot started moving in the derby direction after the initial stopped block thereby allowing the Red Jammer to maintain some of their speed then all is well, no penalty.

Really what the casebook entry is stating is that bringing a fast moving skater to a complete stop via an illegal block is enough impact to trigger the "significantly alter speed or trajectory" metric.
Rules Discussion / Re: Clockwise or Stopped Block
« Last post by Mav'Ricky on April 19, 2017, 04:58:44 pm »
I agree with VICE - he's explained it very well

I agree the jammer got stopped but I think the rule said "brought to a stop" to differentiate from red jammer's momentum being severely affected.

I used to call it "actively maintaining" a stopped block, where blocker had to step/skate counter clockwise or disengage to avoid the penalty

I would consider "momentum or trajectory severely affected" to mean the following

A fast moving jammer being stopped dead
Upper body moved more than say 30 deg off centre
A big direction change
Body positioning bent over with waving body parts trying to stay upright - you know when people nearly fall, but they don't
Rules Discussion / Re: Clockwise or Stopped Block
« Last post by Vanilla VICE on April 19, 2017, 02:09:25 pm »
You will often see skaters rotate in their tri-pods clockwise, bump the opposing jammer then continue in CCW direction. This case seems to suggest that these types of contact scenarios do not rise to the level a penalty. If the blocker were to continue driving into the jammer by taking another stride clockwise, then you should call a clockwise block penalty for impeding their progress. The last ruleset in the DoG section of the rules would explain this with more detail, making it clear that contact while stopped or clockwise, if it had no impact, would not be a penalty for impediment so long as the next action was stepping or skating in CCW direction.
What would we consider "momentum or trajectory severely affected"?
Taking an additional stride or step clockwise after the first (when the initiator doesn't fall, go down, or knocked severely off balance, where it is clear their progress is impeded). The example is saving space by providing all the possible combinations of this scenario at once.
Rules Discussion / Clockwise or Stopped Block
« Last post by Ref Leppard on April 18, 2017, 09:49:26 pm »
So the impact of a clockwise (or stopped) block came up and there's a case in the casebook that is confusing me. 

specifically :

Scenario C4.17
White Pivot stands still on their toe stops and initiates a block against Red Jammer. Red Jammer does not fall, but is brought to a stop. Red Jammer counter-blocks, but White Pivot continues to block while on their toe stops and Red Jammer is unable to get past.

Outcome: White Pivot is penalized.

Rationale: If Red Jammer loses position or has their momentum or trajectory severely affected by a block initiated in an unexpected way, the initiator should receive a penalty. In this example, if White Pivot had not maintained their stopped block but instead returned to counterclockwise skating, allowing Red Jammer to maintain part of their momentum, it would not have resulted in a penalty.

What's confusing is the rationale.  The first sentence is saying to call a penalty because momentum or trajectory is severely affected.  In this case the jammer got stopped.

But the second sentence says that if White Pivot had not maintained the stopped block they shouldn't get a penalty. It does say that some of the jammer momentum is maintained but the scenario says the jammer is stopped by the first block.  So that is contradictory.

This came about from a discussion of clockwise (stopped) block impact when the jammer does not get knocked down or out of bounds.

What would we consider "momentum or trajectory severely affected"?
General Ref Discussion / Re: Zebras in contacts
« Last post by Mav'Ricky on April 15, 2017, 10:51:36 pm »
I use daily contacts when reffing. It's never going to be as clear as when wearing spectacles but they're fine. My glasses fog up all the time and it's annoying swiping the sweat off them

I don't know how you'll go having different focus points for your eyes - it would really  throw me off as I believe the eyes were meant to work together as a team
General Ref Discussion / Re: Zebras in contacts
« Last post by Metsmerized on April 15, 2017, 12:14:09 am »
It's definitely trial and error, but contacts work for me. Glasses slide off of my head and get quite blurry when sweating. Contacts do dry out faster, but I'm usually okay to go with rewetting drops right before the game and at halftime. :) Ymmv.
Rules Discussion / Re: Ceding Question
« Last post by Major Oversight on April 13, 2017, 01:34:01 am »
Cool, that's what I thought based on other posts here but I needed to see some other people say it too. I'm happy to see other people point out the serious lack of direction in the rules and case book, I was worried that I was just totally missing something.

Personally it feels a little ridiculous to still require a skater to perform the whole ceding process when all opponents with superior position chose to actively skate forward and by doing so make the choice to give up that superior position.

At the same time I can see how not requiring the skater to perform the whole ceding process in certain scenarios sort of lets them deny the opponents an opportunity to capitalize on that skater going out of bounds. The skater sort of gets to skip forward in time.

I know other rulesets have allowed skaters cede in much the same way and a quick glance at the USARS rules reveals a surprisingly short few sentences about how to handle ceding much like the WFTDA rules. All this must have come up long ago for them though, I wonder how they handle the finer points of it. 

Rules Discussion / Re: Ceding Question
« Last post by AdamSmasher on April 12, 2017, 04:23:56 pm »
The fundamental problem is that this is literally everything we know about ceding:

WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Scenario C4.37
Red Pivot blocks White Jammer to the inside and forward, across the apex. White Jammer returns fully in bounds with both skates for a moment, and then immediately leaves the track.

Outcome: No penalty.

Rationale: White Jammer did not meaningfully gain position on anybody because they immediately left the track.

Keep in Mind: If White Jammer had not immediately left the track, White Jammer should be penalized.

That's it.  There is absolutely nothing else in writing, so everything else comes down to discussions.

That said, I will agree with Taco - the broad consensus in the discussions I have observed is that this verbiage means that you must touch out to cede, even if no one still on the track has superior position.
Rules Discussion / Re: Ceding Question
« Last post by Stray Taco on April 12, 2017, 03:32:33 pm »
Gotcha, I get the difference between coming back onto the track then falling versus falling OOB and sliding into the track and how technically she has or has not cut.

Are we all 100% certain that when a skater does actually cut she must complete the whole ceding process even if there is no longer anyone to actually cede to?
That has been the consistent interpretation with everyone I've talked to at all levels. Once a cut occurs, the only way to cede the cut is to leave the track.

So, to alter your scenario:
Blue Jammer is blocked OOB and reenters in front of Red Blocker who had a superior position. Blue Jammer takes a knee. Red Blocker skates past Blue Jammer. Blue Jammer stands and continues to skate.

Result: Penalty.

The cede is a "take backsie" of the illegal action. The cutting penalty is basically held in limbo. Any playing of derby by the cutting Skater is a penalty. The only way to remove the earned penalty is to leave the track.
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: 1567
Views: 2170
Filesize: 327.61KB
Date: January 17, 2017, 04:21:03 am
Comments (0)
By: AdamSmasher
June 2013 Ruleset situational questions
Rating: *****
Downloads: 1541
Views: 2559
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: 1567
Views: 2943
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: 2426
Views: 3149
Filesize: 28.07KB
Date: April 25, 2013, 05:45:34 pm
Comments (0)
By: Shaun Ketterman

Powered by EzPortal