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: Resources for new referees. by Destructor
November 29, 2019, 01:13:40 pm

Resources for new referees. by Destructor
November 26, 2019, 06:01:48 pm

Jammer Passing Inactive Jammers by hellvis
November 14, 2019, 03:37:30 am

Re: JAMMER HELMET COVER by Stray Taco
October 03, 2019, 12:54:03 pm

Clover Cup 2020 - March 20-22 - North Richland Hills, TX USA by SodOff
September 28, 2019, 10:09:13 am

JAMMER HELMET COVER by 3Beers
September 22, 2019, 12:35:26 pm

Re: "Pincer" blocks = multipayer? by Bluebeard
July 11, 2019, 06:30:49 pm

"Pincer" blocks = multipayer? by Rego_Derby
July 11, 2019, 01:08:36 am

Re: Jammer Scoring Theory by Major Wood
June 26, 2019, 09:59:33 pm

Jammer Scoring Theory by Rego_Derby
June 25, 2019, 04:30:03 am

Author Topic: Lead jammer call: both jammers immediately eligible  (Read 9021 times)

Offline Ben Spanklin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Stats Sheet: 1
Re: Lead jammer call: both jammers immediately eligible
« Reply #15 on: May 11, 2010, 12:18:06 am »
They are both considered to have fulfilled passing the foremost in play blocker at the same time, so we would have to go by a definition of first:

The "new" foremost opponent only became the foremost opponent the moment the other was issued her fourth. They did not pass her at the same time (unless of course they really did pass her at the same time  :)).

3.4.1 can still be determined. Who was the first to pass the (new and only) foremost blocker legally and in bounds? She may not have been before. She is now. Who was the first to pass her?

Essentially, to each jammer she became the foremost blocker. Which one passed her first. Between a few jam refs working quckly together to communicate, a lead could be determined (if any) and the game move on.

having already passed all other Blockers legally and in bounds.

In this case, the last part of 3.4.1 would force it to be a tie.  At the time that the jammer passed the second blocker to the front, she did not qualify for having already passed all other blockers.

When you re-evaluate based on the foremost blocker being sent off the track, it needs to happen at the same time for both jammers.  Otherwise, you run into the tricky situation of one jammer having passed that blocker while the blocker was at the back of the pack, and being repassed by that blocker, with the other jammer passing that blocker second but making the pass while the blocker was second to the front, like so.  (Blockers 1-8, Red Jammer, Blue Jammer)

Back of the Pack -> Front of the Pack

At jammer whistle:  8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
still frame 1:            RJ 8 BJ 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
still frame 2:            RJ BJ 7 6 5 4 3 2 8 1
still frame 3:            BJ 7 6 5 4 3 2 8 RJ 1
still frame 4:            7 6 5 4 3 2 8 BJ RJ 1

Here blocker 1 gets sent off, and since Blue Jammer passed blocker 8 first, she would get lead.  We would have to do this, because there is no special rule about passing any blocker other than the foremost in play blocker.  That would run counter to the standards that we usually use for determining lead jammer.

I think this might be why 3.4.1 uses the present tense when referring to the pass of the foremost in play blocker.  We need to consider the foremost in play blocker as such for any NOTT pass that occurs -- at the moment she is sent off, everyone on the track is considered to have passed the foremost in play blocker, and simultaneously, a new foremost in play blocker is determined.  3.4.1.2 would prevent any jammer that is still in/behind the pack from qualifying for lead jammer, even though she just passed the foremost in play blocker.


All-Nate-Long

  • Guest
Re: Lead jammer call: both jammers immediately eligible
« Reply #16 on: May 11, 2010, 12:38:26 am »
wow..

Back of the Pack -> Front of the Pack

At jammer whistle:  8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
still frame 1:            RJ 8 BJ 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
still frame 2:            RJ BJ 7 6 5 4 3 2 8 1
still frame 3:            BJ 7 6 5 4 3 2 8 RJ 1
still frame 4:            7 6 5 4 3 2 8 BJ

I do not understand this, please explain it to me....
« Last Edit: May 11, 2010, 12:44:14 am by All-Nate-Long »

Offline Ben Spanklin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Stats Sheet: 1
Re: Lead jammer call: both jammers immediately eligible
« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2010, 01:12:40 am »
Sorry about that, let me see if I can put it into words.  Note that the confusing nature of this situation is why I don't believe we should call the situation this way -- it's a hypothetical based on the assumption that foremost in play blocker is transferred before the NOTT pass is considered.

At jammer whistle:  8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
The jammers are released, and there is a relative order to the position of the blockers in the pack.

still frame 1:            RJ 8 BJ 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Blue jammer passes the rearmost blocker.  She is the first jammer to pass blocker 8.

still frame 2:            RJ BJ 7 6 5 4 3 2 8 1
The rearmost blocker passes blue jammer, and the rest of the pack, except for the foremost in play blocker.

still frame 3:            BJ 7 6 5 4 3 2 8 RJ 1
Red Jammer passes everyone except for the foremost in play blocker.  She was the first jammer to pass blockers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

still frame 4:            7 6 5 4 3 2 8 BJ RJ 1  --inserting RJ and 1, they were lost on my first post
Blue jammer passes everyone except for the foremost in play blocker.

At this point, counting which jammer passed which blocker first:
Red Jammer: 2,3,4,5,6,7
Blue Jammer: 8

Blocker 1 is called off for a penalty.  Both qualify as being on front of the foremost in play blocker, as required by 3.4.1.2.  If we look at who passed the foremost in play blocker first, Blue Jammer would get lead, because she made the first pass of that blocker.

All-Nate-Long

  • Guest
Re: Lead jammer call: both jammers immediately eligible
« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2010, 02:13:20 am »
http://www.zebrahuddle.com/index.php?topic=91.0

I recommend reading some of the previously discussed material.There is a lot of great information and thoughts here....   

Offline Johnny Zebra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 768
  • Stats Sheet: 40
Re: Lead jammer call: both jammers immediately eligible
« Reply #19 on: May 11, 2010, 03:49:14 am »
having already passed all other Blockers legally and in bounds.

In this case, the last part of 3.4.1 would force it to be a tie.  At the time that the jammer passed the second blocker to the front, she did not qualify for having already passed all other blockers.

This question is awesome - there's no clearly stated answer for this, so well done  ;)

But saying that, until clarification, I'd recommend no lead jammer as well - that's the way I'd call it. At the moment the last/foremost skater is sent off, both jammers simultaneously have fulfilled the criteria for lead. This is a time when actually no jammer *can* be first to do so. Basta.

~j.z.

===============
Johnny Zebra
WFTDA Certified Referee (Level 3)
WFTDA Rules Q&A Working Group
Gotham Girls Roller Derby
Zebra Huddle Moderator

Offline Theshoveler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
  • Stats Sheet: 7
  • Even at work I point to the lead jammer
Re: Lead jammer call: both jammers immediately eligible
« Reply #20 on: May 11, 2010, 04:13:47 am »
The No Lead call here would be most correct in my estimation, but don't assume.  Initiate a conversation with your counterpart such as "My Jammer was clean, was yours?" if they say yes, then neither is Lead, if they say no, then the Jammer you are following is Lead.  Or if yours was not clean inform the other ref that your Jammer is still ineligible at that moment.  In other words, this is a situation which would require us to use our words with each other to make the proper call as there may not be a way to make a proper determination here without information the other ref has.

The Shoveler
Worst Ref Ever

Offline Johnny Zebra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 768
  • Stats Sheet: 40
Re: Lead jammer call: both jammers immediately eligible
« Reply #21 on: May 11, 2010, 03:14:16 pm »
Yes. My response was working under the assumption that both jammers at that moment qualified for LJ. But that in practice should be confirmed.

~j.z.
===============
Johnny Zebra
WFTDA Certified Referee (Level 3)
WFTDA Rules Q&A Working Group
Gotham Girls Roller Derby
Zebra Huddle Moderator

Offline Bishop

  • Superhero Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 1626
  • Stats Sheet: 51
  • Quoth the raven, "Nevermore."
  • League Affiliation: Unaffiliated
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 2
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Lead jammer call: both jammers immediately eligible
« Reply #22 on: July 28, 2011, 09:13:26 pm »
http://wftda.com/rules/qa/jammers-simultaneously-meet-all-requirements-for-lead-jammer

Jammers Simultaneously Meet All Requirements For Lead Jammer
July 28, 2011

Q: In the event that both Jammers simultaneously meet all requirements for Lead Jammer which Jammer should be declared Lead Jammer?

A: If both Jammers meet the requirements simultaneously, then neither Jammer can be considered "the first" to have done so, and as a result neither Jammer is Lead Jammer.

For example, both Jammers have legally passed all blockers while in play, and the foremost blocker goes Out of Play by exiting the Engagement Zone in front of the pack before the Jammers can pass her. At this moment, they have both met the criteria for Lead Jammer at the same time, so neither Jammer can be Lead Jammer.
Recommended Resources:WFTDA Rules Central, WFTDA officiating & Successful Sports Officiating
Propose rule changes at timeout.wftda.com.

 

Featured Product

 

Zebra Huddle Head Referee Bout Booklet

 

Featured Classifieds


ZH Files

How to Score a Point in Roller Derby
Rating: *****
Downloads: 3962
Views: 6537
Filesize: 327.61KB
Date: January 17, 2017, 04:21:03 am
Comments (0)
By: AdamSmasher
June 2013 Ruleset situational questions
Rating: *****
Downloads: 2577
Views: 5343
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: 2776
Views: 5977
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: 3572
Views: 5963
Filesize: 28.07KB
Date: April 25, 2013, 05:45:34 pm
Comments (0)
By: Shaun Ketterman

Powered by EzPortal