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: 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

Re: Clamping down with the upper arm by bmd (2113)
June 12, 2019, 07:54:29 pm

Re: Ref facepaint by Major Wood
June 12, 2019, 04:16:34 pm

Re: Ref facepaint by Rego_Derby
June 11, 2019, 11:35:08 pm

Author Topic: Jammer attacking multi player link  (Read 16592 times)

Offline Tre Cruel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Stats Sheet: 0
Re: Jammer attacking multi player link
« Reply #15 on: November 15, 2011, 08:57:26 am »
Thanks again for all the help, guys.

Going to run a few more scenarios, just to make sure I got it. I do loves a good scenario!  ;D

Assume relative position has not been affected in the below.

A Black blockers B1 + B2 link hands and form an outstretched wall. Red Jammer, R1, makes contact with the link. The link is immediately broken. R1 skates thru unimpeded.
No impact/no penalty

B B1 + B2 form their wall. R1 skates thru by ducking under their link and carries on unimpeded.
no impact / no penalty

C R1 approaches B1+B2s link. Prior to her reaching it, B1 pulls B2 across who then legally 'can-openers' R1 to the floor.
no impact / no penalty

D R1 approaches the link > makes contact with it and is slowed. R1 then goes around the outside. B1 + B2 then break the link one second AFTER contact.
MPB Minor

E R1 ducks under B1+B2 link. B1 + B2 then close up on R1 as she is passing between them in a rolling crouch and hip-check her to the floor, still maintaining link.
MPB Major because the link caused her to duck into the block or;
no impact / no penalty because it was not the link that stopped her?  ???

many thanks for your guidance / patience! :)
« Last Edit: November 15, 2011, 09:00:44 am by Tre Cruel »

Offline SeerSin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
  • Stats Sheet: 55
  • League Affiliation: Minnesota Rollergirls
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 5
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Jammer attacking multi player link
« Reply #16 on: November 16, 2011, 06:56:39 pm »
Again I was being a lil vague I was more thinking of 6.7.10 as a major here.
What I was thinking was that if a link was held for longer than 3 seconds and they were in the path of the jammer it would be cut and dry wouldn't it?

In the same way skating in front of an opposing skater isn't necessarily a positional block a link simply being in another skater's path isn't enough. The link must actually impede.

I would quote but it doesn't work so well on my phone. I was say you'd call the foul because it is a major and I've been taught by other refs to assume that any link done in a direct path in front of a jammer is with the intention of blocking a jammer. I was also taught that in this situation you'll see one of 3 scenarios. 1) one the jammer will try to brake through the link causing an actual contact, which you would call a foul on depending on the impact. 2) the jammer will try to simply go around the players in the link. 3) going around the link isn't possible because of track boundaries, other players etc.... And here you should count to three in order before calling anything, and if the three seconds goes by without the jammer attempting scenario one or two then you call a major.

Not quite. You can't assume anything, linking is perfectly legal, impeding with that link is not. The jammers actions are immaterial to whether or not a penalty should be issued. We must issue penalties based on the action that skater takes, not what her opponents do.

@Tre Cruel

A = Probably No impact, but I can see potential for a minor in this instance depending on impact to the jammer(delay, stumble).

B = No impact

C = Legal contact, no penalty.

D = Minor

E = Could be either depending on the specific circumstances. It's legal to whip a team mate into an opposing skater, it's not legal to use the link as a block itself. This also has a high potential for a high block.


Offline BloodyCouture

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Stats Sheet: 0
  • League Affiliation: Orlando Psycho City Derby Girls
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Jammer attacking multi player link
« Reply #17 on: October 30, 2012, 03:16:54 pm »
I have been searching the forum and can't seem to find the answer to this scenario

Black Blockers 1 and 2 form a wall with link arms/grasping. Red Jammer 1 tries to go around the outside of wall but is impeded by B2. Multi-Player Block or no?



Offline Riff Reff

  • Superhero Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 1001
  • Stats Sheet: 30
  • League Affiliation: Dublin Roller Derby
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Jammer attacking multi player link
« Reply #18 on: October 30, 2012, 04:44:19 pm »
No MPB. It is legal to hold on to a teammate while blocking as long as the link itself is not impeding.

[rule]6.7.3 Touching and assisting teammates that does not create a wall to impede an opponent or prevent receiving a block from an opponent is not a multi-player block.
6.7.4.The multi-player link must be that which is blocking or impeding an opponent for the action to be illegal.[/rule]
Don't look at the game with rules-tinted glasses; look at the rules with game-tinted glasses!

Offline PackMan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
  • Stats Sheet: 11
  • League Affiliation: Little City Roller Girls / Appalachian Roller Girls
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Jammer attacking multi player link
« Reply #19 on: October 30, 2012, 04:47:29 pm »
Riff Reff beat me to it.   what he said.

Offline BloodyCouture

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Stats Sheet: 0
  • League Affiliation: Orlando Psycho City Derby Girls
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Jammer attacking multi player link
« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2012, 06:37:34 pm »
Sweet thanks.

Offline The Gorram Reaver

  • Referee
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 875
  • Stats Sheet: 60
  • League Affiliation: Mad Rollin' Dolls
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 2
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Jammer attacking multi player link
« Reply #21 on: October 30, 2012, 09:08:48 pm »
I have been searching the forum and can't seem to find the answer to this scenario

Black Blockers 1 and 2 form a wall with link arms/grasping. Red Jammer 1 tries to go around the outside of wall but is impeded by B2. Multi-Player Block or no?

Depends.  Was Red Jammer 1 originally on a path that would have taken her through the area where the multi-player block existed?  If so, and she had to divert to go around the block, then yes, Multi-Player Block and skaters should be assessed appropriate penalties.  If at no time was Red Jammer 1 headed toward the Multi-Player Block, then no penalty.

The contact made by Black Blocker 2 to Red Jammer 1 is irrelevant to the determination of whether or not Multi-Player Block penalties apply.  That does not, however, mean that a Multi-Player Block did not occur and that penalties should not be assessed.
The Gorram Reaver
Mad Rollin' Dolls, Madison, WI

Offline PackMan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
  • Stats Sheet: 11
  • League Affiliation: Little City Roller Girls / Appalachian Roller Girls
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Jammer attacking multi player link
« Reply #22 on: October 31, 2012, 03:11:35 pm »
emphasis mine
Quote from: The Gorram Reaver Was Red Jammer 1 originally on a path that would have taken her through the area where the multi-player block existed?  If so, and she [b
had to divert to go around the block[/b], then yes, Multi-Player Block and skaters should be assessed appropriate penalties.  If at no time was Red Jammer 1 headed toward the Multi-Player Block, then no penalty.
I'm having trouble with this Reaver.  What you describe sounds like a positional MPB.  I see that the rules do not specify contact, but how can I, as a ref, actually determine that the existance of a multiplayer link forced a jammer to change course if the jammer has not physically contacted that link.  I mean, maybe that link would have been dropped instantly upon contact negating that it ever existed.  My fear would be that a call like that would be an assumption of illegal intent.

Offline The Gorram Reaver

  • Referee
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 875
  • Stats Sheet: 60
  • League Affiliation: Mad Rollin' Dolls
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 2
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Jammer attacking multi player link
« Reply #23 on: October 31, 2012, 06:34:30 pm »
emphasis mine
Quote from: The Gorram Reaver Was Red Jammer 1 originally on a path that would have taken her through the area where the multi-player block existed?  If so, and she [b
had to divert to go around the block[/b], then yes, Multi-Player Block and skaters should be assessed appropriate penalties.  If at no time was Red Jammer 1 headed toward the Multi-Player Block, then no penalty.
I'm having trouble with this Reaver.  What you describe sounds like a positional MPB.  I see that the rules do not specify contact, but how can I, as a ref, actually determine that the existance of a multiplayer link forced a jammer to change course if the jammer has not physically contacted that link.  I mean, maybe that link would have been dropped instantly upon contact negating that it ever existed.  My fear would be that a call like that would be an assumption of illegal intent.

Intent is irrelevant.  The penalty is issued for "maintaining a multi-player block to impede or block an opponent".  The impact is created as soon as the player has to divert around the link.  The illegal link existed.  A skater diverted around the link.  The link impeded, whether those creating the link intended to release that link at a later time, and therefor must be penalized.
The Gorram Reaver
Mad Rollin' Dolls, Madison, WI

Offline PackMan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
  • Stats Sheet: 11
  • League Affiliation: Little City Roller Girls / Appalachian Roller Girls
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Jammer attacking multi player link
« Reply #24 on: October 31, 2012, 08:09:13 pm »
This is me playing dense on purpose in hopes of greater clarity in the end:

Quote
"maintaining a multi-player block to impede or block an opponent". 
That sounds like intent to me, and I don't see how I could judge that particular intent without the link being tested.

Offline Kent C. Forshette

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Stats Sheet: 0
  • League Affiliation: Cedar Rapids RollerGirls
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 2
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Jammer attacking multi player link
« Reply #25 on: October 31, 2012, 10:26:14 pm »
Quote
"maintaining a multi-player block to impede or block an opponent". 
That sounds like intent to me, and I don't see how I could judge that particular intent without the link being tested.

My guess is that untested MPBs are just another form of (illegal) positional blocking. You don't have to have contact for a positional block to be illegal.
The rules almost use Reaver's exact verbiage to describe positional blocking, and even say that positional blocking doesn't have to be on purpose to be illegal:
[rule]5.1.1 Blocking is any movement on the track designed to knock the opponent down or out of bounds or to impede the opponent’s speed or movement through the pack. Blocking includes counter-blocking. Blocking need not include contact.
Positional Blocking A.K.A. Body Blocking, Frontal Blocking, and Passive Blocking is blocking without contact. A skater positioning herself in front of an opposing skater to impede her movement on the track is positional blocking. Positional blocking need not be deliberate and/or intentional to be illegal, e.g. if the blocking skater is not aware of the Jammer’s position behind her.[/rule]
(underlining emphasis is mine)
Kent C. Forshette
Cedar Rapids RollerGirls
Ref Coord and WFTDA officials rep

Offline PackMan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
  • Stats Sheet: 11
  • League Affiliation: Little City Roller Girls / Appalachian Roller Girls
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Jammer attacking multi player link
« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2012, 03:10:06 am »
There's a big difference between an untested multiplayer link and an untested body in your way.  The multiplayer link can instantly vanish upon, or just before, contact, while the body cannot.  That's why a positional OOP block seems quite reasonable, but I'm having trouble buying a positional MPB.  With a body in the way (as in a blocker forward of the EZ) intent is indeed irrelevant because the owner of the body cannot instantly get that body out of the way, but with a multiplayer link I would think that intent would have to be inferred in order to call it as a positional block.  [rule]9.3.3
 
If the referee is in a position where intent must be inferred but is not clear, she/he must presume legal intent.
 

9.3.4
 
If the referee is not sure whether an action warrants a minor or a no impact/no penalty, it must be called as no impact/no penalty[/rule]The rules require us to assume legal intent, so how can I justify that call?  What rules support it?

Offline The Gorram Reaver

  • Referee
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 875
  • Stats Sheet: 60
  • League Affiliation: Mad Rollin' Dolls
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 2
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Jammer attacking multi player link
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2012, 04:10:16 am »
There's a big difference between an untested multiplayer link and an untested body in your way.  The multiplayer link can instantly vanish upon, or just before, contact, while the body cannot.

But, in reality, there isn't any difference.  If the illegal link is there & a skater reacts to its presence, it is just as much a positional block as if a body was there and a skater reacted to that body's presence.  Or do you require a skater to physically contact a stopped skater on the track before determining if the stopped skater is executing a positional Direction of Gameplay Block?  After all, that stopped skater could have taken a step in the counter-clockwise direction just before the oncoming opponent makes contact.  So you have absolutely no way to know that that block which was a block that had an affect on the opponent the moment that opponent diverted to avoid that block would have continued as a block until contact was made.

I think you are misunderstanding when the penalizable action occurs, and trying to justify that misunderstanding by claiming it requires you to judge intent.  Either that or you are completely misunderstanding when we need to determine intent before issuing a penalty.  In the case being discussed, you need not make a determination about intent because you can see the affect the illegal block has when the skater diverts around that block.  The illegal action is clear.  The affect that illegal action has is clear.  Intent is not required for a block to be illegal, so Rule 9.3.3 does not apply.  Rule 9.3.4 does not apply because you can clearly see the impact, so you are not unsure what the impact is.
The Gorram Reaver
Mad Rollin' Dolls, Madison, WI

Offline PackMan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
  • Stats Sheet: 11
  • League Affiliation: Little City Roller Girls / Appalachian Roller Girls
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Jammer attacking multi player link
« Reply #28 on: November 01, 2012, 12:33:52 pm »
This is me playing dense on purpose in hopes of greater clarity in the end:

I get your point.  You are saying that if a multiplayer link exists in the path of an opposing skater, that that link is a multiplayer block regardless of why it was formed or what happens after.  The only remaining question for you is impact spectrum of that illegal block. 

So, what if the opposing skater chose to just maintain a distance behind that link (3', 6', 12', does it matter?), not changing course, and not attacking the link?  Suppose that condition persisted for 4 seconds.  Would you call that a major MPB?

Offline PackMan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
  • Stats Sheet: 11
  • League Affiliation: Little City Roller Girls / Appalachian Roller Girls
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Jammer attacking multi player link
« Reply #29 on: November 01, 2012, 03:20:17 pm »
  The illegal action is clear.  The affect that illegal action has is clear.
A skater comes up on an opposing 2 skater wall and chooses to go around rather than through the middle.  There is a multiplayer block present at the time that the approaching skater makes that choice to go around.  Up to this point I am right with you.  I even will agree that the multiplayer block is illegal.  Where you lose me is in the assertion that it is clear that the MPB is what caused the oncoming skater to make that choice.  I do not see how that can be clear to a ref.  That to me feels like the ref is making an assumption about why a skater is doing something.  I am stuck on this because: if the MPB is not the reason for the change of course, then the MPB had no impact.

 

Featured Product

 

Zebra Huddle Head Referee Bout Booklet

 

Featured Classifieds


ZH Files

How to Score a Point in Roller Derby
Rating: *****
Downloads: 3492
Views: 6313
Filesize: 327.61KB
Date: January 17, 2017, 04:21:03 am
Comments (0)
By: AdamSmasher
June 2013 Ruleset situational questions
Rating: *****
Downloads: 2504
Views: 5178
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: 2695
Views: 5787
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: 3478
Views: 5772
Filesize: 28.07KB
Date: April 25, 2013, 05:45:34 pm
Comments (0)
By: Shaun Ketterman

Powered by EzPortal