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

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

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

Author Topic: Mutual Exclusivity  (Read 32502 times)

Offline JoeXCore

  • Superhero Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 1022
  • Stats Sheet: 20
  • Will go anywhere to which I can afford to travel.
Mutual Exclusivity
« on: June 14, 2009, 06:28:14 am »
Okay... so if a skater is back blocked across the apex by the foremost opposing blocker. The opposing blocker should get a major, saving the other skater from the major penalty for cutting the track.

The track cut and the major penalty for back blocking in this instance are mutually exclusive. If there is a major back block from the foremost and opposing (and therefore foremost opposing) knocking a skater out of bounds then it is impossible for the major penalty for track cut. If the the track cutting penalty is issued... then the back blocking penalty must not have been.


Another one.

When I see that a jammer is constantly going through the pack on her scoring passes and getting less than 4 points... and minor blocking penalties.

This tells me there is a good chance (but not guaranteed) the jam ref is making mistakes.

The mistake, which I've seen a number of times is, the jam ref is giving minor blocking penalties for a jammer that is passing a skater by blocking her illegally.
If the illegal block results in the pass then the point shouldn't be given... but a major penalty should.
If the block does NOT result in a pass then the penalty should be a minor, then when the pass occurs the point SHOULD be given.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2009, 05:22:06 pm by JoeXCore »
Black n Bluegrass Roller Girls - head referee
MRDA Recognized Refree

Offline Rev. Riot

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 273
  • Stats Sheet: 32
  • Anything needed gettin' done.
  • League Affiliation: Gotham
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 5
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Mutual Exclusivity
« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2009, 08:28:24 am »
I don't agree on the second point at all.

You can commit a minor penalty on a blocker, one that does not influence your ability to pass her at all, and never the less is a penalty. For instance, swimming. Jammer is passing a Blocker, and has a half a foot between herself and the Blocker, but forearms the Blocker to give herself more clearance, well, that didn't affect her relative position, she'd already lost it, but it was nevertheless a minor penalty, and as such an illegal pass.

Or to be more concrete: Cutting one opponent is a minor. If a Jammer cuts one opponent, she'll get a minor cut, and three points. If that holds true, then there can be other minor penalties committed that only cost the Jammer a point and a minor.
Matthew Mantsch - Reverend Riot
WFTDA Rules Theory Committee
Gotham Girls Roller Derby - NYC

Offline L8R SK8R

  • Restricted User
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Stats Sheet: -13
Re: Mutual Exclusivity
« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2009, 03:08:26 pm »
If that holds true, then there can be other minor penalties committed that only cost the Jammer a point and a minor.

If a jammer hip whips off an opponent to pass them, its a hands minor, no point.

Offline Professor Murder

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 456
  • Stats Sheet: 42
  • Insert Witticism Here.
Re: Mutual Exclusivity
« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2009, 04:32:10 pm »
Okay... so if a skater is blocker blocked across the apex by the foremost opposing blocker. The opposing blocker should get a major, saving the other skater from the major penalty for cutting the track.

do you mean *blocked* or *illegally blocked*?

Or maybe back blocked instead of blocker blocked?
Philly Roller Girls
WFTDA Interim Games Officer
WFTDA Certified Referee: Level 5
"100% Less Dancing" - Dr. Vroom

Offline JoeXCore

  • Superhero Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 1022
  • Stats Sheet: 20
  • Will go anywhere to which I can afford to travel.
Re: Mutual Exclusivity
« Reply #4 on: June 14, 2009, 05:20:33 pm »
Okay... so if a skater is blocker blocked across the apex by the foremost opposing blocker. The opposing blocker should get a major, saving the other skater from the major penalty for cutting the track.

do you mean *blocked* or *illegally blocked*?

What you're not familiar with the blocker block? (I kid I kid) Yeah I'm back blocked, or illegally blocked both would work lemme go back and change that.

Or maybe back blocked instead of blocker blocked?
Black n Bluegrass Roller Girls - head referee
MRDA Recognized Refree

Offline JoeXCore

  • Superhero Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 1022
  • Stats Sheet: 20
  • Will go anywhere to which I can afford to travel.
Re: Mutual Exclusivity
« Reply #5 on: June 14, 2009, 05:28:49 pm »
I don't agree on the second point at all.

You can commit a minor penalty on a blocker, one that does not influence your ability to pass her at all, and never the less is a penalty. For instance, swimming. Jammer is passing a Blocker, and has a half a foot between herself and the Blocker, but forearms the Blocker to give herself more clearance, well, that didn't affect her relative position, she'd already lost it, but it was nevertheless a minor penalty, and as such an illegal pass.

Yeah... but since you've already passed her then you get the point. I can think of no situations where one can pass someone illegally due to a blocking penalty and BOTH not receive the point AND get a minor. (while staying in bounds)

Or to be more concrete: Cutting one opponent is a minor. If a Jammer cuts one opponent, she'll get a minor cut, and three points. If that holds true, then there can be other minor penalties committed that only cost the Jammer a point and a minor.

Right that's why my post regarded specifically and exclusively to blocking penalties - back block, forearms, etc


Are you with me now Rev?
Black n Bluegrass Roller Girls - head referee
MRDA Recognized Refree

Offline JoeXCore

  • Superhero Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 1022
  • Stats Sheet: 20
  • Will go anywhere to which I can afford to travel.
Re: Mutual Exclusivity
« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2009, 05:30:15 pm »
If that holds true, then there can be other minor penalties committed that only cost the Jammer a point and a minor.

If a jammer hip whips off an opponent to pass them, its a hands minor, no point.

She passed her... effecting her relative position, due to an illegal use of hands.... not a major?
Black n Bluegrass Roller Girls - head referee
MRDA Recognized Refree

Offline L8R SK8R

  • Restricted User
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Stats Sheet: -13
Re: Mutual Exclusivity
« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2009, 09:20:38 pm »
If a jammer hip whips off an opponent to pass them, its a hands minor, no point.

She passed her... effecting her relative position, due to an illegal use of hands.... not a major?

The question comes down to: If a jammer passes a blocker as a result of an illegal action, has the jammer caused the blocker to lose her relative position?

My instinct on this is no. But this is a good question for clarification.

Offline howie~swerve

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 237
  • Stats Sheet: 20
  • Cake or death?
Re: Mutual Exclusivity
« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2009, 09:25:57 pm »
I think what Joe is saying is this:

The only reason a Jammer should emerge from the engagement zone with less than 4 points is for having committed CTT minors, or passing an OOB blocker when she herself is OOB.

Why?

If she passes someone in the act of blocking them illegally, it's a Major because the foul has caused the opponent to lose relative position, by definition.  Jammer's in the box.  Riot and Joe are disagreeing whether or not you can block-foul someone, while passing them, in a way that doesn't cause them to lose relative position.

Even if true, this doesn't prevent her from collecting all sorts of minors during her pass through the pack, of course.  It's just that, if these are fouls which allow her to pass an opponent illegally, they by definition become majors.  She'll have HAD to pass everyone legally and collect their point -- so, 4 points UNLESS she cuts track on them or they are out of bounds when she passes them out of bounds. (assuming a completed pass and no stragglers out front)

Joe's point is that many Jamrefs (I've certainly done this) hold up "2" or "3" when we've seen our jammer commit a "minor" in passing an opposing blocker, so we don't award the point and assess a minor.

But if the block helped her get past the opponent, isn't it a major?  And if it didn't help her get past the opponent, isn't she still behind them?  Can you block-foul someone while passing them in a way that doesn't affect relative position?

To put it another way, "How can a jammer pass an opponent while block-fouling them without it becoming a major?"

very curious about the answer to this...

howie~


oh, and:

If a jammer hip whips off an opponent to pass them, its a hands minor, no point.

i'd call this a Major every day of the week and twice on sunday.  Def of hands/forearms major:
Quote
6.3.9.2   Use of hands or forearms to grab or hold an opposing skater, either impeding that skater's mobility, causing that skater to lose advantage, or forcing that skater to the ground.


Rollergirls of Central Kentucky (Lexington, KY)
"To protect and to swerve."

Offline howie~swerve

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 237
  • Stats Sheet: 20
  • Cake or death?
Re: Mutual Exclusivity
« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2009, 09:33:14 pm »
The question comes down to: If a jammer passes a blocker as a result of an illegal action, has the jammer caused the blocker to lose her relative position?

My instinct on this is no. But this is a good question for clarification.

Funny... my instinct is the complete opposite!  If this isn't loss of relative position, I'm not sure what is...

Glossary:
Quote
Relative Position: The position a skater holds in relation to other skaters on the track.
Rollergirls of Central Kentucky (Lexington, KY)
"To protect and to swerve."

Offline lets get it Shawn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 160
  • Stats Sheet: 0
Re: Mutual Exclusivity
« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2009, 10:01:41 pm »
I have to disagree...I say "look at it this way" there are 8 blocking positions on the floor and 2 jammer positions. Since Jammers are not part of the pack and there are only 8 pack positions if a Jammer passes a blocker by swimming and does not effect the blockers skating it should be a minor not a major; the Blocker did not lose her pack position. Hence passing illegally getting no points for that pass and a minor.  Since the jammer is getting no points for the illegal pass and getting a minor penalty it is not a major impact on the game and she is already punished by the minor.

If we look at it Joes way then if a blocker back block minors and passes a blocker it should be a Major also not a minor.
Hard Knox Roller Girls
Head Referee
Knoxville TN

And on the 8th Day god created me and the Devil stood at attention!

Offline howie~swerve

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 237
  • Stats Sheet: 20
  • Cake or death?
Re: Mutual Exclusivity
« Reply #11 on: June 14, 2009, 10:10:18 pm »
if a Jammer passes a blocker by swimming and does not effect the blockers skating it should be a minor not a major; the Blocker did not lose her pack position.

hmm.  nothing in the definition of "Loss of Relative Position" or "Relative Position" refers to PACK members only.  They refer to any "skater".  If a jammer illegally uses her hands and forearms to put herself ahead of an opponent, that opponent loses relative position.  Not sure there's any way around it...


If we look at it Joes way then if a blocker back block minors and passes a blocker it should be a Major also not a minor.

precisely.  As long as the back-block and the pass were the same motion, inseparable.  If they are two distinct events, the jammer gets a minor and a point.

Rollergirls of Central Kentucky (Lexington, KY)
"To protect and to swerve."

Offline lets get it Shawn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 160
  • Stats Sheet: 0
Re: Mutual Exclusivity
« Reply #12 on: June 14, 2009, 10:18:16 pm »
Howie that is not Correct

8.3.1 Pass opposing skaters in bounds, legally, without committing penalties.
8.3.1.1 Any legal pass counts. If a Jammer becomes ineligible for a point by
committing an illegal action or passing while out of bounds, she is allowed an
opportunity to re-pass and score the point.
8.3.1.2 Once the Jammer has cleared the foremost pack skater by 20 feet, her scoring
pass is complete.

She has to pass legally or no Point. if she gets a minor for swimming no point. But if joe is correct that if a Jammer passes a blocker by swimming it should be a major because the blocker lost her relative postion then there would be no reason to have 8.3.1.1 illegal action comment and being able to drop back and repass

and there is only 8 pack positions because jammers can never be part of the pack
« Last Edit: June 14, 2009, 10:19:47 pm by lets get it Shawn »
Hard Knox Roller Girls
Head Referee
Knoxville TN

And on the 8th Day god created me and the Devil stood at attention!

Offline howie~swerve

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 237
  • Stats Sheet: 20
  • Cake or death?
Re: Mutual Exclusivity
« Reply #13 on: June 14, 2009, 10:33:50 pm »
Howie that is not Correct

8.3.1 Pass opposing skaters in bounds, legally, without committing penalties.
8.3.1.1 Any legal pass counts. If a Jammer becomes ineligible for a point by
committing an illegal action or passing while out of bounds, she is allowed an
opportunity to re-pass and score the point.
8.3.1.2 Once the Jammer has cleared the foremost pack skater by 20 feet, her scoring
pass is complete.

She has to pass legally or no Point. if she gets a minor for swimming no point. But if joe is correct that if a Jammer passes a blocker by swimming it should be a major because the blocker lost her relative postion then there would be no reason to have 8.3.1.1 illegal action comment and being able to drop back and repass

and there is only 8 pack positions because jammers can never be part of the pack

hm.  I guess we're not understanding each other because I agree with everything you just said... I'm not saying the jammer is part of the pack, I'm saying that she counts when considering "relative position" because the Glossary definition of "loss of relative position" doesn't say "within a pack", it just says "relative to other skaters on the track".

When you say "If she gets a minor for swimming no point", I think you're illustrating exactly Joe's question: If she passed someone swimming (thus fouling to change relative position), why isn't it a major?  The "no point" is certainly not a substitute for assessing a major (points and penalties being separate issues).


but you're right:  another way to phrase Joe's question is "What could 'committing an illegal action' mean in 8.3.1.1"?   What illegal actions that result in a change in relative position would NOT result in a major?  open question.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2009, 10:38:18 pm by howie~swerve »
Rollergirls of Central Kentucky (Lexington, KY)
"To protect and to swerve."

Offline L8R SK8R

  • Restricted User
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Stats Sheet: -13
Re: Mutual Exclusivity
« Reply #14 on: June 14, 2009, 10:44:15 pm »
other skaters on the track is lost for a sustained period of time due to the actions of an opponent, such as a legal block or an illegal block.

It may sound like splitting hairs, but I interpret this to mean that the skater who is losing relative position has to lose it relative to any skater other than the one who is blocking them. Otherwise ANY time a skater commits an illegal block and passes them as a result, jammer or otherwise, they will get a major for it. That seems seriously extreme, especially if the blocked skater's relative position, relative to every other skater on the track other than the iniator, hasn't changed. I maintain this is one for a WFTDA clarification.

 

Featured Product

 

Zebra Huddle Head Referee Bout Booklet

 

Featured Classifieds


ZH Files

How to Score a Point in Roller Derby
Rating: *****
Downloads: 3936
Views: 6456
Filesize: 327.61KB
Date: January 17, 2017, 04:21:03 am
Comments (0)
By: AdamSmasher
June 2013 Ruleset situational questions
Rating: *****
Downloads: 2557
Views: 5299
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: 2753
Views: 5912
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: 3549
Views: 5905
Filesize: 28.07KB
Date: April 25, 2013, 05:45:34 pm
Comments (0)
By: Shaun Ketterman

Powered by EzPortal