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: 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: No Impacts are redundant?  (Read 9180 times)

Offline llama of death

  • Referee
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 306
  • Stats Sheet: 1
  • Referee
  • League Affiliation: Rollling Hills Derby Dames, WheatWhackers (JRDA)
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
No Impacts are redundant?
« on: August 10, 2015, 06:33:24 pm »
I have been answering one question a lot recently from fans and players a like, "why is ___action__ not a penalty, the rules say it is illegal?"

The answer I give is that there are two classes for illegal actions in WFTDA derby, Illegal with no impact on the game or saftey and Illegal actions WITH and impact on the game or saftey.

This being asked so many times has made me wonder what would the rules look like if we got rid of the no impacts all together. Note: I know of only one penalty which needs the "no impact" section which is Cutting: IE no pass no point for Jammers.

An easy example would be Back blocking which could read:

Hitting an opponent in the back of the torso, back of the legs, or back of the buttocks resulting in a loss of established or relative position will result in a penalty(see Section 4.2.2 - Illegal Target Zones). Hitting an opponent with a legal blocking zone into a legal target zone while positioned behind said opponent is not blocking to the back and is not necessarily illegal.

In this way it could be possible to be rid of many (not all) no impact sections of the rules. Basically, in stead of saying blocking to the back is illegal, people [skaters and fan and announcers] reading the rules would easily see in the first paragraph of description that back blocking is only a penalty if it effects relative/established position or saftey.

There are sections which are more difficult to clean up like, Direction of Gameplay, but not impossible.

This is not the first time I have heard this, I have been listening to coaches and players complain for over two years about it and only now am I starting to wonder what would happen if we actually got rid of them. I think if done carefully, they could be erased without actually changing any of the rules, and would result in a much shorter ruleset.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2015, 06:45:23 pm by llama of death »
I play devils advocate a lot, it is always because I desire a complete understanding of the rule/scenario. I do make changes to my reffing often as a direct result of discussions resulting in a consensus. Particularly if it is contrary to my previous understanding.

Offline AdamSmasher

  • Referee
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 230
  • Stats Sheet: 3
  • League Affiliation: Lansing Derby Vixens
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 1
  • NSO Certification Level: Level 3
Re: No Impacts are redundant?
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2015, 07:21:44 pm »
Not saying what you're suggesting is impossible, but there are definitely areas where "illegal but not a penalty" does matter.  For example, actions which are illegal but no penalty *become* a penalty under 5.13.16 if they interfere with a star pass.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2015, 09:16:03 pm by AdamSmasher »
I'm better at remembering "Smasher" is me than "Adam."
Rules Colored Glasses - Useful Officiating Stuff

Offline llama of death

  • Referee
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 306
  • Stats Sheet: 1
  • Referee
  • League Affiliation: Rollling Hills Derby Dames, WheatWhackers (JRDA)
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: No Impacts are redundant?
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2015, 09:14:15 pm »
Not saying what you're suggesting is impossible, but there are definitely areas where "illegal but not a penalty" does matter.  For example, actions which are illegal but no penalty *become* a penalty under 5.13.16 if they interfere with a star pass.

Fair enough, though it does say "other than legal blocking" which is already defined by the legal target and blocking zones, no? So it isn't actually referencing anything in the penalty section as it is, just that to be a penalty it must be blocked in an illegal manner.
I play devils advocate a lot, it is always because I desire a complete understanding of the rule/scenario. I do make changes to my reffing often as a direct result of discussions resulting in a consensus. Particularly if it is contrary to my previous understanding.

Offline AdamSmasher

  • Referee
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 230
  • Stats Sheet: 3
  • League Affiliation: Lansing Derby Vixens
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 1
  • NSO Certification Level: Level 3
Re: No Impacts are redundant?
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2015, 09:15:52 pm »
Made this an edit to my prior post JUST as you were posting.  Moving it here for clarity:

Edit - remembered another one: Under 7.2.1.3, when the jammer returns from the box, she immediately scores on any opposing skaters penalized while she was in the box. HOWEVER, only if she does so legally.  If she enters in front of one teammate, that's not legal, but not a penalty - so no automatic points.
I'm better at remembering "Smasher" is me than "Adam."
Rules Colored Glasses - Useful Officiating Stuff

Offline llama of death

  • Referee
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 306
  • Stats Sheet: 1
  • Referee
  • League Affiliation: Rollling Hills Derby Dames, WheatWhackers (JRDA)
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: No Impacts are redundant?
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2015, 09:34:29 pm »
Made this an edit to my prior post JUST as you were posting.  Moving it here for clarity:

Edit - remembered another one: Under 7.2.1.3, when the jammer returns from the box, she immediately scores on any opposing skaters penalized while she was in the box. HOWEVER, only if she does so legally.  If she enters in front of one teammate, that's not legal, but not a penalty - so no automatic points.

Falls under the editNo Pass/No Pointedit section I posted above, which I would leave alone as it does have the effect you described as well as  other effects all revolving a round the cutting rules.

Cutting is the only section I can't see removed, in part because it is not actually a no impact. It is even titled differently than all the other sections like it, the title is editNo Pass/No Pointedit.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2015, 10:21:54 pm by llama of death »
I play devils advocate a lot, it is always because I desire a complete understanding of the rule/scenario. I do make changes to my reffing often as a direct result of discussions resulting in a consensus. Particularly if it is contrary to my previous understanding.

Offline Stray Taco

  • Referee
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 385
  • Stats Sheet: 4
  • League Affiliation: Ohio Roller Derby / Athens Ohio Roller Derby
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: No Impacts are redundant?
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2015, 10:09:49 pm »


Falls under the No-pass No-point section I posted above, which I would leave alone as it does have the effect you described as well as  other effects all revolving a round the cutting rules.

Cutting is the only section I can't see removed, in part because it is not actually a no impact. It is even titled differently than all the other sections like it, the title is no-pass no-point.

Just to be accurate: the title is No Pass/No Penalty.

The other No Impact/No Penalty are holdovers from minors I think, but they are useful in knowing the thresholds. Still, I do think a lot of the NI/NP sections could be significantly reduced if it's just indicated as anything that doesn't mean the penalty threshold. One of the hardest thing to explain to fans (and many skaters, coaches and refs) is that illegal doesn't necessarily mean penalty.
Mike "Stray Taco" Straw

I know some things, but there's a lot more I don't know.

Offline llama of death

  • Referee
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 306
  • Stats Sheet: 1
  • Referee
  • League Affiliation: Rollling Hills Derby Dames, WheatWhackers (JRDA)
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: No Impacts are redundant?
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2015, 10:27:08 pm »
Just to be accurate: the title is No Pass/No Penalty.
Yes, you are correct. I will go back and edit that for clarity.
The other No Impact/No Penalty are holdovers from minors I think, but they are useful in knowing the thresholds.
That is nearly word for word my explanation to the local ex-HR turned bouters-coach; completely agree.

Still, I do think a lot of the NI/NP sections could be significantly reduced if it's just indicated as anything that doesn't mean the penalty threshold. One of the hardest thing to explain to fans (and many skaters, coaches and refs) is that illegal doesn't necessarily mean penalty.
Also, my experience and is what prompted this question/topic. I think they could almost be completely eliminated with the right edits without even losing the 'thresholds' aspect of them.
I play devils advocate a lot, it is always because I desire a complete understanding of the rule/scenario. I do make changes to my reffing often as a direct result of discussions resulting in a consensus. Particularly if it is contrary to my previous understanding.

Offline ShoNuff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
  • Stats Sheet: 29
  • League Affiliation: Mad Rollin' Dolls
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Level 4
Re: No Impacts are redundant?
« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2015, 12:57:01 am »
Every sport has illegal actions that are deemed not significant enough to be penalized.

Another common name for them is incidental contact.

It is illegal to block with your forearm.  Without the no impact category, any block with a forearm, no matter how slight would be a penalty.

The no impact category exists in order to allow the game to work.  If the tiniest of illegal actions sent a skater to the box, everyone would be constantly getting penalties and the entire game would become which team fouls out to the point of forfeit first.

It exists in the rules to help define the line between actions worthy of a penalty and actions that aren't.  You might be able to get away without the no impact section for many fans and some skaters, but it is critical to officials and to skaters who are going to push that line and need to know where it is.

Offline FNZebra

  • Superhero Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 1408
  • Stats Sheet: 35
  • I'm a shitty ref.
  • League Affiliation: Bleeding Heartland Roller Derby
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Level 2
Re: No Impacts are redundant?
« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2015, 07:47:36 pm »
Many of the (now) no impact entries formerly were minors.

You aren't the first to raise this idea.

One thing their current inclusion does do is help promote more consistent officiating.
 
They clearly identify things that aren't legal, but shouldn't deserve a whistle. Eliminating them may have the undesired result of newer officials over-calling actions. For instance, the preamble to 5.1 saw such changes, based on incorrect readings of the then-existing rules.

[rule]5.1 - Blocking to the Back
Hitting an opponent in the back of the torso, back of the legs, or back of the buttocks is prohibited (see Section 4.2.2 - Illegal Target Zones). Hitting an opponent with a legal blocking zone into a legal target zone while positioned behind said opponent is not blocking to the back and is not necessarily illegal.
[/rule]
You will bout as you practice.


Cheers,

FN Zebra
Bleeding Heartland Roller Derby (WFTDA)
Bloomington, Indianer

Offline llama of death

  • Referee
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 306
  • Stats Sheet: 1
  • Referee
  • League Affiliation: Rollling Hills Derby Dames, WheatWhackers (JRDA)
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: No Impacts are redundant?
« Reply #9 on: August 17, 2015, 04:40:47 pm »
I didn't expect to be the first. ;) I am a rules buff I have only been reffing for two years but I am constantly hungry for more info to help me complete my knowledge, as such I am fully aware of the history of the rules I have read many versions of the old rules and all of the change summaries. I do not ask this in a void. I do ask if just because it is historical it should be kept, the old ways are not always the best ways and survival/thiveing is best found in change and adaption.

I also understand that their point is to describe illegal actions which are not worthy of a penalty. I just don't see why "incidental" contact needs to be illegal at all. It confuses the heck out of the fans, players, coaches and many refs.

Why is forearms not better described as:

Quote
5.5 - Use of Forearms and Hands

5.5.1 - Forearms or hands may never be used to grab, hold, or push an opponent such as to cause a change in relative position, establish position/speed, or effect the opponents mobility.

5.5.2 - Incidental forearm or hand contact between opponents is acceptable.

Examples of Legal Play

5.5.3 - Contact, including extended contact, made with forearms or hands that are pulled into the body.

5.5.4 - A block initiated with the shoulder, sending an opponent forwards or sideways, in which there is either simultaneous or subsequent contact with forearms or hands.

Penalty

5.5.6 - Any illegal forearm or hand contact to an opponent that forces the receiving opponent off balance, forward, and/or sideways and causes the opponent to lose relative position.

5.5.7 - Any illegal forearm or hand contact allowing the initiator or a teammate to gain relative position, or causing an opponent to lose relative position.

5.5.8 - Use of hands or forearms to grab, hold onto or hold back an opponent impeding that opponent’s mobility.

5.5.9 - Contact to an opponent, using the hands or forearms, in order to assist oneself in blocking a different opponent.

5.5.10 - Any pushing with the hands or forearms that significantly alters an opponent's established position, trajectory or speed.

Expulsion

The following egregious acts using the forearms or hands will be automatic game expulsions. Expulsions will be issued for a conscious and forceful attempt to commit any of the following egregious acts, whether or not the attempt was successful.

5.5.11 - Holding or pinning an opponent to the ground.

5.5.12 - Shoving an opponent.


It would be all encompassing in two rules, clear and can still be narrowed down by the penalty section to describe specific scenarios while simultaneously discluding the "incidental" contact. Is it not simpler, possibly even clearer to only talk about penalties in the penalty section?
« Last Edit: August 17, 2015, 05:32:43 pm by llama of death »
I play devils advocate a lot, it is always because I desire a complete understanding of the rule/scenario. I do make changes to my reffing often as a direct result of discussions resulting in a consensus. Particularly if it is contrary to my previous understanding.

Offline AdamSmasher

  • Referee
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 230
  • Stats Sheet: 3
  • League Affiliation: Lansing Derby Vixens
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 1
  • NSO Certification Level: Level 3
Re: No Impacts are redundant?
« Reply #10 on: August 17, 2015, 05:12:00 pm »
As I pointed out earlier, the section that you just erased:

[rule]No Impact/No Penalty

5.5.5 - Illegal forearm or hand contact to an opponent that forces the receiving opponent off balance, forward, and/or sideways but does not cause the opponent to lose relative position or the initiator or a teammate to gain relative position. For example, a slight but observable push with the hands or forearms.
[/rule]

describes actions that ARE a penalty if they interefere with a star pass.  So erasing this section changes the penalties related to star passes and is not, therefore, a negligible change.

We can debate whether that would be a good or bad thing, but you can't say that there's no effect when you simply erase it.
I'm better at remembering "Smasher" is me than "Adam."
Rules Colored Glasses - Useful Officiating Stuff

Offline llama of death

  • Referee
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 306
  • Stats Sheet: 1
  • Referee
  • League Affiliation: Rollling Hills Derby Dames, WheatWhackers (JRDA)
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: No Impacts are redundant?
« Reply #11 on: August 17, 2015, 05:29:53 pm »
Not saying what you're suggesting is impossible, but there are definitely areas where "illegal but not a penalty" does matter.  For example, actions which are illegal but no penalty *become* a penalty under 5.13.16 if they interfere with a star pass.

Fair enough, though it does say "other than legal blocking" which is already defined by the legal target and blocking zones, no? So it isn't actually referencing anything in the penalty section as it is, just that to be a penalty it must be blocked in an illegal manner.
[rule]
5.13.16 - Preventing a Star Pass via any means other than legal blocking.


4.2.4 - Illegal Blocking Zones: Apply to the body parts of the Skater performing a block. Skaters may not initiate contact with the following parts of the body:

4.2.4.1 - The elbows

4.2.4.2 - The forearms and hands

4.2.4.3 - The head

4.2.4.4 - Below mid-thigh
[/rule]

4.2.4 still clearly makes these parts illegal to block with, even with my deletion. 5.13.16 does not in any way reference the penalty section directly. Notice that it says "other than legal blocking" that does not need to have the no impact section just a loose definition provided by sections 4 and 5 as to what legal blocks are.

Deleting no impact forearms would have no effect on the legality of using forearms only simplify the rule to be clear that only forarms/hands which effect established speed/position, relative position or limiting mobility would be a penalty.

Notice I did not add a section to the rule which makes 'incidental forearms' legal only removes the concept of them being involved in the penalty section.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2015, 05:39:48 pm by llama of death »
I play devils advocate a lot, it is always because I desire a complete understanding of the rule/scenario. I do make changes to my reffing often as a direct result of discussions resulting in a consensus. Particularly if it is contrary to my previous understanding.

Offline llama of death

  • Referee
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 306
  • Stats Sheet: 1
  • Referee
  • League Affiliation: Rollling Hills Derby Dames, WheatWhackers (JRDA)
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: No Impacts are redundant?
« Reply #12 on: August 17, 2015, 05:49:29 pm »
Every sport has illegal actions that are deemed not significant enough to be penalized.

Another common name for them is incidental contact.

It is illegal to block with your forearm.  Without the no impact category, any block with a forearm, no matter how slight would be a penalty.

The no impact category exists in order to allow the game to work.  If the tiniest of illegal actions sent a skater to the box, everyone would be constantly getting penalties and the entire game would become which team fouls out to the point of forfeit first.

It exists in the rules to help define the line between actions worthy of a penalty and actions that aren't.  You might be able to get away without the no impact section for many fans and some skaters, but it is critical to officials and to skaters who are going to push that line and need to know where it is.

I just don't think that is accurate. The line could just as easily be defined by the penalty section only discussing what is a penalty, and limiting what fits that description by incuding already used terminology (established position/speed, or relative position) into the main description of the penalty.

IE: it is a penalty to do ____ with impact on ___

This format would eliminate confusion and redundancy.

Is it really clarifying a 'line in the sand' to say it is a no impact to initiate with a hand which does not effect relative position, only to later also say the literal other side of the same line by saying "it is a penalty to initiate contact with a hand that does effect relative position.
I play devils advocate a lot, it is always because I desire a complete understanding of the rule/scenario. I do make changes to my reffing often as a direct result of discussions resulting in a consensus. Particularly if it is contrary to my previous understanding.

Offline ShoNuff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
  • Stats Sheet: 29
  • League Affiliation: Mad Rollin' Dolls
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Level 4
Re: No Impacts are redundant?
« Reply #13 on: August 18, 2015, 07:30:04 am »
It's a far cleaner statement to say blocking with your forearm is illegal than to say blocking with your forearm might be illegal.

As many of the contact rules are based on safety, the desire is to say that these actions are inherently illegal. 

If you are ineffectually illegal, a penalty may not be assessed, but the action was still illegal.

The goal is to oppose the idea that anything you can get away with is legal because that attitude is unsafe.

Offline llama of death

  • Referee
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 306
  • Stats Sheet: 1
  • Referee
  • League Affiliation: Rollling Hills Derby Dames, WheatWhackers (JRDA)
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: No Impacts are redundant?
« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2015, 04:31:13 am »
It's a far cleaner statement to say blocking with your forearm is illegal than to say blocking with your forearm might be illegal.

As many of the contact rules are based on safety, the desire is to say that these actions are inherently illegal. 

If you are ineffectually illegal, a penalty may not be assessed, but the action was still illegal.

The goal is to oppose the idea that anything you can get away with is legal because that attitude is unsafe.

That is probably the best argument for keeping them I have heard. Well done sir.
I play devils advocate a lot, it is always because I desire a complete understanding of the rule/scenario. I do make changes to my reffing often as a direct result of discussions resulting in a consensus. Particularly if it is contrary to my previous understanding.

 

Featured Product

 

Zebra Huddle Head Referee Bout Booklet

 

Featured Classifieds


ZH Files

How to Score a Point in Roller Derby
Rating: *****
Downloads: 3926
Views: 6409
Filesize: 327.61KB
Date: January 17, 2017, 04:21:03 am
Comments (0)
By: AdamSmasher
June 2013 Ruleset situational questions
Rating: *****
Downloads: 2550
Views: 5262
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: 2745
Views: 5875
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: 3537
Views: 5871
Filesize: 28.07KB
Date: April 25, 2013, 05:45:34 pm
Comments (0)
By: Shaun Ketterman

Powered by EzPortal