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: 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

Re: Ref facepaint by Axis of Stevil
June 10, 2019, 06:56:10 pm

Re: Ref facepaint by Major Wood
June 10, 2019, 01:49:04 pm

Ref facepaint by Rego_Derby
June 09, 2019, 03:38:38 pm

Re: Answering a directional with forearms by Major Wood
April 30, 2019, 07:44:47 pm

Answering a directional with forearms by Rego_Derby
April 30, 2019, 05:56:20 pm

Re: Yielding to the opposite side of the track by Bluebeard
April 22, 2019, 07:21:28 pm

Yielding to the opposite side of the track by MyBabyDaddy
April 21, 2019, 03:22:45 am

Author Topic: Official review of a bad verbal cue  (Read 8047 times)

Offline Divide by Zero

  • Referee
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Stats Sheet: 2
  • League Affiliation: Crime City Rollers
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 2
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Official review of a bad verbal cue
« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2016, 07:44:13 am »
OPR 1 calls "Whistle, Black, 03, Tripping"
Black 03 looks to the OPR, OPR repeats the call as above
Black 03 1 initiates a new block
OPR 1 issues an insub
Black 03 reports to box for her insub

I would not overturn this insub call, even if a review determines the verbal cue was incorrect. At least based on how I'm picturing the situation from this description.

Yes, the penalty wasn't called with the correct verbal cue. However in this scenario it seems clear to me that even though the verbal cue was incorrect, the skater understood they had received a penalty. The skater knew they had been called on a penalty but willfully decided to stay and keep playing. Even if the review finds the verbal cue was incorrect, I would let the insub call stay. Had the skater not looked up and acknowledged the call, I would have overturned it.

It does not meet the metric for 5.14.3 (and it's sub-clauses). However it does meet the metric for 5.14.2. 5.14.2 does not say anything about correct verbal cues.

To my understanding there are two ways to receive an insub for failing to leave the track in response to a penalty. There is 5.14.2, which doesn't require verbal cues etc to be correct, but does (through the use of "willfully") require that the skater is aware of the penalty. And there is 5.14.3 (+sub-clauses), which doesn't require that the skater is aware, but does require that the call was made correctly.

[rule]5.14.2 - Willfully failing to leave the track for a penalty.[/rule]

[rule]5.14.3 - A Skater who, after having been clearly and appropriately called on a penalty (per Section 8.2.5.2), fails to leave the track. This penalty will be assessed even if the Skater is not aware that they have been called, so long as:

5.14.3.1 - The penalty was called using the correct hand signal and verbal cue.

5.14.3.2 - The Referee calling the penalty was correctly positioned for the Skater to potentially see the call.

5.14.3.3 - The Referee calling the penalty did so loudly enough to be heard, given the Referee’s position, and the constraints and volume of the venue.[/rule]

Offline Speedy Convalesce

  • NSO
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 72
  • Stats Sheet: 0
  • League Affiliation: Rhein-Neckar Delta Quads
Re: Official review of a bad verbal cue
« Reply #16 on: August 23, 2016, 07:57:52 am »
The insub was incorrect:

[rule]6.1.1.2 - No Skater, including the Skater who has earned the penalty, can be held responsible for behaving as if a penalty has been assessed until the Official has completed the appropriate hand signals and verbal cues.[/rule]

Offline Stray Taco

  • Referee
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 384
  • Stats Sheet: 4
  • League Affiliation: Ohio Roller Derby / Athens Ohio Roller Derby
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Official review of a bad verbal cue
« Reply #17 on: August 23, 2016, 11:39:43 am »
The line being exemplified by example:

OPR 1 calls "Whistle, Black, 03, Tripping"
Black 03 looks to the OPR, OPR repeats the call as above
Black 03 1 initiates a new block
OPR 1 issues an insub
Black 03 reports to box for her insub

OR is called Black wants to review the error of the verbal cue, claiming their skater should be released and have both penalties removed.
HR deliberates and informs the C/A the verbal cue was in error but was in response to a correct call, therefore the low block will stand but the in-sub will be removed.
OR is not retained as the implied premise of the review was correct: 'the verbal cue was wrong so no penalty exists'


VERSION 2: Same actions as above but different OR request

OR is called, Black wants to review the insubordination call as the verbal cue was incorrect the skater was not required to leave the track.
HR deliberates and informs the C/A the insubordination was not valid as an incorrect verbal cue was issued. Black retains their OR.


The first version works out the same regardless of the presence of the insub, as the insub was not the topic of the review.

Is it our job to ensure C/A do not waste their OR on asking unwinnable or invalid ORs?

I'd return the OR in both cases. The difference between these and the one from the OP is outcome. There is a real, measured change being sought, and that change happened because an officiating error was identified. Even though in the first case they didn't get everything they were asking for, they still identified an officiating error and it resulted in a game-impacting change (less time in the penalty box and a penalty removed from the whiteboard).

That's why I work like RawShark. The bottom line I always get from the requesting Captain/Alternate is, "What is your intended outcome from this review?"
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: Official review of a bad verbal cue
« Reply #18 on: August 23, 2016, 03:55:59 pm »
What I am gathering here is that if ?any? changes occur due to the OR they should retain their OR, even if they are only tangentially related to the OR as phrased by the coach.

I assume your (D/0 and ShoNuffs) answer would be the same (you would let them retain their review) if they had simply asked for the low-block to go away due to the incorrect verbal?

This is contrary to my previous understanding but does make sense.


I see/saw asking for an OR like my example as them attempting to review two separate decisions, one correct the other incorrect. (which they are not allowed to do to my best knowledge, or is a chain of decisions fair game?) If they review the first they loose it (and I fix the incorrect decision as it comes to my attention in the OR) or they review the second and they get their OR back.

If you all are using a different guidance for what does and does not get their OR back please explain so I can better adjust my practices.
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: 384
  • Stats Sheet: 4
  • League Affiliation: Ohio Roller Derby / Athens Ohio Roller Derby
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Official review of a bad verbal cue
« Reply #19 on: August 23, 2016, 04:09:15 pm »
What I am gathering here is that if ?any? changes occur due to the OR they should retain their OR, even if they are only tangentially related to the OR as phrased by the coach.

I assume your (D/0 and ShoNuffs) answer would be the same (you would let them retain their review) if they had simply asked for the low-block to go away due to the incorrect verbal?

This is contrary to my previous understanding but does make sense.


I see/saw asking for an OR like my example as them attempting to review two separate decisions, one correct the other incorrect. (which they are not allowed to do to my best knowledge, or is a chain of decisions fair game?) If they review the first they loose it (and I fix the incorrect decision as it comes to my attention in the OR) or they review the second and they get their OR back.

If you all are using a different guidance for what does and does not get their OR back please explain so I can better adjust my practices.

I probably didn't explain it right.

In both reviews, they asked for the insubordination to be overturned, and it was because of an officiating error that resulted in a Skater being incorrectly penalized. In both cases they got what they were requesting, it was just a partial granting in the first case.

If they'd come up and requested that the low block be overturned because of the incorrect verbal cue, then they wouldn't get the OR back, because the low block still stood, and if the Officials reached the decision to overturn the insubordination without that request being made, then that happened of the Officials' own volition and wouldn't affect the OR.

[rule]1.11.2.1 - If, during a team’s first Official Review of the period, a review of an Official's decision is requested and the Head Referee determines that an officiating error was made in relation to the objection, the team will retain its Official Review.[/rule]

The bolded words are what I'm basing this on.

So: Official reviews can only review decisions (not procedures). But the retention of an OR is based on finding an Officiating error related to the specific objection to the decision.

Hope that makes sense.
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: Official review of a bad verbal cue
« Reply #20 on: August 23, 2016, 04:34:33 pm »
I probably didn't explain it right.

In both reviews, they asked for the insubordination to be overturned, and it was because of an officiating error that resulted in a Skater being incorrectly penalized. In both cases they got what they were requesting, it was just a partial granting in the first case.

If they'd come up and requested that the low block be overturned because of the incorrect verbal cue, then they wouldn't get the OR back, because the low block still stood, and if the Officials reached the decision to overturn the insubordination without that request being made, then that happened of the Officials' own volition and wouldn't affect the OR.

[rule]1.11.2.1 - If, during a team’s first Official Review of the period, a review of an Official's decision is requested and the Head Referee determines that an officiating error was made in relation to the objection, the team will retain its Official Review.[/rule]

The bolded words are what I'm basing this on.

So: Official reviews can only review decisions (not procedures). But the retention of an OR is based on finding an Officiating error related to the specific objection to the decision.

Hope that makes sense.

Ah I see where this all went separate readings of my question now. Looks like we are already on the same page.

the first version of the OR is stated like this in my origional-post, "OR is called, Black wants to review the error of the verbal cue, claiming their skater should be released and have both penalties removed." In my mind this is a review of a verbal cue and the penalty it related to, and the attempt mention of the insub is a second question.

In your reading where you are linking the decision to overturn the insub to the lowblock because they mentioned it in the OR?  Yet, is that "in relation to the objection" or a sneaky way of reviewing two penalties?
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 Speedy Convalesce

  • NSO
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 72
  • Stats Sheet: 0
  • League Affiliation: Rhein-Neckar Delta Quads
Re: Official review of a bad verbal cue
« Reply #21 on: August 23, 2016, 05:21:20 pm »
"OR is called, Black wants to review the error of the verbal cue, claiming their skater should be released and have both penalties removed."

They are asking for both penalties to be removed for the same reason. I would definitely treat this as a single request and let them retain the review as one of the penalties was indeed incorrect.

If black asked for the low block to be removed because, say, there was no impact and wants the insub removed because of the wrong verbal cue than that are two separate requests. The team should choose one of them for their review.

Offline Vanilla VICE

  • Referee
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 682
  • Stats Sheet: 6
  • SC&L
  • League Affiliation: Muscogee Roller Girls
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 2
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Official review of a bad verbal cue
« Reply #22 on: August 24, 2016, 03:23:54 pm »
I think part of this discussion being missed is this: [rule]1.11.1.3.3 - The Head Referee will then investigate the review with the other Officials, and use the information gathered to render a decision on the item under review, as well as related decisions.[/rule] Which is a pretty open statement.

So if you challenge the low block, I assume every non dick in the world would rule the insub as a related decision and overturn that also. In relation to the above post I would also call that an OR win because related decisions "count" to me.
Muscogee Roller Girls: Columbus, GA
FlatTrackStats Mod

Offline Stray Taco

  • Referee
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 384
  • Stats Sheet: 4
  • League Affiliation: Ohio Roller Derby / Athens Ohio Roller Derby
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Official review of a bad verbal cue
« Reply #23 on: August 24, 2016, 03:38:44 pm »
I think part of this discussion being missed is this: [rule]1.11.1.3.3 - The Head Referee will then investigate the review with the other Officials, and use the information gathered to render a decision on the item under review, as well as related decisions.[/rule] Which is a pretty open statement.

So if you challenge the low block, I assume every non dick in the world would rule the insub as a related decision and overturn that also. In relation to the above post I would also call that an OR win because related decisions "count" to me.

I'm starting to think we might just all be in vehement agreement here :)  ...but just in case:

Would you agree with these calls?

1: OR is to overturn the low block and insub; insub only is overturned (llama's first scenario); OR returned
2: OR is to overturn the low block for impact-related reasons (not because of the bad verbal cue); low block isn't overturned but during the discussion, it's realized that the insub was a bad  call and it's overturned; OR not returned because it wasn't within the scope of the OR itself
Mike "Stray Taco" Straw

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

Offline Vanilla VICE

  • Referee
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 682
  • Stats Sheet: 6
  • SC&L
  • League Affiliation: Muscogee Roller Girls
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 2
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: Official review of a bad verbal cue
« Reply #24 on: August 24, 2016, 03:45:32 pm »
If a related decision is overturned I would call it a success, but I wouldn't allow two different things to be considered. If a team asked for both to be overturned I would reply "the rules allow you to challenge a decision and if related decisions need to be corrected they would be corrected"   Basically if they challenge the low block and win, the insub goes away as a related decision. If they challenged the insub and won, then I would just change the insub decision. You get to ask for ONE thing, but are able to correct related things to the ONE thing. That's how I interpret that section of the rules. Even if you do things different from this, the openness of this section probably allows it still.
Muscogee Roller Girls: Columbus, GA
FlatTrackStats Mod

 

Featured Product

 

Zebra Huddle Head Referee Bout Booklet

 

Featured Classifieds


ZH Files

How to Score a Point in Roller Derby
Rating: *****
Downloads: 3173
Views: 5014
Filesize: 327.61KB
Date: January 17, 2017, 04:21:03 am
Comments (0)
By: AdamSmasher
June 2013 Ruleset situational questions
Rating: *****
Downloads: 2272
Views: 4681
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: 2427
Views: 5211
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: 3214
Views: 5227
Filesize: 28.07KB
Date: April 25, 2013, 05:45:34 pm
Comments (0)
By: Shaun Ketterman

Powered by EzPortal