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: 2017 Illegal Re-entry  (Read 9195 times)

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: 2017 Illegal Re-entry
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2017, 05:14:24 pm »
Given that the scenario of someone entering in the front EZ and then skating a lap to reach the pack should remain very rare either way, since there is a much faster way for the player to reenter gameplay (i.e. skate clockwise behind the pack and reenter there) we probably should not spend too much thought on it.

I saw it twice this weekend.

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: 2017 Illegal Re-entry
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2017, 07:56:10 pm »
Given that the scenario of someone entering in the front EZ and then skating a lap to reach the pack should remain very rare either way, since there is a much faster way for the player to reenter gameplay (i.e. skate clockwise behind the pack and reenter there) we probably should not spend too much thought on it.

I saw called an illegal reentery for this very situation at least 10 times last year, most where in JRDA lvl 2 and 3 bouts. So it is far from rare.

For blockers it may be very simple in practice: If the reentry is close enough to actual gameplay that a Ref takes notice of the reentry, diverting the Refs attention constitutes impact. If not then there is noone to make the call anyway. Based on that I would call jammers with the same metric even though as a JR I could focus on where exactly the EZ ends and use that as threshold.

I could not possibly disagree more that this should be called based upon 'it distracts the refs' therefor it has impact. Nope.


*Modified to explain myself better.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2017, 08:00:43 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 MyBabyDaddy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Stats Sheet: 0
  • League Affiliation: Twin State Derby (Upper Valley Vixens)
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: 2017 Illegal Re-entry
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2017, 08:15:46 pm »
Given that the scenario of someone entering in the front EZ and then skating a lap to reach the pack should remain very rare either way, since there is a much faster way for the player to reenter gameplay (i.e. skate clockwise behind the pack and reenter there) we probably should not spend too much thought on it.

It's not always faster to have to skate clockwise, stop, then accelerate forward; even when the pack is closer to you in literal distance. Given the original question of "do you have to enter the track "closer to the back of the pack than the front of the pack", I can assure you that it's VERY common for skaters to enter closer to the front of the pack and skate a 1/2 - 3/4 of a lap to rejoin the pack.

Offline Speedy Convalesce

  • NSO
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 72
  • Stats Sheet: 0
  • League Affiliation: Rhein-Neckar Delta Quads
Re: 2017 Illegal Re-entry
« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2017, 07:42:23 am »
Given that the scenario of someone entering in the front EZ and then skating a lap to reach the pack

I can assure you that it's VERY common for skaters to enter closer to the front of the pack and skate a 1/2 - 3/4 of a lap to rejoin the pack.

"Entering in the front EZ" and "skate 1/2 - 3/4 of a lap" are different scenarios. I agree that the latter is common and that it should not be penalized. I don't remember ever witnessing an instance of the former.

About others seeing the former on a regular basis: I am surprised but stand corrected.


I could not possibly disagree more that this should be called based upon 'it distracts the refs' therefor it has impact. Nope.

Which part do you disagree with? Do you think distracting a Ref is not impact? Then I refer to the rationale of C4.61, which to me implies that it is. Or do you think it does (or at least should) not distract a Ref, if a player reenters close to actual gameplay?

Offline Senor Ahzov

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Stats Sheet: 0
  • League Affiliation: Light City Derby
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: 2017 Illegal Re-entry
« Reply #19 on: February 01, 2017, 10:28:53 am »
Here's my solution:

-- Any skater who re-enters outside the engagement zone is consider to be returning behind it on the pass where they went out of bounds.  Any argument that the skater is actually entering ahead of the EZ should be thrown out the window as "yup, but there was no impact".

Is this idea not basically stated in C4.41? That's a Cutting example, but Cutting and Illegal Re-entry are both Gaining Position penalties so presumably it applies to both (certainly there's been discussion that the "you can Cut one teammate" exception in C4.31 applies to Illegal Re-entries, and if that applies to both then think this does too).

[rule]C4.41
Rationale: When out of bounds on the inside of the track, Skaters may skate in any direction to return to the track. By re-entering the track ahead of the Engagement Zone, rather than being penalized, Red Jammer is considered to be entering the rear of the Engagement Zone, behind the Pack and White Pivot.[/rule]

The emphasis is included in the Casebook, which indicates to me that they were trying to draw attention to this as an exception to the usual in front/behind logic: i.e. that returning in front of the Engagement Zone is considered to be entering far behind an opponent (or the Pack) while remaining on the same trip.

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: 2017 Illegal Re-entry
« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2017, 01:07:58 pm »
I don't hate Senor Ahzov's logic here.  I *do* hate that we're having to fish around in semi-related cases and reasoning by analogy instead of just having the answers clearly defined in the rules.  But I could see using this as a justification for calling it this way.
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: 2017 Illegal Re-entry
« Reply #21 on: February 01, 2017, 06:15:15 pm »
Which part do you disagree with? Do you think distracting a Ref is not impact? Then I refer to the rationale of C4.61, which to me implies that it is. Or do you think it does (or at least should) not distract a Ref, if a player reenters close to actual gameplay?

I disagree heartily that a ref watching ANY skater is not being distracted from their duties. 4.61 is about a contact with a ref and that contact literally preventing the ref from keeping their eyes on the game. A skater reentering the track is part of of the game.

[rule]SCENARIO C4.61
Having been released from the Penalty Box, White Blocker heads back to the track, using a forearm to push a Referee out of the way so they can keep the line.
Outcome: White Blocker is expelled from the game.
Rationale: Intentional or negligent contact to Officials is unsporting, as it renders the Official unable to keep their attention on the game. Contact to an Official who does not expect it or to an Official who is not wearing safety equipment is also unsafe.
Keep in Mind: Skaters and Officials routinely collide during the course of normal gameplay. This is usually unintentional and unavoidable, in which case it should not be penalized.[/rule]
*emphasis added

If distracting the refs was Illegal it would also be a penalty to yell "hey zebra zebra zebra" from the bench, or to shout penalties as a skater on the track, or even just to yell "that was a bad call". None of these should be penalized (as described) and neither should entering the track (wither illegal or illegal) be justified by the idea of distracting the refs.

« Last Edit: February 01, 2017, 06:28:48 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: 2017 Illegal Re-entry
« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2017, 06:24:14 pm »
Agreed the
I don't hate Senor Ahzov's logic here.  I *do* hate that we're having to fish around in semi-related cases and reasoning by analogy instead of just having the answers clearly defined in the rules.  But I could see using this as a justification for calling it this way.

Agreed, however this does seem to be what they intended. The WFTDA seems to have wanted to close loopholes by allowing more grey area.
I think they, like a few of the refs on here either never thought of this scenario when writing it (oh well we can extrapolate because the rules allow us to) OR they thought it was not a problem scenario and was rare.

It seems like the majority of the posters here are coming to the conclusion that if it has no visible effect on the actions of the pack than it mustn't have had significant impact and thus is not a penalty. The skater is merely entering really really far behind the pack on the same trip as the pack regardless of point of entry (obviously if it had not effect on the skaters no skaters where "cut durring reentery" either though it bares reiterating).

I have heard a few complaints from board/committee members in WFTDA about the tendency of us as refs to think of these outlandish scenarios that need to have specific rulings for a niche/rare action.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2017, 06:28:03 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 Bluebeard

  • Referee
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • Stats Sheet: 0
  • League Affiliation: Independent
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 1
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: 2017 Illegal Re-entry
« Reply #23 on: February 01, 2017, 10:24:02 pm »
Here's my solution:

-- Any skater who re-enters outside the engagement zone is consider to be returning behind it on the pass where they went out of bounds.  Any argument that the skater is actually entering ahead of the EZ should be thrown out the window as "yup, but there was no impact".

Is this idea not basically stated in C4.41? That's a Cutting example, but Cutting and Illegal Re-entry are both Gaining Position penalties so presumably it applies to both (certainly there's been discussion that the "you can Cut one teammate" exception in C4.31 applies to Illegal Re-entries, and if that applies to both then think this does too).

[rule]C4.41
Rationale: When out of bounds on the inside of the track, Skaters may skate in any direction to return to the track. By re-entering the track ahead of the Engagement Zone, rather than being penalized, Red Jammer is considered to be entering the rear of the Engagement Zone, behind the Pack and White Pivot.[/rule]

The emphasis is included in the Casebook, which indicates to me that they were trying to draw attention to this as an exception to the usual in front/behind logic: i.e. that returning in front of the Engagement Zone is considered to be entering far behind an opponent (or the Pack) while remaining on the same trip.

Except that the special circumstance they are pointing out in that example that makes that action not a penalty is the fact that the jammer is out of bounds in the infield.  That example was lifted straight from a Q&A for the last rule set where they explained (my paraphrasing) that because it is too hard to define a meaningful direction on the infield, they were leaving the infield wide open.  That example specifically mentions skating derby direction to get "behind" the pack.  There is still a Skating Out Of Bounds penalty for skating derby direction on the outside of the track other than to / from the penalty box.  As I recall that old Q&A also specifically spelled out that they had to re-enter beyond the engagement zone to avoid the cutting call.

In general, I think Stevil and Smasher are on the right track.  My take on it:
  • Entry is in front of (outside) the engagement zone, and
  • In play skaters do not react based on the entry
then there is no call to be made. 
If they catch the front edge of the engagement zone (19 feet from nearest skater), no ref is probably going to notice (illegal, probably no call).

If they enter in the front portion of the engagement zone, but no in play skaters react to them - Ref's choice: either issue a penalty, or apply officiating discretion and say they was no real impact, so no penalty.  I can't make a case for an overturn in an OR either way in this case.

If they enter close enough to action that in play skaters react to them - penalty.

Edit:   explained my position on the intermediate case more clearly
« Last Edit: February 01, 2017, 11:26:58 pm by Bluebeard »

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: 2017 Illegal Re-entry
« Reply #24 on: February 02, 2017, 01:24:52 am »
Based on conversations I have had elsewhere, here is how I personally intend to interpret this rule until or unless there is some form of official clarification.  This opinion is wholly my own, and in no way official.

Fundamental points:
Jammers may not enter within the front EZ
Jammers are different than blockers. A jammer ALWAYS completes a trip by exiting the engagement zone. Therefore a jammer who enters the forward EZ must either gain an advantage by skating forward to complete a trip, or falling back to gain position on the pack.  Either way, penalty, so jammers may not reenter in the forward engagement zone.

Blockers must enter the pack from the rear
 As long as they have no impact on the game, it does not matter where they enter the track as long as they enter the pack from the rear, because all entry points have equal impact as long as they do not interact with the pack from the front.

Jammers who have entered legally may fall back, at the cost of a lap
Jammers could always do this.
I'm better at remembering "Smasher" is me than "Adam."
Rules Colored Glasses - Useful Officiating Stuff

Offline Speedy Convalesce

  • NSO
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 72
  • Stats Sheet: 0
  • League Affiliation: Rhein-Neckar Delta Quads
Re: 2017 Illegal Re-entry
« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2017, 10:06:47 am »
I disagree heartily that a ref watching ANY skater is not being distracted from their duties. 4.61 is about a contact with a ref and that contact literally preventing the ref from keeping their eyes on the game. A skater reentering the track is part of of the game.

To me a skater crossing an OPRs path on the way back to the track is about as much part of the game as a blocker who is returning to the track almost a lap behind the pack. (More than someone in the box but less than someone in play.) Of course the level of distraction is still quite different between the two scenarios.

Quote
If distracting the refs was Illegal it would also be a penalty to yell "hey zebra zebra zebra" from the bench, or to shout penalties as a skater on the track, or even just to yell "that was a bad call". None of these should be penalized (as described) and neither should entering the track (wither illegal or illegal) be justified by the idea of distracting the refs.

I was not suggesting it is illegal, I was suggesting to consider it impact. Under that measure the examples you give would be creating impact through legal means and thus no penalty.

That being said, all the options suggested in this thread have some downside(s) and after taking a step back and reconsidering them all, I'll join Smasher and say that treating blockers and jammers differently is the least bad of the downsides (and distracting a ref is (usually) not sufficient impact for a penalty).

Offline Ref Leppard

  • Referee
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Stats Sheet: 0
  • League Affiliation: Atomic City Roller Derby
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: 2017 Illegal Re-entry
« Reply #26 on: March 08, 2017, 09:57:50 pm »
If they enter in the front portion of the engagement zone, but no in play skaters react to them - Ref's choice: either issue a penalty, or apply officiating discretion and say they was no real impact, so no penalty.  I can't make a case for an overturn in an OR either way in this case.

If they enter close enough to action that in play skaters react to them - penalty.

Edit:   explained my position on the intermediate case more clearly


I would also think that it's more than just the players reaction.  If they enter in the front EZ within 10 ft of the foremost blocker, they could affect pack definition which may or may not have an impact.  So in that case it is the Refs reacting to their presence (not a distraction).

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: 2017 Illegal Re-entry
« Reply #27 on: March 08, 2017, 11:38:14 pm »
I would also think that it's more than just the players reaction.  If they enter in the front EZ within 10 ft of the foremost blocker, they could affect pack definition which may or may not have an impact.  So in that case it is the Refs reacting to their presence (not a distraction).

I would still simply used discretion to determine if the action has significant impact. If the skater continues forward as though they are entering behind the pack, and none of the blockers react to the new blocker, let it ride. They cant protect their points this way, they are nearly a full lap behind the pack and if they players can ignore the illegal re-entry so can we.

Look for reasons not to give penalties, instead of reasons to give them. If you really don't like the illegal action aspect, despite low impact, then issue a warning to both teams and then begin to penalize it. Let them play


It feels weird to no longer be the one pushing for penalties 'cause it says so'
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 Ref Leppard

  • Referee
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Stats Sheet: 0
  • League Affiliation: Atomic City Roller Derby
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: 2017 Illegal Re-entry
« Reply #28 on: March 09, 2017, 01:23:59 am »
I would also think that it's more than just the players reaction.  If they enter in the front EZ within 10 ft of the foremost blocker, they could affect pack definition which may or may not have an impact.  So in that case it is the Refs reacting to their presence (not a distraction).

I would still simply used discretion to determine if the action has significant impact. If the skater continues forward as though they are entering behind the pack, and none of the blockers react to the new blocker, let it ride. They cant protect their points this way, they are nearly a full lap behind the pack and if they players can ignore the illegal re-entry so can we.

Look for reasons not to give penalties, instead of reasons to give them. If you really don't like the illegal action aspect, despite low impact, then issue a warning to both teams and then begin to penalize it. Let them play


It feels weird to no longer be the one pushing for penalties 'cause it says so'

I totally agree on the significant impact.  That's why I said may or may not.  But in this case it is not the player's reaction.  Its the potential redefinition of the pack when they enter within 10 ft of the foremost blocker.  If the IPR has to redefine the pack (or even has to call a no pack due to a split pack) because of an entry within 10 ft and this causes blockers to be OOP while recycling a jammer it now has an impact.  I would argue that an entry like this changing the pack is potentially significant particularly if it creates a no pack condition due to split pack.  I agree it would be a rare scenario but is in the realm of possibility.

To be clear I"m looking at a blocker re-entry vice a jammer.  Obviously the jammer has no effect on pack definition
« Last Edit: March 09, 2017, 01:25:49 am by Ref Leppard »

 

Featured Product

 

Zebra Huddle Head Referee Bout Booklet

 

Featured Classifieds


ZH Files

How to Score a Point in Roller Derby
Rating: *****
Downloads: 3936
Views: 6458
Filesize: 327.61KB
Date: January 17, 2017, 04:21:03 am
Comments (0)
By: AdamSmasher
June 2013 Ruleset situational questions
Rating: *****
Downloads: 2557
Views: 5300
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: 5906
Filesize: 28.07KB
Date: April 25, 2013, 05:45:34 pm
Comments (0)
By: Shaun Ketterman

Powered by EzPortal