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: False Start = No pack? by llama of death
October 20, 2017, 10:15:28 pm

Re: False Start = No pack? by AdamSmasher
October 20, 2017, 12:06:46 pm

Re: New Rules Clarifications.. by Assault Disney
October 20, 2017, 07:04:37 am

Re: False Start = No pack? by Bluebeard
October 19, 2017, 10:55:25 pm

Re: New dress code for NSOs by IsaacRi
October 19, 2017, 02:50:15 pm

Re: False Start = No pack? by llama of death
October 18, 2017, 11:07:11 pm

Re: Blocking a Star Pass by llama of death
October 18, 2017, 11:01:19 pm

Re: Blocking a Star Pass by AdamSmasher
October 18, 2017, 05:52:44 pm

Re: New Rules Clarifications.. by AdamSmasher
October 18, 2017, 05:48:16 pm

Re: New Rules Clarifications.. by Vanilla VICE
October 18, 2017, 03:51:39 pm

Author Topic: 4.1 missing something?  (Read 2218 times)

Offline llama of death

  • Referee
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 301
  • Stats Sheet: 1
  • Referee
  • League Affiliation: Rollling Hills Derby Dames, WheatWhackers (JRDA)
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: 4.1 missing something?
« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2017, 09:28:14 pm »
0
As far as the Rules are concerned, high blocking is only a penalty if it forces the target down, out of bounds, out of play, or causes a change of relative position.  It requires the Casebook to understand that forceful contact to the head is an automatic penalty because of the safety issues involved.
I don't quite agree that the casebook is required to upgrade a high block to a penalty.

High blocks are under illegal blocking zones, yes.
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
4.1. Contact Penalties

Gaining position on an opponent, or causing an opponent to lose position to another teammate, due to illegal contact is always considered to have sufficient impact on the game.
So yes the rules make the actions you ascribed it immediate penalties.

However the wording is such that we should read this to say that 'these results are ALLWAYS significant impact but others could become significant as the situation arises. One of the biggest changes of the rules to my eye is the emphasis put on safety.

The word "safe" or "safety" is used 6 times in the rules, each time it is in context of safety being an underpinning requirement of the game.

Most relevant of which to this topic is the summary section on page 1. Which says
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Play that is unsafe or illegal may result in a Skater being assessed a penalty, which is served by sitting in the Penalty Box for 30 seconds of Jam time.

This shows that safety is by default a result worth measuring for ALL contact, not just illegal contact. It stands then to reason that a penalty is triggered by a significant impact on either relative/established position or safety.
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 derby medic

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • Stats Sheet: 0
  • League Affiliation: River City Rollergirls
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: 4.1 missing something?
« Reply #16 on: March 12, 2017, 12:01:50 pm »
+1
The rules lay the foundation of how the game is to be operated and what constitutes a penalty.  The casebook is filled with examples that both promote understanding of rules concepts while also changing the severity of certain actions.

This right here is exactly what I am talking about. There is a distinct difference between the rules, and the casebook. Yes, I know that I am arguing semantics, but there is a reason why I am trying to distinguish the difference. If there is ever a scenario in which the rule book says X and the casebook says Y, which should be followed? For me this is very similar to court proceedings, where you have the written law, but you also have the case studies as examples of how the law should be interpreted. If there is a discrepancy, the law is reexamined and a new case study might result. If the casebook disagrees with a rule, then the scenario in the casebook may need to be edited.

An example could include this little bit still in the books
Rulebook Errata
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Removed on 2016-12-19: “For example, if a team with legal means to stop the period clock (specifically, Team Timeouts or Official Reviews remaining) commits an action that results in the period clock stopping, they should be presumed to have used legal means to do so (and thus would not be penalized).” As the provided example introduced unintended and adverse consequences to the interpretation of related rules.
Casebook
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Scenario C4.46
White team has used three Team Timeouts during the game. White Captain calls for a Team Timeout. Officials, mistakenly believing that White team has timeouts remaining, grants the request.

Outcome: If White team has an Official Review remaining, they should be considered to have used it as a timeout. If not, White Captain is penalized and the next Jam is started as soon as possible, but at least 30 seconds after the end of the previous Jam.

Rationale: White Captain’s successful, but illegal attempt to stop the period clock prevented the next Jam from starting in a timely manner. If White Captain had legal means to prevent the Jam from starting, legal means should be assumed.

Keep in Mind: Officials should deny requests for a Team Timeout if that team has none remaining. No penalty is warranted if an invalid request for a Team Timeout is denied.
I propose the preposterous to promote and propagate pragmatism.

Offline AdamSmasher

  • NSO
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 206
  • Stats Sheet: 3
  • League Affiliation: Lansing Derby Vixens
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 1
  • NSO Certification Level: Level 3
Re: 4.1 missing something?
« Reply #17 on: March 12, 2017, 12:52:41 pm »
+1
An example could include this little bit still in the books
Rulebook Errata
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Removed on 2016-12-19: “For example, if a team with legal means to stop the period clock (specifically, Team Timeouts or Official Reviews remaining) commits an action that results in the period clock stopping, they should be presumed to have used legal means to do so (and thus would not be penalized).” As the provided example introduced unintended and adverse consequences to the interpretation of related rules.
Casebook
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Scenario C4.46
White team has used three Team Timeouts during the game. White Captain calls for a Team Timeout. Officials, mistakenly believing that White team has timeouts remaining, grants the request.

Outcome: If White team has an Official Review remaining, they should be considered to have used it as a timeout. If not, White Captain is penalized and the next Jam is started as soon as possible, but at least 30 seconds after the end of the previous Jam.

Rationale: White Captain’s successful, but illegal attempt to stop the period clock prevented the next Jam from starting in a timely manner. If White Captain had legal means to prevent the Jam from starting, legal means should be assumed.

Keep in Mind: Officials should deny requests for a Team Timeout if that team has none remaining. No penalty is warranted if an invalid request for a Team Timeout is denied.

The intent of the errata was to clarify that ALL Delay of Game penalties were not to be replaced with timeouts.  For example, under the previous wording, if one team failed to field a jammer, it would have been justifiable to charge them a timeout rather than penalize the captain.  That was NOT the intent of the rule, and there are approximately 3 casebook entries that made that clear.

In this case, the rules were fixed to match the intent.  I don't see a conflict with the remaining rules and allowing ORs to be subbed for TTOs to avoid penalties.

To your more general point - my sense is that the intent of the new ruleset is that there should be no direct conflicts between the casebook and the rules, so the question "is the casebook part of the rules" vs. "does the casebook modify the rules" is intended to be moot.  That said, every single person I have spoken with in a position to offer an opinion is adamant that the casebook is part of the rules.
I'm better at remembering "Smasher" is me than "Adam."
Rules Colored Glasses - Useful Officiating Stuff

Offline llama of death

  • Referee
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 301
  • Stats Sheet: 1
  • Referee
  • League Affiliation: Rollling Hills Derby Dames, WheatWhackers (JRDA)
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: 4.1 missing something?
« Reply #18 on: March 14, 2017, 01:12:52 am »
0
@Derby Medic

to be succinct: Any direct conflicts from rule to casebook (and reverse) are errata and should be reported as such. In the mean time use your best judgment based on the entirety of the rules as a guide for "Correct interpretation" of which one is the error.
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: 1800
Views: 2805
Filesize: 327.61KB
Date: January 17, 2017, 04:21:03 am
Comments (0)
By: AdamSmasher
June 2013 Ruleset situational questions
Rating: *****
Downloads: 1649
Views: 2990
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: 1694
Views: 3417
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: 2541
Views: 3533
Filesize: 28.07KB
Date: April 25, 2013, 05:45:34 pm
Comments (0)
By: Shaun Ketterman

Powered by EzPortal