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: OOP points by AdamSmasher
March 23, 2017, 03:08:49 pm

Re: OOP points by Speedy Convalesce
March 22, 2017, 07:23:08 pm

OOP points by EL-REFE
March 22, 2017, 05:33:20 pm

Re: How to treat refs nicely? by Stray Taco
March 22, 2017, 02:04:03 pm

How to treat refs nicely? by ButtBlock_36
March 14, 2017, 11:55:37 am

Re: 4.1 missing something? by llama of death
March 14, 2017, 01:12:52 am

Re: Jammer Lap Points Graphic by AdamSmasher
March 13, 2017, 09:47:39 pm

Re: 2017 Rules: Unexpected changes by Major Wood
March 13, 2017, 07:29:54 pm

Re: Jammer Lap Points Graphic by Stray Taco
March 13, 2017, 04:34:30 pm

Re: Jammer Lap Points Graphic by Vanilla VICE
March 13, 2017, 04:32:25 pm

Author Topic: 2017 Rules: Unexpected changes  (Read 988 times)

Offline AdamSmasher

  • NSO
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • Stats Sheet: 3
  • League Affiliation: Lansing Derby Vixens
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 1
  • NSO Certification Level: Level 3
Re: 2017 Rules: Unexpected changes
« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2017, 04:48:00 pm »
+1
From the 2015 Rules:
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
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.

Key word is *first*.  You could only retain your Official Review once per period, so this is unchanged.
I'm better at remembering "Smasher" is me than "Adam."

Offline Destructor

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Stats Sheet: 0
  • League Affiliation: Las Palmas Roller Derby
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: 2017 Rules: Unexpected changes
« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2017, 06:43:44 pm »
0
From the 2015 Rules:
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
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.
Key word is *first*.  You could only retain your Official Review once per period, so this is unchanged.

Wow! We no understood correctly then, because we thought while team have reason in OR, they could use many times.  :-[

Offline Axis of Stevil

  • Referee
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 416
  • Stats Sheet: 7
  • Skating in circles since 2012
  • League Affiliation: Garden State Rollergirls and Jerzey Derby Brigade
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 1
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: 2017 Rules: Unexpected changes
« Reply #17 on: March 10, 2017, 07:29:37 pm »
0
Now, OR only called 2 times per period? (If first time retain). Before, how many was called? (we used infinite while request was correct).  :o

In both the current and last rule sets, each team received one official review per half.  If that review resulted in a finding of officiating error, the team was refunded its official review.

A refunding of an official review can only occur once per team per half.
6.1.3.5.1.2.3 - The referee who quotes a rule with the most digits is declared the winner.

Offline Divide by Zero

  • Referee
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 138
  • Stats Sheet: 2
  • League Affiliation: Crime City Rollers
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 2
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: 2017 Rules: Unexpected changes
« Reply #18 on: March 10, 2017, 07:59:56 pm »
0
I only started skating a year ago and I was always taught that you only retained the Official Review once per period (if successful on first one that period)  so I don't think that has changed.

Correct. Since retaining the OR was introduced it has always been limited to only retaining it once per period.

Offline Bluebeard

  • Referee
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 86
  • Stats Sheet: 0
  • League Affiliation: Currently un-affiliated
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: 2017 Rules: Unexpected changes
« Reply #19 on: March 10, 2017, 11:39:41 pm »
0
c3.7  does not say that a jammer who starts in the box automatically gives the other jammer  lapping position upon re-entering the track.  It talks about a jammer returning to the track just ahead of the on track jammer who is rolling at speed.  the on track jammer then passes the returning jammer, gaining lapping position by virtue of passing them on the track.

3.7 is extremely confusing, true, but I agree with Stevil.  The strong implication is that if one jammer starts in the box, the other jammer IS eligible for a lap point on their second scoring trip if the penalized jammer returns to play.  It would be better if the case didn't confuse the issue with as many confounding variables as it does.

Quote
2.2.1  I agree that it is no longer explicitly stated to be forbidden for a star to enter an in progress jam.  However, it is also not explicitly permitted.  In the old rules we could have a jammer without a star who was inactive for the entire jam.  I am inclined towards calling this the same way under the 2017 rules until I hear otherwise from WFTDA (no helmet cover can enter a jam in progress).

Case 2.7 says that it is legal to pull the star out of your pocket or shirt at the start of the jam and put it on.  Since there is no substantial difference in game impact between that and having the coach throw the star in, I can't possibly justify penalizing something that simply isn't illegal in the rules. 

Adding to that, the point of the new Delay of Game rules was to prevent one team from having a scoreless two minutes due to an error.  Forbidding a helmet cover from being thrown in would have the same effect.

I agree that the "keep in mind" in c3.7 is worded terribly. 

If you only read c3.7 up until the "keep in mind", it shows white starting in the box, white returning to play, white being passed by red, red not scoring a JLP, but earning lapping position.  This is no change to the way lapping position works on returning from the box: Upon a jammer's return to play from the box, there is no lapping position until the two jammers interact.

Reading through it a couple more times, I can now see how that "keep in mind" might be saying that if white jammer enters right behind red jammer, that counts as an interaction and gives red jammer lapping position, with white jammer right behind her.  If that is what they are getting at with that note, then the fact that white started the jam in the box is a red herring to that point.

I see your point on c2.7.  So long as the star is on its way at the jam start (including someone going to grab it from the bench), and she does not act until she gets it. 

Which brings up a tangent hypothetical that should never arise now that refs are encouraged to warn skaters of things like "hey <color><number> you need a star":  If a jammer lines up without a star, the jam starts, and she starts playing derby (passing skaters).  Should we penalize her for "hiding the star" for not having the star visible even though she does not have it at all?

Offline AdamSmasher

  • NSO
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • Stats Sheet: 3
  • League Affiliation: Lansing Derby Vixens
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 1
  • NSO Certification Level: Level 3
Re: 2017 Rules: Unexpected changes
« Reply #20 on: March 11, 2017, 01:05:43 pm »
0
Reading through it a couple more times, I can now see how that "keep in mind" might be saying that if white jammer enters right behind red jammer, that counts as an interaction and gives red jammer lapping position, with white jammer right behind her.  If that is what they are getting at with that note, then the fact that white started the jam in the box is a red herring to that point.

I actually personally think that trying to define the interaction between lap points and one jammer starting in the box is one of the reasons for C3.7, but I think we're in complete agreement that it's worded poorly.  The parallel here is that the jammer starting in front in a normal jam can get a lap point on their first scoring trip, even if they never pass the opposing jammer on the first trip.

Discussions I have had on this issue have not reached a strong consensus.

Quote
I see your point on c2.7.  So long as the star is on its way at the jam start (including someone going to grab it from the bench), and she does not act until she gets it. 

Which brings up a tangent hypothetical that should never arise now that refs are encouraged to warn skaters of things like "hey <color><number> you need a star":  If a jammer lines up without a star, the jam starts, and she starts playing derby (passing skaters).  Should we penalize her for "hiding the star" for not having the star visible even though she does not have it at all?

This is another ambiguous area.  The rule says she should be penalized if she engages with the star hidden, but that doesn't make clear if it's the act of engaging with a hidden star is penalized, or the act of possessing the hidden star.  Further complicating matters is that we can't tell if the star is hidden if she doesn't have it visible at the start of the jam, so any theory of what to do has to account for the fact that we don't have that information. 

My own interpretation would be that the jammer can stand around picking her nose for as long as she wants without engaging until she has a star in her possession - there's no game impact.  It would also be reasonable to allow her to be an inactive jammer for the duration of the jam if she so chooses, although I personally wouldn't choose that option.

This is an issue that I have definitely heard a wide variety of opinions on.  On the other hand, there is near unanimity among officials that I have spoken to that a "missing star" warning you mention would neatly sidestep all of these issues in most cases, and is an excellent idea.
I'm better at remembering "Smasher" is me than "Adam."

Offline Speedy Convalesce

  • NSO
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • Stats Sheet: 0
  • League Affiliation: Rhein-Neckar Delta Quads
Re: 2017 Rules: Unexpected changes
« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2017, 03:19:51 pm »
0
I can now see how that "keep in mind" might be saying that if white jammer enters right behind red jammer, that counts as an interaction and gives red jammer lapping position, with white jammer right behind her.

If White Jammer enters behind Red Jammer, White Jammer is still a NOTT point (2.5, last bullet), so lapping position is not needed for Red Jammer to be able to score on them. This, together with the fact that the original scenario has White Jammer explicitly reentering in front of Red Jammer makes it very plausible that the Keep in Mind also assumes that White Jammer enters in front. (If they enter behind, there will either be a physical pass from White Jammer, which clearly establishes lapping position, or Red Jammer will pass a White Blocker, thereby earning a pass on White Jammer, which also establishes lapping position as per 2.5, 3rd paragraph ("All earned passes count as passes") and the definition of lapping in 3.1 ("A Jammer laps an opponent if they pass that opponent twice in a row (without that opponent having passed that Jammer)").)

3.4 states that "Upon penalization, there is no longer lapping position between the Jammers until both the Jammers are in gameplay." It does not say, however, if lapping position is immediately restored or only at the next pass. The Keep in Mind of C3.7 appears to establish that at least in some circumstances lapping position is established immediately. So far I have seen two plausible explanation of what these circumstances are:

  • The third sentence of 3.1 states that at the start of the Jam lapping position is established without a pass once. The Keep in Mind of C3.7 says that if one Jammer starts in the Box, this is delayed until the Jammers are on the track together for the first time. So it assumes that by default lapping position is only established at the next pass and the Keep in Mind decides the conflict between 3.1 and 3.4 (that lead to conflicting ways to handle this situation) in favor of 3.1.)
  • Starting in the Box is a red herring. The Keep in Mind is is supposed to clarify that lapping position is by default reestablished as soon as both Jammers are on the track and the base case of C3.7 defines an exception from this default when it would lead to a Jammer being able to score on the opposing Jammer twice within the same scoring trip (or once during the initial trip) without the opposing Jammer losing a lap on the Pack.


Personally, I'm in favor of interpretation 2, especially after realizing that earning the NOTT pass on a Jammer that returned from the Box behind the other Jammer will establish lapping position. Look at the following scenarios:

White Jammer went to the Box on their initial Pass and is about to return to the Track half a lap behind the Pack. Red Jammer is approaching the Pack on their second trip.
  • White Jammer returns to the Track. After that Red Jammer passes all Blockers and starts their third trip through the Pack.
  • Red Jammer earns a pass on a White Blocker. After that White Jammer returns to the Track and the scenario continues as before.

In both cases Red Jammer will earn a pass and a NOTT point on White Jammer when they earn their first pass on a white Blocker. If we assume that lapping position is only established at the next pass after both Jammers are back in gameplay, Red Jammer will be in lapping position on White Jammer in scenario 1, but not in scenario 2. So White Jammer can deny Red Jammer a scoring opportunity simply by delaying their reentry. Additionally Red JR needs to know if White Jammer reentered before or after the NOTT pass was earned, which they will not be able to reliably figure out in all situations.* If we establish lapping position immediately (unless this would lead to double scoring), this problem is avoided.

*We could take the opportunity to influence this from White Jammer by defining their return to gameplay as the moment their penalty time is up. But then Red Jammer could still attempt to obtain the lapping position by delaying their first pass on a White Blocker. And it doesn't solve the problem of requiring information about the order of two events that could happen very shortly after each other but too far apart to be reliably observed by the same person.

Offline Major Wood

  • Administrator
  • Has Too Much Damn Time Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2650
  • Stats Sheet: 77
  • League Affiliation: Nashville Rollergirls
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 5
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: 2017 Rules: Unexpected changes
« Reply #22 on: March 13, 2017, 07:29:54 pm »
0
WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
1.3.2. Official Reviews
...
 If the Head Referee determines that an officiating error was made in relation to the situation under review, the team will retain the privilege to call an additional review later in the same period. The review can be retained in this manner only once per period.
...


Now, OR only called 2 times per period? (If first time retain). Before, how many was called? (we used infinite while request was correct).  :o

As long as there has been the ability to retain a review, a review could only be retained once. Maximum of two ORs per team, per period.
I only started skating a year ago and I was always taught that you only retained the Official Review once per period (if successful on first one that period)  so I don't think that has changed.
Your friendly Zebra Huddle admin.

Nashville Rollergirls Head Ref
WFTDA Level 5 Certified Referee

I speak only of my opinions and interpretations.

 

Featured Product

 

Zebra Huddle Head Referee Bout Booklet

 

Featured Classifieds


ZH Files

How to Score a Point in Roller Derby
Rating: *****
Downloads: 1498
Views: 2060
Filesize: 327.61KB
Date: January 17, 2017, 04:21:03 am
Comments (0)
By: AdamSmasher
June 2013 Ruleset situational questions
Rating: *****
Downloads: 1523
Views: 2501
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: 1548
Views: 2876
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: 2400
Views: 3085
Filesize: 28.07KB
Date: April 25, 2013, 05:45:34 pm
Comments (0)
By: Shaun Ketterman

Powered by EzPortal