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

установка скважин воду by Patriotdnp
May 22, 2018, 02:37:35 am

Re: Cut, or not? by Vanilla VICE
May 18, 2018, 11:09:36 pm

Re: Cut, or not? by Divide by Zero
May 17, 2018, 07:36:03 am

Re: Cut, or not? by Ref Leppard
May 17, 2018, 05:56:37 am

Re: Cut, or not? by Vanilla VICE
May 16, 2018, 06:06:39 pm

Re: Cut, or not? by AdamSmasher
May 16, 2018, 03:35:56 am

Re: Cut, or not? by Ref Leppard
May 16, 2018, 01:05:45 am

Cut, or not? by Bluebeard
May 15, 2018, 10:08:49 pm

Re: Is this a Stop Clockwise? by Mav'Ricky
May 11, 2018, 12:06:47 pm

Re: Verbal cues for starting jams after time outs or start of a half. by Mav'Ricky
May 11, 2018, 12:03:41 pm

Author Topic: 4.2.1 Jammer destruction  (Read 1229 times)

Offline watzé

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Stats Sheet: 1
  • League Affiliation: Paris Rollergirls
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
4.2.1 Jammer destruction
« on: January 30, 2018, 08:09:53 am »
0
Hello everyone,

I just notice this part:
"4.2.1... if a Skater’s illegal action destroys the Pack, or if a Skater’s actions prevent or delay the reformation of a Pack, that Skater should be penalized."

I kept in mind that only the blocker can penalize for destruction or failure to reform. Here we talk about skater.

That's mean you can have some scenarios where the jammer can be penalize for a destruction? And if yes, which one?

Thank you for you answers
Watzé

Paris rollergirls
Watzegaga@gmail.com

Offline AdamSmasher

  • NSO
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • Stats Sheet: 3
  • League Affiliation: Lansing Derby Vixens
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 1
  • NSO Certification Level: Level 3
Re: 4.2.1 Jammer destruction
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2018, 12:04:40 pm »
+4
Hello everyone,

I just notice this part:
"4.2.1... if a Skater’s illegal action destroys the Pack, or if a Skater’s actions prevent or delay the reformation of a Pack, that Skater should be penalized."

I kept in mind that only the blocker can penalize for destruction or failure to reform. Here we talk about skater.

That's mean you can have some scenarios where the jammer can be penalize for a destruction? And if yes, which one?

Thank you for you answers

There's no way for a Jammer to get a Destruction penalty, but there's ONE case where they can get a Failure to Reform.  If there is only one White Blocker on the track, and the Red Jammer knocks that White Blocker out and then runs back.  In this case, the White Blocker cannot reenter legally to reform a pack, because the Red Jammer has run back.  As such, the Red Jammer gets a Failure to Reform.

Note that hitting the Blocker out in the first place is completely legal, and not a Destruction.
I'm better at remembering "Smasher" is me than "Adam."
Rules Colored Glasses - Useful Officiating Stuff

Offline Vanilla VICE

  • Referee
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 678
  • Stats Sheet: 6
  • SC&L
  • League Affiliation: Muscogee Roller Girls
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 2
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: 4.2.1 Jammer destruction
« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2018, 11:29:13 pm »
0
Quote
As such, the Red Jammer gets a Failure to Reform.

I didn't even know this was a thing.
Muscogee Roller Girls: Columbus, GA
FlatTrackStats Mod

Offline General Hellativity

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
  • Stats Sheet: 1
  • League Affiliation: Ithaca League of Women Rollers
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 1
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: 4.2.1 Jammer destruction
« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2018, 01:24:37 pm »
0
Yeah I hadn't thought of that scenario, but it's clearly correct.

WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
4.2.1. ...if a Skater’s actions prevent or delay the reformation of a Pack, that Skater should be penalized.

Since a skater is never obligated to skate clockwise to re-enter, the jammer's actions prevent the reformation of a pack. Cool.

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: 4.2.1 Jammer destruction
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2018, 10:14:00 pm »
-2
There's no way for a Jammer to get a Destruction penalty, but there's ONE case where they can get a Failure to Reform.  If there is only one White Blocker on the track, and the Red Jammer knocks that White Blocker out and then runs back.  In this case, the White Blocker cannot reenter legally to reform a pack, because the Red Jammer has run back.  As such, the Red Jammer gets a Failure to Reform.

Note that hitting the Blocker out in the first place is completely legal, and not a Destruction.

Umm, wait what? Why is a legal action suddenly a penalty? Maybe I misunderstood you...

A run back is legal (AKA an attempt to recycle). Remaining OoB during a no pack is legal, unless they are the ONLY blocker who can reform the pack. Then a warning must be issued and they may be penalized if they do not meet to requirements of the warning. So far I believe our statements agree.

However, the rules infer the blocker is only required to re-enter to reform "if they are legally able to do so" combine that with 'a skater is never forced to skate clockwise to re-enter the pack' and we are left with Red Jammer being allowed to skate back. The pack cannot be reformed until the blocker can legally re-enter, Black Blocker cannot legally re-enter the track ahead of the Jammer who has runback, and we should not be able to force a Jammer to go anywhere under any rule/case I am aware of.

It is not to Red Jammers advantage to stand back there in a weird 'eat the baby' type scenario. In fact the longer the Jammer waits to let Black Blocker back in the more likely the remaining black blockers will return from wherever they are at the time (in the box, off the track  etc etc).


4.2.1 does say "skater" so a jammer is applicable for the "prevent or delay the reformation of a Pack." But I think it is unreasonable to require the jammer to know that this blocker is the only blocker who can reform the pack and subsequently issue them an immediate penalty upon running back.

At the very least a clear and specific warning should be required to let them know this is the case.


All of this should be rare anyway.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 10:20:08 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

  • NSO
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • Stats Sheet: 3
  • League Affiliation: Lansing Derby Vixens
  • Referee Certification Level: Level 1
  • NSO Certification Level: Level 3
Re: 4.2.1 Jammer destruction
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2018, 11:03:44 pm »
+4
Scenario C4.2.1.D expressly addresses this situation - skating backwards which prevents the last remaining blocker from returning in bounds is illegal and penalizable.  The strategy is utterly irrelevant here - the fact of the matter is that this is illegal, and expressly indicated as such.

Rare or not, I have seen this penalty issued.
I'm better at remembering "Smasher" is me than "Adam."
Rules Colored Glasses - Useful Officiating Stuff

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: 4.2.1 Jammer destruction
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2018, 02:51:15 am »
+3

At the very least a clear and specific warning should be required to let them know this is the case.


In this case the warning is the IPR shouting "No Pack!"

Offline BigMeanDaddy

  • Referee
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • Stats Sheet: 0
  • League Affiliation: Cincinnati Rollergirls
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: 4.2.1 Jammer destruction
« Reply #7 on: February 15, 2018, 02:36:33 pm »
0
Scenario C4.2.1.D expressly addresses this situation - skating backwards which prevents the last remaining blocker from returning in bounds is illegal and penalizable.  The strategy is utterly irrelevant here - the fact of the matter is that this is illegal, and expressly indicated as such.

Rare or not, I have seen this penalty issued.

Just to help wrap my head around this, is the rational here that this part of C4.2.1.D about the White Pivot and/or Blocker would apply to the jammer, too?

WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Keep in Mind: If White Pivot or White Blocker had not skated forward, one or both of them would have been penalized instead of Red Pivot for preventing a Pack from reforming by forcing the only Opposing Blocker to remain out of bounds.
Alex Cline
Big Mean Daddy (from Cincinnati)
Cincinnati Rollergirls

Offline BigMeanDaddy

  • Referee
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • Stats Sheet: 0
  • League Affiliation: Cincinnati Rollergirls
  • Referee Certification Level: Not Certified
  • NSO Certification Level: Not Certified
Re: 4.2.1 Jammer destruction
« Reply #8 on: February 15, 2018, 02:40:01 pm »
+1
Disregard. After rereading 4.2.1, I'm clear on this.

WFTDA Rule/Clarification:
Since all Blockers are unable to block when a Pack cannot be defined, if a Skater’s illegal action destroys the Pack, or if a Skater’s actions prevent or delay the reformation of a Pack, that Skater should be penalized.
(Emphasis mine)

 I'd just never considered how it would apply to jammers. TMYK - thanks!

edit: man, i should read the whole thread before replying. *pours moar coffee*
« Last Edit: February 15, 2018, 02:56:07 pm by BigMeanDaddy »
Alex Cline
Big Mean Daddy (from Cincinnati)
Cincinnati Rollergirls

 

Featured Product

 

Zebra Huddle Head Referee Bout Booklet

 

Featured Classifieds


ZH Files

How to Score a Point in Roller Derby
Rating: *****
Downloads: 2088
Views: 3576
Filesize: 327.61KB
Date: January 17, 2017, 04:21:03 am
Comments (0)
By: AdamSmasher
June 2013 Ruleset situational questions
Rating: *****
Downloads: 1798
Views: 3644
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: 1875
Views: 4041
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: 2704
Views: 4156
Filesize: 28.07KB
Date: April 25, 2013, 05:45:34 pm
Comments (0)
By: Shaun Ketterman

Powered by EzPortal