jammer skates onto track after pack start whistle before jammer whistle

[noidd]

A free misconduct for anyone who tries that.

I would likely call an OOP as opposed to a misconduct.  I don't see anything in the misconduct section that would apply whereas a jammer whose whistle has not blown is effectively out-of-play.

[mick hawkins]

A free misconduct for anyone who tries that.

I would likely call an OOP as opposed to a misconduct.  I don't see anything in the misconduct section that would apply whereas a jammer whose whistle has not blown is effectively out-of-play.

not sure i agree

there's nothing to say that if the whistles have not blown, players are OOP
... the rules say OOP penalties are only for players outside the EZ

Code:

6.5 OUT OF PLAY PENALTIES
Out of play penalties are applied for actions occurring outside the legal Engagement Zone.

Code:

Out of Play: A Blocker that is positioned more than twenty (20) feet outside the pack, out of bounds, or down is out of play. A Jammer that is out of bounds is out of play.

considering all that, misconduct seems an appropriate penalty for blocking before the whistle

happy to be convinced otherwise   

[reflmao]

In a previous thread I called it OOP based on the idea that before the whistle (or if you like with no skaters skating) there is no pack and therefore no engagement zone.

Johnny Zebra called it misconduct in that same thread.  http://www.zebrahuddle.com/index.php?topic=802.msg13690#msg13690

[Bishop]

There are two different topics being discussed here.  J.z. was responding to engagement prior to the jam start whistle (the whistle to start the pack.)  In that case, Misconduct although not explicitly addressed in the rules (players should know better.)

When Jammers engage each other after the whistle to start the pack but prior to the Jammer start whistle, it can be called as an OOP.  GBR is stating he'd call this as a Misconduct penalty.  However, Rev. Riot had this to say about Jammers engaging prior to the start whistle:

no, you cannot hit someone before the whistle, both you and they are out of play.

I saw what you saw, I don't think penalties were given out. I thought there should've been.

I allow leaning, especially if both are leaning, but if a person needs to adjust their stance, that's a minor from me, if they lose their position, that's a major. Same as if they hit well after the whistle.

Using Rev. Riot's response as guidance, I'd use referee discretion and call this as an OOP based on impact.  I'm not a fan of doling out majors on unsuspecting players for infractions that are not explicitly addressed by the rules or the rules committee.  Furthermore, there has been some discussion on whether or not this should be called at all for the same reason.   

As Jammer Referee, I'd be tempted to raise my arm up to signal OOP after the whistle to start the pack.  I'd still show the Jammers her minors prior to the jam start whistle.  Most referees I know do not continue to show minors after the jam start whistle (the whistle to start the pack.) I'd lower my arm after the Jammer start whistle.

[Johnny Zebra]

I'd use referee discretion and call this as an OOP based on impact.  I'm not a fan of doling out majors on unsuspecting players for infractions that are not explicitly addressed by the rules or the rules committee.

A free misconduct for anyone who tries that.

I would likely call an OOP as opposed to a misconduct.  I don't see anything in the misconduct section that would apply whereas a jammer whose whistle has not blown is effectively out-of-play.

I do, in the glossary:

Misconduct: Wrongful or improper behavior motivated by intentional purpose or obstinate indifference to the rules.  

[Edit]: Additionally, to the concern that this isn't in the rules,  (as Mick pointed out earlier) the action is explicitly covered in:

5.1.3.A skater who is in play and stepping or skating (i.e. not down or at a standstill) may block or engage an opposing player at any time during the jam after their start whistle has blown.
5.1.3.1 Blockers begin at the first whistle.
5.1.3.2 Jammers begin at the second whistle.

(though, really, we're just hacking at the rules here - OOP or Misconduct would work equally, depending on the impact - depending on circumstance, if the action is a flagrant one, it is supported in the rules from both sides, and IMO a misconduct is fitting - your mileage may vary).


~j.z.

[Bishop]

5.1.3.A skater who is in play and stepping or skating (i.e. not down or at a standstill) may block or engage an opposing player at any time during the jam after their start whistle has blown.
5.1.3.1 Blockers begin at the first whistle.
5.1.3.2 Jammers begin at the second whistle.

That's the part I was missing.  Thank you for pointing that out.

[mick hawkins]

OOP or Misconduct would work equally, depending on the impact - depending on circumstance, if the action is a flagrant one, it is supported in the rules from both sides, and IMO a misconduct is fitting - your mileage may vary

i guess the difference is that if blocking before the whistle is a misconduct penalty - it's always going to be at least a major

Code:

6.13 MISCONDUCT AND GROSS MISCONDUCT

No Impact/No Penalty
6.13.1 Not applicable.

Minor Penalty
6.13.2 Not applicable.

however, if it's an OOP penalty, the penalty is based on impact

Code:

6.5 OUT OF PLAY PENALTIES

No Impact/No Penalty
6.5.10 Incidental blocking or contact while out of play that does not force the opponent to adjust
her skating stance or position in any way.
6.5.11 No Pack situations without a measurable impact on game play.

Minor Penalty
6.5.12 If the out of play action affects a skater but does not cause harm or adversely affect the
game, it is treated as a minor penalty.

Major Penalty
6.5.13 If the out of play action causes harm or has a measurable consequence for the game, it
is treated as a major penalty.

a slightly different example to the one being discussed...
jammer blocks her opposing jammer before the whistle. opposing jammer stumbles but doesnt lose position, and recovers before the whistle

if this is a misconduct penalty - it's a major
if this is an OOP penalty - it's a minor (i assume)

i'd want to call this as a misconduct major

[Bishop]

So, today I reffed a bout where one jammer was "engaging" before the jammer whistle.  It wasn't contact that I would consider as worthy of a minor based upon impact alone.  However, if I used the same standard I use for issuing the usual OOPs (i.e. OOPs for engaging just outside of the front of the Engagement Zone) for simply making any contact I would have issued a minor.  Based on this thread, it seems like the most proper penalty to issue would be Misconduct.  However, I really don't like the idea of issuing a major (Misconduct) for the type of engagement I saw.  Plus, as I've mentioned before, I really don't like the idea of isssuing majors to unsuspecting players.  The jammer thought what she was doing was legal and I doubt that she'd ever been issued a penalty for that type of engagement.  And yeah, it's not my job to teach players the rules, but IMO it's not fair to issue major penalties that are rarely enforced and not widely understood either.

So, two questions:
1. What are your thoughts on issuing OOPs for engagement after the start whistle but before the jammer start whistle?
2. What are you thoughts about issuing OOPs based upon contact rather than impact in this type of situation? 

[Pat-E-Rat]

I think you did the right thing given the circumstances.  Skaters for so long have been booty dancing at the line with no reprecussion so far as I've seen.  If anything, you helped set a standard that hopefully those teams will take with them in the future.  I know I'll be calling our league on it in practice and I'm sure to expect a good deal of "feedback".

So to answer your questions:
1 - I think a minor OOP initially is suitable as a warning that we're watching and it is illegal.  Major if she seriously moves the other skater or forces her down.  If both are booty dancing, which seems to be the most common though not always, I reckon both could get a minor "technically".
2 - If the contact doesn't cause a jammer to lose position and does not effect their start, I'd say no incident, no penalty...just annoying based on: 6.5.11 No Pack situations without a measurable impact on game play.

[Bishop]

I think you did the right thing given the circumstances.

I think *we* did the right thing considering the circumstances.  I was definitely weighing your thoughts on the situation during the bout.  [Pat and I served as neutral jam refs which is defintely that way to go due to situations just like this.  Also, it's nice to able to have someone you can trust to work with to serve as a second person verifier on scoring issues. We also had three(?) jams with hair splittingly close Lead calls and we both agreed with how we made those determinations.]  I also think the Head Ref was spot on from an officiating perspective.  I just wish there were a little more guidance from the rules regarding situations after the jam start whistle and before the jammer start whistle.

2 - If the contact doesn't cause a jammer to lose position and does not effect their start, I'd say no incident, no penalty...just annoying based on: 6.5.11 No Pack situations without a measurable impact on game play.

It's a very effective psychological tactic on the opposing jammer - and us jam refs.  We did take some heat about our non-calls but I do think we approached the situation appropriately.   I think next time I'll be a little quicker with an OOP minor just so the jammer has that warning before getting a major should she make contact deserving of the penalty.

[Pat-E-Rat]

I agree.  I also noticed, and kept quiet for obvious reasons, that the main complaintant about the calls or lack there of was the coach of the trailing team who used all their TOs and an official review.  Not that that makes the argument questionable, but the only time I saw 6.5.11 need to be called it was.  Backed up by myself and head ref I don't think there's much else that needed discussion.  Plus, after our discussion mid track, everyone seemed to back off.  I suppose in a less professional situation my response to any coach in that spot would've been, "coach your players to behave more professionally and you won't have to worry about it.", but then again I'm a bit of smart a$$ out of professional circumstances...