WFTDA Releases Ruleset Version 4.0
The WFTDA today released the third major update to its standardized ruleset, known as WFTDA 4.0. Major releases have been coming at roughly a yearly clip for the last four years - 1.0 was released January 2006, 2.1 was released in May 2007 and 3.0 was released in May 2008. (Both 2.1 and 3.0 got minor updates in August of their release years.)
Download a PDF of 4.0 here.
Like the updates before, 4.0 does not entirely overhaul the underlying concepts of the game, but contains a number of tweaks and a couple of significant changes proposed by WFTDA members and voted on over a year-long process of drafts and revisions.
During the month of May 2009, WFTDA sanctioned bouts may be played under either 3.1 or 4.0, but by June 1, all sanctioned bouts must be played under 4.0.
DNN's unofficial guide "WFTDA 4.0 At A Glance" has change-by-change notes, categorized by clarified rules, added rules and changed rules. Below, some in-depth discussion of three of the major changes, and a short list of some of the minor ones.
Cutting the Track
Arguably the most controversial section of the previous 3.x ruleset had to do with its extremely strict language around cutting the track -- skaters would receive track-cutting penalties the instant that any part of their body, skates or equipment were touching the floor inside the track boundary, leading to many situations where a skater would receive a block that sent her to the floor on a turn and would slide on the infield past a couple of players only to get nailed with a major as an errant wheel tapped the floor beyond them.
The language for 4.0 has been altered so that cutting track penalties are not applied until a skater has returned to an "in bounds, upright and skating position." A out-of-bounds skater who slides back in bounds past multiple players will now not get a cutting track penalty unless she attempts to get up and keep skating before those players pass her. (However, she might still be subject to a tripping or blocking-from-out-of-bounds penalty, depending on how she re-entered.)
Similar logic has been applied to players straddling the boundary line. In 3.1, a straddling (partially out-of-bounds) player was supposed to be given a cutting track penalty immediately upon passing another skater; 4.0 states that no penalty is to be given until the skater is fully in-bounds.
Finally, a related rule change has to do with cutting around out-of-play skaters. Previously, it was illegal in every instance to cut around an opponent who was upright and in bounds, even if the opponent was out of play (that is, outside of the 20ft engagement zone.) This led to some crowd-confounding plays where a jammer would get hit with a cutting-track major for cutting around a frontmost blocker who was legally unable to actually block her.
Additionally, it created a "race back in bounds" situation when one skater forced an opponent out of bounds but went out of bounds with her during the block. Under the 3.1 ruleset, a skater would still have to return behind the player who hit her out, if that player beat her back in bounds.
Three new rules specify that no penalty is to be issued when an initiating blocker goes out of play in any way, at any time, after the block that sends her opponent out of bounds. This would include going out of bounds, falling down, or exiting the 20ft Engagement Zone in either direction.
Both Jammers Off The Track
4.0 completely overhauls the "jammerless jam" procedure that has been in use for the last two WFTDA tournament cycles. Previously, when both jammers were in the penalty box, the current jam would end and a new jam would begin with the same personnel on the track, but with blockers taking over the jammer positions and the penalized jammers returning to the jam as blockers when their penalty time was up.
4.0 introduces a change in which concurrent jammer penalties will shorten the penalty time of both jammers, and not cause jams to end when both jammers are penalized.
Quoting 7.4: "When the second Jammer is seated in the penalty box, the first Jammer, who has already been serving her time, is released back into play by the penalty box official. The exact amount of time the first Jammer served before she was released will be the exact amount of time the second Jammer will serve before she is released back into play."
For example, if a White jammer were to serve 30 seconds of penalty time before the opposing Black jammer reached the box, the White jammer would be immediately released and the Black jammer would serve a 30 second penalty.
The new 7.4 has a number of sub-rules covering a variety of slightly different jammer scenarios, including the caveat that this process can only happen once in a jam -- if a jammer who was sprung early goes back to the penalty box while the other jammer is still there, both jammers remain in the box until all penalty time is served.
Destroying the Pack
A change that may be less obvious to the casual fan but will likely have some effect on gameplay is a new rule about "destroying the pack." Previously it was legal for skaters to essentially give their jammer a free pass through their opponents by causing no pack to exist -- most easily by slowing their entire team to the point that there were more than 10 feet between the teams and therefore no legally defined pack, making it illegal for anybody to block. (It could also be done in a slightly more immediate and obvious manner by all members of one team simply taking a knee, therefore taking themselves out of play and out of the pack.)
This is now an illegal action, with new rule 6.5.7 reading as follows: "If a player, team, or group of skaters intentionally destroys the pack with a conscious and orchestrated effort, one penalty will be applied to a single player who is most responsible (or the Pivot per Section 7.1.2 and 7.2.4)."
Followup rule 6.5.13 would suggest that this would be a major penalty if it caused a jammer to score where she wouldn't have otherwise: "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."
In other changes:
Skaters will now foul out on 5 turns in the penalty box in a half (previously, the trigger was 4 majors, 16 minors OR 5 turns total in the penalty box.)
Removing a mouthguard (or any other safety equipment) during a jam is an immediate major penalty (previously, refs had discretion as to whether to give a penalty or warning for such behavior.)
All regulation games must be played in two 30 minute halves (which has been the standard for a while, but as recently as 2007's Eastern Regionals, most games were played in three 20 minute periods.)
There is no longer any requirement for blockers to line up in two rows at the beginning of jams (though they still must line up behind pivots on the pivot line or face illegal procedure penalties.)
Again, for more detail on clarified and added rules, see DNN's "WFTDA 4.0 At A Glance" document here. Also, keep an eye on WFTDA's official rules clarification site, rules.wftda.com, for official statements on specific rules interpretations.
Photo: James Calder
Comments
There's definitely a lot to
There's definitely a lot to be excited about! It's like HannuKwanStmas all over again!
A Festivus
for the rest of us!
6.5.7
I hope it is enough to affect a change ...
I hope not....
I hope it is enough to affect a change ...
Personally I think 6.5.7 is a bad idea, as it gets rid of the slowing the pack down in order to get your jammer lead status(20 feet rule) strategery.
The Original GGRDOnald
Derby-IT AIN'T SOCCER, PEOPLE!!!!!
They can still pull 20 -
They can still pull 20 - they just need to have trapped an opposing blocker back there with them!
I like this change. I hope it really does eliminate the ability of a team to get their jammer through by slowing down and not hitting anyone.
Slowing the Pack Down
is legal. Destroying the pack is a whole different "strategy" that serves to gain points/allow a jammer to pass via intentionally avoiding playing roller derby.
Skaters don't like it when you sign on to play, show up, and then don't play roller derby.
At least that's what I understand. I'm not a skater, after all.
doesn't seem strategic to me
GGRD DONALD SAID: Personally I think 6.5.7 is a bad idea, as it gets rid of the slowing the pack down in order to get your jammer lead status(20 feet rule) strategery.
I disagree. You can still totally slow the pack legally by taking an opponent with you. Taking a knee to break out your jammer was a loophole that the opposing team couldn't counter with any type of skill. The oversite of the original rule that allows players to just sit out playing to gain advantage sucked. Imagine if basketball players could score a basket by just sitting down on the court - lame. Now teams have to work together to target opponents to slow the pack, so I'm glad its gone.
And I super love this one, too:
6.5.9 Jammers may not initiate engagement with Blockers outside the Engagement Zone. If a
Blocker initiates engagement with a Jammer outside the Engagement Zone, the Jammer
may counter-block and go unpenalized.
6.5.7 does nothing to get
6.5.7 does nothing to get rid of drawing 20ft because in order to draw 20ft, there needs to be a PACK from which the player(s) are 20ft away.
now blockers will have to trap an opposing blocker while slowing the pack to ensure there is still a pack.
straddling?
am i reading this wrong?
so effectively a person could pass the whole pack as long as she has one foot in bounds and not be issued any sort of penalty?
sort of
I think you mean 'as long as she has one foot OUT OF bounds' - yes, you can straddle past the entire pack.
BUT as soon as you lift up your out-of-bounds foot, ding, that's a cut, because now you're back in bounds.
And while straddling, you can't hit anyone. And people can hit you.
So it's not all that clever a 'strategy.'
what he said, in fewer
what he said, in fewer sentences.
Anna
Boston Massacre: The pantsless wonders of Massachusetts
not quite
Whats a bit confusing about the track cutting rules before is that they were inconsistent with the definitions of inbounds and out of bounds. a player is legally "out of bounds" if any part of her is off of the track. So, the prior track cutting rule that said if you straddled and passed anyone while straddling it was an automatic track cut, was not in line with the fact that she was legally "out of bounds".
So, in case you're giving--a skater straddling and passing the entire pack--she would get a penalty as soon as she regained legal inbounds status.
No track cutting penalty: a skater straddles the line (out of bounds) and passes ___ players. Then, she goes completely out of bounds (either both skates go over the line, or she picks up her inbounds foot) completely and she drops back behind the players she passed. Once behind them she returns inbounds.
Minor track cutting penalty: straddling skater passes one non-foremost-player and returns in bounds in front of her
Major track cutting penalty: straddling player cuts multiple players or foremost opposing and returns inbounds (either both skates go in bounds or she picks up her out of bounds foot.)
This is muuuuch more consistent with our definitions of "in bounds" and "out of bounds".
Major track cutting penalt
Anna
Boston Massacre: The pantsless wonders of Massachusetts
I applaud the jam clock
I applaud the jam clock being required to be visible but something still needs to be done about announcing the score that can ruin the end of a close game (clear example would be the BAD/Philly game from nationals).
Applauding clocks too AND...
Not only would I like to see a requirement for rapidly updated score (especially with 9.2.13 now saying a team can't have the score from two jams previous reviewed!) I'd also like to see the requirement that penalty status for all skaters regardless of the number of minor penalties be visible.
Knowing if a skater is on zero, one or two can be as important as three!
Bitches Bruze
Pioneer Vally Roller Derby
Blogging @ http://promiseofderby.com
Part of the problem with real time scoring
is getting your jam refs to remember to report as they pass the score table. Sometimes they get so focused on the jam, they don't always report. I think that is what happened at Nationals at least.
And as for penalty display, check out Foul-O-Matic!
Code Nerd on Derbymatic and MooseCaster here on
DNN
Another example?
The end of BADG/PRG was complicated by the fact that the PRG jammer was in the box from a partially-complete scoring pass. Her points could not be posted until she finished that pass or the jam was ended. Have any others to illustrate the point?
that's exactly the problem
Refs should adjust the scores even in partially completed passes. The end of that game should have been embarrassing to everyone involved in roller derby.
Could you imagine if somebody hit a buzzer beater in the Final 4 of the NCAA basketball tournament to send the game to overtime and then a couple minutes later, the refs said, "oh, we didn't count a lay-up from a couple minutes ago. sorry, no overtime." There would literally be riots and that's basically what happened in that game. It went from being the bar-none indisputable greatest jam in roller derby history to "wow, our scoring system is messed up" in the matter of a couple minutes.
If refs can keep track of how many and what skaters have already been passed, they should be able to keep track of how many points were scored on a lap by lap basis and hold up their fingers each time they pass the scorekeepers.
Mr. Rawk has a good "Best Practice"
When his jammer clears the pack on a scoring pass, he holds up the points on his hand for a full lap (or until they encounter the pack again). He pumps his hand and rotates it for everybody to see. Once again though, the Jam Ref has got to remember to indicate points when they occur.
I just disagree that the
I just disagree that the points have to wait to be announced until after the jammer is clear of the pack.
It just seems like the rules are opening every close game up to mass confusion at the end of games with people not knowing if all the points have been counted or not.
It seems so easy to keep track of scoring on a lap by lap basis rather than a pack clearing basis to not do.
Seems fair to me.
There is a difference between updating the scoreboard/announcing/signaling the score and awarding points as they are earned. There is also a fine line between reffing and coaching. The ref doesn't keep track of the points for the jammer, so s/he waits until the jammer can no longer score points on that pass to report it. That way, the jammer can't change her course of action based on what the ref is saying/doing.
Anna
Boston Massacre: The pantsless wonders of Massachusetts
But, shouldn't the jammer
But, shouldn't the jammer know how many points they've scored? What is the reasoning behind keeping this information from the jammer? If the jammer isn't sure whether or not the ref counted a point or not, they should know, it shouldn't be some mystery that they can only find out by calling the jam or getting out of the pack. It's not coaching if refs are consistent with when and how they signal points.
no reasoning
there isn't anything saying a jam ref can't share the current scoring pass point count with the jammer, or whomever else s/he wishes*, and i've seen at least one jam ref count points during a pass visibly enough that i was able to see it from the sidelines. but it just doesn't seem possible to have an instantaneous update to the scoreboard as a jammer is on her scoring pass. i can't think of any right now, but i'm certain there are other sports out there that have delays between action and updating a scoreboard and the fans are ok with it.
*at least i don't think there is. someone please correct me if i'm wrong. :)
thats the whole argument :)
Its based on this: 8.5.2 Points are announced, verbally and by hand signal, once the Jammer has cleared the pack. :)
But, shouldn't the jammer know how many points they've scored? What is the reasoning behind keeping this information from the jammer? If the jammer isn't sure whether or not the ref counted a point or not, they should know, it shouldn't be some mystery that they can only find out by calling the jam or getting out of the pack. It's not coaching if refs are consistent with when and how they signal points.
The jammer should know how many points she scored because she's the one doing it. She doesn't need a ref to tell her, she should be paying attention to it (along with the rest of her team). Its not a mystery or a secret they're keeping until the end of the game. If you pass someone legally, you get their point. If you pass them illegally, you'll here the ref call a penalty on you and know to repass (if its just a minor). Its possible to pass someone legally out of bound and not get their point (b/c you have to be inbounds to score points), but still thats the jammer's job to pay attention to it.
This is the same reason refs "may" give some warnings, in some cases are directed to not give warnings, but more often than not, don't give any warning at all. We're supposed to know what the rules are, so refs don't need to tell us we're about to do something wrong, just that we did, and enforce the appropriate penalty (which we should already see coming).
Anna
Boston Massacre: The pantsless wonders of Massachusetts
I would agree with you if
I would agree with you if there weren't situations where the ref has to make a judgment call. Am I wrong to think that there are times when a jammer and ref could disagree whether a point should've been rewarded for passing a blocker? Because I seem to see it all the time.
There are instances in all kinds of sports that refs give information to players. For example, wide receivers in football look at the sideline ref who tells the receiver whether they are on or off the line of scrimmage.
I just don't understand the point of keeping that info from a jammer. Sure, the jammers should know the rules but I see absolutely see no reason for refs to withhold the exact point situation.
jam clock
OMG I HATE not being able to see a jam clock! It's so crucial!
~SKabs
Actually i kinda think that
Actually i kinda think that announcing scores ((or points)) should be mandatory; if not for announcers, then for jammer refs...as should announcing players returning from the penalty box. Derby is the only sport i can think of where critical gameplay information is intentionally withheld from fans and players as if redacted in the interests of national security by the CIA.
As far as I know
Announcing points is standardized, at least from a Jam Ref perspective. A jam ref should be holding up the points after every completed scoring pass not only for the scorekeepers but for the fans. The one instance this is not correct is the one Statsi brought up: when a scoring pass is not yet completed.
As far as critical gameplay information: I can't think of any other (major) sport where the announcer commentary is audible to the players. This puts derby in a unique situation, as much of the information you are asking for could be seen as "coaching", depending on how (and how reliably) it is delivered.
Ultimately, skaters (and their benches) should make a point to know who is in the box and when they are returning. Most teams do. Otherwise you have the announcers (or another 3rd party) coaching the teams on the track.
-Judge Knot
The one crucial thing for announcers
if there is no visible jam clock the announcers certainly should be calling out remaining jam time. In fact if there is a visible clock they should be calling time out at reasonable intervals (1 min remaining, 45 seconds remaining 30, seconds, 10 seconds and the last 5 seconds.). It not only helps the skaters but keeps the crowd informed and involved.
As Judge notes, no other "major" sport has the commentary audible to the players. But that raises two important points. First, its questionable whether anyone outside of this community considers roller derby a 'major sport'. The second and more important point is that no other sport has roller derby's history. In every incarnation announcers were always a part of the game. Both in terms of getting the game over and in informing the crowd as to what was going on, particularly when the game was one that never actually stopped.
The announcers who are calling the track action would have a very different role than a TV or radio announcer has. They call the action on the track. No analysis, no suggestions, just call what you see. (who is out on the jam? who is being sent to the box and why? Time remaining in the game time and jam time. Who put on the hard block? who opened the hole? etc.) Being the only game that from the very start was concerned about what the audience saw and understood, roller derby always has a unique connection to its fans. There is no reason why its latest offspring should not be able to use all its resources the same way, especially when so many already do. Our announcer here in Redding did a great job last week
(By the way, the Redding Roller Girls attained their first win 163-91 over Tahoe. This coach is very proud of the EXTREMELY hard work those ladies put into getting ready for that game. Plus Tahoe played scrappy throughout that game, despite being overmatched and understaffed.)
That also requires a greater
That also requires a greater consistancy with announcers. For example, returning from the box:
Are the announcers always watching the box for this?
Are all announcers as consistant with watching the box and spotting a standing/re-entering player?
If it is anything but constant, than one team gains an advantage. If the anouncers miss just one "here comes the jammer from the box" then they are giving one team an advantage over the other.
Please note that I am in no way bashing or minimizing the role and/or skills of announcers, just showing where this particular game information can be problematic.
Ultimately, awareness is a huge aspect of derby. The team that is better at analysing the situation on the track and reacting to it will have an advantage.
You don't see the announcers in football yelling at the QB "oh my here comes a linebacker on your blind side!", it's just part of the game.
-Judge Knot
(the opinions in this post are mine, and mine alone. They do not represent the opinions of, well, anyone else!)
have no fear, judge
I do not think anyone thought you were bashing announcers. Just good old fashioned commentary.
You do bring up an excellent point about consistency. There are examples of people who can do this objectively and consistently. I think the advantages would be small to any team because of the speed of the game and its dimensions ( the only true 360 degree game). The advantage to fans however, is enormous. Naturally it would require announcers who when calling the game can forget for a moment who they work for.
This stuff comes up a fair bit in the announcer group.
Things not to do: "The Iowa Cornholers' jammer is coming up on the pack!" "I don't know why See Alice isn't calling of the jam."
Generally you want to report on what HAS happened, not what is happening and what is about to happen. There's exceptions that are obvious to those involved (jammer on jammer contact) or when the knowledge of what is happening won't impact the game.
Where it can get sketchy is when a jammer with an inattentive jam ref calls off the jam and isn't seen. Or when she's not the lead jammer and calls it off anyways. It's not a great idea to announce the end of a jam until you hear the four whistles blow. Or when a skater who's in the box goes in as the pack is passing.
-Barely even speaking for myself...
*~[
Grand Poobah
ia it really an advantage?
Announcers aren't really coaching from the sidelines when they announce whats going on in the game. The information is already available to the girls, they should know who is in the box, and they should know when they are coming out of the box. They should also know things like, which jammer is coming through the pack, how much time is left in a jam/the period, and how many points the jammer scored. They (thanks to the new rules!) can see the scoreboard and the penalty box for themselves. If they don't know these things already, they are probably not keen enough to listen to what the announcer is saying during a game, anyway. I hear a lot of girls say that they had no idea what the announcers were saying during the game, and didn't even realize what music was playing.
I think the "surprise attack" strategy died a few years ago when roller derby began advancing as a sport and teams began communicating and being hyper aware of game play. Sure it still happens sometimes, but you can't really count on the other team having no idea whats going on as being your main source of scoring points.
I guess this isn't really the space to talk about announcing... but I think roller derby announcing should have more sports commentary. I really love the announcers we have now, they definitely have a lot of heart. But it might be interesting to hear some team history during games for the fans (like: "team X has a reputation for holding the front of the pack and doing yadda yadda yadda with its jammer line") to educate the fans more about the sport and get them engaged with strategy. It might also be cool to start hearing not just what is happening on the track, but why. (like: "so and so just hit that girl that was spanning to get the 20 foot call" or something. but you know, more entertaining sounding.) Maybe as some of our more veteran skaters retire, they should consider being the straight man to some more color commentators and focus on educating the crowd about our sport. I guess crowds can figure that stuff out for themselves, but I think fans, especially the sports fans, get off on "figuring out" the strategies, and they might get really excited if someone was explaining the whys to them a little bit.
I dunno, just food for thought. Maybe I'm the only one that thinks that would be interesting cause I'm a big fat jock.
Dolly Rocket
totally agree...but
I have been in very uncomfortable positions as a jam ref when announcers verbally announce how many points they *think* my jammer scored before I can actually signal it. This is many times a correct reading to what I indicate, but if I signal a different number points on a scoring pass than the announcer says to the crowd...mass confusion and even more ref displeasure from the crowd and skaters. I think announcers should be careful not to step on the jam ref's signal. Ultimately, it's our call.
Another reason why points
Another reason why points should be signaled as they happen rather than after the pass/jam.
more geeky tools needed!
the only way i see this working is if there were some wicked awesome remote control button-like device that jam refs could push as their jammer scored the point. then the only thing i believe that would be an issue would be stats - needing to keep track of points per scoring pass, # of grand slams, etc. or well, issues with accidental button pushes. so maybe there's both - a real-time update, and a post-scoring pass hand signal. that way there are stats and a way to check that the number of clicks is equal to the number the ref actually WANTED to put up on the board.
of course, never having jam reffed, i'm sure there are lots of complications and things i have no idea about, so i may just shut up now. :)
hummm...
so you're suggesting that we skate around with hands in the air and raise one finger at a time as points are scored? interesting. how about announcers just don't shout out points until the scoring run is complete? I don't see any issue with that.
I was more thinking every
I was more thinking every time you pass the scorekeepers you show how many points were scored on that lap.
I don't want to keep repeating but here are my issues with waiting until the end of the pass/jam to reveal points scored:
1. End of game situations where no one knows if all the points were counted and it could look like a team could have tied it or pulled into the lead but actually didn't because all the points haven't been counted yet (BAD/Philly Nationals)
2. Jammers should know how many points they've scored to better know when to call a jam.
3. The audience/teams/coaches/refs should know the exact score at all times.
Instant scorekeeping
I was more thinking every time you pass the scorekeepers you show how many points were scored on that lap.
Most often the scorekeepers are in the middle of the pack. Very often the scoreboard operator is somewhere else. Very often there is something like a whiteboard that communicates scoring between them. The wireless communication tools that NFL football uses are very expensive. We don't all have rich weirdos (yay rich weirdos!) underwriting our every need.
To be perfectly honest, even a clearly visible time and jam clock is going to be difficult for a LOT of leagues to maintain. Not everyone has a scoreboard program and a projector. Many leagues use hockey scoreboards, that may not have two functional clocks. It's fairly common for a referee to be timing the jams and/or periods on stopwatches.
It's interesting that WFTDA has decided to mandate this. It could have a major impact on some leagues, at least financially and logistically. I'm not saying it's a bad idea.
2. Jammers should know how many points they've scored to better know when to call a jam.
Jammers should know what they are doing. Knowing what the score is and how many blocker's she's passed toward the end of a tight game is part of the job description, IMO. If she can't do it and get it right, she needs to work on that. Should the referees be required to suggest to a Captain whose team is close behind in a bout that's under 30 seconds that she should call her time out? I don't think so.
3. The audience/teams/coaches/refs should know the exact score at all times.
They should, but they aren't likely to. How can this effectively be done in a way that scorekeepers can request and receive feedback and corrections from the jam refs? How can we get the scoreboards instantly updated as points are scored? I don't know ANYONE who is effectively doing what you are wanting. Perhaps because it's very difficult to accomplish? Not for want of having tried.
Suggestion: Try volunteering as a scorekeeper or scoreboard operator for your favorite league. It's not as easy as you might think.
-Barely even speaking for myself...
*~[
Grand Poobah
not so instant
Most often the scorekeepers are in the middle of the pack. Very often the scoreboard operator is somewhere else. Very often there is something like a whiteboard that communicates scoring between them.
Just because that's how it is doesn't mean it can't change. Why can't scorekeepers be on the outside of the track?
Jammers should know what they are doing. Knowing what the score is and how many blocker's she's passed toward the end of a tight game is part of the job description, IMO. If she can't do it and get it right, she needs to work on that. Should the referees be required to suggest to a Captain whose team is close behind in a bout that's under 30 seconds that she should call her time out? I don't think so.
Here is where I think you and the other people making this argument are completely offbase. Knowing the score is just something she should never have a question about. Awarding points is a judgment call even if a point is completely obvious to everyone in the crowd, it's not a ball going through a cylinder, it's not a guy crossing a line clearly marked on the field. It's a moving object getting a point when passing another moving object's hips. It is a judgment call and because the point situation is required to make certain decisions, there is no reason to withhold it. The ref isn't telling the jammer what to do, he's just telling her the score. That's not comparable to your timeout analogy. Name me a sport where the score is required to make certain decisions but refs withhold the score from the players.
They should, but they aren't likely to. How can this effectively be done in a way that scorekeepers can request and receive feedback and corrections from the jam refs? How can we get the scoreboards instantly updated as points are scored? I don't know ANYONE who is effectively doing what you are wanting. Perhaps because it's very difficult to accomplish? Not for want of having tried.
Suggestion: Try volunteering as a scorekeeper or scoreboard operator for your favorite league. It's not as easy as you might think.
Grand Poobah
I don't doubt this would making reffing and jamming a little harder (as is requiring a jam clock is harder on every league without one) but just because it might be a little harder, doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.
If there is a question, the refs/scorekeepers can call a timeout at the end of a jam just like it is now. It's not going to be an instant update but it if it's lap for lap, it would be within 10 seconds, which I don't think you could get better than without the technology you mentioned. It seems like people haven't tried it since no one seems to agree that this would be a vital thing to do.
wait... is this terminology miscommunication?
are you equating "pass" with "jam"? A scoring pass and a "lap" are the same thing in a square/rectangle kind of way.
Scoring Pass-- Any pass a Jammer makes through the pack after the completed initial pass. Points may only be earned on scoring passes.
Lap--A complete pass through the pack; this may require more than one trip around the track.
The score is communicated to the scorekeepers, jammers, crowd (and anyone else paying attention) during the jam, not just at the end of it (unless the jammer goes to the box mid-pass and remains there) like so:
Initial pass--ref signals/whistles lead status
Scoring pass 1--ref signals/announces points
Scoring pass 2--ref signals/announces points
and so forth...
Its not that the ref only waits until the end of the jam (unless the jammer finishes the jam in the box), its every time she passes through the pack.
If you want to give each league a couple million dollars to build standardized derby venues so we can develop and install all the perfect derby time, points, & penalty tracking and reporting systems with the benches and stats people in special booths and all of the refs will wear headsets so they can report penalties without whiteboards and skaters will get pulled for their 4th minors more quickly, and we'll have fancy cameras to do instant replay so the refs can confirm their calls, I'm sure we'd all gradly take it. But thats not the case. We all want more perfect systems, but we are limited to what our venues can offer us, but mostly finances.
Anna
Boston Massacre: The pantsless wonders of Massachusetts
By lap, I meant the actual
By lap, I meant the actual lap around the track by the jammer ref. As in, when they are at the point nearest the scorekeeper, they hold up their hand with the number of points scored since the last time the ref passed the scorekeeper. I wasn't referring to laps as in the definition of lap from the rulebook.
The score is communicated at the end of the jam if the jammer hasn't made a complete scoring pass (whether in the penalty box or not). Obviously the score is communicated after a pass, that's why I have such a problem with the confusion this causes.
As for the rest of it, this really wouldn't be that difficult. Like, at all. It would just mean adding ones and twos more often to the scoreboard instead of fours and fives.
Here's the problem with your suggestion
OK:
Jammer clears pack, jammer ref holds up 4 fingers. Jammer scored 4 points on that lap, case closed, no confusion.
Your suggestion is this: same circumstance and the jammer takes 5 physical laps to clear the pack. Each time, the jammer ref holds up one finger. But wait, that's 5 points rather than 4. Was there a grand slam? "I don't know," thinks the scorekeeper, "it was a really long pass, I guess there must have been." When in truth the jammer ref couldn't be sure that the scorekeeper saw the second of the four singly-awarded points because the jammer scored it just as the pack went past the scorekeepers area, so s/he held the finger up on the next lap as well.
When the jammer's out of the pack, the jammer ref and scorekeeper can make eye contact and be sure that the total has been properly communicated. When the jammer's mid-pack, the jammer ref has to be watching her and can't look away for that confirmation.
So you're asking to introduce inaccuracy to the score for the benefit of knowing it faster, and that's not going to fly. Even if that inaccuracy is only temporary and can be corrected at the end of the jam by an attentive jammer ref saying "crap, you have her down for 13 points when she only scored 12," it's messy taking away points and would still potentially lead to unusual climaxes similar to that of BAD/PRG '09.
Sorry, but wrong wrong wrong.
Sorry, but wrong wrong wrong.
OK:
Jammer clears pack, jammer ref holds up 4 fingers. Jammer scored 4 points on that lap, case closed, no confusion.
But, there is confusion because if the other jammer has scored any points but hasn't made it through the pack, the scorekeeper will put the wrong score on the scoreboard. He/She will put the 4 points of Jammer #1 but not the 2 points of Jammer #2. That is confusing, very confusing, and what I think absolutely NEEDS to be avoided.
Your suggestion is this: same circumstance and the jammer takes 5 physical laps to clear the pack. Each time, the jammer ref holds up one finger. But wait, that's 5 points rather than 4. Was there a grand slam? "I don't know," thinks the scorekeeper, "it was a really long pass, I guess there must have been." When in truth the jammer ref couldn't be sure that the scorekeeper saw the second of the four singly-awarded points because the jammer scored it just as the pack went past the scorekeepers area, so s/he held the finger up on the next lap as well.
When the jammer's out of the pack, the jammer ref and scorekeeper can make eye contact and be sure that the total has been properly communicated. When the jammer's mid-pack, the jammer ref has to be watching her and can't look away for that confirmation.
Why would the ref hold up a finger on every lap? The ref would only hold up a finger each time a point is scored. So, on one of those 5 laps, he wouldn't have held up a finger. Sometimes, the ref would hold up 2 or 3 fingers. And, how about this, just for confirmation, after a scoring pass - if it's 4 points, hold up a fist, if it's a grand slam, hold up 5 fingers. Just so, if the scorekeepers somehow missed a point somewhere, they can confirm once the scoring pass is over. At the end of a jam, the jammer ref whose jammer didn't make it through for a complete pass holds up the number of fingers the jammer earned for another confirmation.
So you're asking to introduce inaccuracy to the score for the benefit of knowing it faster, and that's not going to fly. Even if that inaccuracy is only temporary and can be corrected at the end of the jam by an attentive jammer ref saying "crap, you have her down for 13 points when she only scored 12," it's messy taking away points and would still potentially lead to unusual climaxes similar to that of BAD/PRG '09.
It currently required inaccuracy in the score and is doing it for the benefit of knowing it faster than before (when jam is complete). The difference? The current ruleset is introducing inaccuracy on purpose. Uncompleted scoring passes are added to the score after full scoring passes which can purposely create confusion for the crowd and the jammers. My way would only introduce inaccuracy if the refs or scorekeepers make a mistake.
There is a difference...
... between "inaccurate" and "not-yet-updated."
It takes a moment after someone scores in every sport for the updated score appear on the scoreboard, TV screen, etc. Sometimes it takes a particularly long moment at the end of a "close one" to figure out what really happened: think of hockey officials going to tape to see if the puck crossed the line prior to the end of a period. I don't think anyone refers to that delay as "inaccuracy." Awarding points on the scoreboard incorrectly because of confusion? That's inaccuracy. If we cannot agree on that point then I do not see this as a purposeful conversation.
If you wish to continue, please re-read the example problem and discover for yourself why the ref held up a finger that "extra" time.
I'd Like to Take This Opportunity
To point out that Jorge Posada's "Home Run" last week against the Indians was bullshit. The video footage is indisputable.
But it took the officials and announcers ten minutes to give me that information.
Ten minutes. That's a lot of Quaker State motor oil commercials.
...grrr. Hate the Yankees.
The difference is that they
The difference is that they don't continue playing in any other sport. They completely stop everything until the correct score is on the scoreboard. So, no decisions are made until the score is correct, everyone understands the score isn't updated, etc.
If it's 75-75 going into a jam, one jammer gets a full 4 point pass and the other jammer is in the middle of a 2 point pass, the scoreboard reads 79-75 but it's really 79-77. It's not a matter of being updated, it's a matter of the scoreboard being flat-out wrong. If the second jammer scored her 2 points first, then got knocked down, then the first jammer made it though the pack, IT WAS NEVER 79-75. It was 75-77, then 79-77. NEVER ONCE WAS IT 79-75 and yet that's what's on the scoreboard. That should not happen. It's confusing for everyone and incorrect decisions can be made by the jammers.
I understood your example and it's very easily solvable. If a point is scored directly in front of the scorekeeper, the ref would wait until the next lap to signal that point. Problem solved.
I'd still like to hear a good reason why my solution shouldn't happen other than refs and scorekeepers can make mistakes (which they do now).
Not for nothing
But think this through. You're saying that the scoreboard needs to be updated real time for the benefit of the jammers.
Do you really think a jammer is looking up at the scoreboard in the middle of a scoring pass?
Do you really want the jam ref to take their eyes of the jammer during a scoring pass to communicate to the scoreboard?
Do you really think that a jam ref has enough arms to point at lead jammer, issue a penalty, waive someone off the track, all while holding fingers in the air, blowing a whistle and trying to get the attention of the scoreboard operator?
What you really want are for the FANS to be updated real time. That is a big difference. As many other posts have said, the jammer knows what is going on.
The real solution (until all leagues have the money and inclination to do any differently) is for the fans to know that a scoring pass isn't reported until the pass is through. The players already know this. So before you jump off your seat at the end of a jam, just wait for the score to be reported. Problem solved.
-Judge Knot
Meh.
But think this through. You're saying that the scoreboard needs to be updated real time for the benefit of the jammers.
Do you really think a jammer is looking up at the scoreboard in the middle of a scoring pass?
Maybe. If they don't know how many points the other jammer has scored, they might look at the scoreboard. What they should see is either a score they know isn't updated or the correct score. They should not see the wrong score.
Do you really want the jam ref to take their eyes of the jammer during a scoring pass to communicate to the scoreboard?
Do you really think that a jam ref has enough arms to point at lead jammer, issue a penalty, waive someone off the track, all while holding fingers in the air, blowing a whistle and trying to get the attention of the scoreboard operator?
Why would they need to take their eyes off the jammer? They're just raising their arm. Yes, they do have enough arms. Two arms is enough to do those things. Left arm in the air, right arm pointing at lead jammer/penalties. There is no need to get the attention of the scoreboard operator. Scorekeepers should be watching their jammer ref.
What you really want are for the FANS to be updated real time. That is a big difference. As many other posts have said, the jammer knows what is going on.
The real solution (until all leagues have the money and inclination to do any differently) is for the fans to know that a scoring pass isn't reported until the pass is through. The players already know this. So before you jump off your seat at the end of a jam, just wait for the score to be reported. Problem solved.
Absolutely, it's for the fans. This doesn't take money. This is simple. There is NO REASON not do this. That's what you want? You want a team to be down 15 points at home going into the last jam and that jammer gets 3 grand slams. You want the home crowd to say, "you know, I'm not going to go crazy and cheer and jump up and down. I really need confirmation on the scoreboard that the score I'm seeing is accurate. I would feel mighty stupid if the other jammer has scored a point." Or, we could just institute my simple solution and fans can actually do what they're supposed to do, rather than have to wait on some archaic scoring system that puts incorrect scores on the scoreboard. Especially when you consider how little hardcore fans can know about the sport. What about all those people that are watching it for the first time? What if they walk in 10 minutes late and miss the demo skate? You really want to piss them off because their team didn't actually win like they thought because after a 5 minute ref huddle at the end of the game, it was determined the other team had scored a couple points? This is how you want to grow the sport? By pissing off fans and telling them not to celebrate because the score on the scoreboard might be wrong.
Really want derby to be like every other sport?
The difference is that they don't continue playing in any other sport. They completely stop everything until the correct score is on the scoreboard. So, no decisions are made until the score is correct, everyone understands the score isn't updated, etc.
My very wordy response to that is:
Yes in every other sport the game stops until the score on the scoreboard is correct. In fact every time any score is made the game stops. It might just be for a second, but the game stops in basketball football, soccer, and hockey whenever there is a score. The nature of roller derby is unique in that it does not stop. Refs in any other sport get that moment to go over what just happened and decide whether to review the last score, or allow play to continue. If there is another score(or penalty for that matter) on the next play, guess what happens. The game stops again.
Real time scoring is not an impossibility, it is just not as simple as you make it out to be. If a ref forgets to signal a point on a corner, because they're, I don't know, maybe focused on a jammer making a pass or a foul being committed at that moment, or if the ref holds a finger up too long and the scorekeeper percieves it as a second point, or if the scorekeeper misses the ref's signal for a point you end up with the same possiblities as if the score was not reported until the end of the pass(i.e. the score on the scoreboard not being the real score and possibly having an effect on a players decision). The only way for a ref to verify that the scorekeeper has gotten the point tally correct(assuming we don't get some nice telecommunication devices for constant audio contact) is to visually verify that the points the ref holds up, are the points that the scorekeeper is holding up. This involves taking your eyes off of the jammer(not a good idea when the jammer is in the pack). Which is why, until we get a technical solution(some leagues may be able to afford this, some may not), or we start stopping every jam when a point is scored(joking), the best standard solution is to wait until a pass is complete so the ref can make that eye contact that ensures the proper tally of points.
An arguement could be made for holding up a jammers points when they go to the box I suppose, since the jam ref could verify the score with the scorekeeper, but that would lead to inconsistent score reporting practices. My feeling is having a standard practice is better.
I really like the idea of having a real-time score, and it's the way it should/would be in a perfect world. I just don't think it's feasible without an investment in equipment or without adding greater chances for error. At least under the current reporting procedure you can look up at the score board and know for a fact that it is wrong, give or take a few points. I feel this is far better than to look at the scoreboard assume it's right, and oh the scoreboard operator missed those two points, or jammer ref red didn't get to turn 3(for the sake of arguement let's say under your system points are reported to the announcers/scorekeeper in turn 3 it could be any opposite edge of the track) yet to report those points because his jammer is injured, knocked down, or fixing a skate/pad in turn one, and Jammer Blue calls the jam off and team Blue loses by a point because the "real-time" scoreboard was not real because miscommunication or logistics will always be issues keeping the "real-time score" from ever being real without instant communication and verification.
To sum up. For it to be worth it it has to be "really" real and not just real when a jam ref passes turn 3. And that cannot happen unless there is a communication to a scorekeeper by the ref and a response back to the ref from the scorekeeper.
That's my $.02 anyway,
The Shoveler
Okay, how about this?
Okay, how about this? The jammer ref is always signaling how many points the jammer has on the current pass with their left hand. If the jammer has scored 1 point: 1 finger in the air, 2 points: 2 fingers in the air, etc. Once the jammer has cleared the pack, the jammer ref visually verifies with the scorekeeper and puts their hand down. Rinse and repeat once the jammer makes it back into the pack.
The only time this should result in scoring problems is if the scorekeeper is absolutely horrible at what they're doing.
"At least under the current reporting procedure you can look up at the score board and know for a fact that it is wrong." That's not necesarily true but I think that this is a ridiculous statement to actually defend the scoring practices. "Well, as long as the score is always wrong, it's fine." Really? That's how people want it to be? The problem comes when the jammer is almost sure the other jammer didn't score any points, so they look up to the scoreboard to verify the score, call the jam, but they were wrong, the other jammer did score some points.
So the ref is pointing at
So the ref is pointing at the lead jammer with one hand, has their fingers in the air with the other, and the jammer calls it off with split second timing to stop the opposing jammer from scoring.
Where is the major, potentially game changing, point of failure here?
possibly workable....
At some level, how often is this an issue if the Jammer DOESN'T fall or get pushed out of bounds on her scoring pass? Would it be simpler to say that the jammer ref should signal the number of points when the pass is completed OR if the jammer falls back out of the pack? OTOH, only signaling points after the jammer is through tha pack eliminates the confusion that can occur if she falls back and then passes through again. If the JR then signals two fingers is it just for that second attempt or total? What is she doesn't fall all the way back? Is that two more fingers or still two fingers? ISTM that it is better to have the scorebord update slow than wrong.
You just confused the hell out of me
Once a jammer has scored a point, the jammer ref's fingers would remain in the air until the jammer has completed their scoring pass (whether the jammer is in the penalty box, knocked out of the pack, etc.) So, a jammer gets sent to the box after scoring 1 point, the jammer ref would have 1 finger in the air for the entire trip to the penalty box (unless of course the jam ends during that time).
ISTM that it is better to have the scorebord update slow than wrong.
It's currently updating wrong, not slow, as I've pointed out. That's the main problem.
"but no one puts flowers on a flowers grave"
It is hardly fair to call me a drinker, and I never warmed to the idea of the prior iteration's section 6.4.5 (now removed and basically replaced by the new section 7.4). Still I feel compelled to note the passing of the jammerless jam. What will cause people to drink now??
Slack Kerowhack
Mid Atlantic Derby News
twitter.com/MADNews
"And a toast to everything that doesn't move - that doesn't move
But when you quit, you quit, but you always wish
That you knew it was your last shot" -Lou Reed
Well said, Tom, Slack, and Lou!
The jammerless jam was widely (universally?) regarded as the most inspiring aspect of roller derby.
It gave the fans a chance to pause and reflect not only upon the quiet majesty of the sport, but upon the virtues of patriotism, family values and clean living.
It gave referees a chance to hold hands, often their only form of non-screaming human contact during interleague bouts.
It gave announcers a chance to explain that the jam was ending and that another one was starting, even though the new one had the exact same skaters except two of them were jammers now. So it was different.
For all of these reasons and more, fans across America would stand in solemn silence, their hands held reverently over their hearts, while the pack re-formed and a couple of unsuspecting blockers prepared to jam. And at Bad Decisions in Baltimore, everyone got one step closer to roaring drunk.
I heartily suggest that everyone rush out to get in one last full-blown bout under 3.1. You'll miss it when it's gone.
Dirty Marty
Announcer, Charm City Roller Girls
Dirty Marty is already mourning...
... the passing of his favorite opportunity for straight-faced, sarcastic schtick. Chin up Marty... you've still got the prospect of second jammer arrives at box, first jammer released but immediately picks up a penalty resulting in a box return, then potentially over half a minute of hand-holding in the pack waiting for any jammer to return to the action.
(I love almost everything about 4.0, but I do hope one day some clever soul comes up with a bulletproof solution to this remaining wart)
sit down, stand up, skate, skate, skate
Further consolation may be discovered in the even more common situation of two jammers being sent to the penalty box at approximately the same time. Just imagine the heated race around the outside of the track to become the first jammer to sit down victoriously, thus earning the right to almost immediately stand up and rejoin the pack a mere moment or two before their opponent. There can be little doubt that many spines will become chilled by the sheer excitement that these few precious seconds will provide.
Slack Kerowhack
Mid Atlantic Derby News
twitter.com/MADNews
Might as well spill it now...
I think others are pretty close to figuring out how to use this new rule to an advantage, so I might as well pipe up now.
Jammer #1 is skating with three penalties, Jammer #2 goes to the box. Jammer #1 immediately and intentionally gets her fourth minor. Spends a few seconds in the box and skates out with a clean slate.
Please tell me someone thought of this ahead of time?
- bjmacke (a.k.a. Apron)
trade-off
... and sacrifices a similar amount of unopposed jamming time, because her trip to the box releases the other jammer early. I don't think that's an exploit, that's just trading in one advantage to secure a different one.
Another way to play it...
Second jammer takes her time getting to the box as the clock runs out. Thus preventing a sure-fire scoring opportunity while the team gears up an "oh shit" lineup to really hold back the first jammer who starts in the next jam. If they're confident they can hold the first jammer back in the initial pass, it's an advantage. The extra box time + new jam setup time for the second jammer gives her time to get her wind back also.
Or, the second jammer's team is ahead on the last jam, she takes her time, the clock runs out and her team wins. The game ends with a fizzle.
Wiping up the spillage...
I think others are pretty close to figuring out how to use this new rule to an advantage, so I might as well pipe up now.
Jammer #1 is skating with three penalties, Jammer #2 goes to the box. Jammer #1 immediately and intentionally gets her fourth minor. Spends a few seconds in the box and skates out with a clean slate.
Please tell me someone thought of this ahead of time?
The utility of doing that to clear one's slate is tempered by the fact that going in with three minors when it's known you have three minors requires a bad or inattentive bench or lineup coach. It's fairly easy to get that fourth minor before the other jammer catches a major.
And not everyone has a Foul-O-Matic 3000.
-Barely even speaking for myself...
*~[
Grand Poobah
IMO
I think others are pretty close to figuring out how to use this new rule to an advantage, so I might as well pipe up now.
Jammer #1 is skating with three penalties, Jammer #2 goes to the box. Jammer #1 immediately and intentionally gets her fourth minor. Spends a few seconds in the box and skates out with a clean slate.
Please tell me someone thought of this ahead of time?
The utility of doing that to clear one's slate is tempered by the fact that going in with three minors when it's known you have three minors requires a bad or inattentive bench or lineup coach. It's fairly easy to get that fourth minor before the other jammer catches a major.
And not everyone has a Foul-O-Matic 3000.
-Barely even speaking for myself...
*~[
Grand Poobah
Shouldn't the jam refs alert the jammers as to how many minors they have?
The Original GGRDonald
mildly curious.
Yes, and that's the point
(or that is what I believe the point was).
If you send out a jammer who you know has 3 minors because you're banking on her counterpart going to the box first and you want to capitalize upon the opportunity, you're playing a very dangerous game indeed.
another super important update
Idk how many other skaters out there wear lacrosse elbow pads, we have a few on our team.
10.1.2.1 Wrist guards, elbow pads, knee pads and helmets must have a hard protective shell or inserts.
Anna
Boston Massacre: The pantsless wonders of Massachusetts
Thats a lot of stuff
I understand the requirement for a hard shell on helmets, because, well it is not much of a helmet without one. But why the hard shell requirement for the elbows and knees. Probably some more of that over protective-concerned about insurance because of lawyers- vibe impacting the whole nation nowadays. I know 99% wear the hard shells and inserts so its probably not much of a change at all.
Back in my day, we just tied up some cotton balls and went for it. (now off to go listen to those 45s on the old windup record player).
On a more serious not...damn there are a lot of rules in this thing. Fortunately some of them are actual improvements. Anything that cuts down on the strategy of drawing penalties to score cheap points is a good thing. Anything that eliminates the jammerless jam is a great thing. The rules regarding announcing scores and jam clocks are another welcome addition. Of course, we already had that in the old days...so something old is new again.
Now if they could only clean up that passing the star..
Announcing points
I totally agree with announcing the number of points after a jam. As someone who records this information it will help me a lot. But it would be a great benefit to fans.
It would also be nice if they did a better job of announcing penalties. I really love what TXRD does where it comes to announcing penalties at the end of a jam.
Putting in jam clocks that everyone can see. That's going to be interesting to see how some leagues with legacy scoreboards will handle this. TRD uses a jam clock but it's only visible to a portion of the track and is intended more for the skaters than the fans. Those who use the scoreboard programs and the projectors will have this one easy.
with derby love...
Michi-chan
The Arizona Derby Report
http://www.michichan.com
R.I.P. to the Jammerless Jam ~ I guess we will have to change the drinking game rules too. Destruction of the pack call = 1 drink.
=m
Announced penalties
It would also be nice if they did a better job of announcing penalties. I really love what TXRD does where it comes to announcing penalties at the end of a jam.
If refs are using proper hand signals and the announcers know them, they ought to be able to master that. If the announcers' booth is elevated that can help as well.
It's probably easier for TXRD to accomplish all of that because they don't have a 30 seconds between jams limit. There's often lengthy delays between jams. In fact, the penalty wheel stuff they use for minors in their intraleague bouts is probably a big reason the game clock stops between jams there. Which probably feeds the long-break-syndrome.
It's a different flavor of derby. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
-Barely even speaking for myself...
*~[
Grand Poobah
Ahhhhh... Refreshment!
You know that sound they make in the Cola commercials where you hear the bottle opened then you the person going: "ahhhhhh...."?
That's how I feel about 4.0. "Ahhhhhh.... Yummy!"
Thank you WFTDA. Thank you DNN for making it easy to understand the changes. xox
-Quad
p.s. Friends don't let friends split the pack. Down with lawyer derby.
Lets not get mean
p.s. Friends don't let friends split the pack. Down with lawyer derby.
As a skating lawyer I must take offense! I know there are fellow members of the bar here somewhere who will come to the defense of our profession! (Despite its obvious impact on making this plethora of rules necessary).
Ha!
As a skating *future* lawyer, I do believe I called something a "dirty lawyer's trick" at practice the other week...hell, WFTDA rules are starting to look more and more like the statutes I read for class!
-Stalker
Stalker Channing
North Star Roller Girls
Minneapolis, MN
At some level, rules
At some level, rules lawyering is inevitable as the game become more competetive and interleague play become dominant. When you're skating for fun against the same people all the time, a consensus of what to do and not to do is easily formed. But as more people are involved, who skate (and ref) with each other rarely, much needs to ba actually codified for consistancy. More frustrating than rules lawyers are games where one is called for infractions that are ignored at home, or seeing refs let others get away with things you're used to going to the penalty box for.
I knew I liked you for a reason
You know that sound they make in the Cola commercials where you hear the bottle opened then you the person going: "ahhhhhh...."?
That's how I feel about 4.0. "Ahhhhhh.... Yummy!"
Thank you WFTDA. Thank you DNN for making it easy to understand the changes. xox
-Quad
p.s. Friends don't let friends split the pack. Down with lawyer derby.
Amen
DDG
(Detroit)
Not-so-Jammerless Jams
Okay, okay, so I should have given my feedback on this one a long time ago. Does anyone else foresee some major snafus around the way simultaneously penalized jammers are going to be handled?
I just read the new rules, and I feel this is going to be majorly confusing for all parties involved for a while. I foresee multiple penalties stacking up for jammers because of confusion about when/when not to leave the box. Also some confusion about how much time the newly penalized jammer must serve.
The biggest change in 4.0
...is that a knowledgeable penalty box operator just became a much more integral part of a good officiating crew. Gone are the days of grabbing and deputizing Fresh Meat Cindy at the last second before the bout because the original penalty timer thought the game was on Sunday instead of Saturday...
JFM
Our do like we do!
And assign the jam refs to time their own jammers, what else does a jam ref have to do when his/her jammer is in the box? Get a haircut? Give him/her stop watch and when thier jammer sits they start the time, if/when 2nd jammer is sent to the box jam ref 1 relays to jam ref 2 your girls has XXX seconds. As our issue is and alwasy has been finding qualified folks to work as P. Box timers no you've made their job a little easier. So thinking outside the box has become the norm for me.
Hard Ass Brass
Head Referee
League Bus Owner/driver
Green Country Roller Girls
Tulsa OK
I really like that
I really like that idea..
Sailor Scary #7734
Rollergirls of Southern Indiana
Where and when that won't work so well.
And assign the jam refs to time their own jammers, what else does a jam ref have to do when his/her jammer is in the box? Get a haircut? Give him/her stop watch and when their jammer sits they start the time, if/when 2nd jammer is sent to the box jam ref 1 relays to jam ref 2 your girls has XXX seconds.
Where that becomes a bit more difficult is for leagues with inline hockey rinks (fairly common, BTW). They often use the rink's penalty boxes. Hockey fans (in parts of the country closer to Canadia there are LOTS of those) get the penalty box concept if it's an actual penalty box. Jam ref on the inside might have trouble seeing her butt hitting the seat. I suppose a signal from the box-timer to the jam ref would work.
-Barely even speaking for myself...
*~[
Grand Poobah
Real P. Box
Like I said it works for us, but we skate in a regular old skating rink therefore no real P. Boxes although I would find that really cool!
Hard Ass Brass
Head Referee
League Bus Owner/driver
Green Country Roller Girls
Tulsa OK
Real P. Box
Like I said it works for us, but we skate in a regular old skating rink therefore no real P. Boxes although I would find that really cool!
Hard Ass Brass
Head Referee
League Bus Owner/driver
Green Country Roller Girls
Tulsa OK
Well a minor rule change
Well a minor rule change that if there is an actual seprate penalty box, timing is from butt in the door instead of butt on the seat would fix that.
Speaking of...
...Fresh Meat Cindy...
Could you give her my number, Justice?
Spanks!
Pitchit #33
Dry Heat Militia
http://www.dryheatderby.com
I need to see it in action
Reading the new rules replacing jammerless jams is kind of confusing. I want to see it in action. It seems like it's more intuitive and just hard to explain in words (cause that's a lot of words).
-Wheel Smith The Ref Prince of Bel Air
O no
Arg another ruleset *groan*
ah not so bad, I'm used to it now! I like the changes, like the new cutting the track rules, although I would still like to see a 'yeild advantage' come in there somewhere.
Just wondering tho if a jammer gets sent to the box a second time and both jammers are in, aren't we back to square one with nothing happenng on the track?
Hooligal, London Rockin Rollers
oops
sorry didn't see the post above mine, I'm just a parrot, don't mind me!
That can become coaching.
@TheBigChuckBowski (some day I'll master hitting reply or quote):
If the jammer is self-aware, she should have a good idea of how many points she's scored. In reality, jammers almost never go back for a repass, even in a powerjam situation. It's simply too easy to then get bottled up by jammers she's already scored upon if they cycle around her.
As someone else said, there's a fine line between reffing and coaching. I know some refs won't show points scored at all until the pass is complete. Others put the scoring hand behind their back so that it's possibly visible to the scorekeeper but not to the jammer.
-Barely even speaking for myself...
*~[
Grand Poobah
If the refs are consistent,
If the refs are consistent, I cannot see how that is possibly coaching. I'm not saying that the refs only tell the jammers how many points they've scored, I'm saying the refs tell the scorekeepers so the jammers/coaches/teams/audience knows the point situation. What reason is there for jammers or anyone not to know what the score is?
Here's one.
What reason is there for jammers or anyone not to know what the score is?
Because she's not so good at being a jammer? I don't think it should be a secret, but I do think that a smarter and more attentive player should have an advantage. Particularly in a close game.
-Barely even speaking for myself...
*~[
Grand Poobah
Oh, come on. A smart jammer
Oh, come on.
A smart jammer still has to know what the right decision is based on the exact score which she should know. She can't pay attention to the other jammer close enough to know their exact scoring situation which is just as vital as her scoring situation. She doesn't know what the ref decided on a close call on a blocker pass. These are things that hurt the game and they're not things that give a smart jammer any advantage because whether you're a smart or dumb jammer, you can't know these things.
I'd rather see a game where jammers can use their intelligence to make the best decision based on the information they know rather than forcing jammers to read refs' minds, watch the other jammer while they have blockers flying at them, and doing 2 sets of mental math all while doing their real job which is actually trying to win the game, not keeping score.
Basically what you're arguing is that jammers should be doing the jobs of 4 people (their job, their jammer ref's job, the other jammer ref's job, and the scorekeeper's job) but you don't think we can make jammer refs or scorekeeper's jobs (who are each only doing the job of 1 person) slightly harder because it would become too difficult.
Honestly, I think the old ruleset's scoring (waiting until the end of the jam) was less confusing and better than it is currently.
i hate to agree with bigchuck...
But I do.
no one has yet to explain a good reason why points are not shown until the pass is complete?
You do not always know if you received a point for passing someone, there can be a ref judgement call there, but more commonly you don't know how much your opponent has scored.
Example of a time as a player it could be crutial:
I'm lead jammer in the last jam of the game and there were 29 sec. left. My team has no time-outs. Their jammer is sitting in the penalty box standing ready to come in. I'm about to enter the back of the pack, I look up at the score board, and what do you know, my team is a ahead by one point. I'm a genius, call it off game over....
Oh, but wait.... 4 whistles blow and they add 2 points to the other teams score, apparently the other jammer was sent to the box and scored 2 points before completing the pass so they weren't reported until after the jam. My team loses. Man it would of bean nice to know I still had two points to score.
Why again does it have to happen like this?
Taxi Scab
Co-Captain
B.ay A.rea D.erby Girls All-Stars
Why do you hate to agree with me?
Perfect example.
And it points to what the real problem is. The score on the scoreboard is WRONG. In the old way of doing things, the score was updated at the end of the jam, so once a point is scored in the current jam, it is no longer the updated score but it was never the wrong score, it's just not the most updated, and everyone understands that.
In the current system, using Taxi's example...
Going into the jam, Team Blue is winning 71-70. Both jammers get a full scoring pass so the score is now 75-74 Blue. Team Red's jammer scores 2 points (which team Blue's jammer wasn't able to see) and is sent to the box (scoreboard reads 75-74 Blue but it's actually 76-75 Red). Blue's jammer calls it off because there is no time on the clock and the scoreboard says Blue is in the lead which they're not. This is confusing for the fans. It's confusing for the jammers. It's confusing for everyone. The wrong score is purposely being put on the scoreboard and decisions are being made based on incorrect information. A jammer shouldn't look at the scoreboard and question whether that's actually the score or not. You're just opening the game up for dumb, confusing, ref involved endings to otherwise exciting close games. It's just bad for the sport.
If points were also called
If points were also called as you made them, it would lessen arguments on 'magical disappearing points' caused by confused or inexperienced refs. We love our refs, but it does happen, when you have seen your jammer fight her way through the pack and receive 0 points when you know shes a pretty clean player and they couldnt have ALL been penalties, you wonder if the ref went wrong somewhere (maybe followed the wrong jammer-it happens!). If the ref was holding his fingers up in points, you or your bench could see the points as they happen, and know that all parties were being treated fairly.
As well as the strategic situations mentioned.
Hooligal, London Rockin Rollers
So many arguments for.
So little against. What is holding this back, other than it might be slightly harder for jammer refs and scorekeepers?
Red Line-Blue line doc for 4.0 changes
I've prepared a red/blue line doc of all the changes from 3.1 -> 4.0, down to specific changes of language:
http://www.zebrahuddle.com/rules/4-0changes.pdf
Enjoy. All 53 pages of it.
~j.z.
===============
Johnny Zebra
Gotham
WFTDA Ref (2)
Johnny Zebra
... is made of awesome. Thank you for making this!
re:Johnny Zebra
... is made of awesome. Thank you for making this!
I don't think he did it alone, Hurt!
The Original GGRDonald
possible accomplices-Hambone and Endless Justin ;-)
red line/ blue line
I've prepared a red/blue line doc of all the changes from 3.1 -> 4.0, down to specific changes of language:
http://www.zebrahuddle.com/rules/4-0changes.pdf
Enjoy. All 53 pages of it.
~j.z.
===============
Johnny Zebra
Gotham
WFTDA Ref (2)
You are a crazy, amazing man... thanks for making this!
DDG
(Detroit)
The new Ruleset is the best
The new Ruleset is the best one yet and makes a few critical changes that will undoubtably improve game flow but I just gotta ask...who the hell is taking out their mouthguard DURING a Jam?? Dont think that I've ever seen a skater remove any protective gear DURING a Jam. Who is the glutton for punishment that is doing this?? Soooo...uhhhh...okay. ???
So just let me say that the next time I catch any Rollergirl throwing her mouthguard across the track and whipping off her helmet and hurling it at an errant Ref I assure you that I will give her a good talking to. A very surprised and stuttering good talking to. ;)
Mouthguards
Used to happen ALL the time, because there are so many skaters out there with three dollar mouthguards, struggling to breathe. Experienced leagues have been figuring it out, but there are still skaters out there who haven't gotten the memo (or who figure it's not addressed to them, because "they never fall down").
Makes me crazy every time I see it happen. I'm really glad for the inclusion of this in the ruleset.
Hurt...it has been brought
Hurt...it has been brought to my attention by one of my fave skaters that mouthguards are being taken out all the time to shout instructions to Blockers and such. Guess I just never noticed this somewhat risky behaviour. Back in my glorious youth when I played an awesome game of Football (if only), we used to take out our mouthguard after EVERY single play. But when we lined up for actual action *pop* right back in they went because we didnt want our chiclets all over the field!!! Crazy folks these Rollergirls.
Time to vent. I DESPISE the
Time to vent.
I DESPISE the two 30 minute halves that have become the WFTDA standard. I have always felt that it was waaaay better to have three 20 minute periods. The skaters get crucial rest, the crowd gets an extra bathroom/beer fetch break and it has always seemed so much better for bout-flow. And the hardcore folks crossing their legs in the suicides get to stand up and stretch their legs. Thats somewhat important to those of us who arent in their 20's but insist on parking in the suicides anyway...'cause we're HARDCORE old bastards 'kay?? And I dont think that this is a minor quibble. Bring back the three 20 minute periods in WFTDA Ruleset 4.1!!! Does anyone out there other than me feel this way??
No. As a player it sucks
No.
As a player it sucks balls to have to sit through two intermissions.
Alllllrighty then. "Sit
Alllllrighty then. "Sit through"?? "Sit through"??? Arent ya pounding Gatorade? Arent ya resting yer tired legs? Arent ya game planning and discussing killer strategy for the next period? Ya dont need more than one break?
I agree with killervee. I
I agree with killervee. I was actually a proponent for 3-20s for a while, but 2-30s have my heart at this point. Once that second intermission came around, it definitely felt like "sitting through" it. I mean, we've got 14 skaters on a bench with only 5 out there at a time -- rest isn't really an issue.
Plus, with the alternation of jam refs at the half, there's not a clearcut way to make that even/fair/what have you with 3 periods. (yeah, I know, 3 jam refs, but still...)
I'd rather play roller derby
I'd rather play roller derby then sit there and talk about while drinking Gatorade. Two breaks is agony. I don't know how to explain it. While I enjoy the game, I don't like to stop and reset. I like to keep the pressure and momentum going.
do not want!
good god, I don't even want to think about going back to three twenties.
That last period all I could think of was beer.
I Agree
I agree wholeheartedly. I agree as a player, as a bout-producer and as a sports fan.
30 minute periods are hard on most fans. No popular American sport has periods longer than 20 minutes. Derby is a very intense sport to watch and like it or not, many attendees have no real idea what is going on. Having them sit longer without a breather isn't helping.
Being as involved as we are, it is all too easy to forget about the people who are less hard-core than us. I think we all want derby to be taken seriously as a sport, but there is so much focus on being "different" from other sports. We shouldn't ignore what works and has worked for other athletic endeavors for so many years.
Thank you
Bazooka Joe
Pioneer Valley Roller Derby
Northampton, MA
http://www.pioneervalleyrollerderby.com
Heres one rule that REALLY
Heres one rule that REALLY has me pissed!!
10.1.3.2 "Non-form fitting face shields such as hockey style full face shields, half face shields or face cages are strictly prohibited."
What??!! I, for one, long for the days when Rollergirls could kick total ass with their Patrick Roy mask on. What a freakin' BUMMER! And what about all those skaters that have adopted those ultra-stylish Jason masks??! What...they cant wear them anymore? Total BS people...total unadulterated BS! What about Batgirl masks?? I guess thats a no go now too. Sheeeeesh. Leave it to WFTDA to take ALL the fun outta Derby.
ROY???!?!?!?
I remember the good old days when Osgood kicked the shit out of Roy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl2xMXXOw4M
Heres one rule that REALLY has me pissed!!
10.1.3.2 "Non-form fitting face shields such as hockey style full face shields, half face shields or face cages are strictly prohibited."
What??!! I, for one, long for the days when Rollergirls could kick total ass with their Patrick Roy mask on. What a freakin' BUMMER! And what about all those skaters that have adopted those ultra-stylish Jason masks??! What...they cant wear them anymore? Total BS people...total unadulterated BS! What about Batgirl masks?? I guess thats a no go now too. Sheeeeesh. Leave it to WFTDA to take ALL the fun outta Derby.
sarah
DDG
(Detroit)
Hocky Town, er I mean Derby Town
Yeah...now that ya mention
Yeah...now that ya mention it, Roy was the first name that came to mind but I really do own a great Yzerman Red Wings Jersey. Wings all the way Hipel!
http://bikerdavesrollerderby.blogspot.com/
And here's another rule ya
And here's another rule ya may have missed while discussing and debating the more relaxed "cutting the track" tweak:
9.2.7.1 The Head Referee may call a forfeit for the following reasons: [9.2.7.1.1] A team has five or fewer un-injured rostered skaters remaining due to expulsions. [9.2.7.1.2] A team refuses to field skaters on the track to continue play.
Uhhhh...I got news for ya- If you have "5 or less un-injured" skaters left than HELL freakin' YES forfiet the hell outta that mutha!! If yer down to 5 skaters, or Derby Goddess forbid, LESS than 5 then you need to getcher asses on out to the Afterparty, get yer buzz on and lick yer wounds. Frankly I dont believe that I have ever actually SEEN a team still trying to girl up and press on with 5 or fewer skaters but ya know...I didnt make it out to that awesome Northeastern Iowa Barnstormin Rollergirls vs Gotham Girls bout so ya know...
Jammerless Jam
Can someone please explain the "Jammerless Jam Rules"? They make no sense to me at all.
An explanation
They aren't called that any more. Some folks used to use it to get a rise out of people. It's not a great idea to name a procedure for the impossible thing that it's intended to prevent.
"Both Jammers Penalized/Both Jammers Off The Track"
First jammer goes to the box. Box timer starts clock for her. Second jammer goes to the box, timer starts for her, first jammer is released. First jammer's box timer reports the amount of time served to the other box timer. Second jammer to the box gets released once she has served the same amount of time as the first jammer.
If their butts hit the seat at the same time, they both serve ten seconds and are released. Hmmm, knowing that in a venue with proper penalty boxes would require verbal acknowledgment by box timers that their jammers have sat down. Odd solution to a rare problem, I'd think. Jammers, as always, will be racing to the box to minimize their own penalty time.
If either jammer gets sent back to the box after that, she spends what I'd assume to be a full minute in the box (or more if she got multiple majors, is that why it's so vague?). In the hopefully unlikely (outside of the PNW, heh) situation that both jammers hit the box again in the same jam, both jammers stay in there until their respective times are up.
I've seen something close to that last situation in a video once. It sound purely horrible, but it could make for a great drinking game cue. In this particular video, the head ref (whom I wouldn't name even if I remembered who it was) apparently forgot the applicable rules (jammers didn't catch so many penalties back then). Or maybe it was WFTDA 1.0 and the "proper way" was a local practice? I wouldn't know.
Both jammers served their minute while the pack skated around at first a bit confused, then kind of broke into some kind of skating that involved some dancing and opponents bumping booties to the music rather than booty blocking. I think I got a far bigger laugh out of it than the jammer who was in the box, going by what I heard her saying about it.
Announcers and DJs can probably have some fun with this rare and probably brief situation.
If both are still in the box when the jam times out, next jam starts off with no jammers. They come in as their times expire. Again, should be rare but amusing.
-Barely even speaking for myself...
*~[
Grand Poobah
That's the what, here's maybe the why.
Disclaimer: I'm pulling this out of my ass, of course.
It keeps the game going, so long as the jammers aren't both sloppy enough to both get sent back to the box at the same time. The weird thing at the end prevents us from having to do the whole messy thing with forcing the lineups to remain the same and picking new jammers.
Why not do what that some other rules set does and penalize a blocker for a jammer's actions? WFTDA is a democracy. More skaters are blockers than are jammers. Nobody likes being punished for another skater's actions. Anyone masochistic enough for that gets to have a C or an A on her uniform.
Coming from a stats standpoint, penalizing a jammer for her own actions makes a bit more sense. Particularly given that WFTDA tracks stats for blockers as well as jammers. If the blocker gets boxed, she is reported as being in the jam and her negative impact on the team's performance hits her and her packmates. If action tracking is used, it's a double-whammy (as well as the penalty stats).
If a jammer gets boxed, she likely gets some lousy scoring for this jam and maybe the next. It hurts her numbers, which is good.
In that other rules system, where a blocker gets punished for the actions of a jammer, it probably works out OK for them, because from what I can see, they only track jammer scoring as a statistic. Perhaps someone who'd know better than me could correct me on that. In other words, her pack is now one skater short, which impacts her ability to score.
-Barely even speaking for myself...
*~[
Grand Poobah
Actually...
I can't say for sure what the "why" is, but the former jammerless jam rules were not a problem simply because they stopped play. They were also HUGELY unfair.
Team A's jammer gets sent to the box. Team A now has to play with no jammer for, say, 30 seconds. We all know how much of a power play this is for Team B.
Now, 30 seconds later, Team B's jammer commits a major penalty and is also sent to the box. So how much time does Team B play without a jammer?
...none. The first jammer to commit a major penalty has her team punished far more harshly than the second.
So yeah, the new rules guarantee that both teams will be jammerless for an equal amount of time, and they keep the game going rather than stopping it. I'm a fan.
Virginia Slim #523
Harm City Homicide, Captain
Charm City Roller Girls, Referee
Other rule set penalizing
Why not do what that some other rules set does and penalize a blocker for a jammer's actions? WFTDA is a democracy. More skaters are blockers than are jammers. Nobody likes being punished for another skater's actions. Anyone masochistic enough for that gets to have a C or an A on her uniform.
-Barely even speaking for myself...
*~[
Grand Poobah
If you're talking about the old Derby Dolls rules, even they don't do that anymore and they only did it for minors. For any major they pulled a jammer off the line.
Even with the minors, the jammer had to sit in the box, the *team* was penalized a blocker. Maybe there's some league that still doesn't penalize the jammer, but if so, it makes no sense since a jammer's penalties have a direct bearing on the scoreboard. I mean, can you imagine a jammer taking out another jammer as she's about to score with some major penalty move, and the *team* just loses a blocker? Keep in mind that in those old days, as today on the BT, penalties are enforced after the end of the one minute jams. So even in those days, the blocker wasn't taken out of a jam, the team just couldn't put a blocker up for that minor penalty.
The way it's handled in the Derby Dolls and other *current* variations on last year's Battle on the Bank tournament rules, is that penalties are served for the entire next jam after the jam is finished. If both jammers are in the box, it's a wash. The jammers have to go to the box, the penalties go towards their ejection threshold, but both teams skate with jammers. All skaters who commit multiple majors (or majors + aggregated minors) serve them sequentially, so it's conceivable the team can have multiple jams without a jammer.
The 4.0 system is more equitable, but with one minute jams on the BT, and up to 4 skaters penalized per team, and having to deal with the possibility of people leaving the track at >25mph if they're pulled, right now mid-jam enforcement is more problematic. Imagine penalty officials having to run 4 simultaneous timers. For each team. The WFTDA 2-skater penalty box cap has its own iniquities. There's just no perfect system.
And hey, this is almost relevant, since the LADD vs KC/DC game this Saturday is being netcast.
Actually...
If you're talking about the old Derby Dolls rules, even they don't do that anymore and they only did it for minors. For any major they pulled a jammer off the line.
I wasn't referring to your rules at all. Yours (in full) aren't so easy to find. And that was a clumsy attempt to avoid a "this rules set vs that rules set" train wreck tangent. Usually caused by folks with GoogleAlerts set up on their name, which tends to bring a rather heated bunch of responses a month or more after the discussion has ended.
Some rules penalize a blocker for his or her jammer's penalties. My aim was to explain why WFTDA probably wouldn't tend to vote for rules that worked that way (more voters are blockers than jammers). Not to imply that anyone else isn't democratic, BTW.
-Barely even speaking for myself...
*~[
Grand Poobah
DerbyMatic/DNN
Roc City Roller Derby
I can't imagine whom you
I can't imagine whom you might be talking about.
The fact that organizations, composed of the very people who will sit in the box or even face ejection, will bite the bitter pill for the good of the game, against their own short term personal or team interests, is the reason why the game of roller derby has evolved into the sport it is today.
I don't think that the fact that more blockers are voting has anything to do with it. It's an overall consensus on how you don't want a team to win, and in the case of jammer penalties, the only way you can punish a *team* for the advantage they get through jammer penalties, is by temporarily suspending that team's ability to score at all by punishing the jammer position (not just the "jammer": it's not that personal).
This should have been called the Sarah Doom rules.
It's like the rules were written on her arm-band.
-Barely even speaking for myself...
*~[
Grand Poobah
I don't get...
...the hundreds of comments to the effect of, "well, you can still slow the pack, only NOW you have to have an opposing player with you."
I have understood this to be the case since 1.0!!!!!! Am I crazy? Or did this really need clarity.
I must be missing something.
Squadistic since 2005
Yes and no...
...the hundreds of comments to the effect of, "well, you can still slow the pack, only NOW you have to have an opposing player with you."
I have understood this to be the case since 1.0!!!!!! Am I crazy? Or did this really need clarity.
I must be missing something.
Technically you're right. Here's the gotcha though. The teams doing the "group knee-drop" trick didn't get penalized for causing the pack to split under previous rules sets. By the time pack members were warned to "pack it up," a jammer could breeze by and get four points. So the blockers trying to slow the pack down (say in a powerjam situation) had a more pronounced advantage. If they couldn't trap a "goat," they could simply resort to intentionally splitting the pack.
Today these knee-droppers would all catch majors, giving them less of an edge.
Of course, you still cannot FORCE a pack skater to move faster. SO the advantage still goes to the rear and those who want to slow it.
It will be interesting to see how this works out in strategic high-end play. You know the battle for control over pack speed. Once your blockers start hitting the box, they may essentially cede control over pack speed to the team with more players on the track.
-Barely even speaking for myself...
*~[
Grand Poobah
Sin City Stat Pack
Fabulous Sin City Rollergirls
Front has the advantage
...the hundreds of comments to the effect of, "well, you can still slow the pack, only NOW you have to have an opposing player with you."
I have understood this to be the case since 1.0!!!!!! Am I crazy? Or did this really need clarity.
I must be missing something.
Technically you're right. Here's the gotcha though. The teams doing the "group knee-drop" trick didn't get penalized for causing the pack to split under previous rules sets. By the time pack members were warned to "pack it up," a jammer could breeze by and get four points. So the blockers trying to slow the pack down (say in a powerjam situation) had a more pronounced advantage. If they couldn't trap a "goat," they could simply resort to intentionally splitting the pack.
Today these knee-droppers would all catch majors, giving them less of an edge.
Of course, you still cannot FORCE a pack skater to move faster. SO the advantage still goes to the rear and those who want to slow it.
It will be interesting to see how this works out in strategic high-end play. You know the battle for control over pack speed. Once your blockers start hitting the box, they may essentially cede control over pack speed to the team with more players on the track.
-Barely even speaking for myself...
*~[
Grand Poobah
Sin City Stat Pack
Fabulous Sin City Rollergirls
I don't agree with you that the rear has the advantage. At our scrimmage the other night, one home team had 3 blockers in the pack who stayed tight and in the front of the pack for the entire jam since their jammer was in the box. Our team had no choice but to sprint behind this team and try to do some offensive blocking, the catch being that they were so tight and fast up front that we couldn't do anything about it except sprint behind them. If we were to return to the normal pack speed, it would be a split pack and we'd probably be assessed the penalty for not keeping with the pack.
Holly Gohardly
Charm City Roller Girls
Agree-
with Gohardly. Totally.
I guess I never learned to play in a way that 4 blockers dropping a knee was any kind of alternative to blocking- and I am all about some 20 ft. Now I see how that was exploited before, I just- I swear, I have never seen it. I never learned to play that way- if you wanted to do that, it had to involved decisive aggressive action that involved at least one opposing player. Long live New Orleans!
Squadistic since 2005
Not all of them
I don't think all of the knee droppers catch a major.
"Intentionally destroying the pack. If a player, team, or group of skaters intentionally destroys the pack with a conscious and orchestrated effort, one penalty will be applied to a single player who is most responsible (or the Pivot per Section 7.1.2 and 7.2.4)."
clearly states that only the person most responsible will catch the major...not every single person that does it.
and by the way
At this moment, I HATE the jammerless jam changes. Damn I miss being a WFTDA rep. I would love to see what went into this one.
Squadistic since 2005
Why new "Both Jammers Penalized" rules are good.
At this moment, I HATE the jammerless jam changes. Damn I miss being a WFTDA rep. I would love to see what went into this one.
It's a good idea to start using the new name for it. The old rules' name referred to the situation it was intended to solve. At least one person who dislikes most of today's roller derby has tended to use those words to cause our rules to look bad by posting the name in a misleading way (even after being corrected a few times what the rule does and how it works).
I like these new rules. Under the old rules, the first jammer to the box cost her team the ability to score points for a full minute. Once the other jammer hit, that advantage ended but the second jammer's team lost NO ability to score points, as two new jammers were put in. The second jammer's team didn't get adequately punished, IMO. Her being in the box as a blocker made little difference to the game, as both teams are down another blocker at this point.
The advantage actually went to the more diverse lineup. In other words, the team with a blocker who can jam generally won the next jam.
Under the new system, both teams are punished equally. This team's powerjam advantage becomes that team's powerjam advantage. And the game keeps on happening (which is the most beautiful thing about it).
Win-win-win.
-Barely even speaking for myself...
*~[
Grand Poobah
DerbyMatic/DNN
Roc City Roller Derby