WFTDA Releases New May 2010 Ruleset
The Women's Flat Track Derby Association today released the fourth major revision of its official ruleset. Underneath the naming convention that started with last December's minor update to the 4.0 ruleset, this version will be officially known as the May 26, 2010 revision. You can download the full ruleset on WFTDA.com.
Like the revision before it, the May 26, 2010 edition does not introduce many significantly new elements to the gameplay or penalties; most changes here are primarily dedicated to clarifying some gray areas and spelling out guidelines for expulsion-worthy behavior.
All WFTDA-sanctioned games must be played under this ruleset after June 23, 2010, which means the bouts at Philly's rapidly-approaching East Coast Extravaganza tournament (June 25-27) will act as the real-world stress test. Here's a quick overview of the changes most likely to affect bouts going forward:
Fouling Out
There is one significant change that will likely affect penalty-prone skaters -- the trigger for fouling out of a game has been lowered to 7 penalty box trips in the same bout (7.5.1.1.1). This replaces the previous trigger of 5 box trips in the same period. The tally does not reset at halftime anymore, which means that an especially penalty-prone skater could permanently foul out before the second half.
Notably, the phrase "fouling out" has completely replaced the term "ejection" in the ruleset, which spells an end to the semantic confusion between the terms "ejection" and "expulsion" that meant slightly different things in previous rulesets.
Final Jam Procedures
There's a particularly interesting addition in rule 9.2.6.3. Head referees have been given some latitude to choose whether to run an additional jam in cases where a jam is called off by the referees when there is still time on the jam clock but not on the period clock. This would seem to be specifically useful for cases where the jam ends for safety reasons while the outcome of the game is still in some doubt.
New Penalty Box Restrictions
A smaller but also potentially significant change involves skaters in the penalty box. Previous rulesets had not specified whether or not penalized skaters could still interact with the game in general; this ruleset goes out of its way to make sure they cannot. Skaters may not leave the box during timeouts (7.3.4) and teammates may not physically enter the box area to communicate with them (7.3.4.1); additionally, team captains and designated alternates cannot call timeout while penalized (7.3.5).
The new ruleset also specifies that skaters may not remove any safety equipment except for their mouthguards while serving time in the penalty box.
Track Cutting Rules Clarified
In an apparent example of loophole-closing, there's more detailed language surrounding track cutting (6.11), asserting that it is illegal for skaters to cut track in a no-pack situation and for jammers to cut track past each other when outside of the Engagement Zone. Previous rulesets had a bit of a grey area around the legality (because in a no-pack situation, there is no way to improve one's relative position in the nonexistent pack); this ruleset shuts down that philosophical tangent.
New Expulsion Guidelines
Some new boilerplate language appears in new "Expulsion" sections that follows the description of all contact fouls -- referees are directed to expel a player for "intentional, negligent or reckless contact" while committing an illegal action. Depending on how broadly this is applied, these guidelines would seem to open the door to an increased number of potentially controversial expulsions.
Extreme Positional Play Survives
After some of the controversial extreme-positional play at 2009's WFTDA Nationals, there appeared to be both hope and fear that the next ruleset would remove or dramatically limit the ability of skaters to skate extremely slowly or move clockwise on the track, but those maneuvers seem to have lived through this update. While there is an entirely new section entitled "Direction of Gameplay Penalties," it mostly serves to expressly spell out that standstill blocking is illegal, a reading which was already supported by the previous set.
The new section does also expressly state that stopping and/or moving clockwise on the track are legal as long as the skater does not block, assist or engage while doing so (6.9.3 and 6.9.4). And per 6.11.1's rules on re-entering behind the initiator of a block, it is still legal to force an opponent out of bounds and then skate backwards in an attempt to force the opponent to follow or eat the track-cutting penalty.
Comments
WHAT??? IT'S AN OUTRAGE I
WHAT??? IT'S AN OUTRAGE I TELL YOU!!!
The perfect way
The perfect way to start a new thread.
Editorial: I really like 9.2.6.3
"9.2.6.3 In the event that a referee must call off a jam prior to its natural conclusion (per rules 9.2.6.2.3 – 9.2.6.2.8) with time remaining on the jam clock, but not the period clock, the points from the jam will remain and an additional jam may occur at the Head Referee’s discretion."
It's really good to see that the rulemakers decided to concede that sometimes, Unpredictable Fucked Up Shit happens, and it's better to end a close game with a satisfying jam rather than just ending the game on said Unpredictable Fucked Up Shit because there was no other legal option. Off the top of my head, Denver / Rocky Mountain at 2009 Western Regionals and Puget Sound / St. Louis at 2010 Spring Roll would have had much more pleasing conclusions if this rule had existed at the time.
On a different angle, I look forward to seeing the first head ref that decides to go out in a blaze of glory and, once the period clock runs out, calls off EVERY JAM prior to its natural conclusion and runs another one until his or her favored team finally comes back and wins the game. Sure, the game might last two hours and you'll never ref again, but your name will live on FOREVER!
True but...
what if it is a close game and a player on the team ahead on points decides to take a soccer dive before the jam would end? Under the old rules there would be no way for the game to be restarted. At least this way it keep people from doing things to intentionally end a jam other than getting the lead and calling it.
I am in total favor of this rule
My last paragraph is 100% in jest, if it wasn't clear enough :)
I know
but someone might decide on their last game to do it. It's one way to leave your mark in the derby world.
The Denver Rule
9.2.6.2.3
I call it the "The Denver Rule".
I'll bet this won't happen in
I'll bet this won't happen in a sanctioned game, but will happen in unsanctioned games, especially non-WFTDA leagues.
And I'll bet the first time it's used someone will accuse the refs of doing something like that the first time it's used legitimately.
Won't happen?
I hope it won't. But sometimes one ref decides the game. The FWDGs had a charity bout just over a week ago and it ended in a ref calling it over. It was a good call, lead jammer called it off and refs didn't see it, but he made the right call in the end. I like the new set so far. Don't need to add a bunch of rules, just tightening these ones up
Reason # 478
That I am not a WFTDA rep for my league nor on the rules committee. Props to those that do.
My head hurts.
Slow pack strategy
I'm so glad the WFTDA kept their heads and didn't listen to the detractors and make Denver's strategy illegal.
Great updates. I do wish the knocking a player out of bounds and skating backwards to force them to skate backwards was clarified. I still believe it's illegal now but even it is, it probably should be.
I agree--Denver strategy must STAY!
Thank you Thank you for allowing slowing and clockwise skating to get into position!!! Denver is fascinating to watch, and their strategy is forcing other teams to be BETTER by being more flexible and well rounded in their strategy/skill set. PROPS to the rule-makers!
Or they should change the
Or they should change the nomenclature and come up with a completely new word for "track cutting". Since that is clearly no longer the descriptive move.
The rule was originally designed to prevent someone from using an out of bounds position to pass the pack and clear troublesome blockers. At that point "track cutting" was adequately descriptive. Theoretically you couldn't have a jammer forced into re-entering clockwise to the position in which she exited, and so it would still be technically "track cutting" to pass that blocker.
That is no longer the case. The defensive possibilities have evolved, and continuing to use the term "track cutting" is counter-intuitive, especially to newer fans. It also detracts from the intelligence of the tactic, and "extreme positioning" doesn't specifically refer to the tactic that should be "formerly 'track cutting'".
"Extreme positioning" also describes a team's leading edge blockers skating clockwise in a properly goated pack to put opposing blockers OOP and free their jammer
Track Cutting Rules Clarified
The way it's explained above makes it sound like cutting when no pack and jammers cutting jammers are NOT penalties, when in fact they are.
" Minor — 6.11.12 An in bounds, upright and skating skater who has re-entered the track from out of bounds in front of one in-bounds skater during a No Pack scenario, which results in her having bettered her position."
and
"Minor — 6.11.10 An in bounds, upright and skating Jammer who has re-entered the track from out of bounds in front of the opposing Jammer outside of the Engagement Zone, which results in her having bettered her position."
SwingWrecK
Senior Referee & Travel Team Coach
The Brewcity Bruisers - Milwaukee, WI
Depends how you read it
Original:
"there's more detailed language surrounding track cutting (6.11), asserting that it is possible for skaters to cut track in a no-pack situation and for jammers to cut track past each other when outside of the Engagement Zone."
What I meant was "it is possible to get the track-cutting penalty," but I see where the ambiguity arises. Changed "possible" to "illegal."
Out of play
So, to clarify, then... is it still legal to come back in front of a player who has gone out of play while there is a legal pack?
Yes, that is still legal.
Quoting directly from the rules here:
====
A skater may not return in bounds in front of the skater who blocked her out of bounds, except under the following circumstances where no penalty is to be issued:
6.11.1.1 When the initiating skater is considered “in the box,” having been sent off the track for a penalty (see Section 7.3.2.2.1).
6.11.1.2 When the initiating skater goes out of bounds at any time after the initiating block.
6.11.1.3 When the initiating skater downs herself or falls at any time after the initiating block.
6.11.1.4 When the initiating skater exits the Engagement Zone at any time after the initiating block.
===
If you really wanted to parse it, you could make a decent argument that the rules around cutting track in a no-pack situation are in conflict with 6.11.1.4, but that would be Wankery, I believe. Much easier to embrace the idea that "exiting the Engagement Zone" means "getting 20 feet away from the existing EZ" but does NOT mean "ceasing to be in an EZ because the EZ has ceased to exist."
A very simple game, folks!
A very simple game, folks!
this part has me wondering
"and for jammers to cut track past each other when outside of the Engagement Zone".
We're not gonna see the jammers racing backwards are we???
Absolutely
Saw it a little last year too, but I've been seeing a lot more this year, even before this clarification came out.
I'm assuming..
..this only applies to action between the jammers? In other words, if i go out of bounds and the jammer is a half lap behind, I don't have to wait for the jammer do I? I'm only at page 3, one phrase at a time. :-)
nevermind
I answered myself. :-)
Jammer D
No, you don't wait. Once you skate OOB you get the minor.
WFTDA Rule
6.12 SKATING OUT OF BOUNDS
Minor Penalty
6.12.6 Skating out of bounds to maintain or increase speed.
I'm talking about Jammer D, when a jammer knocks the other OOB.
Too Many Skaters, Marty
Those two changes are interesting for different reasons. For the "too many skaters on the track" I hope that's only after the referees have tried to resolve the issue and the team with the advantage simply refuses to correct the problem. If the jam is called off simply because the ref didn't pay attention between jams, well, that'd suck.
As for the "too many people in the team area", that at least keeps numbers down around the bench. It looks like 2.1.4 has been around for a while, but I thought I remember seeing benches with three or more non-skating members in the team area during last year's big five. Now it looks like you get a major for every jam until the extra people vacate.
pre-jam warnings
Those two changes are interesting for different reasons. For the "too many skaters on the track" I hope that's only after the referees have tried to resolve the issue and the team with the advantage simply refuses to correct the problem. If the jam is called off simply because the ref didn't pay attention between jams, well, that'd suck.
Just FYI. Referees are not responsible for teams lining up properly. Teams are.
9.2.1.1.3 Referees do not warn teams when too many skaters line up on the
track.
9.2.1.1.4 Referees do not warn skaters or teams when they line up out of
position (e.g. Blockers lining up in front of the Pivot line).
These rules were in 4.0 as well. Same exact rules numbers as May 26, 2010 rule set.
Endless Justin
WFTDA Rules Committee, retired.....phew
Gotham Girls Roller Derby
Why not?
I realize that Derby Is Not Other Sports (sm), but as a hockey referee, I'm always surprised by the number of penalties that derby gives out for things that really should be written off as referee errors. A non-lead jammer calling off a jam becomes a major rather than a minor specifically because a referee calls off the jam when they should not have? The referees allow too many players while lining up for the jam, so the team takes the penalty (or worse yet, a jam is called off prematurely)?
In hockey, the rules address errors made by the officials, and try to not penalize players/teams for the error. The latter situation above is specifically covered; if the refs allow too many players at the faceoff (usually in a multi-player shorthanded situation, which can be complicated) and the teams follow that precedent, then a whistle for too many players should result in copping to the error and restarting play without a penalty.
I think perhaps the point is
I think perhaps the point is being missed here. A jam does not have too many players because 'the refs allowed it'. A jam has too many players because one or more teams put too many players out on the track. They have until the start of the jam to correct the situation, and even then if it can be corrected soon enough, the team suffers only a minor penalty.
I don't see how it is considered a referee error, or why they are considered to have 'allowed' this to happen. It only become a referee error if they fail to notice the number of blockers on the track and in the box for a jam in progress.
In hockey if you have too many players, you don't receive a penalty because the refs allowed it. Your team is responsible for the amount of players on the ice, and is subject to penalty (and more severe, I'd say) for failing to follow the regulation. Don Cherry takes a bow and you go to the box.
Right, but...
In hockey, it's the officials' duty to check players at the start of play, meaning at a faceoff. If a team asks how many they're allowed in a confusing multiple-penalty situation, and they're told a number by the referee, it's expected that they take that as truth; penalizing them for following an official's instructions seems a bit off.
Oh, and Don Cherry's a tool.
Football
In pro football, the situation is the same as derby. If a team lines up with too many players, the ref is not obliged to utter a peep until the play starts, then a whistle and a penalty is assessed.
As neither hockey nor football are roller derby, this argument is academic. In Derby, the rules are pretty clear, and Patricide (above) is right.
And Don Cherry is sometimes a tool, but those kids should stay off the pond none the less.
This is true.
The rules are clear... until they're not, or until they change.
7 and you are out?
This may be an issue for leagues with sub-par reffing. Why did they go from 10, to 7? I would think 8 would have been a more reasonable tweak. I see many players fouling out in the future.
Potentially, I see the course changed
for bouts in the regionals and the WFTDA finals with such a low margin for penalty ejection--too much skating and hitting with passion and intensity for them to not happen. At least we'll have a test run in the ECE.
not really.
Are you involved with a league? If so, check the penalty stats for one of your teams and look at the total box minutes from the last game. Did anyone get close to seven minutes? At our last bout, the most was four.
K, now check the penalty stats for the last year for that same team, ideally home and away. Notice any trends? You'll notice a pattern in box minutes; the skaters who go to the box a lot are doing it every game, often for the many of the same penalties.
This isn't to say the legitimacy of every call will be universally agreed upon, but if someone is going to the box seven times, its not because of seven bad calls.
backwards whips!
since you cannot assist while skating backwards or stopped, would that make backwards whips illegal?
it is very important that i get a response soon, since i have been practicing the 180, backwards, toe-touch whip and would be very upset if i cannot deliver for our upcoming bout...
Backwards skating is NOT illegal.
since you cannot assist while skating backwards or stopped, would that make backwards whips illegal?
it is very important that i get a response soon, since i have been practicing the 180, backwards, toe-touch whip and would be very upset if i cannot deliver for our upcoming bout...
The rules are very clear about "clockwise" and not "backwards."
Read the part in 6.9.1, nowhere is "backwards" mentioned, only clockwise and counter-clockwise. Backwards whips are not and have never been illegal (to my knowledge).
By the way, so long as you are moving in a counter-clockwise direction, you can block all you want, regardless of which way you're facing.
This comment gave me visions
This comment gave me visions of an entire pack flipping around to skate backwards and face the incoming jammers head-on.
I've seen an entire team do
I've seen an entire team do this. It's not entirely effective when the opposing blockers don't do the same thing.
It's apparently a little unnerving to a jammer when they see all eyes of the opposing blockers focused on them. It doesn't last long, because if they keep it up...well, few blockers are as good at taking hits while skating backwards as they are while skating forwards CC. And their positional awareness isn't good when they're staring down a jammer.
i've seen an entire team
i've seen an entire team do......
I never have understood the advantage, since the backward skaters legal target zone is now exposed to the skaters chasing her. If she is skating with her back to the chaser, the chaser can't hit her without getting a back block penalty. When the backward skater is being chased she is risking being plowed into face to face. A backward skater will usually not win that contest.
yeah
it's awesome when that happens....
My favorite new rule, 9.1.5.1 (two scorekeepers required)
With so many people are using HP DeskJet printers (which require a larger minimum margin than most laser printers), making the single scorekeeper sheet that the old rules suggested were needed was really difficult to do with any degree of readability. Now it's completely unneeded. I am betting this rule may not be noticed soon enough by a few of the very few leagues with single scorekeepers.
Guess we at Stats Revisioning have some work to do on the Penalties tab though. For now I suppose a penalty tracker could simply flip to the next sheet temporarily in the unlikely event a skater gets a sixth penalty minute in a single period.
Speaking of rule 7.5.1.1.1 (fouling out), I'm in favor. Clearing the confusion on ejections/expulsion is helpful. How many times have you heard an announcer stumble over the difference between ejection and expulsion? How many times have you had to explain the difference to fans that got confused? How many times have people deeply involved in the sport said "ejection" when they meant "expulsion?"
I don't think they could reasonably change the term used in the rules to "ejection" without totally screwing everyone up. Hence it's "expulsion" when a skater does something really naughty, and "fouling out" when it's PM count. Note to self: ANOTHER change for the WFTDA StatsBook.
This also avoids confusion on what clears at the half. Nothing does now. No wiping half of the white board at halftime. Ever had a newbie wipe the whole thing and have to recover what's on it from the penalty sheets? Annoying.
At the same time, they also tightened up the game. If strategic penalties are your forte, expect to maybe not be there at the end of the bout. When you're needed most. I remember wishing they'd picked four instead of five, when the confusing parts about fouling out of a period got simplified from "four by minors, four by majors, five overall" down to five PM. Now it's seven PM for the entire bout, which is kind of like 3.5 per period. Even tighter.
Watching certain games, it seemed like skaters would wind up ejected just about at the end of a period anyways. Sometimes it had almost no impact on the game. Having watched a few LADD bouts, this can do a number on "unclean" teams as the second half goes along. They have a similar rule on fouling out that they only use for local games, WORD rules clear PM count at the half.
I do like the reinforcement that blocking from a dead standstill is illegal, hopefully that gets enforced a bit better when it happens.
About blocking from a dead standstill
I wonder if the passive standstill block is going to be called.....you know when a team has a goat and they don't move at all......that in my opinion would fall under this rule. Or what about when a skater gets knocked off the track and the skater that blocked that skater stops and/or skates clockwise to try to force a cut........somewhat of a passive block??????
In the Derby Dolls two-league
In the Derby Dolls two-league intraleague system (6 penalties for fouling out from the entire game, no reset at the half), it not only penalizes "dirty" teams, but teams which put too much of the defensive heavy lifting on a smaller number of blockers.
Running the same effective blockers in frequent rotation, but also pairing them with weaker blockers too frequently, makes them work harder, and in more jams than less reliable defensive players. And exposes them to more errant mistakes, particularly minors. They don't always play especially dirty, as measured per penalty, per jam. But it adds up, so you see many of the same players fouling out almost every game in the third and fourth quarter.
For the teams on the top mesa in the WFTDA, they'll adjust. For nearly everyone else, you'll see wild score changes sometime in the second period as either heavy lifting skaters run in tight rotations in the first period foul out in the second, or are held in reserve to the end of the game. It happens now, but in the future it will be much more noticeable.
A further prediction: Announcers will use the phrase "unlease the Krakken" in some form far more frequently toward the end of games than they do now.
Amen!
They don't always play especially dirty, as measured per penalty, per jam. But it adds up, so you see many of the same players fouling out almost every game in the third and fourth quarter..
Amen!
"Ejection" has a "J," as in
"Ejection" has a "J," as in "Just for this period." "Expulsion" has a "P," as in "Permanently." Also, when two vowels go out walking, the first one does the talking. BELIEVE IT!
High Blocking now has its own penalty.
What previously fell under Misconduct now has its own penalty. Some folks tend to get that mixed up with blocking to the head, which I imagine may continue until it gets its own signal (will it?). Weird thing, it's still listed under Misconduct (6.15.5). Oopsie?
Skating Clockwise to Block is now called Direction of Gameplay.
Whee, we get to come up with at least two new codes!
You can keep the same code
You can keep the same code for Direction of Gameplay.
I remember long ago when High Blocks were recorded as A. Perhaps we can go back to that?
7 trips
I believe the logic behind this is for there to be a real punishment for too many trips to the box. In the past rules by the time someone went to the box 5 times, the period was almost over, making a skater have to only sit out 1 or 2 jams.
After half time penalties reset so they really don't have to spend anytime on the bench for fouling out at all.
Why 7 instead of 10?
Looking back at my teams yearly stats the most trips to the box for one player for an entire game was 9. We had 8 situations where a player fouled out for the period however.
If 7 for the game would have been the rule we would of had some one foul out for the game only 3 times.
So this new rule should have less people fouling out, but when they do foul out it's for more than 2 or 3 minutes, it could be for a significant amount of the half.
Safety and stuff
I think the long term impact of 7 trips is it promotes safer skating as time goes by. And that's pretty important in the big picture of things. Least that's how I look at it.
only time can tell, it may
only time can tell,
it may also have the impact of fewer skaters on the track during the game, more 2 on 2's or 2 on 3's or 2 on 1's (the rules in general) and then the fouling out may be big momentum swings for teams that just aren't as competitive. The more technical the penalties are the more likely that somebody will be sent to the penalty box, it's a lot of things to add up in your head during a jam.
A few interesting/odd things.
Rule 9.2.7.1.1 (on forfeits) states: "A team has five or fewer un-injured rostered skates remaining due to expulsions." This doesn't include fouled out skaters. Which the rules elsewhere describe very distinctly as being different from expelled skaters.
Misconduct major for block with initial contact landing above the shoulders (6.16.5) is still in there, despite High Blocking having it's own penalty that includes a major. There may be a reason this was done, but I'm having a tough time figuring it out.
Minor quibble: 6.13.26 probably wants to refer to the section that defines how many support staff members can be in the designated team area (2.1.4). Imagine a team getting this penalty, a coach pulling out the rule book, the ref showing him/her rule 6.13.26 and then the coach saying "Where's it say only two?" Not a fun time to have to go looking for that rule, unfortunately the printed rulebooks don't have the nice search function that Acrobat does.
The file name is "wftda-rules.pdf" Hoarders/archivists like me are eventually going to have conniptions on that. You'd have to open the file to see which version it is, and storing older rules in the future will require separate folders.
Nobody without cybernetic brain implants is going to remember the official name of this rules set or the last and be able to use them in conversation. I predict that "May 2010" and "December 2009" will be what they are generally called.
Naming and Links
The file name is "wftda-rules.pdf" Hoarders/archivists like me are eventually going to have conniptions on that. You'd have to open the file to see which version it is, and storing older rules in the future will require separate folders.
The reason for the naming: http://wftda.com/rules/wftda-rules.pdf will always point to the latest version of the rules. This helps to ensure that incoming links from league and other websites don't reference outdated information. For hoarders/archivists such as yourself, you can visit the rules archive at http://wftda.com/rules/archive
Of course, you can always rename the file that you've just downloaded... ;-)
Is this legal.....
During one of our bouts, a jammer from the opposing team was on a power jam, our jammer was in the box. The opposing jammer got a penalty and was sent to the box and she would not sit down, thus running down the clock, our jammer left the box when the opposing jammer entered but was not seated....is that kind of manuever legal on the opposing jammers part? Our Jammer got another penalty for leaving the box before the other jammer sat down.
well, technically yes. The
well, technically yes. The penalty on your jammer is definitely warrented, since the penalty box timer has to release your jammer, she can't just leave. As far as legality on the other jammer's part, it's something that skirts the rules b/c t here's no rule that says you have to make it to the box in so much time (the jammer stalling, is stalling her chance of scoring points once she does decide to sit), like she could go very slow to the penalty box. But, i suppose if she was IN the box and refused to sit there's a possibility of getting an insubordination?? I've never seen that enforced though, so I could be wrong.
7.3.2. When a skater is sent
7.3.2. When a skater is sent to the penalty box, she must *immediately* exit the track and skate
to the penalty box in the counter-clockwise direction.
There was some WFTDA rules clarification that addressed "immediately" and this exact situation - that skaters could not obviously delay getting to the box or sitting down or risk insubordination. However, now that's not up on the website anymore. =(
Check the glossary
"Immediately" is now one of the terms clarified by the glossary at the back of the rules - the clarification in question has been merged into the rules themselves.
You may notice that the
You may notice that the clarifications are missing from the website, but they're not missing from the new ruleset.
This rule may apply
7.4.8
With one Jammer already in the box, if the opposing team’s Jammer removes herself from the jam because she has decided to quit playing (e.g. sits on her team’s bench midjam, leaves the track area mid jam), the jam will be whistled dead after it has been determined by the referee that she will not again be re-entering play (Sections 7.4.6 and 7.4.7 do not apply). A new jam will be started with the penalized Jammer still in the box serving the remainder of her required penalty time, and the opposing team fielding a new Jammer. The Jammer who ends a jam by quitting is to be considered as having quit the game–she is not permitted to return to play in the bout.
I don't think so, that's WAY
I don't think so, that's WAY out of context for my comfort. Quitting is leaving the game, if you're in the penalty box or on your way there, that's not quitting.
My reason
My reason for showing this rule is what is supposed to happen. The ref calls the jam off, and then determines whether the skater who has stopped playing is returning to play, insubordination penalties can be handed out at that time, then play can resume.
Hovering...
During one of our bouts, a jammer from the opposing team was on a power jam, our jammer was in the box. The opposing jammer got a penalty and was sent to the box and she would not sit down, thus running down the clock, our jammer left the box when the opposing jammer entered but was not seated....is that kind of manuever legal on the opposing jammers part? Our Jammer got another penalty for leaving the box before the other jammer sat down.
A Jammer hovering over the P. Box chair should NOT be penalized for delaying box timer, nor can she be given an insubordiantion penalty. Yeah it's a D/B move but it's not illegal!
Jammer wont sit
I dont know if her plan was to have our jammer leave the box thinking she would immediately sit down thus sending her back to the penalty box so quickly.....our girl fell for it, if that was case. Of course it made the rest of us fighting mad. We ended up losing the bout by one point, due to a miscommunication of points during a power jam where we got 13 and was only given 3, also an NSO didnt call the jam off when the period clock ran out, thus giving the other team the two extra points they needed to beat us....
I feel for your loss
I feel for your loss and I'm sure the refs and NSOs do too.
Natural Conclusion
Jam doesn't end when Period Clock runs out... Jam must come to a natural conclusion as per the rule.
D/B move? Really?
Delaying the time to sit in the box is hardly a douche bag move.
The rules say you must exit immediately, not get to the box immediately. Staying on the track would be something that could warrant an insubordination because you are effectively blocking (in some way) by being there and you could confuse the jam referees and scorekeeping NSOs about your position. Once you're off the track, you're scored on the moment the opposing jammer passes one of your blockers. Hence "immediately exit".
As for delaying the time to sit - it is really only effective if you will not serve your own time in the box - ie the very last jam of the bout.
Any jammer who chooses to delay sitting is taking a double time penalty. She is off the track every second she doesn't sit AND she is in the box every second she doesn't sit that could get cut down by the exiting jammer.
Seems like a fair strategic trade if 2 of my penalty seconds is worth only 1 of my opponents.
The only other times this can work for the delaying jammer are:
1) if the sitting jammer is dumb enough to get angry and leave the box, thereby earning an additional minute AND the additional time skating to the box. Any time we can get our opponents angry enough to do dumb things while maintaining our own cool is a pretty smart strategy.
2) to wait for more ideal pack position - such nearly opposite the box - to delay the opponent's return to the pack in which case she hopes those seconds waited are spent with the other jammer catching up to the pack while she sits.
The jammer who succeeds in "fooling" her opponent into leaving early also earns the whole bout whatever time it takes for her to finish her own penalty time with no jammer at all as she doesn't get released when a jammer returns to the box. So if the other jammer returns quickly, we haven't even managed to earn a full minute of penalty time off of her - just a lot of not scoring time for everyone.
The rules.
You are right that the rules do not forbid this action, as near as I can tell.
I think it could also be useful for a team that is holding a lead and would like to just run out the clock a little bit longer. It's hard to lose a lead when no one can score.
I'm not really sure I like the "spirit" of someone doing this, but that's just my opinion. In theory, it could lead to 59 seconds of a jammerless-jam, right? *yawn*.
Delayed jammer
As for delaying the time to sit - it is really only effective if you will not serve your own time in the box - ie the very last jam of the bout.
Or when the jammer recognizes that there are too few of her blockers on the track and wants to kill time till her blockers in the box can re-enter to block the opposing jammer re-entering...........
agreed
As for delaying the time to sit - it is really only effective if you will not serve your own time in the box - ie the very last jam of the bout.
Or when the jammer recognizes that there are too few of her blockers on the track and wants to kill time till her blockers in the box can re-enter to block the opposing jammer re-entering...........
This is a great reason to take a leisurely stroll to the box. Or if the jam clock is running out and you can limit the amount of time the opposing jammer will have to score. Hopefully the clock runs out before she scores, and then next jam starts with the jammer having to make an initial pass first.
Lippy
I like that strategy...
....know the rules better than I do and you might just make it!!
lots of ins and outs and what have yous
This isnt Nam there are rules ...
No strategy can be designed to benefit from sitting in the box so fouling out will hopefully keep girls skating clean. With that said chances are refs will still make bullshit and bogus calls. Especially in the case of THE TEXECUTIONERS! Its high time we recognize derby as a full contact sport and we legalize big hits.
¡sent from a blood splattered Droid!
TX2 KILL3 © R.O.Z. ESQ. 2008