#11 Windy City Holds Off #10 Boston, 121-115
-
Windy City's Shocka Conduit ducks around Boston's Harley Quinn. Photo: Gil Leora. -
Second Wind blocker Tay Q. Down works against the Silent Lambs' Geez Louise to open the inside line for jammer Zoe Trocious. Photo: Gil Leora.
CHICAGO, IL -- In what proved to be a brutal game for two teams vying for a place in DNN's unofficial top ten, #11 Windy City came out with a narrow 121-115 victory over #10 Boston, barely eking past a determined Massacre team. The mantra for the bout seemed to be, “With great hitting comes great responsibility,” and though the Massacre was making an intrepid effort, they still managed to fall short in the end.
Chicago held a commanding lead throughout the first half, ferrying points onto the scoreboard with a handful of one-pass jams and a monster 20-point jam by Varla Vendetta. WCR blockers Hoosier Mama, Sargentina, Jackie Daniels and Blossom Bruiso helped their team maintain a comfortable lead that allowed the All-Stars’ jammers to score at will. Chicago went to the locker room at half-time with a 76-29 lead and appeared to be on the path to an easy victory.
The second half proved to be a different story, though, and Boston came out from half-time looking as though they had just studied hours of WCR bout footage, evidenced by their stepped-up defensive play. Though Boston’s blockers were working hard to hold their own in the pack, penalties against WCR were what allowed Boston to move closer to evening up the scoreboard. Boston jammers Claire D. Way and Killary Clinton were able to rack up double-digit jams as they took advantage of a steady rotation of WCR blockers and jammers filtering through the penalty box. Boston’s jammers were able to brave a vicious salvo of hits issued by a tiring WCR team and pull to just within six points before the final buzzer sounded.
Though the Boston bench tried hard to erase the WCR lead, it was sheer grit and determination that kept the Windy City Rollers All-Stars alive. The WCR All-Stars face off next against the #3 Rocky Mountain Rollergirls at the UIC Pavilion in Chicago on August 21st, 2010. A win against Rocky Mountain would raise WCR up in the national standings significantly and make WCR a top-level contender for the WFTDA championship set to be held in Chicago in November.
WCR Second Wind 184, CRG Silent Lambs 96 -- In the night's undercard bout between B-teams, the WCR Second Wind faced off against Cincinnati’s Silent Lambs in Chicago, closing out July with a bout to remember where the Second Wind routed out the visiting team 184-96. The first half of the bout started out as an intense blowout for the Second Wind, setting up the dynamic jamming team of Zoe Trocious, Ruth Enasia, and Rose Feratu.
It wasn’t until 13 minutes into the first half when Cincinnati was able to finally get on the board, by which point the score was a run-away 68-12. Cincinnati’s blocking combination of Ruff’n the Passer and GlamourAzz were pivotal in letting their jammer Wheezy tally their first points. With the game starting to go blow for blow, both team’s blockers were making a fight for each other’s jammers. The Second Wind jammers were proving to hold more sway on the track by bringing their score up to 91-24 and leaving a veritable dust cloud behind them.
With under two minutes left in the half, though, Cincinnati’s jammer Pistol Whippin’ Wendy was able to net nine more points and the Silent Lambs went roaring into a comfortable scoring run, bringing the score to 91-33, still in favor of the Second Wind at the end of the first half.
Two jams into the second half, Cincinnati found themselves rotating players through the penalty box, leaving an open track for the Second Wind to score on. Rose Feratu racked up a 20-point scoring jam giving her team a 126-33 lead. With 7:21 left in the second, the Silent Lambs' Polly Rocket took advantage of a lull in play to get the Cincinnati fans involved. With the crowd behind her, she was able to get lead jammer and score an impressive 19 points bringing the score up to 160-86, still in favor of the Second Wind. Though their efforts were valiant, the Silent Lambs could never mount a large enough attack to fend off the Second Wind.
In an effort to keep their momentum going throughout the rest of the season, the Windy City Rollers’ Second Wind plays Rocky Mountain’s B Team on August 21st at the UIC Pavilion in Chicago.
Comments
Man, penalties are a killer...
...and considering how iffy some of those calls can be, it seems a shame they should be so costly. Boston did play better in the second half, but those double-digit power jams in the last 15 minutes really swung the score. And to be fair, an early Boston penalty for the jammer inexplicable false-start also gave Windy a 20+ point power jam. I don't have the stats, but I'd bet power jams accounted for ~30% of the scoring.
I love the sport, but I'm not sure the penalty punishment fits the crime. I have no idea if/how it should be changed, but when an inadvertent cutting the track (especially when the jammer is blocked into the infield by the opposing lead blocker--it's a major if you pass her) can result in a free 20 points for the opponents, it seems excessive. The fact that more teams don't try to draw penalties like that seems odd, so I have to concede I may be missing something. Any other thoughts?
Thoughts
The fact that more teams don't try to draw penalties like that seems odd, so I have to concede I may be missing something.
Teams definitely try to draw that penalty. You'll even see blockers that stop and skate backwards as soon as they hit the jammer out of bounds. The top teams (Windy City and Boston DEFINITELY included in that statement... those are both very excellent teams) are well versed in both sides of that play. Sometimes the blocker can pull it off, sometimes the jammer can avoid it... such is derby. I do see your point, but I don't know what other way it could be done. Perhaps at least make the point of re-entry the furthest forward position that the blocker accomplished? (Ya know, because the refs need one more thing to keep track of).
an early Boston penalty for the jammer inexplicable false-start
I didn't see this, so I'm not judging this call by any means. But I have seen a few false start calls, and I've been feeling like they're too often upgraded to a major penalty. By my reading of the rules, if the jammer false starts but yields the advantage to the opposing jammer, then it should only be a minor penalty. I've seen jammers get jumpy and take a step or two over the line before the whistle, and I can think of so many times when that jammer got sent to the box even if they turned around and skated back behind the line. Anyone from the zebra community want to chime in on how those rules are generally ruled?
False starts
I don't presume to speak for the zebra community, nor have I officiated any high-level games, but with less experienced players it's quite common to hear the following exchange.
Ref: black 61, false start
Black 61: huh?
Ref: BLACK 61, FALSE START
Black 61: do I go to the box?
Ref: >WHISTLE< BLACK 61, FALSE START MAJOR
Ref: now you do.
False start majors
I could have sworn there was something in the clarifications list at rules.wftda.com that specified that the false start major shouldn't be given until and unless the false-starting jammer enters the pack without attempting to yield, but that site has been wiped clean with the release of the May 2010 ruleset and I can't find that sentence in it. I am 99.99 percent sure that's the way it's supposed to be called.
However, keep in mind that you may have been seeing a jammer pick up a fourth minor on a false start, which is pretty much the most embarrassing thing you can do as a jammer (with the possible exception of getting a fourth minor for attempting to call the jam while not lead jammer).
False Starts
I could have sworn there was something in the clarifications list at rules.wftda.com that specified that the false start major shouldn't be given until and unless the false-starting jammer enters the pack without attempting to yield, but that site has been wiped clean with the release of the May 2010 ruleset and I can't find that sentence in it. I am 99.99 percent sure that's the way it's supposed to be called.
However, keep in mind that you may have been seeing a jammer pick up a fourth minor on a false start, which is pretty much the most embarrassing thing you can do as a jammer (with the possible exception of getting a fourth minor for attempting to call the jam while not lead jammer).
This is how I understand it too - and I'm not suggesting a rule change here, the rule doesn't really bother me. The rule is intended to discourage a jammer from trying to gain advantage by entering the pack before the opposing jammer.
A possible solution to granting a major for this (and I'm all about making the game less punitive, within reason) would be rather than giving the jammer who false starts and fails to yield a major, she could be given her a 2nd minor when she enters the Engagement Zone and also be rendered ineligible for Lead Jammer status, with no opportunity to yield to the opposing jammer after that point and regain her eligibility. Sort of similar to what happens if a jammer knocks down an opposing jammer outside the Engagement Zone, but in reverse...
free 20 points?
It only results in a free 20 points for the opponents if the team that lost their jammer, also loses their ability to play defense. A power jam is a huge advantage, obviously, but it's not a "free 20 points".
Nothing in RD is easy, and I
Nothing in RD is easy, and I certainly didn't mean to imply the defending blockers had no influence. However, from the bouts I've seen--all things being equal (i.e. teams comparable in skill)--the power jamming team almost always scores 10 points before the opposing jammer is out of the box, and often gets a couple more scoring passes before the penalized jammer makes it thru her initial pass or the clock expires.
In short--despite the best efforts of the defenders--there just doesn't seem to be an effective means for the defenders to kill penalties. This may be because losing the jammer is a twofold loss: Not only do you lose your ability to score, but the jammer's defenders no longer need to split their attention. Undistracted by the need to pin or harass an opposing jammer, the blockers can place all their resources on controlling the pack 1-on-1, and that seems to work quite well.
Again, I admit this is just the impression/speculation of a dumb fan; I'd love to see stats on typical power jam totals to see if that impression is correct. And if any debry fans know of a specific strategy for penaty kills, please educate me; it's one more thing I can watch for in this fantastic sport.
Penalty kills
In short--despite the best efforts of the defenders--there just doesn't seem to be an effective means for the defenders to kill penalties.
That just ain't true.
And if any debry fans know of a specific strategy for penaty kills, please educate me; it's one more thing I can watch for in this fantastic sport.
Simple. All Team Jammerless has to do to is get *all* members of their team in front of *all* members of Team Powerjam and then not let anybody (blocker or jammer) penetrate the Team Jammerless clump for the duration of the powerjam. Getting more detailed than that on the Internets would probably disqualify me from coaching any teams ever again, but there are definitely specific things that Team Jammerless can do to make that more likely (and, conversely, things Team Powerjam can do to break it up or keep it from happening in the first place).
Yeah...
Yeah, what he said. Speed and pack control can be used in various ways to kill penalties - on both jammers and blockers.
It takes a certain amount of collective awareness and skill to effectively kill a power jam, but the fact that your jammer is in the box does not equal an automatic point-scoring slaughterhouse.
Justice, I seem to recall you and your boys doing an excellent job at just that last time our two teams played.
Thank you
Again, I'd love to see some
Again, I'd love to see some stats that back up the idea of effective penalty killing. I took a look at the recaps from WFTDA-sanctioned bouts the weekend of 7/26, just to get a feel for whether it's commonplace to see so many points scored on penalty/power jams.
The Denver/Charm City recap lists three clear power jams; two for Denver totaling 38 points, one for Charm City at 14 points. The article also mentions a long series of jams in the second half where Charm was missing blockers. Strictly comparing the points Denver scored in the first half (56) and the second (152), I'd say the penalties weren't effectively killed, but of course without the exact details this is at best a general statement.
From the Madison-Houston recap: "Madison then took control of the game, and late in the first half pounced on the night’s first power jam situation. In four minutes, Madison grew their lead from 18 points to 61, a big part of that on a 30-point effort from Mouse. At halftime, Madison held a commanding 99-29 lead...Mouse’s point parade continued in the second half, thanks to two 19-point power jam scores." To be fair, Houston is unranked so the skill levels here may not be comparable. Still, that's at least 68 points scored on Madison power jams, more than a third of their final total.
In the River City-Long Island recap, power jams appeared to be more modest, although the article notes that the teams were battling to stay out of last place. Still the recap mentions a few power jams to lead off the second period that totaled 24 points for River City; that's a quarter of the team's points scored in ~5 minutes. River City would drop another 15-point power jam with ~5 minutes to go.
Justice, thx for the review of strategy; I agree it's the obvious plan of attack (I kinda figured that out for myself), and can appreciate why you won't go into more detail. However, based on the bout recaps above and the matches I've seen live (mostly in Chicago, but a few non-sanctioned bouts in Ft. Wayne, Dayton, and Cinci), it doesn't seem like the tactics used to achieve that strategy are very effective. There could be valid reasons for this that I haven't considered.
I'm really, really not criticizing the sport; I think it's a blast to go to the bouts, I take my wife and kids, and nearly every guest I've managed to bring along has had a great time--not just with the venue, but watching the actual sport itself. But from a fan's perspective (and it became very noticeable in last weekend's bout as Boston mounted their comeback) it seems as though penalties in general and power jams in particular can swing the score substantially.
Which is why they call them penalties
Chjones, although you describe yourself as a "dumb fan", you've discovered one of the sport's most important realities: the team that plays cleaner has a much better chance to win. The whole point of assessing penalties is to penalize the team for doing something against the rules. If penalties didn't have such an impact on the offending team's ability to score, the rules would be broken more often, and might become meaningless. Your examples from recent bouts prove that the penalties have their intended effect: the team that broke the rules (or at least was charged with breaking the rules) was punished.
But penalties aren't always dirty
Thx HB...However, I think your post implies that penalties are nearly always the result of a player trying to gain an unfair advantage. I'd argue that (in any game) they're often the result of aggressive play--not rough or negligent play, but the general competitive drive and quick reaction required to play a game well.
A good penalty system should take this into account--and to a certain extent RD does this with minors/majors--because if a penalty is devastating enough to substantially alter the outcome of a game, that's also going to discourage aggressive play, which is something I think nobody wants.
No implication implied
The term "cleaner" means fewer penalties assessed, in this case it is not the opposite of "dirty". On some occasions the foul was truly intentional, when a skater "takes one for the team" because she reasons the one minute in the bin is worth, for instance, breaking up a scoring pass. However, my observation has been that most penalties, as you say, result from hard, aggressive play, not dirty play.
I'd disagree with your thought that penalties discourage aggressive play. One can certainly be aggressive and stay within the ruleset without drawing a penalty. No bout will ever be penalty free, but the top teams have figured out how to maintain the aggressive play without always loading the penalty box.
The one thing the ruleset does discourage are actions likely to injure. That's why throwing a punch, intentional hits to the face, etc. result in ejection.
Nature of the game
Chjones
I love the fact that you, your family and friends enjoy roller derby. And I love the fact that you are thinking about roller derby strategy and have the courage to ask interesting and thought out questions. Questions that the rest of us get to think about too. So bear with me as I try to answer some of them, by pointing out the obvious.
I think your complaint or thinking is that jammer penalties are overly harsh, because large point swings occur when the one sides jammer is in the box. My question to you is: Why would you think that?
Roller derby is unique, it is unlike any other sport I can think of.
There is no ball or object that players can control, thus one side being on the offense and defense being the one without the ball.
Players play offense and defense simultaneously. In what other sport can both teams score points in the same play?
But the critical one is only one player can score points for their team, the jammer.
If your jammer goes to the box your team has a big challenge ahead of it, and over the years teams have gotten better and better at exploiting this situation. Penalty killing is difficult, destroying the pack rules mean the jammerless team can not run away, they have to block and quality teams have offensive blocking down to a science. You're going to pay a price. Your argument is the price is too high. Why do you think the price is too high? What values are you using to determine that? Are not the rules applied equally? Doesn't your team get it's chance when the tables are turned?
Roller derby is a high scoring game. And high scoring is going to happen when players are serving penalties. Hockey is a low scoring game, and most of hockey's goals occur during power plays. Is that wrong? I guess what I'm trying to say is that high scoring when players are in the box is the nature of the game.
As for refs, I've come to the conclusion that as long as refs are human, sport fans and players are just going to have to live with bad calls. To err is human, refs are human, and refs will make bad calls. It's unavoidable. Grit your teeth and pray your team can overcome. Sometimes they will, sometimes they won't. There's always next year.
On refs being human
Here's a group of folks that seriously do not get enough appreciation. Every one of them is a volunteer, just like those of us who play the game. Frequently, what they are volunteering for is getting booed.
Furthermore, unlike a player who may get to sit for a minute or two, refs skate EVERY jam. It is a dizzying, exhausting task. I know for a fact I couldn't ref this sport. It's confusing as hell visually.
So, some public props for ref crews.
Thx Southbay for your helpful response.
I think your complaint or thinking is that jammer penalties are overly harsh, because large point swings occur when the one sides jammer is in the box. My question to you is: Why would you think that?
I'd like to answer this by responding to some of your points below. But before I start, I realize we're getting into "philosophy of the game" territory here, and that hinges on matters of personal taste and the RD community's notion of the game's spirit. Again, there is no criticism of the sport implied, and I appreciated it's uniqueness--there is no reason it has to match what other sports are doing, but some of the outliers are interesting and maybe worth a little thought.
Penalty killing is difficult, destroying the pack rules mean the jammerless team can not run away, they have to block and quality teams have offensive blocking down to a science. You're going to pay a price. Your argument is the price is too high. Why do you think the price is too high? What values are you using to determine that? Are not the rules applied equally? Doesn't your team get it's chance when the tables are turned?
Again we're in the realm of game philosophy. In any game, no matter how good the officiating (and I agree with lady quebeaum--the refs in RD deserve a lot more love, but that's the nature of the position in just about any sport), there are going to be bad calls, and a fair penalty system has to take this into account. I'm not just talking about minimizing those bad calls with beter ref training or use of replay; that might help, but over-scrutiny leads to other issues with the setup, pace and watchability of the game. Let me illustrate by way of example; suppose the rules granted 100 points to the opposing team when a penalty occurred. Even if that rule is applied equally to both teams, I think most fans would consider it unfair simply because the final outcome is so heavily dependent on referee decisions rather than direct game play. I also think such a rule would radically alter game play in an undesireable way. I make this extreme example only to illustrate the point that there is an upper limit to the severity of penalties, even if they're applied fairly; that limit, of course, is a matter of taste for the particular game.
Roller derby is a high scoring game. And high scoring is going to happen when players are serving penalties. Hockey is a low scoring game, and most of hockey's goals occur during power plays. Is that wrong? I guess what I'm trying to say is that high scoring when players are in the box is the nature of the game.
In hockey, goals scored on power plays--at least at the professional level--account for a shade under 25%, and no NHL team in 2009-10 averaged more than one such goal a game. Moreover, that total is mitigated somewhat by short-handed scoring chances--it is possible and not at all a rarity for the penalized team to score. Finally, teams score roughly on 1 in 5 power plays, so the penalty killing efficiency in hockey is ~80%.
I don't cite these figures to imply the RD should have a comparable penalty strategy--RD is its own sport, and such a comparison is an apples vs. oranges argument. But it does lead me to a second question about power jams that I hope others can answer: What does it mean to "kill" a power jam? Whatever the specific criteria is, IMO it has to imply (almost by definition) that the penalized team has a fighting chance to overcome the penalty, i.e. keep the scoring in a range where the PJ doesn't score more than a typical full-strength jam, and in a few cases allows the PJ team to be shut out completely (almost equivalent to a shorthanded goal).
We're drifting into philosophy again, but IMO this plays into themes of redemption and overcoming adversity that are encouraged in all sports. And right now, I can't recall a penalty kill which even came close to this level. In fact, when the skill levels were comparable and no fluke event occurred (jammer fell down, jammer track-cut penalty), I truly can't think of a PJ that resulted in less than 10 points for the advantaged team.
Again, this is an observation, not a criticism. RD is still a wonderful sport, but IMO one where (objectively) penalties play a much larger role in the outcome than in other sports. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to the RD community to decide.
Keep watching!
You'll see a lot of effective penalty kills. See a little Rocky Mountain. It all depends on the teams playing, how many blockers are in the box, and the jammer on the floor.
I love the fact that there can be a 30-point swing at any moment. It gives me hope when my favorite team is down, and lends a lot of drama to the end of games.
because N8 keeps gr8 stats
>when the skill levels were comparable and no fluke event occurred (jammer fell down, jammer track-cut penalty), I truly can't think of a PJ that resulted in less than 10 points for the advantaged team.
From the Charm/Denver game- different teams ARE able to leverage powerjams differently, which goes to strategy IMO. While Denver had a lot more than Charm, they also capitalized on them to a greater extent. Just because a team has a power jam doesn't mean they're going to really be able to take advantage of it.
Granted, we don't know how MUCH of that jam had the jammer in the box. Honestly, a more interesting comparison would be by banked track rules, where the jammer sits out for an entire jam.
Charm PJs
CCRG 3 DRD 0
CCRG 8 DRD 10
CCRG 0 DRD 14 (not a typo)
CCRG 8 DRD 4
CCRG 3 DRD 2
CCRG 14 DRD 0 (BTW n8 - this one is missing off your stats sheet :) )
DRD PJs
CCRG 0 DRD 5
CCRG 2 DRD 5
CCRG 8 DRD 10
CCRG 0 DRD 14
CCRG 0 DRD 4
CCRG 0 DRD 24
CCRG 4 DRD 24
CCRG 2 DRD 25
CCRG 9 DRD 10
Doh
CCRG 14 DRD 0 (BTW n8 - this one is missing off your stats sheet :) )
Dang, you're right. Good catch. In transferring it from my notes, I accidentally marked the box trip in the wrong jam. That previous 3-2 jam was not a power jam according to my notes. Fixing it now.
:)
no problem - and I know you mentioned it in your writeup, which is why I remembered to add it.
Thanks again for writing all this up and sharing it! It was super useful for me personally to review. What're the chances you'd do this for other DRD games you'd watch online??? :^D
Online stats
Well at least for your next bout, it's the same night that Boston comes down here, so the odds look pretty slim. If you'd like I could share my spreadsheets and add a few notes about my methods, then you just need to find someone stats-nerdy enough to keep those for you. It's pretty simple to do. Grand Slams and Jammer Box Trips sometimes get missed depending on the coverage (see CCRG v Oly... which ended up with great coverage for me to keep the points stats for), but jammers and points scored are straightforward. And with textcasting it's usually easy to go back and fill something in if it was missed.
As for doing it online, I've successfully done it for CCRG games. Being able to recognize all the skaters for one team certainly helps that. I tried to do it for another bout once (I don't remember who) to see if I could and I was able to do it for the first half, then I got distracted by something else and stopped following the bout. But, it was at least doable for me to cover two teams that I only knew a little.
Anyway, to make a short story long, I could be convinced to do this for DRD games in the future. Especially if you bug me.
(Additionally, I've corrected the stat sheets in my FB note)
Somewhat agree
I do think that a jammer being sent to the penalty box is the harshest penalty in any sport that I can think of. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, though, because it makes for a very exciting jam.
I think you're overstating the amount that refs screw up. Yes, it happens and yes, it's always going to happen, but it doesn't happen enough to say that the rules need to be altered just in case one or two games a year happen to go another way because of a power jam. Look at the World Cup, the biggest sporting event in the world, they won't institute instant replay and look how many games would have ended differently if IR were used. I do think that FIFA should institute instant replay so I guess that hurts my argument but it's different because it doesn't change the nature of gameplay in any way like changing penalties in roller derby would.
At the end of the day, jammers just need to skate cleaner and you'll see a lot fewer power jams. I think that comes with experience and skill which continues to rise every year.
As far as a power jam kill, and I'm just speaking for myself here, but anything less than 10 points should be seen as unsuccessful for the offensive team.
false start
from what I recall---I was doing play by play with the great val capone---
the boston jammer kind of took off at the pack whistle, and just kept on going...
as to whether or not it was called as a major, or the 4th minor, I can't say, but dang! that had to hurt!!!
That's exactly what happened.
That's exactly what happened. I should have been clearer when I said the penalty was "inexplicable"; really it was the fact that the jammer took off at the pack whistle and kept going that was inexplicable. The penalty call itself was correct.
False Starting
One of the good things that WFTDA did this time with the May 2010 rules is that they incorporated many of the clarifications into the ruleset itself. So ...
Major Penalties
6.13.16 A false start by a Jammer or Blocker who does not yield advantage. The
Jammer or Blocker who committed the false start must stop all forward
motion until the opposing Jammer or Blocker(s) takes the lead by passing
her. If a false-starting Blocker or Jammer yields her advantage but the
opposing Jammer or Blocker(s) does not take advantage of her attempt to
yield position, an additional penalty must not be assessed and the yielding
skater may proceed.
One of things I've seen jammers do is instead of coming to a complete stop is to slow down and wave the opposing jammer forward, but still be skating forward. I've also seen jammers skate out of bounds.
Sorry, one other note about the bout...
Early in the first a Boston blocker collapsed on turn 1, just after getting up from a block. It was a scary, quiet minute or two before she was able to stand, and as she was helped to the bench for what looked like basic neurological tests from the on-site doctor, she seemed to be saying "I'm OK". I assume she was...but does anyone have any other details?
Skater's okay
She is fine, thanks for asking! She caught a helmet to the face but was back in the second half. Shattered is a tough cookie.
This game was wicked pissah.
For serious. Regahdless of false starts and 20 point jams, we had such a great time playing Windy City -- thank you ladies for having us. We even got to see Patrick Dempsey and Shia LeDouche explode a little on the Transformers 3 set outside our hotel. Explosions + roller derby = happy Massacre.
Yield
YIELD - On top of being a highly underrated Pearl Jam album, it is the verbal cue that some jam refs give. "Black 61 False Start, Yield".
If the jammer doesn't yield after a false start they are upgrayyyd'd to a major. If they do yield it is a minor. This is the way it goes in the newest rules set.
WFTDA Rules 6.13.5 & 6.13.6 (thanks Southbay) for actual wording, and the "Yield" thing is just a nice (not yet but likely someday standard, hopefully) practice.
Really?
IMHO, telling a skater "Yield" after calling a false start penalty amounts to coaching, which is a big no-no for refs. If the skater doesn't know the rules well enough to yield her position after the minor is called, then she deserves the major that's coming her way.
Effective penalty kills
If video of Rose-Rocky game from May 2010 is archived somewhere on the internet-- you can see some really effective penalty kills in that game.
I know there are other games where that tactic was executed well, but I remember watching that one on the internet tubes and being impressed by the effectiveness of teams when doing all-defense (and also that you can see it well from the camera angles...)
xo
Loco
Rose City media production FTMFW
That game is right here.
So servicey!
Thanks, Justice!
Took a look
Thx for the tip Loco...I took a look at the first half of that bout looking for penalty kills. In the PJ category, a Rose City power jam starting at ~15:30 was split over two jams and resulted in a total of 4 points, while late in the half a PJ by RMRG seems to have been limited to 5 points.
It seems to this fan's eye that getting the PJ split across two separate jams is an effective penalty killer. This occurs mainly when the LJ is sent to the box or when the jammer left on the track is still stuck in the pack on her initial pass (the reason the first PJ above was limited). It also helps if the defending team has more blockers than the PJ team (this occurred for much of the later PJ).
Perhaps I missed something in looking at just this one half...I'd certainly appreciate any clarification. From a fan's perspective, it appears as though the best way to kill a PJ penalty is for the PJ team to lose blockers (i.e. commit penalties themselves) or have the full minute split between two jams, which seems like the luck of the draw.
Wish there was video of this...
One of the best penalty kills I saw was Windy City at Rat City last August. Windy had 3 blockers on the track when their jammer was sent to the box. The three Windy blockers saw this and knew what to do. They avoided the Rat blockers and skated to the front of the pack and stayed there, gradually increasing speed. The Rat blockers and Jammer gave chase, but were never able to catch the 3 Windy blockers. If memory serves, I don't think Rat City scored a single point during that power jam.
You see this tactic of racing to the front often. Opposing teams will try to capture one blocker, surround her and slow her down, allowing their jammer to pass and score (Rocky and Denver are great at this).
If your blockers can't catch up, the best thing to do is call off the jam (assuming the jammer still on the track is lead) and start a new jam with fresh legs. You might not have enough power jam time left to score points, but you might at least get lead jammer status before the penalized jammer returns.