Recent comments

Why do I understand everything you just said? Oh yeah, I'll just be over here with my computer.

She did slow down significantly and was no longer moving in derby direction, however she converted a fraction of that speed into a rearwards motion towards the penalty chair. It seems like it was that fraction of speed and a decisive sitting motion that caused the chair to move. The nso's hips shifted consistent with contact from the chair, and might have done so more had they not been smooshed between the chair and the wall.

IMHO, while the call was valid based on the rule and the situation, I would like to see some attention paid to this situation during venue setup. Simple things like joining chairs together (tape!) or providing some kind of backstop for the NSO's to stand on would go a long way towards incidental contact causing harm. If this is a safety issue (and it is!) then it should be addressed in as many ways as feasible given space, equipment, and monetary constraints. I'm not arguing for some kind of rule about it, as others have pointed out, it would have a chilling effect on what kind of venues could be used, and many leagues aren't exactly rolling in cash most of the time. Just a mention that it is something to pay attention too.

To me this rule is all about the skaters intent to be safe. It's sad that that wasn't a part of the rule. If a player doesn't attempt to slow and sit in a safe manner, then they should be expelled, if and only if the contact made with another person is that which can be deemed to be more than just minor. But if a player does what they are supposed to, slow, turn around, stop, and sit, but they still touch someone, I don't see how that is grounds for even a penalty.

Albeit without the style of the original: Nerds.

I agree, but it seems a lot of people are answering their own question

the rule is what it is, and a majority of the time this is a non issue

as an NSO who works in the penalty box a lot, I can give you a list of skaters that constantly come flying into the box and a list who never have done so

the rules is just as much for box staff as it is for skaters

yes we are only NSOs, but id sooner not get any more chairs into my shins

Tape them all together :)

If something has a "high likelihood of injury" then it can't result in skaters "rarely receiving" injuries. Those two things are opposites. If there's a high likelihood of injury, there will often be injuries. If there's a low likelihood of injury, there will rarely be injuries.

You're right that there is a low likelihood of injury on a high block. That's why it's only a major. That's why I believe this instance of forcibly sitting in the box should be a major. It doesn't make sense to me that the result of where the chair moves (not how much, not how fast, not how hard) is the determination between two wildly different things. If Demanda Riot sits down and that NSO is behind the other chair, it's not even a penalty. But, because an NSO is standing two feet over, she's kicked out of the game. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

The line is, if somebody has to move to avoid being contacted or is forcibly contacted = major.

Somebody recklessly enters the box = gross misconduct. Reckless does not have a broad definition like forcible. If the skater didn't slow down, didn't show any regard for the safety of others, or didn't show any regard for the structure of the penalty box itself, it should be a gross misconduct regardless of whether or not anyone gets touched or a chair breaks.

Like with a lot of "fixes" to rules problems, the fix the WFTDA implemented with this rule is already showing the typical weakness: It's addressing the effect, not the cause. So the cause still happens, which leads to this tricky situation. We need to address the cause, and fix it to, make this "problem" go away.

The cause of the problem is that skaters are using the penalty box chairs to help them slow down/stop, so that they can start their penalty time as quickly as possible. But doing this creates a potentially dangerous situation in that a player not realizing how fast they are going could dislodge chairs and hit NSOs. So the solution to this problem is to make a rule to forbid that from happening. If we make it so the chairs can't slow a player down, the only thing left to do that is the player themselves:

"A player entering the penalty box must come to a complete stop in front of their designated seat before sitting in it."

This would instantly solve the safety issue, since it ensures a player sitting down in the box has eliminated all of their kinetic energy and won't transfer it to the NSOs behind the chairs. It would also eliminate the judgement call factor, since "proper precaution" is built-in to the rule and the definition of "stopped" is in the WFTDA rule glossary. If players try to cheat this and still sway themselves into their seat, tacking on an extra minute for not coming to a complete stop will end that practice immediately.

Simple. Easy. Done.

edit- The WFTDA had to define "Sitting" in the glossary? How could this possibly be misinterpreted by anyone, anywhere, anytime? Good fucking lord.

At this point I can tell you and I don't mean the same thing when we are using our words.

When a skater hits another skater in the head, their is a high likelihood of injury. And yet, skaters get hit in the head a lot and they rarely receive an injury from it.

When a skater "leads with her knee" there is a high likelihood of an injury. Skaters do it a lot and few skaters get injuries from it.

Any safety penalty will have instances where you can look and say "Yeah, that case wasn't egregiously unsafe or reckless" but the rules are routinely written in such a way that, presumably, expects the skaters to make an attempt to avoid the situation altogether so that nobody has to make the call on whether it crossed the line into unsafeness.

But you seem to feel that this penalty is different. That somewhere there is an obvious line where players can still come into a box "hot" without it being unsafe. So, I ask you where is that line? Is it something that can be written into the rules, or is it just going to be "referee's discretion" every time?

I don't think anyone in the building was very happy with the ejection. I was unaware of the new rule involving penalty box and was very confused in the moment as to what was going on. Upon learning what was happening I had to walk away from the situation to avoid frustration with it.

Earlier in the game one of my skaters had come into the penalty box way hotter than Demanda. The chair flew backwards but avoided hitting any of the penalty box NSOs. She received an extra minute for it, but due to no contact was allowed to stay in the game. Demanda comes in with much lighter push and because her angle happened to be slightly different the chair makes light contact with an NSO. It definitely seemed unfair.

It seems the problem is with the rule. After the game I spoke with the ref crew and voiced my displeasure with the ruling and was explained how they had no choice because of the wording in the rule set. Perhaps a rule modification that is more clear about what constitutes a proper penalty box for safety of NSOs is in order. I've definitely got some ideas to work on making Rose's box much better for future games to avoid this in the future.

All that being said, it's unfortunate that this moment is overshadowing what I felt was a great high level WFTDA game.

Just curious, Lex, but are you one of the voting members of DNN now, along with JFM, Hurt, and Gnosis? That makes 4 voters, which could provide for some interesting tiebreaker issues. Or, did you replace one of the other guys as a voter? Or, are you saying "we" in the collective DNN sense, in which case you aren't actually a voter?

Inquiring minds want to know. :)

True. And that includes pointing out the fact that stating something in the form of a fact doesn't make it so. The generality of your reply conveniently divorces itself from the specifics of the case at hand. Nonetheless, I never meant to imply that you, or anyone else, wasn't entitled to their point of view. Whether directly, or by implication, it was never my intention to make this into a personal attack. I phrased my reply the way I did to underscore the strength of my conviction in this particular case. As you see above, some agree with me, some agree with you. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of our beloved sport.