Recent comments

Well, your first post sounded like a pretty standard low block. Not the same as what you're describing here.

There was nothing "intentional" about this. There was nothing dangerous about this. There was nothing reckless about this. She moved a chair a few inches. If that's worthy of getting ejected from the game, then you could justify a million LEGAL things as being worthy of expulsion. I can't even believe anyone could possibly argue that this rule makes sense. I really don't think this was the intention of the rule AT ALL. I just think the word "forcible" can be defined too broadly.

I mean, look at the other rules around this that you posted. An NSO has to jump out of the way of an out of control skater entering the box at top speed and successfully avoids any contact? Stay here for an extra minute. An out of control skater hits a chair in the penalty box so hard, it falls apart? No penalty unless it happens a few times. A skater enters the penalty box completely under control but sits down with enough force that their chair moves enough to touch the NSO that's standing directly behind said chair? HOLY SHIT, THAT'S THE MOST DANGEROUS THING EVER. GO THE HELL TO THE LOCKER ROOM!!!!!!!!!!!

That's the part that jumped out at me about the slo-mo video: while the actual impact of skater > chair > NSO doesn't seem to be large in magnitude, it looks like the NSO has maybe two feet (if that?) between that chair and the wall. If you're already wedged, it doesn't take a great deal of actual movement to be potentially harmful. We can't clearly tell from the video if the NSO is backed up against the wall by the contact; if so, I suspect that might change some of the perceptions voiced here.

I know Rose City's far from alone in having a venue with tightly limited space, and that means that often many of a bout's crew are confined to very tight workspaces. I'm sure we could cook up specifications for how much space must be allocated, what kinds of seating are suitable for the penalty box, etc., but the practical effect of that might be better accomplished by taking a few minutes to make sure all participants are aware of the peculiarities of a given track setup, and how those details might interact with various penalties.

As to this specific call, let's keep in mind that the officials weren't limited to a few frames of a single angle of video. They had access to a variety of perspectives, including that of the affected NSO. It's easy as armchair bench coaches to call bullshit based on our very narrow frame of reference, but we don't have anything approaching the full three-dimensional realtime picture with which to make our judgments! This was a crew of veterans, and I'm inclined to believe they got it right until I see an incontrovertible smoking gun (which this is not).

I have seen multiple instances of skaters being expelled for "leading with the knee". I assume it falls under 6.17.9. The most recent one that comes to memory was Eastern Regionals, I believe London vs Charm. I have heard people argue whether a block falls under Gross Misconduct or Low Block, but I have never heard anyone argue if intentionally leading with the knee should not be an expulsion.

Note I am speculating as to the call used to justify it, but am certain that it is called that way with some regularity.

You're comparing a major to a gross misconduct.

What the slo-mo clearly shows is that nothing dangerous or unsafe happened.

When I saw that rule in the ruleset release I cringed. While I totally agree with N8 that there should be rules to enforce safety of skaters AND volunteers, I think this one is iffy without other standards as well. And I think it can also seriously penalize a visiting team.

If you won't regulate the box's physical requirements, and you don't want to go to the banked track style penalty serving, I don't know what anyone thinks is supposed to happen when you point a person on wheels at a folding chair on a smooth surface, even without considering speed. I'm not saying people should be slide tackling any chairs on their way in or anything, but... this rule is craziness.

I can't think of seeing this situation before, but in the event of a big hit or a bad stop at the penalty box, are seated skaters allowed to move to avoid the chair-splosion?

I agree that as the rule is written it seems to have been applied correctly. And there's something to be said for it being a well-known player in a high-profile and close game. At least people are talking about it, right?

The nature of serving a penalty pits a skater against the clock in a race to be _seated_ in the penalty box.

I really wonder who it was (is?) who believes a folding chair is designed to be a reasonable receiver in a race against people on skates. I mean, have you ever seen a folding chair not move in a game of musical chairs where people are moving less than a foot from an upright position to sitting? How often do you sit in a folding chair outside of derby on a smooth floor where it doesn't move? Do you see skating rinks providing folding chairs or other mass-seating type _chairs_ for people at their open skates?

If the WFTDA, with these rules, was looking to increase the safety for people in and around the penalty box, there were at least two much more logical and reasonable options:

1) require penalty boxes to be of sufficient sturdiness in their materials and construction to withstand a skater entering at a reasonable speed and not move (think hockey penalty wall - the only other sport with a timed race to the box - and *gasp* event equipment designed to handle the impact)

2) start a skater's penalty time when she enters the box area and not the the seat

I have broken, during bouts, 2 seats and refused to sit in more than I can count because they were bent or already in the process of failing. Often, in a bout, I do not have time to assess the wear and tear on a chair I'm about to be seated in. The rules do not afford me that time. These breaks were NOT from skating into chairs, but from sitting down no differently than had I been at a picnic. The chairs failed from repeated use in a sport/activity they were NOT designed to withstand.

Perhaps it's my years as a radiographer in the military, but I'm waiting for the day a chair failure becomes more than a bruised tailbone and actually punctures someone in the course of failure. Having a chair move a couple inches should be the least of anyone's worries.

Benches, like those used at skating rinks, are appropriate tools for seating of skaters during a competitive skating game. They disperse the horizontal and vertical impacts of skaters in the process of sitting. Frankly I'd like to see benches be required to take some impact from a skater at speed, but just being able to sit from a stop without moving would be a step in the right direction. I hope Demanda Riot's penalty, however properly or improperly applied (I won't QB the call - it was well within the rules to expel her), makes chairs designed for banquets used for team benches and penalty boxes go the way of rope lights and clear tape for track boundaries.

But where did you get that bit about 'they're calculated monthly and released bi-monthly'?

That's forcable? Or is it just any kind of contact at all, no matter the impact?

6.17.10
Entry to the penalty box that causes either the skater, the skater’s seat, or another seat to FORCIBLY contact another person. This includes people correctly positioned in their team bench area and is not limited to people in the penalty box. Didn't even see the slightest bit of movement of the chair towards another player yet alone something that would constitute gross misconduct. Very bogus call. Maybe the worst I've seen in derby. Ever. I don't know if the ref didn't understand the rule or there was something else to this, but that was just very disappointing.

If that's really all that happened, we need to do something about that rule.

That's Demanda Riot's final penalty that is causing discussion.