Apologies if this should already be clear, it isn’t clear to me. Can you explain the fundamental difference between that Bricktator hit, that is not illegal under the proposed rule, and the three video examples linked above, which would be illegal under the proposed rule? What is it that makes these three hits illegal but not that fourth one? I feel like I am missing something crucial here. (Btw like others I see a strategic advantage in all three video examples).
15 Likes
I was wondering about this compilation from Mange and if these are helpful for finding the line between legal and illegal under the proposed rule.
Danger Muffin already called out some concerns around the verbiage in 5.1. Staffing that says “…it is also the Head Referee’s responsibility to oversee the safety of all participants during a game.” I’m not an attorney, but could this expose HRs to legal liability if someone is injured during a game?
4 Likes
So here the toughts of the league (Roller derby Québec) on those changes :
- agreed on everything but the new definition of striking
- with the clarifications brought here by the Rules Committee, the league feels like it will change the game way too much to penalize the shoulder in any way. We think it will make too much space for interpretation. And could make the game less accessible for some people (people who have less strength to push people but can move people by using those shoulders hits).
- it’s still not clear what the intend is, so we prefer not to do any change before that intention is clear.
- if we pursue with a change in that way, we want that definition voted on its own.
8 Likes
I feel like this is a US-Centric question as a country that is highly litigious and also has strict insurance requirements. Please correct me if I’m wrong however, we aren’t quite so litigious and insurance reliant here.
1 Like
Insurance and legal liability aside, there is also immediate liability to participants. If a skater breaks their leg due to a legal hit, I am liable to them and their captain for my enforcement of the ruleset. I don’t want their Captain, coming up to me to say that it was my “responsibility to oversee the safety of their blocker.” I do not want to answer, “the hit was legal and the game is unsafe on day 1” because that doesn’t make sense if the rules are so conceited to think that they have described a game that is safe. I do not want to have to explain that “safety is a mass noun and you can have more or less of it and it’s my job to ensure that it’s only as unsafe as the rules allow when it’s the rules that are saying I need to keep it safe.”
It’s like going out on a speedboat, without a roof, on a snorkeling trip, while it’s raining, and telling your First Mate that it’s their responsibility to oversee the dryness of all passengers.
It is Rules’ Theory’s responsibility to oversee the safety of all participants during a game. The game they have given us is not safe, and never has been. It’s exciting though! It is the Head Referee’s job to ensure that the game is played legally, and that anything truly novel or surprising is within the bounds of safety detailed by Rules Theory.
4 Likes
I understand what you’re saying and that makes sense. I do think there is sometimes an expectation that officials be responsible for verifying that skaters are safe for gameplay. While, I agree that officials should have the explicit ability to remove unsafe skaters. I don’t think we want that responsibility. I also feel that evaluating someone’s safety could take time and it’s possible that something unfortunate could occur before the head ref can be certain a particular skater shouldn’t be in a game.
3 Likes
I find it unfortunate that we are proceeding with a vote even though we still have no idea what would constitute a legal or illegal hit with the shoulder. Simple and precise questions have been asked above in order to seek clarification and understanding, and unless I missed an answer, they have not been addressed by Rules. I don’t understand what we are voting for or against, and I would like to understand.
14 Likes
For what it’s worth, though I have expressed many opinions in this thread, I am still advocating for my league to vote yes on all three proposals because I think that the spirit of the rules is both clear and good, and that the stuff I don’t like doesn’t make the proposed document WORSE than the current one.
We as a community have grappled with alignment on new rules with every ruleset and we will do so again for shoulderpunching. For myself, I will start by asking myself “is it the pointy bit (acromion)”, and then “is the movement straight-on,” and then “is it forceful” and then “is it brief.”
- A forceful brief straight-on hit with a squishy part of the shoulder? No call.
- Non-forceful contact? No call.
- Is the contact glancing or incidental, initiated with a different part of the body? No call.
- Do they go straight in and continue to drive with that part meaning it’s not like a punch it’s more like a shove with a legal blocking zone? No call.
I expect others to do different things and I expect conversations during games to help individual officials align, then I expect a formalization of what to call led by the THR of WFTDA International Championships to gain alignment between referees and skaters for that tournament. Then I expect Rules Theory to issue a clarification if that was not their intent, and we’ll move forward from there.
4 Likes
Question about the dangerous contact to a teammate: does this include throwing and pushing eachother around? If I throw a teammate into an oncoming jammer, who then skates into their back. Will this be a penalty on me?
And I agree with Zebra, the shoulder strikes need much more clarification, this could change the game entirely, shoulder hits are very common.
2 Likes
The most common thing I picture handling in this teammate-on-teammate contact is something like a Jammer who leaps the apex completely disregarding the need for a landing spot, and does something like breaks the ankle of the person they land on. That’s reckless, and we shouldn’t keep them in the game just because the person whose safety they disregarded was their teammate; the whole point is that they didn’t consider the obvious danger and it’s just as possible it would have been an opponent.
So - initially - I wouldn’t say that pushing a teammate into backblocking someone is what we’re talking about. That teammate-to-teammate blocking was not necessarily reckless. But there are scenarios, like blocking them into a downed opponent, where we do penalize; and if you were to throw your teammate down into an opponent’s legs I would definitely consider an expulsion for YOU and not THEM, because you took their control away completely.
Hopefully that makes things clearer and not more confusing.
4 Likes
(I’m not on rules but right now I’m practicing thinking about the new rules and how to call them and how I’d call them and why, in case they pass. I also think it’s worth doing this just to let Rules know how I’m interpreting the words in case I’m far off in my interpretation.) If I had to interpret the rules as written, here’s how I’d go about it.
“Extremely reckless or negligent.” To me the requirement of the action being “reckless” can’t really be fulfilled by normal gameplay like pushing a teammate into an opponent’s way. That’s just a normal assist – but broadly, if it happens a lot, it’s sort of understood to be part of the game. Let alone “extremely” reckless. Negligence implies that the action is accidental, i.e., that it was unintentional BUT it could have been prevented. So intentional actions must be uncommon, i.e. reckless, i.e. a “wtf” moment, to potentially qualify for this expulsion.
Taking that to the scenario works too. Note that the scenario is specific: “White Jammer lands onto White Pivot, contacting White Pivot’s head.” We must assume that, without the contact to the head, this would not be a penalty. And like, just jumping into your teammates, is pretty common and unremarkable. People practice this. But – if you land fully jumping into someone’s HEAD? That’s a totally different story. It’s a “wtf” moment and it meets the “recklessness” standard.
My league has questions about the change on striking with the shoulders and I am unable to answer them, so I would still very much welcome clarification from Rules before the deadline. I also realise and accept that we’re all volunteers doing what we can.
That being said, it now seems likely to me that this call will require refs to judge intent more than with most other calls. Therefore there is a risk of amplifying already existing bias, and maybe it’s worth thinking about how to mitigate it.
11 Likes
Hello.
Thanks for all the work and the feedbacks. I am sorry for my English I am doing by best. I agree that I can’t vote now especially about shoulders strike that very common in roller derby and would definitely change the game.
A question about Section 4.5 Fouling out and Expulsions
“In the event a Skater is to be removed from play mid-Jam and would be In Queue upon reporting to the Penalty Box, that Skater should not be instructed to return to play. Instead, they should be instructed to remain standing beside the Penalty Box until a seat opens and their penalty time can begin.”
What happens if all 4 blockers in a team are issued penalties one after the other. They are no longer fielding any blockers on the track?
Does the jam end or does the jammer get a few free passes?
1 Like
One skater should be held on track at all times. It’s no different to the current process where there are 3 blockers in the box and the 4th blocker is given a penalty. You can’t have a Derby game with no pack, so the last blocker should never be sent to serve anyway. The Queue is only when there are 2 still seated, and a third reports to serve time
3 Likes
What Bullseye said, with the additional confusion that we actually use “In Queue” to refer to two different situations with different people in control.
The last blocker who commits a penalty, but is not sent off the track yet, is “In Queue.” It’s the SOs job to decide when to send them off, and as far as the box NSOs are concerned, they don’t exist yet.
A blocker who has reported to the box and then been returned to the track is ALSO “In Queue,” but that one is entirely the job of the box NSOs to determine when it is time to call them back.
2 Likes
My league has the same issue. Admittedly, we have started the league-wide discussion a bit late, but although we shared the information provided, there is a lot of questions and uncertainty about what type of shoulder hit would become illegal.
Ideally, we would ask for the vote deadline to be postponed until clarifications have been made. I realise this might not be possible though with the planned timeline. I just wanted to add our voice to this as we are encountering similar issues.
2 Likes
Hi everyone,
I have been monitoring this discussion as well as the ballot results, and sent a message to the Board of Directors to review your concerns here, since they are in charge of ballot approval.
I would say that for the moment, if you don’t like one of the proposed changes, or are confused about it, you should vote no on it. This is why Rules separated the changes into different questions.
I will discuss this situation with Rules and the Board of Directors in the meantime and we will assess the situation next week after Regionals and when we see the ballot results.
7 Likes
After discussion, here’s what we’re gonna do in Nantes Roller Derby :
1°) we’re gonna vote against shoulder strike penalties. This for several reasons :
-
calling them “unsporting” and implying that they’re here “to hurt” doesn’t sit right with us. We understood the intention to penalize shoulder contacts to the sternum with the idea that it was causing more commotions, but this changed to something else entirely. “Causing pain”/“hurting” are things that just happen in derby, often for legal contacts. Making this specific contact illegal on the basis not of dangerosity but of “intention” is a slippery slope.
The briktator example wouldn’t be an unsporting contact, and we can see why (it’s not the same move), but it’s also at least as dangerous/brutal as the other ones.
We’d be curious to see another draft/proposal in a few months if it targets specifically the can opener or brutal contacts to the sternum. -
this would change the game A LOT. We can see clearly the move from the examples, thanks for providing them, and yes it’s a specific move, but more often than not this move has a purpose and helps to gain position or momentum.
2°) we’re gonna vote against unsporting contacts against teammates. Again, we’re scared of refs overcalling it, especially because of the “keep in mind” part that allows refs to expel if “moves like this routinely happen”, even if it’s not “as reckless and unsafe as this”.
The two casebook entries to show what’s penalized and what is not are a great idea, it made the whole thing very clear, thanks for this.
3°) we’re gonna vote for the third point, it’s great to clarify that the jammer is briefly allowed to go down to retrieve the cover, it makes the pinning contacts clear too, etc…
Thanks for all of your work and for this very interesting discussion
4 Likes