With regard to jammer contact in a “no pack” I would like to discuss the benefit of a case book entry specifically for this action. The action is referred to with a single entry in Engagement Zone 2.3 paragraph 3. It is also inferred in casebook entry 4.1.3.g. In the keep in mind.
I would like to discuss the necessity for a casebook entry that clearly describes the legality of contact initiated by jammers on blockers in “no pack” scenario.
I’d encourage this proposal. While the information to reach the appropriate conclusions is present in the rules, outright stating the parameters and intended outcome in a casebook entry would help ensure this is officiated consistently.
I would propose the following wording:
Scenario 4.1.3K
Red Jammer enters to the rear of the pack. Officials declare a No Pack situation. White Pivot and the other White Blockers attempt to yield. Before the pack is able to be reformed, Red Jammer initiates a block on White Pivot who, as a result, falls.
**Outcome:**Red Jammer is penalized.
**Rationale:**It is illegal to initiate blocks upon a blocker when there is no Pack (per 2.3). As Red Jammer’s block caused White Pivot to fall, it had sufficient impact to warrant a penalty.
**Keep in Mind:**During a No Pack situation, Blockers cannot initiate nor be initiated upon. If the White Pivot had moved into the path of the Red Jammer, the White Pivot should be penalized instead.
Keep in Mind: Skaters who are illegally blocked while out of play may legally counter-block. White Pivot may counter-block to absorb the impact of Red Jammer’s block. Continued blocking by White Pivot should be considered a new block. In this event both players should be penalized**
I’m not entirely certain on the wording of the Keep in Minds. If the White Blocker is successful in counter-blocking in such a way that they absorb the impact of Red Jammer’s block, and do not go down, out of bounds or have their momentum or trajectory significantly impacted, it would deprive Red Jammer’s block of impact. That being said, if White Pivot is doing everything they can to stay out of the Red Jammer’s path (while also performing all the necessary actions to facilitate the formation of the Pack) and Red Jammer goes out of their way to initiate on White Pivot, it doesn’t seem appropriate to not penalize that action? I would be keen to here any thoughts or feedback people have about this
If the pivot initiates on the jammer, the threshold for warranting a penalty is lower: even if the jammer does not lose position, it is a penalty, because the pivot is supposed to reform the pack instead of blocking. Well, unless their teammates are instantly reforming the pack. However this difference is not clear in this formulation. I believe this has the potential to create misunderstandings.
That’s a good point, perhaps for that Keep In Mind we could borrow wording from 4.1.3H to arrive at something like:
**Keep in Mind:**During a No Pack situation, Blockers cannot initiate nor be initiated upon. If the White Pivot had attempted to initiate upon the Red Jammer, the White Pivot should be penalized for failing to reform the pack, regardless of the impact of their block on Red Jammer.
We should probably avoid getting into the weeds too much - front group is allowed to stand still, so we don’t have to discuss what else they should be doing if we have the Jammer begin the scenario between two groups that result in a No Pack. Then the Jammer opts to block an opponent rather than take an open lane that is also present.