This post is being moved over from the old Online Community.
A PDF of previous discussion is here:
Several months later and heading into Playoffs I wonder if we can get this clarified?
- In one tournament, as PW and CHNSO in March, I realized both ePLTs were recording this differently on my crew, and that the other crew was doing it in a third way
- At another tournament, as ePLT, I told the crew head I was using P and asked if she wanted I, which led to confusion. The HR was not using a correct verbal cue (not saying “misconduct”) but wanted it recorded as misconduct anyway so I switched to doing that of course.
At this point I’m seeing 0-2 of these penalties called per game. If there is any purpose or meaning of having penalty codes be a part of the statsbook, we need to ensure that the codes have the same meaning from statsbook to statsbook, no?
We discussed this amongst german officials back when the original discussion happened. I perceived a majority to be in favour of changing to P or I but consensus was that we should continue to use G (with *** verbal cue) until there is official guidance from WFTDA to do otherwise in order to avoid the kind of confusion you describe.
3 Likes
That’s interesting, as G seems the least easy to justify as it does not meet the standard of being “unsporting” which is required by the ruleset.
Was there a discussion around this, in which some folks just refused to budge, making it the only possible way to achieve consistency? Or was there another argument for G other than “it used to be an N and other N’s used to be a G’s”?
The reasons are:
- Everybody is used to it being called “Insubordination! Failure to leave the track!”. It would take time for a change to reach everybody in the country (SO, NSO, and skaters) and some more time for people to change their habits/get used to the new way of calling it. This is exacerbated by the fact that we are not a closed community but travel to/from other European countries is common.
- There is no clear single alternative to change to. If we change to I and then WFTDA decides to make P the official guidance, we’d have to change again.
6 Likes
The solution mentioned by Speedy makes sense to me. Last weekend at Swedish Champs we used I at my initiative; at least some people watching the stream found it confusing, as it is simply not what we are used to. I would love to have an official communication from WFTDA on this but until then, I think using G is what makes most sense as it is a de-facto standard (a poor one but at least people understand what the call means).
4 Likes
See, as an NSO at Swedish Champs recording the failure to leaves- I liked the illegal procedure variation!
Illegal position makes sense, but from a stats perspective would be confusing. A failure to leave is an easier coaching fix than a pack related penalty.
Insubs have become almost standard, but have a potential to cause upset. I’ve seen skaters react badly thinking they’ve been accused of being rude to someone.
I think standardisation is needed is needed though- for the benefit of players and officials.
2 Likes
I don’t see using “P” as the right way, because P already indicates an illegal positioning. The skater isn’t in an illegal position, they chose to shorten their distance to the penalty box.
G which makes it a “misconduct” because in theory it is misconduct because it often deliberate, though with newer skaters, I see it as a “whoopsie” until you coach it out of them. That said per the penalty quick ref guide it explains “insubordination” which is not leaving the track via the appropriate method.
Personally, most AU people use “G” and “Insubordination - Serves 2” and signals the box for 2 penalties to be served concurrently. Probably just needs some examples in the case book to clean things up.
Realistically, I’ve only ever used it when someone has shortened their trip to the penalty box (ie: skated 30ft TOWARDS the box instead of exiting parallel to the penalty). Now I also consider “could they do this safely without breaking the game?” because if they’re stuck in the pack and can’t move to the exit, this needs to be considered and often isn’t half the time.
Illegal positioning in my head reading Danger Muffins comments makes sense in that, technically they have positioned themselves illegally but in the same vein, so is skating out of bounds which is currently P. So there might be a bit of a truffle shuffle to get things the right way around.
1 Like
Using G even with the *** is problematic. Teams keep using their official review to attempt to get this removed, and I don’t think there’s been one instance where we’ve removed the penalty and they retained the OR. I think even with the *** teams are confused and upset quite frequently.
Having it as a P as a second penalty seems really weird.
Having it as an I for a second penalty seems the less weird of the two.
So I’d say make it an I, or include a Casebook example, so leagues have less reason to be confused when it’s called as a G.
5 Likes
This is part of a larger issue, that NONE of the penalties defined outside of section 4.1-4.3 actually have specified penalty codes. What’s the penalty for a uniform violation? Taking your mouthguard out during the jam? Picking up the other team’s pivot cover?
We may all be CONSISTENT in calling these as Illegal Procedures, but there’s literally nothing in writing that says that’s what they are.
Related, there’s also nothing that tells us how to distinguish between cues for penalties with multiple entries. What’s the difference between Interference and Delay of Game, or between Misconduct and Insubordination? I have theories, but I can’t back them up… except, of course, by referring to a nearly ten-year-old ruleset which is the last time this stuff was in writing.
That ten-year-old ruleset is also WHY most people STILL call leaving the track wrong as an Insubordination - it’s the last time we had a clear answer to the question.
We could really use a thorough overhaul of this entire document with more specificity.
8 Likes
We could really use a thorough overhaul of this entire document with more specificity.
If you put together a draft, maybe put it on github like the rules or statsbook checker, I’ll comment/edit and approve a pull request. Like, legit having a system/process that’s not owned by the WFTDA to represent any sort of authority by people who care, would be better than today’s “nothing”, and if we agreed that we’d hand it over to any person who the WFTDA decides is in charge of it (if they ever do), it might help speed the process along?
This statement gives me pause to consider another code & cue that we have around gaining a positional advantage on track - which is essentially what this is.
Cut Tack X
Verbal cue for this could be “Colour Number Cut Track - failure to exit ***” (where *** could be either “immediately” or “correctly”, giving a verbal cue difference between the two reasons for what is currently and insub)
I’m really not comfortable with that. There’s a difference between taking it upon myself to write a tool or an infographic that’s an unofficial supplement to official documentation, and working on the official stuff ITSELF.
I still think OffCom is the right committee for this, and I hope it will take it on again at some point in the future.
1 Like
I would be really in favour of giving new Officials guidance in the Casebook. Is there something which pretends us to just add the Penalty verbal cue or maybe also just the Letter to a case where a penalty is awarded. Maybe the Verbal cue is a better choice as people intend to look up the casebook and just search for “multi-player”
Clarification posted here: Rules Clarification - Illegal Exit
6 Likes
Thanks for addressing this prior to playoffs!