What NSO Penalties are Relevant to What Roles?

Officiating (Public Read-Only)
1

One of the biggest regional variations I’ve observed in officiating in the last year or two is the interpretation of this line from 5.4: “Non-Skating Officials may assess penalties that are relevant to their role as an official in the game…” (Emphasis mine.)

Particularly for PLTs and PBMs, I have seen a HUGE range of opinions on what penalties are relevant to those roles, ranging from “Nearly everything,” to “Basically nothing for PLTs, and only penalties inside the box for PBMs.”

At the extreme end, I’ve worked with PLTs who believe it’s fine for them to call cuts if they have the metric and experience to do so.

More commonly, I have seen PBMs told that they CAN call illegal returns to the track, and also they CAN’T call illegal returns to the track. (not in the same game, of course) PLTs and PBMs issuing Illegal Exits is quite common in my experience, but by no means universal.

While I know fully enumerated lists of things have been out of fashion for a decade now, it would be lovely to have specific, official (preferably written) guidance that we can all standardize on for some common penalties and positions.

  • Is Illegal Exit relevant to the PBM’s role as an official in the game?
  • Is Illegal Exit relevant to the PLT’s role as an official in the game?
  • Is Illegal Entry relevant to the PBM’s role as an official in the game?
  • Is Illegal Entry relevant to the PLT’s role as an official in the game?
  • Potentially others? (discuss.)

These seem like binary yes/no questions that should be possible to have correct, consistent answers.

None of this would in any way override the rest of the rules or procedures - anyone calling a penalty should still be in position to see the action, and have sufficient certainty that it was warranted. But if we don’t agree on what’s relevant to whom, then we’re not going to be consistent.

FWIW, I don’t personally have strong opinions on what the answers to these questions should be - I can see the argument either way. I’d just love AN official answer that we can all follow.

2 Likes
2

It sometimes seems to me like as an official, before every game I need to submit a Discrepancy-o-Matic in order to not piss anyone off. Am I allowed to do this? How about this? How about this? Am I allowed to talk to this person in the game?

Edit: I should elaborate so my comment contributes more clearly. This is a topic close to my heart because for me it isn’t just a question of preference or academics or pedantics. Real harm occurs to real people when people cause/feel offense due to this being kept so vague.

It would help those harmed if either authoritative guidelines/examples are available to point to as “acceptable” or “not acceptable,” OR the guidance widely provided to HOs that “if you don’t tell NSOs the things you personally do and don’t like, don’t be surprised or act offended when they officiate derby near you.”

Without authoritative examples, I feel harm will continue.

2 Likes
3

The “relevant to their position” part to me always came through as being something that doesn’t take them away from doing their position.

For example, box folks are likely already looking for incoming skaters as part of their role.

They aren’t doing something that would distract them from their main role.

If a JT is jogging around the track, assessing game play, looking for leg blocks, and miss a 2-min call off, that is taking on something outside their typical role’s responsibilities. Plus, someone else with likely better position should be there covering that, which is true for all calls/crew dynamics, on or off skates. If you’re trying to call something way outside your positioning, should likely be a convo rather than a call.

I don’t find it much different than the idea that OPRs calling cuts on the inside line, or a FOPR calling a direction in the back of a stretched out pack - it’s an interesting thing that could occur, not impossible that they could see the action, but in most cases probably shouldn’t be their call / it’s likely they can’t truly be 100% sure. I do agree the rules say even less about defining those sorts of “relevant to your role” aspects of on-skates rolls, as compared to the newer language addition of NSO assessing/calling. I attributed this to NSOs having responsibilities that have less (or no) overlap with others, as compared to those on skates - for example: if PLT misses a blocker, it’s not likely others would have coverage there.

All that to say, I personal read it more as guidance, and less a hard stipulation of what should be considered part of their job - because even that ebbs and flows given the needs/experience of a crew.

This is aided by crews discussing with one another what coverage of things may look like for that game. Teams can’t call audibles if they aren’t on the same page. Most officials don’t have that convenience of practicing with the same group all the time, so those convos before a game are even more important. This flexibility allows crews to support one another without dropping coverage.

Anywho, that was how I’ve always read this. As you referenced, hard coding things in written language becomes easily outdated. This sport is all nuance and discretion, so these crew convos are important.

7 Likes
4

I agree with Marc on this one, with the added caveat that sometimes I don’t call the penalty when it would be disruptive or difficult or confusing to do so, for example, if I’m SK and I watch my jammer go to the box illegally and the JR is distracted or not watching (or really new). I don’t think there’s any clean or clear way to radio that penalty in but perhaps I am just not creative enough :slight_smile:

1 Like
5

My issue here is that we DO have hard coded language.

Skaters voted for a ruleset that says “relevant to the position.” That’s right there in black and white. Simply ignoring it would be undemocratic.

But waving our hands and defining everything as potentially relevant to every position is in every respect the same thing as just choosing to ignore the rule membership voted on.

There’s a range of possible interpretations, to be sure. And teams have the right to expect some consistentcy in those interpretations, which is why I brought up the topic.

Scorekeepers calling illegal exits, however, feels to me so far outside the spirit of “relevant to their position” as to require another skater vote to entirely remove that language before it would be reasonable.

2 Likes
6

It’s certainly fair for teams to expect consistency of coverage - although that makes who is doing a bit less important. I don’t agree with the usage of different interpretations being considered “ignoring”. We have redefined language in the rules for this very reason plenty of times without people ignoring things.

7

I’m on the fence here, as a dedicated NSO the most I’ve seen an NSO call is Penalty Box Violations (PBM) and Delay of Game (JT) - so one on hand, I see that as already being pretty well within the limits of the roles. But also noting the above comments regarding Illegal Exit etc being called by the Box, I see that as an opportunity (Illegal Exit is not often called and having 2 or 3 sets of extra eyes from the Box authorised to call it…)

It would be nice to get some clarity on what Officiating sees as roles that can/should call penalties, and what they may call

Casebook scenarios come to mind as a way to do this within baking it into the rules, but also providing that guidance on what an NSO may be allowed to call

2 Likes
8

I personally think it’s high time we dropped the rule “Non-Skating Officials may assess penalties that are relevant to their role as an official in the game, unless prohibited from doing so by the Head Referee.” and just leave it open to common sense, procedure and discretion as we do most things.

I get that the restrictions around it were out of caution because prior to 2017 NSOs needed specifically empowering to call penalties, but that was almost a decade also and that time is long past. It’d be like having a rule that Jam Refs can’t call Destruction penalties - it’s unnecessary. The decisions around which officials do which things are usually left to the officiating procedures, common sense and/or head officials discretion.

It’s weird that this one restriction on certain officials exists in the actual rules, and even weirder that there’s a specific rule allowing the HR to restrict it even further. At this point, it’s just kind of perpetuating the old thing about NSOs not being treated as “real” officials.

8 Likes
9

I’d like to separate two things here. (Twixxi, I know you know all this, but for further context to the overall discussion.)

A decade ago we decided, for good or ill, to try to draw a hard line between Rules decisions, which must be approved by member vote, and Officiating decisions, which could be set by policy.

Stand at 20 seconds? Rules decision. The verbal cue to Stand? Officiating decision.

Because it is in the Rules, “NSOs may only call penalties relevant to their role.” is a Rules decision. Whether or not we should change that is an interesting question. (and one on which I am not opining at this time) But I am certain it requires a membership vote to fully remove that language, because it took one to put it in place. I’m NOT trying to shut down discussion of this question by any means - let’s talk! But Rules votes take a while.

“What penalties are relevant to what role?” is an Officiating decision. Right now it’s being made regionally, and with different answers depending on where you go and who you ask. I think membership has a right to expect us to attempt to standardize that. And in theory we can do that relatively quickly, compared to the the discussion and vote it would take to change the Rules.

5 Likes
10

Here’s some I’ve seen NSOs call.

  • Illegal exit
  • Illegal entry
  • Misconduct for language
  • Misconduct for remaining on the track
  • Delay of game for no jammer
  • Delay of game for no correctly positioned blockers
  • Delay of game for not fielding a skater in queue
  • Delay of game for a skater skating before their 3rd jam after an injury
  • Star pass violation
  • Illegal procedure for equipment violation
  • Reckless box entry
  • Reckless box exit
  • Leaving box early
  • Avoidable forceful contact to an official / bench staff
2 Likes
11

I could make reasonable arguments for all of these. I could also make reasonable arguments against some of them, hence the need for some kind of standardisation around this. There’s probably also others I’m not thinking of.

Illegal Position:

  • PBM/PBT - Maintaining unblockable position in box after warnings to leave per C4.2.1.L

Illegal Exit:

  • PT/PLT/PW/IWB/PBM/PBT - Illegally exiting the track for a penalty

Illegal Re-entry:

  • PT/PLT/PW/IWB/PBM/PBT - Illegally re-entering the track after a penalty

Delay of Game:

  • LT/PT/PLT/PW/IWB/PBM/PBT/SBO - Penalized Skaters not in the Penalty Box at the Jam start
  • LT/PT/PLT/PW/IWB/PBM/PBT/SBO - Skaters queued for the Penalty Box not on the track at the Jam start
  • JT/LT/PLT/SBO - No Blockers from one team on the track at the Jam start
  • JT/LT/PLT/SBO - All Blockers from one team entirely out of position at the Jam start
  • JT/LT/PLT/SBO - Either team not fielding a Jammer for the Jam
  • JT/LT/PLT/SBO - Fielding a skater who is required to sit out due to injury, etc at Jam start
  • JT/SBO - A team successfully requesting a Team Timeout when they have none remaining
  • JT/SBO - A team member who is neither the Captain nor the Alternate successfully requesting a Team Timeout or Official Review

Illegal Procedure:

  • PMB/PBT - Leaving box early
  • PMB/PBT - Removing equipment in box (other than mouthguard)
  • PMB/PBT - Leaving box without mouthguard in
  • PMB/PBT - Non-penalised skater/bench fully entering box and communicating with penalised skater
  • PMB/PBT - Interfering with normal Penalty Box operation

Misconduct:

  • All - Deceiving or ignoring Officials
  • All - Disrespectful contact or conduct directed at another participant
  • All - Forceful contact to an Official, where that contact is negligent or avoidable
  • All - Being abusive toward another person
  • All - Failure to abide by Governing Body policies during the game pertaining to Skaters, Team Staff, and the immediate play area
  • PMB/PBT - Reckless box entry
3 Likes
12

That’s not a penalty, as long as the team does not field another skater in their slot. Penalized skaters must leave the track immediately but they may take as long as they want to get to the box. Including until after the next jam starts. (Rule 2.2 explicitly lists “on their way to the penalty box” as a legal starting position.)

1 Like
13

I quoted that directly from the rules. 4.2.3 (Interfering with the Flow of the Game) states:

Any inappropriate action that interferes with the game—including causing the period clock to stop, preventing a Jam from starting, or ending a Jam prematurely—should be penalized.
Examples of inappropriate actions include, but are not limited to:

  • Penalized Skaters not in the Penalty Box at the Jam start

Of course it still needs to meet the impact requirement of “interferes with the game” to actually be penalised, but so do the others I listed in that section.

14

I guess we found an inconsistency in the rules then. Presumably 4.2.3 should read “in, or on their way to, the penalty box” in line with 2.2.

15

I believe that interference cannot be called without a clock (jam or period) actually stopping. In the case where a skater is on their way to the box (per 2.2) we would still start the jam and there would not be interference. One example would be a skater who gets an early hit penalty right before the jam whistle. Another example would be a skater whose penalty is issued late into the lineup time due to officials needing to discuss between jams before issuing it.

However if a skater is simply not in the box and did not go or refused to go, that would require an OTO at the start of the jam, which would be an actual clock stoppage. That would open the doors to an interference call, which would be penalized under 4.2.3.

I could see a PLT calling for a timeout and then issuing this penalty as they are the ones who “know” that the skater needed to report to the box but did not, and also I could see a PLT seeing the skater moving towards the box and allowing that to happen without calling a timeout, thus not leading to any interference.

Does that seem to you to rectify the apparent inconsistency?

16

Not fully. If the skater is moving to the box but an official still calls for an OTO because they missed that fact, the current wording of 4.2.3 suggests that a penalty should be issued while 2.2 implies this should be considered an officiating error.

(One could argue that in this scenario the cause of the OTO was not the skater not being in the box but the official missing that they’re on the way. But that kind of interpretation will only be used when someone knows that this is the desired outcome and is looking for a way to align it with the current language, not when someone is trying to figure out what the desired outcome is.)

To steer back to the actual topic: I don’t think there is any substantial desire to allow NSOs to call penalties related to active gameplay (contact penalties, pack penalties, cuts). There also seems to be a general consensus that NSOs can call penalties clearly unrelated to active gameplay (delay of game, anything box, misconduct) when observing the relevant action(s) is part of their role. The inconsistent part is primarily when skaters leave and reenter active gameplay - illegal exit and illegal reentry. So how about we standardize:

  • Penalties during active gameplay are the realm of SOs
  • Penalties outside of active gameplay are by default the realm of NSOs
  • Penalties happening when transitioning between the two are by default called based on where the skater is going to.

I see several arguments in favor of splitting the boundary this way:

  • A penalty called on a skater in active gameplay without a whistle is significantly more likely to be missed.
  • An SO who is watching for/calling a penalty on a skater outside of active gameplay is taking their attention away from their primary area of focus (except for JRs calling a penalty on their jammer).
  • Several NSO roles (LT/PLT/IWB/PBT/PBM) involve tracking when a penalized skater sits down and are therefore naturally watching the skater leave the track.
  • No NSO role tracks anything related to reentering the track. So watching that part is less natural.
  • Many Illegal Reentries require judging relative placement of skaters at the moment of reentry, including in-play status. That kind of judgement is part of judging active gameplay.
2 Likes
17

Speedy said:

I don’t think there is any substantial desire to allow NSOs to call penalties related to active gameplay (contact penalties, pack penalties, cuts).

I don’t think it’s widespread, but I HAVE encountered this opinion.

So how about we standardize:

  • Penalties during active gameplay are the realm of SOs
  • Penalties outside of active gameplay are by default the realm of NSOs
  • Penalties happening when transitioning between the two are by default called based on where the skater is going to.

This seems perfectly reasonable to me. There are a few ways things could be moved one way or the other that also seem reasonable, but an official ruling one way or the other would settle it.

What DOESN’T seem reasonable to me (and to be clear, I’m pretty sure Speedy’s not saying this) is allowing practices to remain wildly inconsistent across regions. This is precisely the sort of thing that should be updated in the officiating documents once the inconsistency is discovered.

2 Likes