|
OrpheusFaust posted:You're forgetting that the other four blockers can move forward, which I believe would mean they are setting the pace of the pack but I'm not exactly sure. They keep moving forward until they get a no pack situation from the refs, which forces the other team to move forward. I had a post here, but upon checking the rules, there is a special case for one team skating away from the other at the start of the jam. As soon as a no pack situation is created, the jammer start whistle goes off, and no penalties are assigned. Both teams then need to reform the pack. So, based on my reading, one team could jump ahead of the pivot line ten feet to destroy the pack, thus starting the jammers, then immediately stop and back up a little. Backing up would reform the pack and avoid penalties for not immediately attempting to reform the pack.
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 04:21
|
|
)
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 16:46 |
|
|
OrpheusFaust posted:You're forgetting that the other four blockers can move forward, which I believe would mean they are setting the pace of the pack but I'm not exactly sure. They keep moving forward until they get a no pack situation from the refs, which forces the other team to move forward. What if the four-blocker team wants to control the rear of the pack? That's a very important place to be at the start of a jam, you know. Mr. Powers posted:So, based on my reading, one team could jump ahead of the pivot line ten feet to destroy the pack, thus starting the jammers, then immediately stop and back up a little. Backing up would reform the pack and avoid penalties for not immediately attempting to reform the pack. I used the 4-2 pack scenario for a reason. WFTDA rules define the pack as the largest group of blockers that is made up of skaters from both teams. If one, two or even three skaters from the four-blocker team takes off, it's not going to matter because as long as the two-blocker team stays still, there's nothing the four-blocker team can do to move them unless the force a no-pack situation by putting all four skaters forward. But to do that, as I asked above, what if the four-blocker team wants to control the rear of the pack? In addition to forcing the jam to start immediately, and to make the pack go at the speed they want it to go? As the team with the superior advantage, they should be well within their rights to do all of those things, don't you think?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 04:42
|
|
|
WindyMan posted:What if the four-blocker team wants to control the rear of the pack? That's a very important place to be at the start of a jam, you know. I don't really get into strategy on the referee side of things. Their advantage is the fact that they're on the field 4-2, though. If they want to get the jam started, force the no pack, and let the jammers through as a no pack (probably resulting in a penalty for a skater on each team), or get it started and then reform the pack. It sounds like your complaint is that a team up two skaters can't control the start of the jammers, the speed of the pack, and have their choice of front/rear control in the pack all at the same time. I think giving up rear control of the pack for the clearing pass is a fair trade for getting the jammers started on your terms. If you're up two skaters, you should be able to get positioned wherever you want on pretty short order in time for the scoring passes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 05:05
|
|
|
If the team with four blockers wants to control the rear of the pack in addition to starting the jam immediately, they can scoot off the pivot line and take their knee before the whistle, therefore forcing a no-pack and keeping themselves within distance of where they want to be in the pack. That is assuming the team with two blockers doesn't catch on and move back or can force the other team to not make it on their knee on time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
Aericina posted:If the team with four blockers wants to control the rear of the pack in addition to starting the jam immediately, they can scoot off the pivot line and take their knee before the whistle, therefore forcing a no-pack and keeping themselves within distance of where they want to be in the pack. That is assuming the team with two blockers doesn't catch on and move back or can force the other team to not make it on their knee on time. That's a pretty big assumption. But even so, let me throw a wrinkle into it. Imagine the team with 4 blockers has their jammer in the penalty box, so the shorthanded team has a power jam. It's in the best interest of the shorthanded to start their jammer off immediately, so they'd be able to take a knee to start to force it. It would be in the four-blockers team's best interest to speed up the pack to get away from the other team's jammer. Question: How do you do that without creating a pack advantage for the shorthanded team, or worse, create a no-pack scenario that would give the shorthanded team's jammer a free pass? Don't you think a four blocker team with only two blockers to deal with, would be able to shut down the power jam with a combination of pack speed control and superior numbers? Important: Logically, a team's jammer being in the penalty box should not diminish any advantage (4-3 or 4-2) they may have in a pack, and therefore their control over that pack. A jammer penalty should only remove a team's ability to score points, and not necessarily give the other jammer a free pass (because they still need to deal with the blockers on the other team).
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 02:00
|
|
|
Let me break up strategy chat with....SOCK DERBY  Apparently it was a very wet day and the venue was too damp to skate, but the bout went on anyway! We actually did this for practice tonight because we found out our new warehouse space was leaky! It was really a lot of fun and kind of a nice way to slow it down and really think about what we were doing strategy-wise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 04:02
|
|
|
I'm going to be reffing my first bout tomorrow in Yonkers. Is anyone from here going there?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 12:55
|
|
|
I wish! I love watching other leagues. I'm going to be jam timing our first home (and first rated!) bout in Lehigh Valley, PA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 14:46
|
|
|
Good luck to the ref virgins. At first jam reffing seemed impossible to keep track of everything, but the more you do it, the easier it gets. Just don't forget that if your jammer gets through her initial pass and gets sent to the box, she gets points when she comes back in. I forgot that when I first started out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
Ria posted:I wish! I love watching other leagues. Are you with Lehigh Valley? The first bout I watched was the season closer last year in Manchester with NHRD going up against Lehigh Valley. I think we're heading down that way sometime this year. Aericina, I find jam reffing easier for me. I think concentrating on one person and tracking many things is easier for me than tracking less, but watching far more. carticket fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Mar 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 05:08
|
|
|
Mr. Powers posted:Are you with Lehigh Valley? The first bout I watched was the season closer last year in Manchester with NHRD going up against Lehigh Valley. I think we're heading down that way sometime this year. When I started out JR, I found myself concentrating too much on one person, i.e. people who committed fouls on my jammer seemed invisible to me but when my jammer committed something I was quick to call it. I also couldn't helmet tap on a lap pass 100% of the time until about my 5th bout, and that included practices 3 times a week. I still have trouble remembering the total amount of points in one jam, which is why I always make sure my point tracker gets the total points per pass before the next pass. OPR just seemed easier because I could see the entire pack and if something caught my eye I could zero in on it and report 3 fouls to the outside white board with ease. Now I prefer JR, there's more action and I feel a bit more powerful than OPR, if that makes sense. Like I'm making more of an impact with the bout. Well, let me rephrase. I enjoyed it when I was still reffing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 18:56
|
|
|
Aericina posted:I caught this video this morning, and what a great way to stop the idiotic dancing at the line after the jam whistle blows. quote:Lack of jam-calling reasons. quote:Slow starts
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 20:39
|
|
|
If you think jammer refs need to keep track of a lot of things, wait till you head ref. It's crazy and I don't know how I'd do it without all the awesome people in our officiating crew.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
Spookydonut posted:If you think jammer refs need to keep track of a lot of things, wait till you head ref. It's crazy and I don't know how I'd do it without all the awesome people in our officiating crew. To me, head reffing doesn't seem like a fun job. It's just IPR but with way more logistics to deal with. I think I'll work my way to JR and then rest there for quite some time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 20:43
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, what do you all use for scoreboarding? My girlfriend recently joined the So Ill Roller Girls (WFTDA apprentice team! Yay!) and I've joined in as the scoreboard guy for home games. Currently, I'm using the one designed by the Carolina Roller Girls (CRG Scoreboard). It's been working out pretty well, especially with the 1.6 update. There's also Poang, but I just don't like it as much, especially with our smaller projection screen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 21:25
|
|
|
WrongWay Feldman posted:Out of curiosity, what do you all use for scoreboarding? My girlfriend recently joined the So Ill Roller Girls (WFTDA apprentice team! Yay!) and I've joined in as the scoreboard guy for home games. Currently, I'm using the one designed by the Carolina Roller Girls (CRG Scoreboard). It's been working out pretty well, especially with the 1.6 update. Suburbia was using something different than either of those. I believe Boston uses the CRG one, or something really close to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 04:33
|
|
|
Mr. Powers posted:Are you with Lehigh Valley? The first bout I watched was the season closer last year in Manchester with NHRD going up against Lehigh Valley. I think we're heading down that way sometime this year. Yeah, I'm with Lehigh Valley. I wasn't at that bout because I was in the middle of doing about eighty other things that week. Otherwise yeah, I'm Jam Timer extraordinaire. Right now I'm being groomed for inside pack reffing. I've actually been starting to pick it up, and I'm having fun being able to see the entire pack and look at the dynamics and movements of the girls. Now that I have my "ref eyes" (or at least 70% I think, which is getting better as time progresses), it's become a lot more fun! WrongWay Feldman posted:Out of curiosity, what do you all use for scoreboarding? My girlfriend recently joined the So Ill Roller Girls (WFTDA apprentice team! Yay!) and I've joined in as the scoreboard guy for home games. Currently, I'm using the one designed by the Carolina Roller Girls (CRG Scoreboard). It's been working out pretty well, especially with the 1.6 update. We used that this last bout. It worked well! It takes a bit of getting used to, as some things automatically advance. We lost a few jams (i.e. premature advance-ulation) but other than that it worked really well! And the additional ads/screen stuff worked really well. Before that we had a typical middle school basketball light-bulb-contraption that worked horribly most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 16:26
|
|
|
We've been using DerbyBoard for at least 3 or 4 years, but since we're hosting Regionals this year we're going to release a home brew sometime in April. I haven't seen it yet but if he releases it freeware and there is interest I can post up a link. In conjunction with the projector based DerbyBoard, we utilize the overhead ice hockey board for period timing and scoring, although passing the triple digits is comical when it's 245 to 87.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 20:13
|
|
|
So, apparently Derbytron says NHRD's schedule is the 3rd strongest of what they have listed. I don't really know what this means at all, but it sounds pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 03:06
|
|
|
Heads up y'all. Rocky vs. SoCal is this weekend so get ready for it. Rocky vs. Los Angeles is Friday will be streamed, but you need to "Like" the Derby Deeds Facebook page to get the link to it. Or, you can wait for me to post it in this thread after I get my hands on it. I don't know what time the game will be on Friday, however, although I'm assuming at this point it'll be in the evening. Rocky vs. San Diego is Saturday and will be available on DNN, via DerbyDolls.tv. The Derby Dolls RaD group is handling production so it'll be the best quality you can get with derby coverage. Game time on Saturday is 10pm EDT (7pm PDT). In other banked track news, our (Sugartown) banked track is almost done! We had some drama in upper management that delayed things for a month, but we're truly in the home stretch now. Some track monkeys from LADD will be coming over to help us get everything nailed down. I AM SUPER EXCITE!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 18:41
|
|
|
Quad City Chaos tournament in Toronto is just starting up. Boutcast on DNN and Canuckderbytv. Montreal bouts are going to be killer! Detroit at Charm City is supposed to be boutcast tonight as well, but DNN hasn't posted a link yet. Passed on from a fb friend that one of the San Diego skaters horribly broke her ankle yesterday. Don't know if that was at practice or what. It's wasn't a pretty picture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2011 19:13
|
|
|
Hey referees, I have a rules question. In any sized pack (4-4, 4-2, 3-3, etc.), imagine all of the blockers of one team (Team X) are just about to trap a lone blocker from the other team (Team O) behind them. The other Team O blockers are still within 20 feet forward of the Team X wall that's trapping the blocker. Everyone is still skating forward at this moment. As such: code:code:1) Would the lone O-blocker standing out of bounds no longer be a part of the pack? I am assuming this is the case. 2) Would the lone O-blocker be penalized in any way? I am assuming no. She didn't destroy the pack, since the rest of her team is still within the bounds of the pack; and she's not skating out of bounds or cutting (advancing her position), so it's just as if she fell down hard out of bounds and needed a few moments to gather herself and come back in. 3) Would Team X be subject to a destroying the pack penalty if they stopped/skated backwards, or otherwise didn't stay close to the remaining Team O blockers? I'm assuming yes, since the lone O-blocker is no longer considered part of the pack, and Team X can't define a pack with a skater not in play. I'm going to try to make another point about the rules here, but before I do I want to make sure I'm correct in interpreting things. Or maybe you've already seen my point. WindyMan fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Mar 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2011 18:01
|
|
|
1) Yes. The player would be out of play. Though for purposes concerning where she was "in the pack" (for purposes of cutting, for example), she still has a "location in the pack," and if she decides to start skating and get in front of any of the people she was previously behind, she'd get a cutting penalty. 2) Yeah, you can't get a "destroying the pack" penalty if the pack stays formed. 3) True. This would be assessed, in order of ref being able to see it, either the last person to stop skating in this scenario, the pivot, or the closest player.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
Thanks, I thought that's how it worked. Now do me a favor and take off your referee hat, and think about this from the sporting fans' view of roller derby. If Team X can goat one blocker from Team O, that gives Team X a huge advantage, in that they would be able to slow the pack to a crawl and allow their jammer to score faster. It would also be somewhat difficult for Team O to break that wall, since they would need to skate back to Team X or else they would be out of play. We can all agree that this situation happens quite a lot in derby, yes? Then, after Team X gets well-positioned in the pack to setup a goat wall, all the O-blocker has to do to thwart that—with zero skill, effort, or teamwork—is to step (or get knocked) out of bounds. So instead of Team X getting to slow down or stop the pack with their superior pack work, they are forced to keep the pack going forward (if they don't want to get a penalty) due to the legal(!) actions of one person, nullifying their advantage. The lone blocker would eventually have to come back in to avoid getting passed for a point, but after she does she can just repeat the same situation to keep the pack moving or buy enough time for the rest of Team O to get better positioned in the pack. Here's the $64 question: How is that fair to Team X, that such a loophole in the rules would allow for this to happen? To be clear, I'm not saying this has happened before, but just that it could happen, and happen at a critical juncture of a game. Say, during the last jam of a tie game?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
WindyMan posted:Thanks, I thought that's how it worked. Now do me a favor and take off your referee hat, and think about this from the sporting fans' view of roller derby. I don't know. I see it as a way of evening it out. Ideally, all of them are supposed to be together, mixing it up. If four of them are focusing on one opposing blocker in such a coordinated fashion instead of trying to grab the other blockers, then there are other things that could happen, such as: 1) The team creating the "goat wall" will probably let the other jammer in, since they're not focusing on the other blockers. 2) The team forward will be able to create a pretty powerful three person wall for the other team's jammer. 3) From my experience in watching and whatnot, when something like that happens, penalties start getting issued just due to sloppiness. When one of the girls can't get past the others, and ganging up is happening, either the solo blocker starts slipping, or the other girls get too aggressive, and something happens. Besides, if she's just going out to avoid a block, she will be issued a penalty for skating out of bouts to avoid a block. (SOOBTAAB) And I don't see how it's any different from the girl falling (thereby being out of play again) and having the exact same situation. I don't think it would happen all that often. Edit: I just thought of two extra things. Usually when that stuff happens, they end up swarming the other girl and get a "direction of play" penalty due to skating backwards. Or a "failure to reform" penalty, since the girls in the front don't have to skate backwards to reform the pack (if I remember correctly). So. It's a valid strategy for the girls doing the swarming, just as taking a knee or going out of bounds (as long as it's not to avoid a block) would be for the one getting swarmed. Six in one, half dozen in the other, still, to me. Ria fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Mar 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2011 20:28
|
|
|
I need to think about the strategy of what you're asking a little deeper, but she can't just zero skill, effort and teamwork her way by stepping out of bounds. That's an automatic skating out of bounds penalty and would get called for it. I don't think that the other team would be so careless as to knock her out of bounds continually so as to cause this continual no-pack situation, but I suppose it could happen. The other thing that O blocker needs to keep in mind is that if she is out of bounds/play for too long, X jammer can score on another O blocker, X jammer automatically gets her point. Edit: Ria you're such a ninja every time I post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2011 20:36
|
|
|
Ria posted:Ideally, all of them are supposed to be together, mixing it up. Ideally, a lot of things are supposed to happen. Ideally, both teams are supposed to go off of the line at the pivot whistle. They don't always, obviously. Ideally, the jammers will start 20 feet behind the rear of the pack at the start of every jam. But commonly, a forced no-pack start makes it feasible for a jammer to become lead jammer before they even cross the pivot line. Ideally, the pack should stay tightly formed and be made up of all players from both teams. That seems to be the exception and not the rule, or at least it does for me. I'm fairly certain that the WFTDA didn't envision players taking a knee to force a no-pack start or sandbagging to the extremes that skaters try to do to burn penalty time or otherwise try to gain an advantage, or nullify a disadvantage. So they find loopholes in rules, or exploit grey areas in rules—taking a knee at the start isn't destroying the pack, because technically the pack doesn't exist until after the start—to do what they want, or try to prevent the other team to do what they want. My crusade is to try to find these nooks and crannies and the rules and find the extremes that would break them, or turn what should be a disadvantage into an advantage by exploting the rules instead of beating the other team fair and square. (I'm not saying anyone is cheating; goodness no. I'm just saying the rules have loopholes, and teams are exploiting them.) Believe me, I see them all the time. You probably do too, with or without realizing it. Ria posted:1) The team creating the "goat wall" will probably let the other jammer in, since they're not focusing on the other blockers. Think of why a team would want to goat a single blocker. You wouldn't want to slow the pack down if the other team has lead jammer or a power jam. You'd only want to goat someone/slow things down if your own team had lead jammer or a power jam. There wouldn't be another jammer to worry about in that case, wouldn't there? As for point 2, I covered that situation previously in the thread. Just for the sake of argument, let's say both jammers are on the track, and one team has a wall up front, and one team has a wall behind. The wall in the back will always win out, because inevitably the wall in front will need to skate forward to meet the speed of the incoming jammer, which means that group of skaters will drift outside of 20 feet, creating a no pack. The jammer up front gets a free pass, but the jammer in the back still needs to get through the wall, which can simply skate forward to reform the pack...with the other jammer still behind them. The front is not a very advantageous position to be in, don't you think? This also happens all of the time, particularly at the start of a jam. Ria posted:Edit: I just thought of two extra things. Usually when that stuff happens, they end up swarming the other girl and get a "direction of play" penalty due to skating backwards. Or a "failure to reform" penalty, since the girls in the front don't have to skate backwards to reform the pack (if I remember correctly). So. It's a valid strategy for the girls doing the swarming, just as taking a knee or going out of bounds (as long as it's not to avoid a block) would be for the one getting swarmed. Six in one, half dozen in the other, still, to me. The team doing the wall or the swarm on the lone blocker doesn't have to worry about pack formation penalties, beacuse they are the pack. If all the blockers from Team X—regardless of how many blockers they have—can trap one player from Team O, it doesn't matter what the other skaters on Team O do. That group of all of the Xs and the one O is the pack. Period. Yeah, skaters from the wall may get a penalty for being a little too adventurous with their blocks after they wall someone. But if they're a good team and don't take a penalty, what much else can Team O do to counter that? You said before, "ideally," something should happen. Well, I say write the rules in such a way to guarantee for something to happen. That way, it's always ideal. Wouldn't that make more sense? To that end, here's the easiest thing that can be done: Change the pack definition rules. Currently, it's the largest group of blockers that has at least one skater from both teams. I want to see that changed to the largest group of skaters, period. To have a pack with both teams in it shouldn't matter. I would like to know what you think of that suggestion. When you think about it, keep in mind how the redefinition would affect: -The jam start -Blocker responsibilities -Gravity of blocker penalties on a team -Uneven packs (4-3/3-2/4-2) -Pack control Again, I'm genuinely curious about what you fellas think about it. I'd like to see someone provide an argument for the current rules, but until I see something to change my mind I'm with the camp that feels rules can always be improved upon. I think this one is the biggest and easiest step WFTDA can make in that regard. WindyMan fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 00:13
|
|
|
WindyMan posted:If all the blockers from Team X—regardless of how many blockers they have—can trap one player from Team O, it doesn't matter what the other skaters on Team O do. That group of all of the Xs and the one O is the pack. Period. Yeah, skaters from the wall may get a penalty for being a little too adventurous with their blocks after they wall someone. But if they're a good team and don't take a penalty, what much else can Team O do to counter that? The three skaters from Team O that are up ahead can come back into the pack and assist their blocker that is trapped. There isn't much of a reason for them to stay up ahead of the pack. They'll risk OOP penalties when the opposing jammer comes around, and because the pack is in the back with Team X, they don't control the speed. So, if they trap one and pull the pack back and slow it down, the three up front should drop back and break their blocker out if they're looking to speed up the pack. edit: Also, my favorite pack make up is 1-1. When I reffed for Suburbia vs NHRD, I ended up with that situation and it was a total WTF moment. I don't know why it happened, but Team X skated away off the front, Team O hung back, and they each left one blocker in the middle making the two-player pack.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 04:14
|
|
|
Referee Hat on .quote:1) Would the lone O-blocker standing out of bounds no longer be a part of the pack? I am assuming this is the case. Ria posted:1) Yes. The player would be out of play. Though for purposes concerning where she was "in the pack" (for purposes of cutting, for example), she still has a "location in the pack," and if she decides to start skating and get in front of any of the people she was previously behind, she'd get a cutting penalty. quote:2) Would the lone O-blocker be penalized in any way? I am assuming no. She didn't destroy the pack, since the rest of her team is still within the bounds of the pack; and she's not skating out of bounds or cutting (advancing her position), so it's just as if she fell down hard out of bounds and needed a few moments to gather herself and come back in. Ria posted:2) Yeah, you can't get a "destroying the pack" penalty if the pack stays formed. Two cases; Case One - She steps out of bounds herself; poo poo yeah she'll get a penalty. She will also be assessed failure to reform (OOP) penalties if she does not take the first legal oppurtunity to re-enter play, as she is the member of her team that has to make the least effort to reform a pack. Case Two - She is blocked out of bounds or steps out of bounds to avoid an unsafe situation (such as a blocker dropping right in front of her) No penalty. She will also be assessed failure to reform (OOP) penalties if she does not take the first legal oppurtunity to re-enter play, assuming she can get up and in-bounds before one of her teammates drops back 5 feet. quote:3) Would Team X be subject to a destroying the pack penalty if they stopped/skated backwards, or otherwise didn't stay close to the remaining Team O blockers? I'm assuming yes, since the lone O-blocker is no longer considered part of the pack, and Team X can't define a pack with a skater not in play. Ria posted:3) True. This would be assessed, in order of ref being able to see it, either the last person to stop skating in this scenario, the pivot, or the closest player. After no-pack is called, if the X blockers do not increase their speed they will be liable for failure to reform (OOP) penalties. The rule of thumb for the failure to reform penalties is; No Pack called. 1, 2, 3 No effort towards forming a pack OOP Minor to most responsible from both teams (if applicable, one team may be making an effort to reform a pack, and the other team not) 1, 2, 3 No effort towards forming a pack OOP Major to most responsible from both teams (if applicable) 1, 2, 3 No effort towards forming a pack There is no second round of Minors. OOP Major to most responsible from both teams (if applicable) etc... to the point where you can be justified in calling off the jam. No effort towards forming a pack = You don't have to actually form a pack within time frame, you just have to make an effort towards doing so, wether that be speeding up or slowing down. The team in front (in this example), has to at least continuely slow down and at most come to a complete stop until there is a legal pack. If at any point they ceased slowing down to coast, or started skating after stopping completely, or after the no pack call they sped up, I would assess them a failure to reform penalty. They are never obligated to travel clockwise to reform a pack. The team behind (in this example), has to accelerate until a pack is formed If they stop accelerating, decrease speed, stop or go clockwise they would be assessed a penalty. Note that the penalty goes to the skater that is most responsible, or to put it another way, the skater who has to put the least effort towards reforming a pack, which could be two, one or no skaters depending on the situation. However this does not excuse the other skaters from the team, as they will be next in line after the first skater gets a Major. Also the penalties for failure to reform are not given out as harshly as I've worded it, but the justification is in the rules to do so. I can see I'll probably need to draw a diagram of why the above was a no-pack situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 12:25
|
|
|
Re: Spookydonut: I'm not sure if what Windy was saying is right in my head anymore or not, vis-a-vis the original question. If the person goes out of bounds, but the rest of her team is still within pack designation, just a "strung out" pack, she might get skating out of bounds penalties, but she isn't going to be doing a "destroying the pack" penalty, as the pack is just separated, not completely "no pack"-ish. Diagram it out. I'll probably agree with you if it's explicitly shown. *shrug* Re: Windy: That's going to be the way most sports are. If you have the rules, and there's a loophole, it's going to be exploited. That, and clarifications on specific rules (i.e. getting rid of discrep-o-matics) are the reason the rules have ballooned from 10 pages when I started to 30-something now. It's just the way of the beast. WFTDA will probably respond to stuff like that with more rules clarifying what should be happening. *shrug* I don't really think it's a good thing or a bad thing--it's just what happens when a game becomes more intellectual instead of just brute force. Which I think is kind of cool, and a neat dynamic between the rule writers and the game players (which, interestingly enough, are the same people, IIRC). Re: Aercinia: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 17:13
|
|
|
I really shouldn't have to diagram it out. If theres not a player from each team within 10ft of each other there's no pack. I'll just leave this here; quote:4
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:33
|
|
|
Oh, that makes a lot more sense. I thought that skaters of both teams had to be within 20 feet to form the pack. I guess that's the difference between being "in the pack" and "in play," right? I still think they should dump the rule that the pack needs to have at least one skater from both teams in it. It's stupid, if I'm honest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 19:39
|
|
|
Spookydonut posted:I really shouldn't have to diagram it out. See, that's the distinction I had to make. I didn't know exactly what distance that was. I kept reading "still in the pack." Meh. Okay, you're right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
WindyMan posted:Oh, that makes a lot more sense. I thought that skaters of both teams had to be within 20 feet to form the pack. I guess that's the difference between being "in the pack" and "in play," right? So if a team loses a blocker to a penalty during a power jam (for their team), the other team could race the pack as fast as they wanted with no possible recourse from the other team. They might even be able to rack up some lap penalties on the team that is down a skater. If the team who has a power jam has more blockers than the other team at the time, they could stop the pack dead. The other team has to either hang around the 20 feet around them or face out of play penalties. If you don't require a skater from each team, then the team with more blockers on the track gains complete control of the pack. There are so many potential loopholes here that it isn't even funny. In other news, I went to a podiatrist today and they tell me I have sesamoiditis, which is an inflammation of the tendon surrounding one of the sesamoid bones in the ball of your foot. In other words, it hurts a lot when I skate and it will continue to get worse until the sesamoid fractures. So, they've got my foot taped up right now and I need to keep it dry for 72 hours (which will make showers fun). I'm hoping I won't have this problem when my new skates finally arrive (126 boot vs R3 boot).
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2011 02:59
|
|
|
Mr. Powers posted:So if a team loses a blocker to a penalty during a power jam (for their team), the other team could race the pack as fast as they wanted with no possible recourse from the other team. The current WFTDA rules basically make it possible for a shorthanded team to slow or stop the pack by not moving, with no possible recourse for the full-strength team to speed it up. Why is that extreme okay, and the extreme you are describing not okay? Regardless, there's plenty the other team can do to stop stuff like that from happening in that situation. In a 4-3 pack, all the shorthanded team would need to do is keep one blocker from the other team from getting away. It's not that hard for three blockers to slow down one blocker on the other team, but it would be a bit more tricky for them to also assist their jammer while doing it. If it's a 4-2 pack, the shorthanded skaters can still define the pack, or at least split it, if they can stay with one or two blockers from the other team. Obviously, that's a lot harder to do while also trying to help your jammer through. But it should be! They're freakin' two blockers shorthanded! They other team has twice the blocking power! Yes, the team with the full pack would have the advantage of having an easier time controlling the speed of the pack. Still, it's no guarantee since the other blockers can still do something about it. The fewer blockers they have, the less they can do about it. But you say as if a team having an advantage like that in the pack is bad thing. Blocker penalties should penalize a team's effectiveness in the pack and give the other team an advantage within the pack, right? Mr. Powers posted:They might even be able to rack up some lap penalties on the team that is down a skater. If the team who has a power jam has more blockers than the other team at the time, they could stop the pack dead. The other team has to either hang around the 20 feet around them or face out of play penalties. I present to you the following scenario, made possible by the current WFTDA rules: Team X has a full pack, but their jammer is in the penalty box. Team Y has a power jam, but only has two blockers in the pack. At the start of the jam, both Team Y blockers trip or get knocked out of bounds at the same time, suddenly creating a no pack situation (because a pack must have skaters from both teams in it). Despite Team X having a 4-2 pack advantage, they cannot legally touch the Team Y jammer, who gets to breeze on by. On the next scoring pass, Team Y's blockers take up position at the back of the pack, and let their jammer through. The Team X blockers are drawn forward as the Y jammer moves forward. Meanwhile, the Team Y blockers slowly drift backwards. Eventually, a no pack is called, and the Team Y jammer gets a free pass and five points, without ever actually needing to get around the Team X blockers on her own merit. If something like that happens each time the Y jammer comes around for a scoring pass, the Y jammer can get an easy 5, 10, 15, 20 points. Yeah, maybe the Team Y blockers will get some penalties, but would your team trade three or four trips to the box if they could be guaranteed 20 or more points on a power jam? What if that's the last jam of the game, and those points would win you the game? Is what I just described better, or worse, then what you described? Although you do make a point about the full pack team stopping dead on the track. That's another easy fix: require that skaters within the pack be moving forward at all times, with penalties if they stop. Easy solution to a potentially complicated problem. It's not as if packs within the current rules aren't crawling or stopping anyway, so what would be different? Mr. Powers posted:There are so many potential loopholes here that it isn't even funny. You want to talk about loopholes? The thing that makes me want to wring someone's neck over the current WFTDA rules is that a jammer penalty trumps any number of blocker penalties. In general, the moment a team's jammer goes to the penalty bench, the team with the jammer can manipulate the speed of the pack by speeding up or slowing down, and the other team is forced to follow because the pack needs to have both teams in it. This is particularly silly when a 2-4 pack disadvantage turns into monster jams for the shorthanded team, with little the full blocker team can do about it. The reason why a team-independent pack works is because blocker penalties become independent of jammer penalties. All a power jam means is that the team without a jammer cannot score points for the duration of the jammer penalty. It is not a guarantee that the team with the power jam will score. Yet, the current rules have a loophole you could drive a truck through that can guarantee a massive number of points to a shorthanded team if they're willing to take two or three minutes' worth of blocker penalties. It's like a power play in hockey. Does a shorthanded team automatically fall over and die while the team with the extra man automatically score? No. Is the short-handed suddenly not allowed to score? No. But it's a lot easier for the team up a man to score, and it's a lot harder for the team down a man to score. A 5-3 power play is even moreso both ways, but it's still no guarantee for an automatic score or that the shorthanded team won't score. This is as it should be, because a penalty should penalize the team that committed it, and give an advantage to the team that was fouled upon. That also makes penalties a significant event in the game. Right now, penalties in WFTDA play are so common that you will rarely ever see a full pack and two jammers on the track for a full jam, let alone multiple jams in a row. If you make the gravity of taking a penalty more severe, then it would be in the skaters' best interest to not get a penalty. which would ultimately force them to skate smarter and cleaner. That would be better for derby in the long run, don't you think?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2011 04:30
|
|
|
The way I see it, control of the pack would default to the team with the most blockers rather than via strategy. We will probably not agree on this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2011 04:54
|
|
|
Mr. Powers posted:The way I see it, control of the pack would default to the team with the most blockers rather than via strategy. We will probably not agree on this point. I can just as easily say that in the current WFTDA rules, control of the pack would default to the team with the fewest blockers rather than via strategy. Is that true? If you're going to say no, then I'd also like you to explain that truck-sized loophole I mentioned previously. How about instead of making a blanket statement and ignoring my points, let's think about this a little bit. Again, this is talking about pack definition being defined by the largest group of skaters, irregardless of team makeup. Team X has four blockers, and Team Y has three blockers, with one in the penalty box. Being a blocker down, Team Y is at a slight disadvantage. But they can still influence the speed of the pack via strategy. If they want to prevent the pack from speeding up, they need to make sure they keep an X blocker behind them to prevent all four Team X blockers from pulling away ahead of them. If they want to prevent the pack from slowing down, they'll need to make sure they keep an X blocker in front of them to prevent all four Team X blockers from dropping back behind them. All the while, they'll need to keep an eye on the other X blockers, and also both jammers. Meanwhile, if Team X truly wants to control the pack, they'll need to try to outwit the three Team Y blockers with, wait for it now—strategy—in order to gain the pack positioning they want. As both teams try to get what they want, the pack will be very dynamic, and the team that outwits the other one will get control of the pack, or at least prevent the other team from getting full control. "Strategy" is just a word people that people throw around, as if it means something. If a game situation changes, the strategy changes. If the rules change, the strategy will still be there. You say as if something changes from the known to the unknown, suddenly all aspects of strategy will disappear? Please.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2011 05:27
|
|
|
I didn't ignore your points. It is opinion, though. You came up with scenarios that specifically demonstrate why you think the current rules are bad and earlier I came up with scenarios that specifically demonstrate why your proposed rule change would be bad. I consider the current rules to be "more fair", and you don't. This is why I made the short post. It's a subjective judgement, not objective, and we're not going to agree on it, so it isn't worth my time to try to convince you of what I think. I don't think it's worth your time to read what I'd write, either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2011 14:32
|
|
|
WindyMan posted:"Strategy" is just a word people that people throw around, as if it means something. If a game situation changes, the strategy changes. If the rules change, the strategy will still be there. You say as if something changes from the known to the unknown, suddenly all aspects of strategy will disappear? Please. People keep saying this as if that is what people are arguing and it's not what anyone means. Different rules systems can have room for different degrees of strategical depth and differing amounts of variety. To give an extreme example, there are more strategical options in chess than there are in tic-tac-toe. If you add complexity to a rules system, you add layers of potential strategy. If you remove complexity from a rules system, you may remove those layers. Please stop defining strategy however you want just so you can dismiss people who are opposed to certain rules adjustments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2011 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 16:46 |
|
|
Anyway, so, snark aside, I still love this sport. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2011 18:56
|
|