|
Ria posted:Anyway, so, snark aside, I still love this sport. I second this.
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2011 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 11:37 |
|
|
Ria posted:Anyway, so, snark aside, I still love this sport. And I third this. Don't forget it, but I love roller derby too. I just want to see rules in place that I think would make it better than it is. I just happen to have a suggestion for it that I believe will do that. Is there anything wrong with that? Dominion posted: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. It “may” remove those layers of strategy. I can just as easily make the point that removing complexity from a rules system “may” add additional layers of strategy. Take soccer, for example. Soccer has the most straightforward and simple rulebook in sports. However, at the professional level, the complexity of strategy is much deeper than the rules would lead you to believe. Formations, player capabilities, matchups, substitutions, field size, pitch conditions, attacking, defending, midfield, passing, shooting, possession, set plays, etc. Coaches and analysts make big money planning and talking soccer strategy. But your analogy would lead me to believe that there is no strategy in soccer due to the rules being simple. Rules complexity and strategical depth are not mutually inclusive. And really, why should they be? There’s a reason why soccer is called “The Beautiful Game.” Dominion posted:Please stop defining strategy however you want... That's not what my intentions were, to define strategy. The definition of strategy is ultimately made by the players and teams who play against each other and how they interpret the rules presented to them. Such as, it's a viable strategy for a blocker to take an intentional penalty in order to guarantee their team scores five points. I'm not defining that; I'm just saying that's a valid and potential strategy given the current WFTDA rules. I’m also saying that it could unfairly swing the result of a game one way or the other, should a team decide to employ that strategy. You bring up a good point about the different strategy between chess and tic-tac-toe, though. I completely agree with you on that although that's not exactly the point I was trying to make. You're comparing apples and oranges; I'm trying to comparing red apples to slightly differently red apples. Let's focus on chess for a moment. (I'd appreciate everyone keeping an open mind about this.) We all know the rules of chess, and the basic strategy of playing chess. Pretend I petition to have the rules of chess changed so the King and Queen's movement abilities are swapped, but the King is otherwise a King in all the other ways: vulnerable to check, can stalemate, castling, etc. This suggestion would be scrutinized to see how the game would change. Players would test known chess strategies to see if they still work or would need to be changed. Some strategies may need to be thrown out and new strategies ones created. After all of that is done, they would need to determine if this rule change is a viable one at all and if so, whether it makes the game better or worse. But it would still be chess, wouldn't it? Just a different kind of chess. By just suggesting the rule change I'm not defining strategy in any way, shape, or form. I can give possible examples of what may happen or what they can try doing, but it's still up to the players to determine what strategies would come from it, and which strategies would be the most effective. I admit that the very notion of suggesting a rule change in chess is silly. They’ve worked for several centuries, so why fix it if it ain't broke? Ah, but don't forget that it took a few hundred years for the rules of chess as we know it to be nailed down as ideal. Someone just didn't invent chess and have it remained unchanged for this long. It evolved as people playing it got better, and understood how things worked on a deeper level. So the rules were tweaked to keep up with that, until we ultimately arrived at the chess game we know today. So let's get back to roller derby. All I'm doing is suggesting a rule change. To support my suggestion, I'm showing what strategies a team may employ within the current rules, to show that they may not be written well enough to account for extremes—such as it being viable that a heavily penalized team can get points for free by taking another penalty, instead of outworking or outwitting the other players in the pack—and therefore see if the rules can be improved upon to make the games better for everyone. Skaters, fans, sponsors, you name it. The rules for roller derby as we know it are only around six or seven years old. Derby rules will evolve as the sport does. There's no arguing that. I'm just suggesting one evolution of those rules and stating my case for it! Dominion posted:...just so you can dismiss people who are opposed to certain rules adjustments. I'm not dismissing them. It seems to me that I'm the one being dismissed. I've made the best case I can make about why I believe the pack rule should be changed and why I think it would make derby better. As a rebuttal, I’m getting “it would take away from the strategy” or “it would give a team a default advantage instead of making one by strategy.” What does strategy have to do with tweaking the rules to make the game possibly better? Maybe you guys could humor me and make a case for why the pack definition rule should stay the same? I am not trying to turn this into a "if you're not with me, you're against me" debate, and that is not my intention. But I can't seem to get anyone to convince me that I'm delusional in regards to this subject. So I press on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2011 21:30
|
|
|
WindyMan posted:Coaches and analysts make big money planning and talking soccer strategy. But your analogy would lead me to believe that there is no strategy in soccer due to the rules being simple. Rules complexity and strategical depth are not mutually inclusive. And really, why should they be? There’s a reason why soccer is called “The Beautiful Game.” Correct, it's not a linear thing where more complexity is always better or deeper. Sometimes simple systems are better, cleaner, whatever. I guess I was mainly reacting to a prior argument in this or the last thread where someone stated that "strategy" was just whatever people do within the current rules system, and rejected the idea that changing a rules system could possibly decrease the amount of strategical options available. I apologize if that isn't applicable to the current discussion. quote:I'm not dismissing them. It seems to me that I'm the one being dismissed. I've made the best case I can make about why I believe the pack rule should be changed and why I think it would make derby better. As a rebuttal, I’m getting “it would take away from the strategy” or “it would give a team a default advantage instead of making one by strategy.” What does strategy have to do with tweaking the rules to make the game possibly better? Strategy has everything to do with tweaking the rules, I really don't know how you can think otherwise. Making the game better is the end goal of course, though we could probably argue forever over what exactly "better" means here. More fun for the skaters? More fun to watch? Easier to officiate? I'm sure there are some people out there who simply want to watch skaters go fast in a circle, and the optimal ruleset for those people is much different than the optimal ruleset for someone who likes to watch slow derby, or someone who actually skates, or a ref. I'll freely admit that while I an a pretty dedicated fan and watch a lot of derby, I don't know as much about it as you, and I really have no idea how your proposed change would affect the overall game after people have gotten used to it. Like I said, I think I knee-jerked into the previous discussion about the word "strategy" and misunderstood your post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2011 21:49
|
|
|
Dominion posted:Strategy has everything to do with tweaking the rules, I really don't know how you can think otherwise. Making the game better is the end goal of course, though we could probably argue forever over what exactly "better" means here. More fun for the skaters? More fun to watch? Easier to officiate? I guess I wasn't clear about this. Obviously, how teams employ strategies may ultimately lead rules to be changed to address those strategies. That's how rules evolve. I suppose I actually meant that "taking away from strategy" may be a good thing. Such as in my famous example. Can we agree that in certain circumstances, it can be adventageous for a team to deliberately take a penalty (or penalties, such as going out of bounds, out of play, or destroying the pack) to cause a no-pack situation and allow their jammer to go through untouched for a full scoring pass? That is, a team may reason that having one less blocker for a minute trumps the number of points their jammer will get in the meanwhile. If that's a strategy that teams start employing, counter-strategies will need to be developed to stop them. The only two I can think of at the moment would be for the other team to block the jammer during no-pack, which would give them out of play penalties; or to just keep on skating to race away from the jammer, which would give them destroying the pack penalties. (Feel free to come up with other ideas.) In other words, the only way you can counter a deliberate penalty is with another deliberate penalty, in this situation. Here's the kicker: The rules are written in a way for this mess to be possible! If the pack rule is change to what I'm suggesting, there is no possible way for this to happen. Example: It's a 4-2 pack, and the 2 skater team wants to slow the pack down. The only possible way they would be able to do it with my rule tweak would be to get into the middle of the team of four blockers and slow down two of them. Shouldn't it always be that way in roller derby, to fight for position? Pack superiority leads to pack control, leads to an easier time (but no guarantee) for your jammer to score points. By removing the "taking a penalty to gain an advantage" strategy option, you are probably helping to make roller derby better. Penalties should put you at a disadvantage under all circumstances. Dominion posted:I'll freely admit that while I an a pretty dedicated fan and watch a lot of derby, I don't know as much about it as you, and I really have no idea how your proposed change would affect the overall game after people have gotten used to it. Like I said, I think I knee-jerked into the previous discussion about the word "strategy" and misunderstood your post. That's alright, I understand. I can't be 100% certain that changing the pack definition rule would be good for derby in the long run, although I am fairly confident. But I do know how the current rules work, and I don't like certain aspects of them too much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
You're really getting hung up on pack speed and no pack situations. <ref hat>It's extremely obvious when pack speed deviations and no pack situations are intentional and require a penalty.</ref hat>
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 14:18
|
|
|
We interrupt this spirited discussion on roller derby rules for a special bulletin: I updated first post with lots of good info on important games coming up this month. There are a lot of them, including this weekend's Dust Devil, Clover Cup, and some US/French-Canada/UK mixup in London or something or another. Also, the MDC isn't the MDC anymore! We now return you to the previous discussion, already in progress... Spookydonut posted:You're really getting hung up on pack speed and no pack situations. Yes, because the pack is 80% of the players on the track at any given time. The pack is also where all the scored points come from. What happens with the pack is kind of an important thing in roller derby!! Spookydonut posted:<ref hat>It's extremely obvious when pack speed deviations and no pack situations are intentional and require a penalty.</ref hat> Yes, obviously. Now take off your ref hat for me and think beyond that for a moment. Regardless if the no-pack situation was created intentionally or not, the moment there's a no-pack situation, no one can legally block or assist anyone, and jammers get a free pass around blockers until the pack is reformed. There's nothing in the rules stopping a team from using this to their advantage. Even in a 4-4 pack, one team can just stop dead and start skating backwards (or get to the front and gap the other team with speed), intentionally creating a no-pack situation. Yes, that's against the rules, and yes, that team will get one or two or more penalties because of it. Meanwhile, as those skaters are being penalized, there's still a no-pack situation. If the team taking those intentional penalties is on a power jam, then the other team's blockers have no legal way to avoid being scored upon due to the intentional penalties taken by the other team. The team taking the intentional penalties is therefore giving their jammer a free pass through a no-pack and five free points, at the cost of taking a few penalities. If this were the last jam of the game, would you trade two or three minutes of penalty time if you can guarantee you will score 5 points? What's stopping you from repeating this on a second or third pass if on a power jam to guarantee 10 or 15 or more points to win the game? I'm not saying that this situation will ever happen in a game. I'm saying that it could happen, and am pointing out that the rules as they are currently written make this possible in the first place. I feel this is completely rear end-backwards. Yes, it requires someone to intentionally take a penalty, but intentionally taking a penalty is a valid strategy in any sport, remember: -Basketball: You can intentionally foul someone to prevent them from getting an easy two points, or to try to get the ball back at the end of a close game. --Advantage of doing this: You can prevent a sure basket, stop the clock, and regain posession after the free throws. --Disadvantage of doing this: There's no guarantee that you will be denying the other team from scoring since they can still hit their free throws. You're also increasing the chances that someone fouls out, but since this strategy is only employed toward the end of a game (for the purposes of saving clock time) it's negligible. --Silver lining: If you foul a poor free throw shooter, they can miss their free throws, giving you the ball back with less of a score deficit to come back from. -Hockey: You can intentionally hold or trip someone if they are about to have a clear scoring chance on your goal to prevent them that chance. --Advantage of doing this: You prevented an immediate scoring opportunity by denying the penalized player a fair attempt on the puck. --Disadvantage of doing this: Your team will be shorthanded for the duration of the penalty, so you're giving the other team a good scoring chance anyway during the ensuing power play. You also run the risk of giving up a penalty shot insted if the penalty was committed on a breakaway chance. --Silver lining: If you have a good penalty kill and/or the other team has a poor power play, there's a good chance (but still no guarantee) that they won't score on you. In both those situations, the team doing the fouling or taking the penalty took away an immediate scoring opportunity from the other team, but still gave them a fair chance to score anyway (free throws or a power play) as compensation. By giving the team fouled upon a way to get back what the foul took away from them at the time it happens, it all evens out. But now let's take a look at that in roller derby: -Roller derby: You can intentionally take a penalty to destroy the pack, allowing your jammer to go through untouched due to a no-pack situation. --Advantage of doing this: Your team scores five points if your jammer is lead jammer or is on a power jam. --Disadvantage of doing this: Your team's pack will be shorthanded for the duration of the penalty. Skaters will also have one fewer penalty to work with before getting a penalty ejection. However, if this happens near the end of a game, the team disadvantage is negligible. If this happens while the other team's jammer is serving a penalty, the team disadvantage is negligible until the other jammer returns to the track and can start passing or scoring on the shorthanded pack. --Silver lining: There's nothing the other team can do to stop you. Here, the team getting fouled upon has no (legal) chance to recify getting scored upon. Once those points go up on the scoreboard, they never come back down. Penalties go away in a minute. While the other team will have a the advantage of a thinner pack, there's no guarantee that they will be able to score because they still would have the other jammer to deal with on the track. Again, I'm looking for an explanation of why that makes sense. WindyMan fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Apr 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 18:55
|
|
|
It is worth noting that I am generally against setups in any sport where there is ever a tactically sound reason to intentionally commit a penalty. I don't like poodling/cougaring in derby for the same reason, though I don't really have a better alternative. I hate intentional fouling in basketball, and I was really glad when they made Pass Interference in football a spot-of-the-foul situation rather than 15 yards because it fixed that loophole. I think the ruleset should discourage breaking the rules as a valid tactic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 19:47
|
|
|
Dominion posted:It is worth noting that I am generally against setups in any sport where there is ever a tactically sound reason to intentionally commit a penalty. I don't like poodling/cougaring in derby for the same reason, though I don't really have a better alternative. I agree with you. I think endgames in basketball are silly and can kill the flow of what may otherwise be a good game or comeback. The pass interference rule too, but even that can be used intentionally in the end zone to prevent a sure score or at least give your team the chance to hold it off for a few more downs. It's worse in college football since it's still a 15 yard penalty. What better way to erase a 60 yard completion but with a 15 yard penalty? You're right about poodling being dumb, but I have a better alternative for you. Change the pack definition rule! The reason why teams poodle skaters is because they know that skating one blocker down in the pack isn't such a big disadvantage, especially if their team can get lead jammer. With lead jammer, the chances of them scoring in a 3-4 pack are pretty much the same as them scoring in a 4-4 pack. The worst that can happen is that the other team's jammer gets lead jammer and then scores an extra ghost point or two. If teams feel that "risk" is worth clearing minors for a skater and being down in the pack for a minute, then fine. But that would change if the pack is just the group of most skaters, irregardless of team. If a skater poodles and goes to the penalty box, all of a sudden that penalty becomes significant. In a 4-3 pack, the team with four skaters can control the speed of the pack provided they can out maneuver the other three blockers and get clear one way or the other. The poodling team can still get lead jammer, but then the four blocker team can more easily race the pack if they all get in front, making it harder be scored on. (The three blocker team can prevent this by goating one of the blockers, creating a four-person pack themselves.) If the four blocker team gets lead jammer, they can more easily slow down the pack if they can get clear to the rear of the pack, making it easier for them to score. (The three blocker team can prevent this keeping at least one blocker in front of them at at all times, making them the four-person pack.) Suddenly, the poodle becomes less of a viable option, because sitting in the box would give the other team a more definable advantage. Instead of exchanging a harmless sit in the box for a clean bill of health, the skater with three minors would ultimately need to skate with three minors and try to avoid a fourth and a trip to the box. At that point, the strategy is when to put that skater in for a jam, either as a blocker or a jammer, and if doing so would be worth the risk of them potentially going off on the fourth minor and giving the other team an advantage. It would be just like a top player in the NBA sitting on five fouls near the end of the game. How important is it that he be in the game? Is it important enough to run the risk of him fouling out on his next foul?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 21:30
|
|
|
I'm not sure what everyone's opinion is on non-WFTDA leagues, but I've got a fiance and a cousin in the Penn-Jersey She Devils (https://www.pennjerseyrollerderby.com). They play using OSDA rules, and own/occasionally play on a refurbished, original banked track. Their events take place mostly in southern New Jersey, but occasionally have fundraiser activities in Philadelphia. Their season-opener is coming up - the date isn't up on their website yet, but I expect it to be in mid-April.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 21:56
|
|
|
I love Penn-Jersey, several of them visited down here a few months ago to train with our Orlando league, since we're also OSDA. One of the other posters here also has a wife on the Orlando team.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 02:09
|
|
|
WindyMan posted:stuff about pack changes The reason I don't like "most skaters equals pack" is that it brings the game back to where it was a few years ago, where all that mattered was speed. If your 4 can control where the pack is simply by being the fastest girls on the track, that sort of devalues every other aspect of skating. I don't think there's a group of 3 girls in the country who can beat, say, Oly's first liners in a straight footrace, and I don't want to make it completely impossible to score on Oly in a 4-3 situation. Not that I have any issue with Oly in particular, they are just the biggest name speed team I could think of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
To address the loophole scenario from the last page, let me try this: Team with 4 blockers but no jammer is X. Team with 2 blockers and a jammer is Y. Windy proposed that if X took off, Y could "slowly drift away" until there was no pack, and then Y's jammer gets through scot-free. Ignoring the fact that Y could potentially be called for destroying the pack, this wouldn't ever happen. Team X's blockers are going to stay within engagement range of team Y, because in the vast majority of cases, two blockers aren't going to do squat against four. Frankly I'd play this as a 3-1, with my lone blocker bridging and my three staying at the edge of the EZ, but ready to slow down if Y does something stupid like that. I think your example is contrived and assumes X will play in a way that directly leads to your conclusion, rather than in a way that, you know, makes sense. That said, this thread rocks, derby rocks, and Steel City rocks. I'm super excited about the London tourney. My girlfriend skates for one of SCDD's B-teams (B-Unit!), which I also bench manage. She got time off for work and is heading to London to support the A team's endeavours. So jealous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 05:19
|
|
|
Dominion posted:The reason I don't like "most skaters equals pack" is that it brings the game back to where it was a few years ago, where all that mattered was speed. If your 4 can control where the pack is simply by being the fastest girls on the track, that sort of devalues every other aspect of skating. It's proper strategy, and common sense, that if your team has lead jammer (or at least, your jammer is out front) to try to slow the pack and make it easier for your jammer to get into scoring position faster. On the flipside, if the other team has the jammer in the lead, you want to try to race the pack to make it harder for the other jammer to score. It's relatively easy to slow down the pack. All one team has to do is wall off a single blocker in the rear to grind the pack to a halt. However, that takes superior blocking work by the team that wants to slow things down, or a complete breakdown by the team wanting to keep the pack moving. However, it's a bit more difficult to race the pack. Even if all the blockers of a team manage to get to the front of the pack, they can only go as fast as the pack was going at that point in time. Still, what normally happens is the other team's skaters start to speed up to maintain pack integrity and try to block off the single blocker to slow the pack down again. If the pack rules changed as I am suggesting, these strategies wouldn't change a bit. The difference is that a team one blocker down would have a harder time slowing or racing the pack, and the team two blockers down would have a much harder time slowing or racing the pack. What would change is that there would be more emphasis on keeping blockers at the front of the pack to prevent the pack from racing forward, making the pivot an actual last line of defense and a legitimate position instead of just a regular blocker with a stripe on her helmet. Remember, the pivots start at the front of the pack for a reason. (Conicidentally, this would create consequences for a pivot committing a major penalty.) Dominion posted:I don't think there's a group of 3 girls in the country who can beat, say, Oly's first liners in a straight footrace, and I don't want to make it completely impossible to score on Oly in a 4-3 situation. While I have no problem with a of team superior skaters having an inherent advantage, you're assuming the other three skaters will just fall over and die for that to happen. If the shorthanded team can have just one of their blockers keep one of the other team's blockers behind them, then it would be impossible for the other team's skaters to race the pack as they wouldn't have the numbers to do it. Two or three can gang up on the one to make it easier to do that. But even then, the only reason why a team would want to race the pack is because they don't have a jammer in the lead position so it's not as if this would always happen. Regardless, if a team's blockers can't keep all of the other team's blockers behind them, it's their own fault they let it happen; inferior blocking or penalty trouble (or both) would be the primary causes. bgreman posted:To address the loophole scenario from the last page, let me try this: I'm not ignoring anything. I am saying that Y can purposely destroy the pack and take a blocker penalty, but guarantee a five-point pass in the process. Remember, it would be in the X blockers' best interest to get the pack going as fast as possible so that the Y jammer can't catch up or score as easily. So X will be trying their best to race the pack at the front. The Y blockers can easily foil that by not going fast; and in the worst case scenarios, all fall down, take a knee, step out of bounds, start skating backwards, etc. There are plenty of end-game scenarios where taking a penalty can be meaningless and the extra points can win you the game. Even during a game, a jammer can burn off most if not all of the blocker penalty time by just skating out the full two minutes of a jam. Even if the other jammer comes back in and scores some points, there's every possibility that the first jammer can score 10 or more points during the powerjam and just keep the points difference (like 14-4 jam) without suffering the full effects of the blocker penalties. But even if a team didn't go to this extreme, you're still proving my point. Yeah, the X blockers could slow down to stay in the engagement zone and to prevent the Y blockers from intentionally creating a no-pack. However, Team Y would still be at an advantage by preventing team X from racing the pack despite not needing to really block anyone and having half the blocking power within the pack. By keeping the pack at a relatively slow pace, it would be much easier for the Y jammer to come around multiple times and get into scoring position once or twice, even if she had to actually go through the other teams' blockers. Once again, as always, I'm looking for an explanation of why that makes sense. bgreman posted:That said, this thread rocks, derby rocks, and Steel City rocks. I'm super excited about the London tourney. My girlfriend skates for one of SCDD's B-teams (B-Unit!), which I also bench manage. She got time off for work and is heading to London to support the A team's endeavours. So jealous. Speaking of that, DNN has a preview of that up and running. It starts this weekend, although I don't know about waking up at 5am to see it start... WindyMan fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Apr 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 19:16
|
|
|
WindyMan posted:
If two blockers can effectively engage 4 blockers well enough to get their jammer through (which is not a trivial proposition), then team Y deserves the points, as far as I'm concerned. Incidentally, racing the pack has less to do with skating as fast as possible as it does holding the front (we call it "stacking points"). However, I think I get the gist of what you're saying about a shorthanded team being able to dictate the pace of the non-shorthanded team. It's an interesting scenario, especially as the shorthanded blockers can't actually be sent off since there are already two blockers in the box. I've never seen a team try to employ this strategy (since being shorthanded but on the power jam is a pretty rare situation), and I'm curious to see what the refs would do if someone tried it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 23:41
|
|
|
bgreman posted:If two blockers can effectively engage 4 blockers well enough to get their jammer through (which is not a trivial proposition), then team Y deserves the points, as far as I'm concerned. True, but the thing I'm sour about is that it's still easier when you know your team can slow down the pack. You get more time and chances to try and get through once, twice, three times during the power jam, in other words. Plus, the Y blockers don't have to expend any effort or energy dictating pack speed since they know that they can just cruise within the confines of the pack to control how fast (read: slow) it goes. When their jammer comes (quickly) back around, they can focus 100% of their effort and energy on breaking their jammer through. Ideally, I would prefer to see it so the shorthanded team (a 3-4, 2-4, 2-3 pack disadvantage) actually needs to make an effort to ensure the pack doesn't get away from them all the while. Let's say it's a 4-2 pack, and the four-blocker team manages to get around the two blockers. Don't they deserve to speed away from the jammer to avoid being scored upon for doing that? Why is it fair to them that they have to be held back by a heavily penalized team that's completely behind them? To prevent that, under my rule change the shorthanded team would need to get into that four-blocker cell and splinter off someone (creating a pack split of XXX at the front and YYX or YXY at the rear) and hold them back continuously. That would let the Y jammer catch up to the pack, but then that also means those two Y blockers won't be able to do as much to help their jammer through, at risk of letting that lynchpin X blocker get away and have the pack start speeding up again. While it's true that a jammer getting through a pack with a 2-4 disadvantage should deserve the points, in reality, the pack doesn't need to do as much as you'd think they would need to given the severe disadvantage they should be at. I feel a team down 2-4 in the pack should be lucky to score one or two points during a jam, power jam or not. Not five or ten. bgreman posted:However, I think I get the gist of what you're saying about a shorthanded team being able to dictate the pace of the non-shorthanded team. It's an interesting scenario, especially as the shorthanded blockers can't actually be sent off since there are already two blockers in the box. I've never seen a team try to employ this strategy (since being shorthanded but on the power jam is a pretty rare situation), and I'm curious to see what the refs would do if someone tried it. All the refs will do is call 'em as they see 'em. If there's a no-pack, they'll call a no-pack. If they see someone intentionally destroying the pack, they'll send 'em off. If they see someone blocking during a no-pack, they'll give 'em a chop and box 'em. That's why I'm bring this up now: If this were to happen during a game, the refs would call the penalties correctly, but you can sure as hell bet that people will talk about adding or changing a rule to prevent it from happening again. So why wait until then?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 00:51
|
|
|
Continuing pack rules sperging posted:As I've said before, the skaters make the rules. I very much doubt they will pre-emptively change the rules. warpspeedmind posted:OSDA rules OSDA Rules make me laugh uncontrollably. Almost as much as banked track's refusal to learn from the experiences of flat track, especially in terms of officiating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 05:44
|
|
|
Spookydonut posted:As I've said before, the skaters make the rules. Pre-emptively to what? Spookydonut posted:OSDA Rules make me laugh uncontrollably. Derby elitism in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 15:25
|
|
|
Dominion posted:Derby elitism in this thread. Do you do OSDA stuff? I'm genuinely curious because I don't know much about OSDA and I'm even inspired to look up the OSDA ruleset. Edit: Pivots can score points while still being a Pivot? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 20:09
|
|
|
scorpiobean posted:Do you do OSDA stuff? I'm genuinely curious because I don't know much about OSDA and I'm even inspired to look up the OSDA ruleset. My girlfriend who retired from her WFTDA league is toying with the idea of joining a much more casual OSDA league, though she hasn't yet and I haven't actually seen any games. I know a handful of people who skate OSDA though. The pivot thing is strange and I don't really understand it. I get the feeling it will make sense if I actually watched a bout. Also lead jammer changes back and forth throughout the jam based on who is actually in the lead at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
scorpiobean posted:Do you do OSDA stuff? I'm genuinely curious because I don't know much about OSDA and I'm even inspired to look up the OSDA ruleset. No. Pivots can become the Jammer if their Jammer is stuck in the pack and the other team's Jammer becomes the Lead Jammer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
ODC posted:No. Pivots can become the Jammer if their Jammer is stuck in the pack and the other team's Jammer becomes the Lead Jammer. Right, but there's no star pass or anything, so visually to someone walking up in the middle of the jam they are the pivot. I'm not sure if there is any visual indication that the star is no longer the jammer or what.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 21:41
|
|
|
EDIT: ^^^^ I understand what you're saying now. Dominion posted:My girlfriend who retired from her WFTDA league is toying with the idea of joining a much more casual OSDA league, though she hasn't yet and I haven't actually seen any games. I know a handful of people who skate OSDA though. Having watched both quite a bit, I like OSDA more. Single whistle starts the pack and the jammers. Lead changes. Plus OSDA have co-ed and banked track rules. Just more exciting in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
ODC posted:EDIT: ^^^^ I'll have to see if there's any OSDA teams in my area because I think I need to see some of this stuff to get a better grasp of it (I'm a pretty visual person). Another moment for me was also the fact that BACKBLOCKING is allowed (if done a certain way much like most blocking). Mostly because it's such a huge no-no under WFTDA rules. As for jam starts, can jammers line up as close to the pack as they want to? That was kind of my impression with the rules, that regular blockers could be anywhere behind the pivots and in front of the jammers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 22:25
|
|
|
scorpiobean posted:I'll have to see if there's any OSDA teams in my area because I think I need to see some of this stuff to get a better grasp of it (I'm a pretty visual person). Another Jammers still start on a designated Jam line. Blockers can start anywhere between the pivots and the Jammers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
 WARNING: This is a long post, but it's not my usual "change the rules" drabble. scorpiobean posted:I'm genuinely curious because I don't know much about OSDA and I'm even inspired to look up the OSDA ruleset. Here are the 2011 OSDA rules (you'll notice that they are much more simple than the WFTDA rules). I keep them on my phone, as well as the WFTDA, WORD (banked track) and LA Derby Dolls rules. Because in case you haven't figured out yet, I'm a sucker for rules: http://oldschoolderbyassociation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/OSDA-Rules-2011.pdf I believe an explanation of the history of the pivot position is in order. The Old-School Pivot Back in the old days—I'm talking 60s-70s here—the pivot was a true specialized and strategic position, more so than it is now. Obviously, there were jammers (who used to wear striped helmets, actually). There were also the pivots (who both wore an off-color helmet, generally black), who took position at the front of the pack and were both eligible to become a jammer the moment either team's jammer got out front. No panty passing required. After a jammer established the lead jammer position, the other team had a decision to make. They could wait for their jammer to break through, send their pivot out to score points instead, or both. The team whose jammer gets out front first could also send their pivot out as well, which made it possible for there to be up to four jammers eligible to score points during a jam, two from each team. (When Rollerjam came into being in 1999, they skipped the pivot rule and just put four jammers on the track at once.) This rule existed to pretty much always guarantee there was an exciting "match race" on every jam. This also means the lead jammer just can't call it off due to pressure from the other jammer, because that would mean no one would ever get into scoring position. (This is also why "lead jammer" is always the jammer physically in the lead.) This put an emphasis jammer-on-jammer action, which is always exciting, and also a premium on one-on-one blocking toward the rear of the pack, since both jammers would often get into scoring position on the same time. Back then, scoring one point on a regular jam was difficult to do for that reason, making points a hell of a lot more valuable. Ignoring the fact that the outcome of a lot of games at that time was pre-determined (to a degree), on the face of it the pivot rules added another level of strategy to derby. While sending the pivot out every time may sound like a no-brainer, it's their other critical responsibility that made things really interesting. Back then, the pace of the pivots defined the pace of the pack. Period. That is, how fast the pivots go is how fast the pack goes. There were no rules for pack definitions that I am acutely aware of, other than that the skaters had to stay within a certain distance of each other (effectively meaning they had to stay a certain distance near the pivots). That meant sending your pivot out to jam was a trade-off: You have the opportunity to get a skater into scoring position or double your scoring potential, but you lose the ability to control pack speed and have one fewer (specialized) blocker in the pack, although the jammer that didn't get out can stay behind to help block. Pausing the history lesson for a moment, one of the most basic strategies in modern derby has remained pretty much unchanged since the very beginning: If you have lead jammer, slow the pack down to make it easier to score. If you don't have lead jammer, speed the pack up to make it harder for them to score. Obvious. You all know how I feel about the current pack definition rule in the WFTDA at the moment, so I won't bother glossing over it again. But as I explain how the old-style pivot used to be able to really affect the game, I hope you'll start to understand a bit more about why I feel the way I do about it. The Pullaway and Importance of the Pivot Derby used to have a defensive tactic called the pullaway. You may have heard of it before. The closest modern equivalent to it today is racing the pack. While the basic reason for doing it is the same (to get away from the other team’s jammer) the circumstances under which a pullaway happens makes it much harder for the chasing team to stop it and score. The first half of this video demonstrates the pullaway perfectly, so please watch it first. Keep a close eye out for the yellow pivot, who is wearing a black helmet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7unIaO1B-SE Again, ignoring the fact that the pack just let everyone by without much effort (to a degree), once the yellow team’s pivot got out to the front the other yellow blockers, they immediately became the pack because of the location of their pivot. (If the yellow pivot goes out on her own she becomes a jammer, and if one or two yellow blockers stay hung up behind the orange blockers, they’ll be completely outnumbered and will get scored upon easily. So this only works if everyone goes at once.) Although the orange pivot is still in the pack, they can’t just sit there and do nothing, because then they’ll never be able to help their jammer score. So they chase. Notice that the yellow pivot is third in line. This is important, because if the orange blockers manage to slow down the yellow pivot then they pullaway fails and the pack will have to slow down again. In this example, the other team was able to catch up and use a combination of blocking and whipping to allow their jammer to gain enough steam to catch back up to the skaters going away. You’ll notice that the jammer was barely able to get by the yellow pivot after that double-whip; while she could have probably gotten those other two blocker points in front of her she was out of gas as the jam had ended. Still, they would have been out of play and eventually been free points if there was time left in the jam. Now the bigger picture: After the jammers got out of the pack, what’s actually happening within the pack is that teams are fighting to make sure the other team’s pivot doesn’t get away from them. This was vitally important when one team had the only jammer (or jammers) out front. That forced the team with the jammers to prevent the pivot from getting out at all costs. In other words, blockers were always blocking and fighting for position within the pack in order to prevent the other team’s pivot from getting to the front or help get their pivot to the front—the exact same thing blockers do on jammers. By extension, that’s why they also had the ability to become a jammer if they chose to do so. The WFTDA Pivot Before I comment on the OSDA’s modern version of derby rules, let me again comment on the WFTDA ruleset, particularly in regards to the pivot position. Right now, there are only three things that differentiate a pivot from a regular pack blocker: 1) Pivots start on the pivot line, and all other blockers must start behind them 2) Pivots are given penalties when no specific pack skater can be singled out for a general pack penalty 3) Pivots can become a jammer after a star pass But really, any one of the four blockers could do any one of those things, it’s just the one who wears the stripe on the helmet that is picked to be that person. Jammers, on the other hand, are a true specialized position that require a lot of skill to be effective at. Everyone can be a blocker, but not everyone can be a super good-blocker. Anyone can jam, but not everyone can be a super-good jammer. So what if you have someone who's super-good at both? OSDA vs. WFTDA What I want to see, and what the OSDA is trying to do, is bring back the specialized skill of a pivot, who can both pack block and jam and be a leader, all during the same jam if need be. That way, the super-good blocker and the super-good jammer can be both; one or the other when needed. The OSDA pivot rules makes it so both teams have an opportunity to score at any given time is always exciting for the fans. OSDA rules also require that teams field a minimum of three skaters at the start of a jam: One jammer, one pivot, and at least one blocker. That means that a skater is penalized and not the position; if a jammer or pivot is in the box after a jam is over, they stay in the box and the team stays a man down, but the star or stripe goes to another player at the start of the next jam. OSDA rules, oh-by-the-way, also have a drop-dead easy pack definition rule: “The pack is made up of the majority of skaters skating together and is designated by the pack ref.” I would also like to see this in the WFTDA, obviously. In doing it this way, it bridges a nice compromise between the authoritative control a single pivot has over how fast or slow the pack goes, and little to no control a team really has over pack speed in the WFTDA as we know it now. It would also allow for the pullaway to happen if a penalized team managed to let the other team slip through, and also allow power jams to still matter without them being totally unfair to the team with equal or superior pack numbers without the jammer. Admittedly, I have yet to see an OSDA game. (Do you guys stream them or have archived games?) However, I'm skating for a league that will (eventually) have rules much within the same vein. If you've seen Jerry Seltzer's comments about Penn-Jersey out east and Cliff Butler and Blade out west, I'm currently being coached by Butler and Blade. You may not have heard of Blade, but if you've seen Whip It then you know coach Razor; the character was based on Blade. And as for Cliff Butler? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX4qj9idf94 Need a little exciiiitement? Snap into a slim jim! Ohhhhhhhh yeeeeeeeeeeeah! ODC posted:Having watched both quite a bit, I like OSDA more. Single whistle starts the pack and the jammers. Lead changes. Plus OSDA have co-ed and banked track rules. Just more exciting in my opinion. "Exciting" is the key word here. If you guys think WFTDA is exciting, it is—but roller derby was born to be 10 times more exciting and entertaining then I've seen in the WFTDA. While the WFTDA is a fantastic organization, and I will love them forever for bringing back roller derby, they're never going to be the premiere organization for top-tier roller derby. They were never designed to be. They're there to make things fair and accessible for everyone. That's fine, but that also means the rules are compromised to ensure that's the case. Dominion, what you mentioned earlier about Oly's skaters being fast also applies to this topic. If you feel that Oly (or Gotham, or Rocky, or Texas, or whoever) skaters would be too fast for anyone to catch up to them, what the hell does that matter? If a wide reciever outruns a cornerback or safety in a football game, the defense doesn't cite a rule that requires the offense and defense be within a certain range of each other. That rule doesn't exist! Why should it? By denying individuals or teams with superior atheletic ability the chance to use it, you're stifiling the growth of the sport as a whole, for both other skaters and the paying customer. This also goes back to the discussion we had earlier on the difference between recreational, amateur, and professional levels of sports. If a team is good enough to crush the competition all over the place, then maybe the competition isn't good enough. Some WFTDA teams may be starting to show this; Rocky Mountain is probably the best example. Whether or not changing the WFTDA rules or making a new WFTDA division or even if maybe Rocky (or any future team) has outgrown the skill of the WFTDA are all things to consider, but not the subject of I'm looking to discuss in full at this point. The OSDA and my league and others are the first that want to create the new professional derby. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that we're wanting to bring derby back to the way it's always been, just 100% legit. I'm so adamant about it things like changing rules and the slow derby sucks people are so vocal about it because we know what's missing from modern derby. More importantly, most of you guys don't know what you're missing. Hence me writing twenty books about rule changes in this thread. Anyway, I hope this helps you guys understand things more than before. Be thankful I have little else to do at work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
Has anyone in here skated in Bont quad boots or a full custom fit Riedell? My 126's are still on their way, but with my foot problems and the podiatrist likely telling me that I need orthotics on Tuesday, I've been considering getting either a full custom Riedell (probably 965) or a full custom Bont Quad Racer Carbon (heat moldable). The cost of orthotics would be $300-$400 on it's own (insurance probably won't cover), so I figure $500 for a full custom boot would be nicer than spending $300-$400 on a custom orthotic that would only ever fit in a size 12 126.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 03:09
|
|
|
Custom orthotics will fit pretty much any shoe of a certain size. Unless you're being promised something that will be molded to a particular shoe or skate. I know this both because I have worn custom orthotics my whole life and by an odd string of luck, my Mom makes them and has been doing so for 33 years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 11:12
|
|
|
ODC posted:Custom orthotics will fit pretty much any shoe of a certain size. Unless you're being promised something that will be molded to a particular shoe or skate. I was more looking to avoid the cost of the orthotics by getting a full custom boot instead. The podiatrist said that they would need to take my skates to get the orthotic fit to the boot as well, and she specifically said it wouldn't fit in anything else. I've had trouble getting insoles that fit in my R3's properly, but my R3's are crap and just about a whole size too big. Regardless of that, most commercial insoles' arches don't mate up with the boot properly and result in a large blister near the top of my arch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 06:19
|
|
|
Mr. Powers posted:I was more looking to avoid the cost of the orthotics by getting a full custom boot instead. The podiatrist said that they would need to take my skates to get the orthotic fit to the boot as well, and she specifically said it wouldn't fit in anything else. I don't want to bring silly Ortho chat into the Derby thread, so I'll PM you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 11:30
|
|
|
Mr. Powers posted:I've had trouble getting insoles that fit in my R3's properly, but my R3's are crap and just about a whole size too big. Regardless of that, most commercial insoles' arches don't mate up with the boot properly and result in a large blister near the top of my arch. Let me know what you find out, because every time I use my orthotics I get a gigantic blister in this same area on my right foot that doesn't seal for at least 8 weeks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 14:46
|
|
|
Aericina posted:Let me know what you find out, because every time I use my orthotics I get a gigantic blister in this same area on my right foot that doesn't seal for at least 8 weeks. How are you breaking them in (the orthotics)? Given the level activity in the skate. You may want to only use them while warming up your first few practices and then gradually increase the time you're in them as you get used to them. It is going to change where your feet put pressure and therefore will blister if you just go full bore. Even if they are the same orthotics from your normal, everyday shoes, skating changes where you put your weight and therefore requires a separate adjustment period.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 15:35
|
|
|
http://wftda.com/news/wftda-no-minors-beta-testing Someone please tell me this is a late april-fools. In all seriousness though,  "Hey referees, you know the sliding scale definition of impact you developed? SURPRISE!" I really don't see this ending well when the next step down from a major is no penalty, especially for those tricky calls. What I've learned is if in doubt you should call it down, Major->Minor, Minor->No penalty. And in general, when you make a 'wrong' call, it's better to have called it down than called it up. I don't imagine some skaters would be happy with the impact on safety this may have, especially when that skinny blocker from the other team keeps jabbing their elbow into their side. But I'm being bitter and pesismistic, I'll reserve judgement until I see how these beta tests go. Spookydonut fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Apr 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 17:17
|
|
|
ODC posted:How are you breaking them in (the orthotics)? Given the level activity in the skate. You may want to only use them while warming up your first few practices and then gradually increase the time you're in them as you get used to them. It is going to change where your feet put pressure and therefore will blister if you just go full bore. Oh I've definitely learned this the hard way. I have a pair of those Dr. Scholl's machine identified orthotics that I bought about 1.5 years ago, and while they're awesome for every day use, exercising and referring, drills and constant weight changing has given me a blister started at warm up laps in skates. If I don't wear them, I get really bad knee and hamstring pain from over pronating, so I feel like I'm a no-win situation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 17:21
|
|
|
Spookydonut posted:http://wftda.com/news/wftda-no-minors-beta-testing This is what we were alluding to a few pages ago, but now that it's public knowledge, I can definitively say it's not. A few leagues have tried it non-sanctioned with mixed results.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 17:22
|
|
|
Spookydonut posted:http://wftda.com/news/wftda-no-minors-beta-testing So what rules do you like? You laugh at OSDA and other banked track rules, but you also scoff at this. I'm just wondering where you're coming from. I see merit in all of them, honestly. To me its the difference between watching Arena league, Canadian Football and the NFL. All of the rules are different but they're still all fun to watch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 17:37
|
|
|
Spookydonut posted:http://wftda.com/news/wftda-no-minors-beta-testing If you see something that you think may have been a major but know it was a minor, call it a minor. If you see something you think may have been a minor, don't call it. If you see something that may have been a major, but you're not sure it was actually a penalty, don't call it. In other words, you should only be calling penalties you can stand behind and say "yes, I saw this happen and it was a major" or "yes, I saw this happen and it was a minor." You should not downgrade somethin you thought might be a major to a minor because you're not sure it was a major unless you're sure it was a minor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 17:52
|
|
|
Mr. Powers posted:If you see something that you think may have been a major but know it was a minor, call it a minor. If you see something you think may have been a minor, don't call it. If you see something that may have been a major, but you're not sure it was actually a penalty, don't call it. I don't mean downgrading the call, I mean when you slot it into your scale of impact (every referee should have a scale), if it doesn't meet the criteria for a particular penalty. So for example a minor backblock. The receiving skater is a bit wobbly afterwards, but stays in bounds without falling. It might have been a really heavy hit with the crowd gasping and the bench yelling, but in my scale of impact that's still a minor penalty. In a ruleset with or without minors, that interaction, 9 times out of 10, isn't safe. My concern about removing minors is safety, first and foremost. Mr. Powers posted:In other words, you should only be calling penalties you can stand behind and say "yes, I saw this happen and it was a major" or "yes, I saw this happen and it was a minor." You should not downgrade somethin you thought might be a major to a minor because you're not sure it was a major unless you're sure it was a minor. And that's what I'm saying too. "I saw this happen and called it a minor. While it may have seemed like it deserved a Major, it did not meet the criteria/impact for a Major, but clearly met the criteria for being called a Minor." ODC posted:So what rules do you like? You laugh at OSDA and other banked track rules, but you also scoff at this. I'm just wondering where you're coming from. I see OSDA rules as very similar to early WFTDA rules, more as a guideline for "this is what you can do when playing", as opposed to the current WFTDA rules which are "don't do these things". As for banked track, there are a lot of things they have just been quite silly about. For example, their outside stationary referees (which WFTDA tried and found ineffective), their lack of a penalty relay/tracking system for said outside referees (WFTDA has a pretty good system they wouldn't mind copied). To me, the whole thing reeks of "SCREW EVERYONE ELSE, WE'RE GOING TO DO THINGS OUR OWN WAY" -> "we don't need to learn from the experience of others"
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 18:45
|
|
|
Spookydonut posted:http://wftda.com/news/wftda-no-minors-beta-testing I first heard about this from our A-team's bench manager about two months ago. I thought it was pretty stupid. I think I still do. I'll have to see how they feel about it, since the SCDD is one of the teams participating in the beta test.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 19:26
|
|
|
Spookydonut posted:
OSDA rules ARE similar to early WFTDA rules, on purpose. That's why it's called Old School Derby. They think it was better before, for skaters, for fans, and for refs. The current WFTDA ruleset is TOO COMPLICATED. It requires too many officials with too much training who are too good at what they do for it to be feasible at the current level of the sport's growth. There simply are not enough competent referees in the world to support the number of WFTDA leagues that spring up every day. And a complicated ruleset that is officiated poorly or inconsistently is worse for everyone than a simpler ruleset that can actually be enforced properly. I think it is good that WFTDA is acknowledging that minor penalties might not make the game better and are looking at alternatives. Minor penalties make the game harder to follow, harder to play, and harder to officiate. They don't really bring anything to the table. There are of course some things that need to be adjusted if you get rid of them, and I haven't read the rules update so I don't know if it was well done, but the concept is not ridiculous. Also, just because WFTDA tried something and found it ineffective doesn't mean that it is ineffective for all variations of the sport forever and ever. Maybe stationary refs doesn't work for flat track but works fine with some modification for banked track. They aren't doing it because gently caress YOU DAD, they're doing it because they think it works better for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 11:37 |
|
|
Spookydonut posted:I don't mean downgrading the call, I mean when you slot it into your scale of impact (every referee should have a scale), if it doesn't meet the criteria for a particular penalty. Good. I thought you were suggesting that uncertainty meant downgrade rather uncertainty means don't call it. Only call what you know happened and are certain about. We agree. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 21:44
|
|