|
WindyMan posted:What do you guys think of this? I'll just present it without comment. When I watched Gotham @ Boston, they literally burned a minute of one jam at the pivot line. No one was really all that sure why, either. Both teams were down a blocker that started a penalty sentence at the end of the previous jam, so they were both sitting for a minute. I guess neither team felt they could do very well without that fourth blocker? I imagine Gotham was just stalling the game, though, since they were up by a sizable margin.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 07:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
Mr. Powers posted:So, maybe just removing minors without actually addressing the rest of the issues with the rules is a bad idea? I think the no minors ruleset went very well. The situation that happened in charm-windy isn't a reason to scrap an otherwise better plan than what we have now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 15:25
|
|
|
Dominion posted:I think the no minors ruleset went very well. The situation that happened in charm-windy isn't a reason to scrap an otherwise better plan than what we have now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 15:58
|
|
|
The loophole still existed before this this. It was just everyone got a minor instead of 1 person getting a major. It was arguably BETTER to do before.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 16:01
|
|
|
Dominion posted:The loophole still existed before this this. It was just everyone got a minor instead of 1 person getting a major. It was arguably BETTER to do before.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 16:04
|
|
|
I was just trying to say that simply removing minors and shuffling what were minors to major/no impact won't solve all the problems. It's really just a beta of what we have no, minus the minors. I'd be more interested in seeing beta tests of a comprehensive rules change that addresses a lot of the big complaints. I didn't really see a lot of complaining about minors from WFTDA-associated skaters, mostly from outside, but then again I wasn't looking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
Mr. Powers posted:I was just trying to say that simply removing minors and shuffling what were minors to major/no impact won't solve all the problems. It's really just a beta of what we have no, minus the minors. I'd be more interested in seeing beta tests of a comprehensive rules change that addresses a lot of the big complaints. I didn't really see a lot of complaining about minors from WFTDA-associated skaters, mostly from outside, but then again I wasn't looking. It totally won't solve all the problems. But I don't think it was ever intended to. It was intended to remove some of the problems that minor penalties themselves have, like making the sport more complicated for fans, making it harder to officiate, creating a lot of intentional foul situations, etc. I'm of the opinion that if something is no-impact then why are you penalizing it? If it's bad enough to affect the game it's a major. I think a shift to no-majors would be about as big a rules change all at once as I would ever expect an organization like WFTDA to make. I'm sure we could all come up with our greatest dream rules set, but it would never make it out of committee, so to speak. Another tiny positive side effect of the no-minors that I noticed is that it eliminates the need to have a big whiteboard and someone using it in the inside track, which frees up a lot of space for refs to move around in there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 00:58
|
|
|
Dominion posted:Another tiny positive side effect of the no-minors that I noticed is that it eliminates the need to have a big whiteboard and someone using it in the inside track, which frees up a lot of space for refs to move around in there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 01:18
|
|
|
Taking another look at the no minors rule set, this really needs to be a rewrite of the penalties section rather than just some copy/paste movement. Also, the penalty for some things is inconsistent. Assisting a skater while out of play, so long as it doesn't improve her relative position, is not penalized. The same with improvement of position is a major. This makes sense. Assisting a skater while in play, but stepping or skating clockwise regardless of position improvement is a major (and part of the need for a rewrite is that this section is needlessly wordy, listing out individually both with and without improvement of position). You can't give much of an assist while moving in the opposite direction, but if you do, regardless of outcome, it's a major? Additionally, I've seen what happens if you don't have outside coverage from the refs. The skaters know when they can push the boundaries of what's a penalty and what's not, and I guess that puts me in the "messier game" camp. I know a lot of the forearm and elbow penalties I give out during our bouts have become NI/NP. Those hits will be more frequent, but I guess we'll probably see more majors in those categories, since there's more opportunity for the illegal block to be successful. I don't think anyone can make claims about safety being the reason for most of these penalties anymore (though, I didn't think that could really be claimed under the current rules, either). I still plan to give this rule set a try, but I doubt I'll vote one way or another in the league or on RefCom. I don't care much about what the rules say as long as they're clear, and right now, they're really not. If they introduce a rule set that patches the wording issues and redundancies and incorporates all the current clarifications, I'd vote in favor, otherwise abstain. The beta rules didn't even fix the High Block/Misconduct paradox. According to the penalties High Block and Misconduct, hitting someone with initial contact above the shoulders could be both. According to the standard procedures (appendix A), Misconduct calls should take precedence over illegal target zone penalties, so Misconduct should be called. In reality, High Block should be called.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 06:53
|
|
|
Mr. Powers posted:Taking another look at the no minors rule set, this really needs to be a rewrite of the penalties section rather than just some copy/paste movement. Also, the penalty for some things is inconsistent. I think the high block/misconduct thing is intended to be applied to like, punching someone in the face on purpose. That's clearly a misconduct, though by the letter of the rules it's a high block. It should be a misconduct though. That's just a ref judgement call. Also, I have no problem at all with elbows and forearms that cause no impact not being penalties. They don't impact the game at all, so why should they be illegal? If you elbow someone or forearm them and it impacts the game, its a penalty. If not, it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 15:28
|
|
|
Hey, cool, we're in MRDA now. Go us. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
downtimejesus posted:I don't think we can say that OH GOD LOOPHOLE counteracted the no-minors ruleset, since yeah, the game went a lot smoother overall. It was kinda cool being able to hear the trackside announcers over the stream announcers because it wasn't all *TWEET TWEET* "LEAD JA-" *TWEET TWEET TWEET* "-MMER" *TWEET TWEET*. Also, when players had to go to the box, since there were less calls overall, they knew they had to go to the box when a whistle happened, since there weren't any whistles for minors. Like, a whistle actually meant something, and you should pay attention, not a whistle happened, let me ignore it in the whitenoise. I'm not really a fan of the escalation of minor track cuts into automatic box trips especially with blockers being able to dick around and skate backwards to make a jammer come in 10 feet behind the pack, but I can see WHY it needs to be that way in this ruleset. To be fair, you shouldn't be blowing whistles if it's just a minor. A fourth minor, yes, but that's a signal to go to the box--just like a major. If you're hearing whistles for first-through-third minors, then they're doing it wrong. (WFTDA, 26-May-2010, #2.9)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 18:15
|
|
|
Thought I'd ask if anyone here is looking at MADE rules? We're now the Central Florida rep for them. We're still working on getting set up as ODSA officially, though its more an administrative thing following through than anything else. You can find the rule stuff at https://www.skatemade.org. Only five pages of rules. Mega Shark fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Jun 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 18:16
|
|
|
The no-start jams thing has finally reached it's zenith: During the Gotham-Philly game at ECDX, there was an entire 2-minute jam in which no one crossed the pivot line, and thus the jammers were never released.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 19:46
|
|
|
Dominion posted:The no-start jams thing has finally reached it's zenith: During the Gotham-Philly game at ECDX, there was an entire 2-minute jam in which no one crossed the pivot line, and thus the jammers were never released. I think it would be a lot different if (A) people were penalized for not moving at some point once the main whistle started, and/or (B) the Jammers were released at the same time as the pack. Do we know why there's that separation? From what I've read of the MADE (just skimmed a few hours ago) and the OSDA (which I, admittedly, haven't read in a couple years), they both are released at the same time?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 20:15
|
|
|
Ria posted:I think it would be a lot different if (A) people were penalized for not moving at some point once the main whistle started, and/or (B) the Jammers were released at the same time as the pack. Well, technically, there already ARE rules against standing still - or rather, against blocking while stationary, including positional blocking. So you can't get in anyone's way unless you are moving forward or laterally. But that leaves a lot of room for people to shuffle around and jockey for position without the pack crossing the pivot line. To your second question, yes, OSDA only has one whistle, and I haven't read the MADE rules.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
Dominion posted:The no-start jams thing has finally reached it's zenith: During the Gotham-Philly game at ECDX, there was an entire 2-minute jam in which no one crossed the pivot line, and thus the jammers were never released.  As much as seeing and hearing about that sort of nonsense makes me feel like wanting to literally do that to myself, I'm hopeful that people are starting to realize that there's a difference between "how do the current rules explain this so we can correctly call it if it happens again," and, "this is happening because the current rules don't work, so the rules need to be changed." I'm in the second boat, obviously. The Windy/Charm no-pack start and the Gotham/Philly no-jam not-start are perfect examples of why the WFTDA rulebook has so many holes in it, a few "rules clarifications" won't be enough to patch it up. WFTDA, please update the rules, and do it quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
Dominion posted:Well, technically, there already ARE rules against standing still - or rather, against blocking while stationary, including positional blocking. So you can't get in anyone's way unless you are moving forward or laterally. But that leaves a lot of room for people to shuffle around and jockey for position without the pack crossing the pivot line. Yeah, I mean, I know the direction of play stuff. That's fine. But that doesn't stop them from going "Herp... Derp... Welp." for a full two minutes. If they actually sat for two solid minutes, that's crap. I'm not usually a big one for "THE RULES NEED TO CHANGE" but I'm pretty similar to Windy with regards to the stopping crap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 21:08
|
|
|
Ria posted:Yeah, I mean, I know the direction of play stuff. That's fine. But that doesn't stop them from going "Herp... Derp... Welp." for a full two minutes. If they actually sat for two solid minutes, that's crap. I'm not usually a big one for "THE RULES NEED TO CHANGE" but I'm pretty similar to Windy with regards to the stopping crap. Yeah, so am I. I hate no-starts. I have no problem at all with knee-starts though, because at least those start the action faster. I cannot imagine how much booing there must have been during that 2 minutes of not playing derby.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
Dominion posted:Yeah, so am I. I hate no-starts. I have no problem at all with knee-starts though, because at least those start the action faster. I cannot imagine how much booing there must have been during that 2 minutes of not playing derby. http://www.derbynewsnetwork.com/2011/06/ecdx_gotham_trounces_philly_267_34 Third jam into the game. If I was a regular derby fan still, I would've been booing like crazy. I mean, it's rules-ok, but the "poodling" crap, and the "take a knee" and "super delayed starts" thing just... I dunno, rubs me the wrooong way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
Ria posted:http://www.derbynewsnetwork.com/2011/06/ecdx_gotham_trounces_philly_267_34 The only one of those that bothers me is the no-start. Intentional technical fouls are part of many sports so poodling doesn't bother me at all (except that it involves minors which I am now totally on the no-minors bandwagon). Knee-starts make the game faster and while it's a dumb ruling that causes them to be legal, I don't really have any ideological problem with them from the perspective of damaging the sport. No-starts just piss off your fans and make them sit through 30-120 seconds of not sports.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
Dominion posted:The only one of those that bothers me is the no-start. Intentional technical fouls are part of many sports so poodling doesn't bother me at all (except that it involves minors which I am now totally on the no-minors bandwagon). Knee-starts make the game faster and while it's a dumb ruling that causes them to be legal, I don't really have any ideological problem with them from the perspective of damaging the sport. No-starts just piss off your fans and make them sit through 30-120 seconds of not sports. Well, yeah, all of those are "working as intended" and/or "legal" when thinking of the legality of it, and I don't have any problem with that. But the whole "I'm just going to sit there hurp no pack formation hurp let's just dick around" kind of mentality that, as a fan first, and a ref second, I really don't like it. I'll still call it as it is rule-set wise, though. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 22:04
|
|
|
Dominion posted:The no-start jams thing has finally reached it's zenith: During the Gotham-Philly game at ECDX, there was an entire 2-minute jam in which no one crossed the pivot line, and thus the jammers were never released.  . Though honestly, I'm not surprised that Philly was one of the involved parties.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 03:42
|
|
|
WindyMan posted:How do you figure that leagues are able to afford to rent/lease dedicated practice spaces for their skaters? If the league wants to play a game in front of an audience, where is the money going to come from to pay for the place to play, the necessary insurance, the EMTs, the concessions, and so on? What if you have a team that wants to travel to play interleague? Something has to pay for all that travel. You misread my sarcasm. If the skaters want to play like this though, I say we let them. Maybe once their bouts start losing attendance they might change their mind. But if skaters are playing the game the way they want and still making enough money to support it why change things? Mr. Powers posted:The beta rules didn't even fix the High Block/Misconduct paradox. According to the penalties High Block and Misconduct, hitting someone with initial contact above the shoulders could be both. According to the standard procedures (appendix A), Misconduct calls should take precedence over illegal target zone penalties, so Misconduct should be called. In reality, High Block should be called. This should usually be called as a high-block, so the receiving skater knows it was seen. Spookydonut fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Jun 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 06:55
|
|
|
Spookydonut posted:YIf the skaters want to play like this though, I say we let them. Maybe once their bouts start losing attendance they might change their mind. But if skaters are playing the game the way they want and still making enough money to support it why change things? But from the little I know leagues are constantly wanting more attendance so they make more money so the skaters don't have to spend as much on traveling/other derby expenses. So it stands to reason that changing the rules to make the sport more fun to watch is in the majority of the skaters best interests.* *Of course this is all anecdotal/my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 07:11
|
|
|
Totally TWISTED posted:Well I suppose if the skaters would rather play under the current rules, which I think we can agree is probably not the best for raising the number of paying fans for derby, than hey fine. I agree it's probably in their best interests, but unless they realise this themselves not much will change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 07:39
|
|
|
Spookydonut posted:I agree it's probably in their best interests, but unless they realise this themselves not much will change. Hear, hear. I was noticing this--they are playing the way they want to play. Something I've noticed in men's derby is that they still like the "SKATE FAST, TURN LEFT, HIT A BITCH" mentality that started on the women's side. The women want to play a more cerebral game, and that's, I guess, their prerogative, but it's still kind of boring to watch. I wonder if co-ed leagues would have a better time of it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 15:02
|
|
|
Ria posted:Hear, hear. I was noticing this--they are playing the way they want to play. Something I've noticed in men's derby is that they still like the "SKATE FAST, TURN LEFT, HIT A BITCH" mentality that started on the women's side. The women want to play a more cerebral game, and that's, I guess, their prerogative, but it's still kind of boring to watch. I like a more cerebral game, and I don't think it's boring at all, until we get the point (where we are now) where sometimes the most cerebral thing is to just stand there. I really prefer slow derby to fast, I think it's a deeper game and more fun to watch. But stop derby is not fun for anyone, be it players, refs, or fans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 15:55
|
|
|
ODC posted:Thought I'd ask if anyone here is looking at MADE rules? We're now the Central Florida rep for them. We're still working on getting set up as ODSA officially, though its more an administrative thing following through than anything else. MADE needs better spokespeople. They had some skaters posting in the comments of an article about whistles or minors and somesuch, and all of them were posting about how the rules are awesome because the rules are only four pages (I see they've grown). When pressed, they wouldn't send the rules or tell anyone about anything, except how great it was and how many people are involved (but they can't tell you who). They emailed the rules to one person who reviewed them and described them as rules for "pick up derby" (not meant in a bad way) whereas WFTDA is trying to keep officiating consistent globally. Basically, they were being supremely annoying. You're just passing through MADE on the way to OSDA? Good choice, in my opinion. Dominion posted:I think the high block/misconduct thing is intended to be applied to like, punching someone in the face on purpose. That's clearly a misconduct, though by the letter of the rules it's a high block. It should be a misconduct though. That's just a ref judgement call. It isn't meant to be anything. Formerly, many of the penalties were under misconduct. There is an identical rule under misconduct and high block. It is a mistake that it's in there, and the way posts on the WFTDA boards say to call it (high block) runs counter to the published WFTDA documents. I don't have a problem with the non-impacting penalties not being called as penalties, but a lot of people tout that the penalties are there for safety. They aren't. If they were there for safety, you'd get called for the action regardless of impact to the receiving skater. carticket fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Jun 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2011 04:56
|
|
|
Mr. Powers posted:MADE needs better spokespeople. They had some skaters posting in the comments of an article about whistles or minors and somesuch, and all of them were posting about how the rules are awesome because the rules are only four pages (I see they've grown). When pressed, they wouldn't send the rules or tell anyone about anything, except how great it was and how many people are involved (but they can't tell you who). They emailed the rules to one person who reviewed them and described them as rules for "pick up derby" (not meant in a bad way) whereas WFTDA is trying to keep officiating consistent globally. We're going to be both. As a Co-ed league competition is already limited. We feel that as long as we are using a few rule sets we'll be ready to play anyone. This is especially important right now while we are growing. As one of the few people who is actually on the owner board for MADE, I can tell you that I have no idea who is posting on those articles. As per the concept of it being for "pick up derby", I guess that could be on way to look at it, but that honestly isn't the goal. We haven't played a MADE game yet, so until I do I'll reserve my opinion on how it plays. That being said, I don't see why the rules being small would necessarily make it any less consistent on a broader stage. The annoying thing I totally get. It reminds me of the people here who immediately dismiss OSDA when they haven't even looked at the rules. I promise to post a "trip report" immediately following our first MADE game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2011 12:12
|
|
|
WindyMan, the Charm/Windy hosed up start was called wrong. The blue jammer shouldn't have earned lead until she passed the blue blockers as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2011 15:01
|
|
|
Mr. Powers posted:WindyMan, the Charm/Windy hosed up start was called wrong. The blue jammer shouldn't have earned lead until she passed the blue blockers as well. I've come to understand that after the fact. Regardless, the moment the Windy jammer cleared the Charm blockers, her getting the lead jammer call was a foregone conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2011 16:47
|
|
|
I think now that we're having a stretch of good days in the NEPA/NJ area, I want to break out the outdoor wheels. Time to see if I can't get some exercise. Wahoo (hopefully I don't die). Also, unrelated note: Have you noticed that it's sometimes more fun to skate with the fresh meat than with the "veteran" skaters? Maybe it's just the revelry about the sport without all the jaded memories of years of drama, but they just seem to have more "fun" (loaded word, but I can't think of a better one at the moment) than some of the "older" girls do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2011 19:30
|
|
|
Ria posted:I think now that we're having a stretch of good days in the NEPA/NJ area, I want to break out the outdoor wheels. Time to see if I can't get some exercise. There's a sweet spot, or rather an anti-sweet spot. Fresh meat girls have fun skating. Retired or super-long vets also have fun. It's the vets in the middle, the contenders, who don't have fun anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2011 19:40
|
|
|
Dominion posted:There's a sweet spot, or rather an anti-sweet spot. Fresh meat girls have fun skating. Retired or super-long vets also have fun. It's the vets in the middle, the contenders, who don't have fun anymore. See, that's why I am loathe to use the term "fun" since it's kind of loaded. "Fun" for us might be skating, smiling, having fun and kickin' butt. But that "middle group" has fun but they're more "it's fun 'cause we're winning," and I don't mind 'cause who am I to judge what they consider fun? I just hate it when they look and act miserable during practice or games when they're not winning, mainly 'cause I'm a people person and I hate seeing any of the girls miserable in this atmosphere. But I digress. Anyway, any cool news on the derby circuit? Also: Why did they rename ECE to ECDX? I could've sworn it was called ECE when I went a few years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2011 19:44
|
|
|
Ria posted:Also: Why did they rename ECE to ECDX? I could've sworn it was called ECE when I went a few years ago. I've always thought it was one or the other interchangeably. ECE, ECDX, same difference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
WindyMan posted:I've always thought it was one or the other interchangeably. ECE, ECDX, same difference. It basically is, but this year they changed it "officially" from ECE to ECDX. As in, their own promo materials referred to it that way, etc. No idea why.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
Hi people! there's a league in my city here in central Mexico that I've wanted to join since I found out. Well, today I finally got my skates and equipment and I'll probably start training tomorrow. I'm very happy, and I'll be following this thread from now on. It's weird that I didn't look for it before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2011 06:17
|
|
|
Awesome! Have fun! I skate with the Beach Brawl SK8R Dolls out of Fort Walton Beach, FL. We're currently vying for a spot at the Southern Belle Ringer tournament. Any other Derby South skaters here?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
Anyone else goig to be at the WFTDA ref clinic this weekend in Boston? How about anyone coming to Roller Consolation in NH later this month?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 18:01
|
|