great header photo!

I would LOVE to discuss the end of the Swarm/Sirens bout with anyone on the LADD and/or WORD rule making committee. Any takers? I wanna get a little dialogue going on about how blocker-on-jammer crime is still, evidently, not factored into the LJM rule… I want to be fully educated on the current LADD and WORD ruleset regarding the LJM rule BEFORE I throw my fucking tantrum in a public forum =)

@TheBareMaximum – I hear that.

@Error404
If you saw the OT jam in the bout I am referring to, then you know exactly why I need to talk with someone who has pull with or is on the LADD and/or WORD rule committee. Again, I want to be sure I am fully in the know regarding the LJM rule regarding the LADD as on the offseason there may have been some change to it that I am unaware of. Whether the rule was adjusted or not adjusted is the basis for two possible very different and valid reasons as to why I am fuming pissed off =) please, someone respond…

Left an extensive comment on the DNN archive page for the bout in question, to see the bout replay you have to go through justintv or follow some links through the LADD or SDDD website to get there.

here is what I posted on DNN:
“What appeared readily obvious (watch the slo-mo replay) was that in the OT jam, which is played by LJM rules, Kiki Diazz, the Swarm jammer, was hit by the Siren blocker from behind, both high with the elbow and low with the leg of the blocker as she flew threw the air at great speed and subsequently knocked Kiki into the infield, luckily not injuring her. In the chaos of the end of the bout, I never saw if a penalty was called. But does it matter??? The way the LJM rule is structured, to my understanding, blockers can assault jammers as much as they want and it does not cost the blocker’s team the ability to score, am I correct? Is the rule STILL set up like that??? Is it seriously still OK in the rules for a blocker to ‘take out’ the opposing jammer like that and still be able to score points?

All I am asking, in the name of fairness and safety, is that the LJM rule be changed to make it that crimes against jammers result in a no-point situation for the offending team just as crimes by the jammer result in a no-point situation for the offending team. Is this unreasonable?

Lets think of the obvious reason why this needs to be implemented… one of these days, the team that got the ‘douchebag’ treatment is going to RETALIATE! Has this not crossed anyone’s mind? Would you have blamed a Swarm blocker if she treated the Siren jammer the same way after Kiki got mauled? And all it would have done was ended the jam as time expired or allowed time for Kiki to get out of the pack and score and call it. The rule has created a situation where egregious penalties will continue to occur on jammers and has primed the pump for ‘douchebaggery’ to be met with ‘douchebaggery’. It is insane to let this continue.

Fix this before someone gets hurt. Fix this before full scale brawls occur. Fix this in the interest of fairness.
(steps off soapbox)

Again, I would love to discuss this. I am willing to look stupid (obviously, heh!), if I am wrong then someone correct me on this and give me a better solution. Please. I have brought this topic up before here on DNN (last summer, I believe) and got some dialogue on it, I think it is time for action and the sooner the better as BT is growing like a weed and getting a lot of attention and interest.”

BM, dude, take a smelling salt and calm down. I’ve just watched the footage and it looks like a clean hit by V Lee on Kiki.

Just because a big hit is done doesn’t make it an illegal hit. Just because your fave team lost by 1 point in an overtime jam doesn’t mean the ruleset the team lost by is faulty to the point of being unsafe.

You’re grasping at straws on this particular example.

THESE ADS MAKE BABY BUDDHA CRY!

Looks good to me. Sorry Bare.

I do hope everyone read my caveat that I am willing to look stupid, right? Thus, me trying to get some input/education on this. The case of whether it was clean or not is not the real point here, is it? THE SITUATION exists and it is so easily remedied.

Tara, fave team or not, the scenario described is a viable one. Tara, do you recall BOTB3? I was standing 15 feet away when the TL blocker accidentally back blocked the LADD jammer and knocked her down in the final jam, essentially costing the LADD the bout and a shot at the title? Btw, love your blog and Bob’s Burgers is pretty funny =)

I have spoken with a few people that were there for the Sirens/Swarm bout in question, btw, and they were under the impression that a penalty was actually called on the hit. Whether it was clean or not is difficult as hell to determine in real time by an official (or other skaters, for that matter) when giantess V comes swooping down on Kiki at great velocity, arms and legs extended and V lands BEHIND Kiki in the infield. Again, this is not the real issue. The rule itself is flawed and that is what I am trying to get at here!

Look, I like to think that 99% of LADD/SDDD skaters would honor the code of not circumventing the rules they are skating under in a distasteful manner in order to gain an advantage. The 1% being (warning: mini-tirade alert) Maiven “forgetting” how to skate in Champs back in December to the disgust of dedicated fans of BT roller derby and then ‘boo hoo’ing the Swarm fans as she stumbled by, if she had been bright red and hanging from a showerhead with a long white hose sticking out her ass she could not have looked more like a douchebag, that was just fucking awful and a true, sickening embarrassment (tirade over, sorry ’bout that, bring the kids back in the room). For the most part, this doesn’t happen, thankfully, and the honor system is awesome. But why not just make that situation less volatile by having a built in solution, especially in the case of an unintentional blocker-on-jammer penalty. It just looks bad to have a game end like that (to have people leaving talking about the controversial ending and not the bout itself) and leaves a sour taste in the mouth of the team that has to eat the loss as a result. Losing is one thing, losing under bizarre circumstances sucks ass. The current rule sets up the potential for an unfortunate situation that can be avoided so why not adjust the rule to avoid that potential situation? Penalties against jammers should weigh as much as penalties by jammers in the LJM rule creating a no-score situation for the team that committed the penalty. Does anyone disagree with this? Is this even worth discussing? I know I’m already getting bored with it, heh! Break’s over, back to the grind…

In direct response to this:

Whether it was clean or not is difficult as hell to determine in real time by an official (or other skaters, for that matter) when giantess V comes swooping down on Kiki at great velocity, arms and legs extended and V lands BEHIND Kiki in the infield.

With this:
Hits are also difficult to determine in real time by a spectator, which can often leave some spectators such as yourself with feelings that end up questioning the sport we as skaters devote so much time to. The fact that V. Lee is taller then Kiki is irrelevant in this instance since the hit in question was initiated with shoulder to shoulder contact. As athletes we learn the rules and we learn how to use the rules for our advantage, which is the same in any sport. This would also include hitting the opposition in such a manner as to propel her forward momentum to the point of getting a major cut, so the fact of where V. Lee landed and where Kiki landed is also irrelevant.

@TOOT TOOT
Totally. Absolutely. But what I am really trying to get at here is changing the LJM rule so that (whether it is in this instance or not is completely irrelevant to my argument) blocker-on-jammer crime carries the same no-point penalty that jammer crime carries. And I have no questions regarding derby, I am well aware that the fix is not in and that shit happens and that these girls are amazing. Like I said, I am pretty sure she actually was called for a penalty which is why I am bringing up the proposed adjustment to the LJM rule, word?
LET US NOT FORGET… The rule did not exist at all until certain jammers would take certain liberties in certain last jams knowing for certain that there would be no real repercussions, thus, the creation of the LJM rule. If the rule already acknowledges that shenanigans can and do occur in the high pressure last jam scenario, why stop at the jammers when writing the rule? Rabble, rabble, rabble, dammit! =)

I was the Bench Coach for this game for the Sirens. VLee was called for an Above the Shoulders in the last jam of the game therefore becoming a ghost point for the entire jam. This means as soon as one opposing blocker from the Sirens was passed, that point on V is already earned. Granted, earning that one point becomes more difficult when there’s only 2 blockers in the pack.

I can’t tell you for sure when it was assessed in the jam, but when I watch the jam back, both hits look clean to me. The one on Kiki was a block to the infield that on Justin looks legal, and the one on Crush in the back of the pack also looks legal to get the last point.

Obviously, what the refs saw being 5 feet away is completely different then what any of us can see either from the stands or from a camera 30 feet+ away.

It does suck that people walked away from this game only focusing on what happened in the last 3 jams – which were all played by last jam majors. Because both teams played well and played hard. There is more to a game then the last jam.

“It does suck that people walked away from this game only focusing on what happened in the last 3 jams – which were all played by last jam majors. Because both teams played well and played hard. There is more to a game then the last jam.”

God…I could not agree with this sentence more. I want to tattoo it on my face.

TheBareMaximum :

LET US NOT FORGET… The rule did not exist at all until certain jammers would take certain liberties in certain last jams knowing for certain that there would be no real repercussions, thus, the creation of the LJM rule. If the rule already acknowledges that shenanigans can and do occur in the high pressure last jam scenario, why stop at the jammers when writing the rule? Rabble, rabble, rabble, dammit! =)

Dude, you have no idea what you’re talking about. There’s been a LJM rule since the first BotB. Not as a result of shenanigans.

@Lace N’ Arsenic
Thanks for the up-close-and personal vantage point input, Lace, it is much appreciated. While the ghost point thing is great, it only works if the jammer manages to get out of the pack and, in many situations, still leaves her at a major disadvantage to becoming lead jammer. The point I am trying to make here is that whether or not V’s hit was clean or not is completely meaningless because she doesn’t have to use any restraint at all when blowing the jammer up (or just inhibiting her skating in anyway possible, like holding) because it does not effect her team’s ability to score points if she is penalized and the damage is already done to the jammer’s chances of getting out, getting lead, getting points and calling it.

I am a lifelong athlete, hockey and soccer and weight-training, still am, and I am well-aware that there are two schools of thought when it comes to winning: win at any cost and do the right thing. It is quite possible to be enrolled in both those schools and not even know it! When the pressure is on and victory is just within grasp things can happen, it is human nature and completely forgivable. That’s why rules exist in sports. In this case, ghost points are great but they aren’t enough. Seriously, is anyone in disagreement with me on that? Not one person here has stated they think my proposed rule adjustment is a bad idea or even an unnecessary one, I think everyone here can see the logic for the proposed rule change. Is it such a bad thing to be better safe than sorry?

@Tara Armov
‘Shenanigans’ is merely a PC euphemism here for “committing penalties there are no repercussions for in the bout they are committed in”…

I did a terrible job on this point, Tara, my bad, I was referring to the creation and adoption of WORD rules for BT because there was no governing set of rules for interleague play until the creation of the WORD rules and those rules, of course, include the LJM rule. I believe these WORD rules (with the critical LJM rule inclusion) came about soon after BOTB2 (citation needed) which, if I’m not mistaken, was played under TXRD rules that did not have a LJM rule (citation needed). I was there in Austin and, if memory serves me correctly, a LJM rule in place would have had a substantial effect on the final outcome of the SDDD/LADD bout (no citation needed). Again, there would be no such thing as a LJM rule, regardless of the ruleset, if the circumstances surrounding the last jam weren’t so unique and in need of special consideration.

I will be at March Radness, VIP first row on the jammer line if I get there early enough, I would love to talk with you and anyone else about it and pretty much anything else derby if anyone is interested. I’ll buy the Tecates (thanks, tax refund!), make me regret it =)

QUICK FOLLOW UP QUESTION:
I am not super educated with the LADD rules regarding ghost skaters and the LJM… once a skater (jammer or blocker) is deemed a ‘ghost’, are they allowed to get engaged with any other skater? I seem to remember they are not but my mind is a terrible thing. BTW, one can download a copy of the WORD rules easily but I have yet to be able to find a copy of the LADD rules online anywhere, am I just missing it? My inability to find the LADD rules is why I am on here busting balls in the first place as this seems to be the perfect place to get answers to specific BT questions (thanks, DD).
One derby love…
The BM

Instead of trolling on the internet, you could…I dunno…ASK LADD if they have their rules available. Email questions@derbydolls.com

@Tara Armov
Did. Never got a response. Was a long time ago though. I’ll give that another shot. I had to ask them some questions once before a while back regarding will call and arriving late (my wife was very pregnant and movin’ slow but didn’t want to miss the bout, heh!) and they were very helpful, my email about a copy of the rules must have slipped through the cracks. I could always just ask an SDDD skater, I suppose, about specifics, was just hoping to get info straight from the folks who make the rules. Sorry to be an assache. Us trolls are notorious for that…

@Bare-LJ is a difficult one but have faith WORD and DD are an ever evolving rule set. Much like the many versions of WFTDA rules, WORD and DD will most likely continue to tweek rules as the game strategy grows. I love your loyalty to us, you crack me up but we ve got to swallow the loss and learn from it and yes there are some big differences between DD rules we play as Swarm and WORD Rules that will be played for our Rocky Mountain bout. But both rule sets have LJ same in that if a major is committed by blocker in last jam, that blocker becomes dead point awarded on scoring pass but can continue to block. There is document that breaks down differences in an ez to read format I will gladly give you so you can continue to be our educated Super fan and piss off Tara

@Bo Toxic
LOL! Bo fuckin’ rules =)
(climbing on soapbox for the last goddamn time)
I know the Swarm lost fair and square under the current ruleset, that aint even the issue (The Swarm will be in Champs again in Dec, count on it), the issue is the ruleset! I know I am not even close to alone in thinking that if a skater is deemed a ghost that they should not be able to initiate contact (I know there are major practicality issues involved but derby minds are more than capable of solving that). The Ghost of V. Lee was a Paranormal Activity killing machine out there in the LJ and that just seems a little off in the LJ circumstances. And I know for a fact that I have supporters who feel the same way I do when it comes to the mindset that blocker-on-jammer penalties in the LJ should have the same no-point result as jammer penalties. There is virtually no end-result difference between a jammer cutting track to put herself in a scoring position from a blocker contacting a jammer illegally to prevent her from scoring. In normal jam situations, you just pay the price in the next jam and sometimes penalties are strategically the right thing to do, but, in the LJ there are no true immediate repercussions unless you are a jammer. It just seems odd to isolate jammers in the LJM when it comes to BT due to the fact there are no on-the-fly penalties served and the jams are only a minute long.
(climbing off soapbox for the last goddamn time)
I feel good.
Looking forward to March Radness… unless Tara finds me and elbows me in the face… hoo boy…