I agree with getting rid of rules. I have come to the conclusion that we need to find a way to eliminate the existence of No Pack. No Pack only exists because the definition of a pack is necessary for a lot of the game (Out of Play, beginning/end of pass, etc.), and the current pack definition does not cover all possible cases. Other than that, there’s no good reason to have No Pack in derby.

Unfortunately, the only attempt to get rid of the pack I’ve seen anyone attempt is Windy Man’s solution, which encourages the runaway pace lines and everyone that actually understands derby knows that would kill the game.

We need to have a new definition for the pack, and then we can get rid of the No Pack entirely.

Not all Washingtonians are liberal, unfortunately. Take it from someone who grew up east of the Cascades – it’s like another world inland!

@N8 – I very much agree with your criticism of Windy Man’s solution in that derby would evolve into races with little contact or blocking. I’m not sure we need a new definition of the pack though. An idea I am working through in my head (and hopefully people will point out its flaws for me) is not to redefine the pack, but simply have a rule that states that when a no pack is caused by a penalty, the team that did not commit penalty can still engage and remain at pack speed indefinitely. By having this rule, it will eliminate the incentive to destroy the pack, still allow smart strategic play through goating, and prevent the creation of an incentive to always run away as fast as possible.

This rule change also leads itself to reducing the number of refs used. Obviously, if you have more than one ref responsible for no pack and penalty calls, this would be an impossible rule to enforce as one ref could call a normal no pack (where blocking would not be allowed) and one ref could call a destruction penalty (where blocking would be allowed). So, I envision a three ref crew (two jammer refs responsible solely for calling penalties on and against jammers, as well as lead jammer, and one pack ref, responsible for calling all penalties in the pack as well as no pack situations). Also, I would think it would still be necessary to have a few “linespeople” on the outside of the track solely to call track cuts on the outside (similar to offsides calls in hockey/soccer) as those would be impossible to call fairly from the infield.

I guess my hope is that this rule change would simplify things, and eliminate incentives to destroy the pack without creating incentives to run away.

So… you know you don’t like Juke’s solution, but you don’t have your own? If you simplify the rules, you *increase* the opportunity for loopholes and exploits! The rules are long and complicated because thousands of teams have played thousands of games and learned to exploit fuzzy/undefined areas in the rules as they stood, requiring more specificity in the rulesset to maintain an even playing field and a fair game. No, it’s not perfect. Yes, it’s the best version ever.

I like minimizing the impact of powerjams – the powerjam is over as soon as the team on powerjam completes a scoring pass, et cetera. To the NYSE scenario – perhaps any players committing more than two majors in the final jam of a game earn a subsequent-game suspension.

I like your solution… I think it’s really novel and it could work. Have you emailed the rules committee? Though I don’t envy the skater who ends up as the solitary IPR, and I love the existence of empowered skating OPRS – some really crazy shit happens when they aren’t there that has nothing to do with cutting. @Greg

guess the refs could have call the jam off due to the penalties and the fact that NYSE was in essence refusing to field players. The refs could have used rules 9.2.6.1 and 9.2.6.1.4
Big difference between the strategy that they used an the slow train to nowhere strategy is that the train can be countered. All of a teams blockers skating off the track cannot.

@Caitlin “Muffin” Krause

Caitlin “Muffin” Krause :
If you simplify the rules, you *increase* the opportunity for loopholes and exploits!

Something being too complicated can be just as bad as something being too simple. Simple rules can work as long as they’re consistent and efficient in describing what is legal. Throwing more rules at something to quash illegal/unintended actions should be avoided in preference to finding the simplest solution to a problem, wherever possible.

A good way to see how it would work with out power jams or with hardly any power jams is to look at MADE roller derby rules. There is no stop derby and also they have it worked to where every jam both teams always start the jam with a jammer. this all has to do with how you use your jammers and pivots. here is a link http://www.skatemade.org/#!rules. they only have 4 pages of rules. MADE rules makes it to where points are not very high but it keeps the game moving and keeps the teams moving. So NO STOP DERBY!

WindyMan :
@Caitlin “Muffin” Krause

Caitlin “Muffin” Krause :
If you simplify the rules, you *increase* the opportunity for loopholes and exploits!

Something being too complicated can be just as bad as something being too simple. Simple rules can work as long as they’re consistent and efficient in describing what is legal. Throwing more rules at something to quash illegal/unintended actions should be avoided in preference to finding the simplest solution to a problem, wherever possible.

All I am saying is don’t be like the bureaucracies that run our cities, states and country and just add a rule every time you have an issue. Actively work at rewriting the rules so that you remove unnecessary and obsolete rules.

WindyMan :
@Caitlin “Muffin” Krause

Caitlin “Muffin” Krause :
If you simplify the rules, you *increase* the opportunity for loopholes and exploits!

Something being too complicated can be just as bad as something being too simple. Simple rules can work as long as they’re consistent and efficient in describing what is legal. Throwing more rules at something to quash illegal/unintended actions should be avoided in preference to finding the simplest solution to a problem, wherever possible.

In total agree with you, Windy. My guess-Muffin is a liberal who thinks everybody’s taxes are too low.