It's a Small World, After All

A busy past couple of months, for everyone in derby. Everyone's talking about it, I'll add my thoughts and experiences. But first, let's summarize those weeks.

Prelude: WFTDA Regionals starts on September 16th. I'm out of vacation and personal time at work, so I spend the first three weekends watching non-stop online before I finally get to ref at North Centrals in Indianapolis on October 7-9.

Then stuff goes crazy.
November 11-13: WFTDA Championships in Denver, CO.
November 18/19: Kitt Traxx Banked Track Tournament in Chicago, IL.
November 26/27: OCDG Ref Clinic in Edmonton, AL, CAN.
December 1-4: Blood and Thunder World Cup

That's an amazing month, probably the best I've ever had, in terms of experiences, in terms of being challenged, in terms of being inspired. What's more challenging, officiating the top flat-track players in the WFTDA as they vie for their most coveted title, or officiating a style of derby you've only seen live once before? What's more inspiring, seeing a huge number of new refs from new leagues coming together with absolute enthusiasm to learn and improve, or seeing people only a couple of years further on in that effort come together to help put on the most epic tournament the derby world has ever seen?

But most of all it was the people, the officials at each of these that made it so outstanding. The WFTDA system has been bringing officials together for a long time, and we're settling into a great groove. It was wonderful to start the month by working with such an amazing assemblage once again. But the banked track refs were remarkable to work with too. As supportive as any HRs I've ever had, willing to put faith in our abilities as flat track refs and our commitment to dedicate ourselves to reffing quality derby. I learned things that weekend which I'll take back, and I can barely remember the last time I was so nervous to ref a bout as those two that weekend. The Canadian referees were so ready to learn, so hungry for information, and that always makes teaching a joy. It reminded me of being where they were, of how exciting roller derby can be, how lucky we are to be a part of it. Which made me even more excited for the next weekend. Refs and NSOs were coming in from around the world for the B&T World Cup. Organization and communication wasn't maybe at the level we all expect, and there were logistical issues we'd never run into before. But everyone's commitment to making this a success (which goes not just for the officials, but also for ToRD, B&T and every team) was what made it the success it was.

And that's what I really take away from this. Commitment to officiating, commitment to improvement, commitment to the sport. More than anything this is how we've gotten here. It's how we can come together cross-discipline and work together in good faith and be rewarded with new friends and new experiences. It's how officials can come together from around the world and a mess of different systems and not have even one that needs coddling. We are the support system and we are the means to improvement for ourselves. Banked or flat, Germany or Australia or US or anywhere else, we are all the same in being roller derby officials. And that's pretty awesome.

No Minors. Thoughts, reactions.

During this ECDX weekend I was able to officiate one of the WFTDA’s Beta-test bouts, trying out a new ruleset with no minor penalties. The ECDX had three such Beta-tests scheduled, in addition to those happening elsewhere; I was assigned to Head Referee the bout between Maine’s Port Authority and Steel City’s Steel Hurtin’. Below are some of my reactions to it.

1) It was a lot of fun. That’s my biggest takeaway from this experience. Spectators report me walking away from the bout smiling. Yeah, I know, that’s serious business. But it was exciting, and so much fun. You remember when you first saw Roller Derby and thought “I love this game!”, and then you started refereeing or NSOing (or skating or announcing) and as you learned to do that you thought “I love this game! This is fun!”? But then, slowly, maybe you didn’t even notice it happening entirely, it became a little less fun, and a little less fun. You’re getting yelled at for not calling something that’s defined as having no impact on the game. Or you keep getting called on things you can’t imagine actually matter. Or you can’t explain what’s going on because even the skaters and refs don’t seem entirely sure. There’s a lot of timeouts to get all these minors sorted out, it’s not the best experience. This experience, without minors, was different than that, it was fun. But why it was fun has to do with these other points.

2) You can focus on the game more. As refs, I really think minors distract us from the game itself. For instance, there’s the reporting of the penalties that can cause us to miss something important. A Major penalty, a pack destruction, a Lead Jammer trying to call off the jam, or even a team whose facing the wrong end of a 2-on-4 pack while down a jammer getting their two skaters up to the front of the pack. We miss that stuff. But it also keeps our attention on things that again, are defined as having no impact on the game itself, so we’re paying far too much attention to stuff fundamentally unrelated to the game, instead of the game. With no minors, I can see something happen, I can dismiss it faster than I maybe otherwise could (it didn’t have significant impact, move on), and I can see the game develop, I feel it’s rhythm, and that allows me to better anticipate what action will happen next.

3) It’s less confusing. Spectators and announcers don’t usually know why someone’s received their fourth minor. They don’t know what three she got before that one, and they probably don’t know what her fourth was either. Is that a surprise? It shouldn’t be, the skaters usually don’t know that either, and that’s because the referees usually don’t know that information. I feel like a superstar referee when I can let a girl know “Black 42, you have four, (it was a forearm)”. But now, almost every penalized action is obvious, the spectators see it happen and see it affect the game. The skaters experience the effect, often times know they did it, and the referee is under no confusion about it. Even penalties coming in from the outside are easily communicated. It’s transparent, and that’s to our mutual benefit.

4) It was easier to administrate. In the bout I officiated we had two NSOs on the inside, the Penalty Tracker and the Jam Timer. There was no need for an Inside White Board, or two Outside White Boards. No need for a wrangler. We did add one NSO, a Penalty Tracker on the outside, to see if we needed one on the inside, from our one trial, the conclusion is no, we don’t. This means you have only one NSO in the middle, the Jam Timer. Consider also how much easier that makes it for everyone to see everything. But also, no Official Timeouts for handle late fourths. No intentional fourth minors.

5) It was aggressive and kept moving. Now, let me be clear, by “aggressive” I mean it kept things happening, it was offense oriented. With no minors, there’s more Lead Jammers, that means more aggressive blocking, rather than passive blocking. In the Windy City v Charm City bout I watched there were multiple hits that resulted in the whole crowd reacting. No penalties for those, they were just big hits. That’s not common right now. That’s fun. And the heightened penalization of Direction of Gameplay and Multi-Player Blocking penalties meant things moved forwards far more than they stood still or backwards.

6) This last one though is perhaps the one I’m most excited about. To begin with, there’s a simplified strata of impact, we train referees on one scale, penalize this, not this, and here are you’re three exceptions. That makes it easier to train and standardize to. We will have more consistent refereeing, more quickly. But also, review. Four years ago I told Kool-Aid that every week NFL referees get a video of their calls from the weekend and a review how was their positioning, was the call right or wrong, what could be improved. We can’t do that with minors, we are making literally hundreds of calls a game, one referee can make a hundred calls themselves in some games. Right now, we can only teach referees to generally be in this spot, and to want to move to be in position, and list some scenarios. But now we have the potential to review the dozen calls they made. You were out of position on this call because of this. You overcalled this because you missed this. This is huge. And it also makes it a feasible reality for video review during a bout, if that’s something we want. But that’s another discussion.

Championships Crew Head Ref, Day Three

As you may, or may not, know, I was one of the three Crew Head Referees for the WFTDA Championships in Chicago this year. It was an honor, and I was completely pleased with the way my crew performed. I wanted to run through the three days, and talk about things we did and discussions we had, because I think they all fed into our performance. This is not an instruction manual. This is not what we did right that other crews did/do wrong, I wasn't on those crews and I don't know what they did. This is what worked for us, this one weekend, and which may work for others, over a weekend, a season, or a career.

Day Three - Sunday
Before we'd all left on Saturday night, the crews were informed of their assignments for the next day. For what it's worth, I appreciated this. Obviously we're still figuring things like how and when to announce these to crews and teams, and we'll continue to refine those procedures, but for me, it was helpful knowing what our crew would be doing the next day. It gave us the chance to talk about how we should be preparing, to focus in not just over the course of a few hours, but half a day. And it let us process and get over the excitement and nervous energy we might be experiencing and settle into a more comfortable place.

So, yeah, in case you're wondering, Otto Kerner, Jr., got assigned to the Championship bout on Sunday, a rematch of the Western Regional Championship, Oly v RMRG, this time for the Hydra Trophy. The night before then, when informing the crew, I also asked them to go home, get some rest, and consider the notes we'd gotten over the weekend. Which ones had really helped them to improve over the weekend, because I wanted to review them as a crew before the bout. Really what I wanted was to ensure that the crew stayed hungry. Not that I'd expect it from anyone on that crew, but I would hate to have someone show up suddenly sporting the over-confidence that can be the death of a referee. For me, it was that note from the first day, about missing OOP or general penalties in front, and I knew it was because I was reffing the refs' reffing too much, instead of the game, something I'd been explicitly trying to avoid. I couldn't make that same mistake in this bout.

It turns out I had nothing to worry about, the crew went out there and, frankly, nailed it. I have a hard time thinking of a bout I've come off of feeling that good about. There have been a couple of calls talked about, I'm not going to get into them specifically because I think everything that needs saying has been said, plus about a million extra pages worth. What I will say is that I'm proud of this crew, and every call they made, and I have no doubts about them, because I trust those referees.

really, it was an awesome experience. Not just that one bout, but everything, working with that crew, reffing those bouts and those teams, being in Chicago for the tournament, everything. Best ever, until next year.

Championships Crew Head Ref, Day Two

As you may, or may not, know, I was one of the three Crew Head Referees for the WFTDA Championships in Chicago this year. It was an honor, and I was completely pleased with the way my crew performed. I wanted to run through the three days, and talk about things we did and discussions we had, because I think they all fed into our performance. This is not an instruction manual. This is not what we did right that other crews did/do wrong, I wasn't on those crews and I don't know what they did. This is what worked for us, this one weekend, and which may work for others, over a weekend, a season, or a career.

Day Two - Saturday
Saturday was split into two halves, before and after a dinner break. OK,Jr. was scheduled for only one more bout before the dinner break, with everything after dinner still being un-scheduled. Due to the nature of this tournament and the level of refereeing we expect, that's just sort of how it had to be. It would be dishonest to say though, that none of us on the crew were feeling the need to really deliver in the one bout we had left scheduled. Of course, you always want to deliver your best when refereeing, but that doesn't mean you can't experience increased pressure.

Kansas City v Philly
That said, I think we handled it, and more importantly the bout, really well. It was a good second bout, both in that it was a very straight-forward bout and that our crew really gelled during this bout, perhaps as a partial result of the straight-forward nature of the bout. Let me insert here, when I say "straight forward", that's not supposed to imply anything about the teams playing or what I think of how they played. Some bouts have lots of technical calls, some bouts don't, it's as much about how the teams react to each other as it is about anything else. But regardless of why, it was this bout where I felt like the Pack Refs really hit a stride and figured out how we were going to work together, where we really got our communication down with the Jammer Referees, and where we nailed timing and sight lines between inside and outside. At this point it was down to fine tuning.

Philly v Oly
All that being the case, there was one thing we never quite got down to clockwork, intentional fourth minors. That's as much on me as it can be on anyone. I wanted the OPRs positioned in turn 4 to handle it, and I don't think that was normal for anyone, add to that the fact that the NSOs preferred to talk to me about it, and that I was all the way up at the front of the pack, it was messy. Not game-affecting messy, just Three Stooges messy. It's worth noting in this bout particularly because I felt like it kind of blew up. Again, never to where it effected the bout or our refereeing, but enough that it made us (or, to be more fair to the crew, it made me) feel like it was closer to MNRG v CCRG than KCRW v PRG. Of course, beyond the intentional fourths, it also was more like MNRG v CCRG than KCRW v PRG, with much more going on regarding pack definition and Direction of Gameplay penalties than we'd had (and led to the minors), but when we looked back on it, and when we got our notes from Vroom, it felt to me like the idea that it was a hairy game simply came from being busy watching so much, not from anything like that we'd stepped back. To be sure, despite feeling hard, it had at the same time felt like a good bout, and what more can you want?

Championships Crew Head Ref, Day 1

As you may, or may not, know, I was one of the three Crew Head Referees for the WFTDA Championships in Chicago this year. It was an honor, and I was completely pleased with the way my crew performed. I wanted to run through the three days, and talk about things we did and discussions we had, because I think they all fed into our performance. This is not an instruction manual. This is not what we did right that other crews did/do wrong, I wasn't on those crews and I don't know what they did. This is what worked for us, this one weekend, and which may work for others, over a weekend, a season, or a career.

Before the Tournament
In the weeks leading up to the Tournament, I made a point of calling all the referees on my crew. The aim was to go over some position specific items, talking about the crew and assignments, and feeling out any questions or concerns they might have for me. I felt like this would give us a chance to start thinking about us as a crew and how we were working together before we ever got to Chicago. It also helped me to zone in to Head Referee mode, handling the different moving parts early.

The night before the tournament we had a crew dinner at a nearby bar. The idea was last minute talk. I wanted to remind people to stay focused, to maintain their hydration and rest before bouts throughout the tournament, not just the days leading up to the tournament, Communication was also a big issue. We also discussed our goals as a crew. They were dual, and would either end up at odds, or synergistic. One was for the tournament to have the best refereeing possible, especially in the Championship bout. The other was for us to be assigned to the Championship bout.

Day One - Friday
Minnesota v Charm City
We'd discussed some the night before, but were sure to discuss before this bout, while watching earlier bouts, what we might expect out of this bout; physical play and lots of Pack dynamics were to be the order of the day. Even with the traditional sitting together for earlier bouts of the day, it was still a tough bout for our crew, and I felt like we were still finding our rhythm. I'm not going to claim that I felt like we totally did find our rhythm in this one bout, but we came pretty damn close. What's most significant about this bout for our crew was that, instead of getting down about any mistakes, we used them as a stepping off point. We took the notes we got at the half and fixed those things, allowing us to look forward to our next bout with much more minute problems to fix. For myself, the biggest thing I needed to address was 'reffing the refs'. I'm sure we've all probably felt like we've been in a situation as a Head Referee where you need to supervise the calls all the other referees are making, double checking your Jammer Referee's score, etc. But we also have a job to do, for me that was Front Pack, and I needed not only to focus on that more, but also to recognize that the referees on this crew didn't need refereeing.

Getting back to that idea though, of fixing problems and moving on to the next set, that ability, to fix a problem and move on to another problem without then slipping on the first issue, these were what I felt our crew's true strengths were. In addition, the ability to talk and assess each other honestly and critically without it being disregarded (which is something I feel generally happens too often in Derby) because "[we] know what [we're] doing", and to not just listen to the Head Referee (and here I'm talking about Dr. Vroom), but to really hear what she had to say and take it and internalize it to improve.

We all walked out of our first bout both feeling good over-all, but also with a list of things we'd need to improve on. Not that we had a lot of time to improve.

The Referee Discount and Referee Bias

Wow, it's amazing how time gets away from you, isn't it? Luckily I now have a whole lot more of it.

On to the topic: The Ref Discount and Ref Bias

A couple of weeks ago I participated in an intense discussion regarding Code of Conducts, specifically the WFTDA Code of Conduct for Referees, required for certification. Let me be clear, no part of this post is intended as a criticism of this document, nor should it be construed as such. This is a publicly available document we should all be reading and signing, I want to discuss thoughts on how we follow it. Specifically one part, "[All WFTDA Referees Shall] Resist every temptation and outside pressure to use one’s position as an official to benefit oneself".

One topic that came up related to this was the common "Referee Discount". Gear is expensive. Travel and Lodging is expensiver. Any chance to reduce any of that, by even a sliver, is probably going to be lunged at and dog-piled on. Is that a problem? Is it a problem when it's specifically offered to you because you're a referee? Is this a violation of the Code of Conduct? We went back and forth, ultimately deciding that no, it wasn't. Gear and things like that were being offered to us not because of our position as Referees, but due to our more general involvement. If Rink Rats wore skates, they'd probably be offered wheel discounts also, it's one more person buying, it's one more person wearing and being seen wearing. So that's not such a concern.

Or is it? Something I've been considering since then is that, as always, we in Roller Derby find ourselves in a unique situation compared to other sports. We require some reasonably niche items AND we're highly invested in the DIY ethos that started this sport. As such, we probably patronize skater-owned companies more often than not. Skater owned companies make derby specific gear or won't look at you funny when you tell them what name you want on the back. Skater owned companies put money back into the sport. Skater owned companies are DIY. But Skater owned companies are owned by skaters. Sometimes operated solely by them. This issue, of the top suppliers also being current participants is unique to roller derby, and while it's fantastic for the sport, we should maybe consider how it could affect the perception of our job as referees.

If I'm offered a discount because I'm a referee by a skater operating their store, and the next day I referee that skater's team? And a fan who saw me get that discount sees me make what is a right no-call, but in their eyes is a wrong no-call on that skater. Was I biased? No, the call was right. Did I risk the integrity of the game by potentially appearing biased? Yeah, potentially.

So what's the solution? Discount gear is money saved, for a hobby that can cost us a lot and repay us little (monetarily speaking) that's important. But what's the point of doing it if we undermine the sport, what have we really saved then? Paying full price and/or third party dealers might be the options open to us. Or maybe there can't be a hard and fast rule. As the Code of Conduct is only a guide, and something we need to find ways to implement ourselves, we once again might be left to our best discretion.

Flock Theory

A High Level Approach to Anticipating Behavior

Flock Theory started as an attempt to re-describe the legally defined pack, it has become a tool for referees to use to anticipate certain calls, calls that are often the hardest to make and need to be made the quickest. Before I go further though I need to restate that it is imperative that you never make a call before something happens, this is only to help you see something when it does happen.

As in a flock of birds, skaters within a pack should exhibit some basic tendencies. There are certain spots that they are largely always trying to gain or maintain. Likewise there are positions that they are trying to get away from or out of. You should already be familiar with these positions, if you are not, I would suggest you learn more about the different positions, because it is necessary that you understand the basics of pack behavior before moving on. Once you understand these positions and their value to the skaters, then it is easy to advance to the point of anticipation. Yes, I said anticipation.

For instance, we know that the inside line, especially the inside line in the front of the pack, is a valuable position to pack skaters. So, if we see a skater or a group of skaters abandon this position, we should anticipate that something is about to happen, they are abandoning pack behavior, it is likely that the basic pack should be affected by this move. Say that we have one skater abandon this position, she is likely chasing the jammer. We can then immediately begin watching both the position of the front of the pack and start judging where 20 feet is from that front. Again, we're not going to penalize the blocker unless she commits a penalty, but as we're all aware of how fast the front of the pack can change, being on top of it can improve your calling immensely.

Similarly, let's imagine that a group of blockers abandon the front of the pack and start to skate out in front of the pack, there are two things we should be watching for here. First, are they moving together? Are they creating, in their way, a smaller pack all with the same goal? If so, look back and decide if this group is going to leave the pack, or in fact cause a split pack, be ready to make that call when it happens! Maybe though they are not all acting the same, not splitting the pack, but in fact stretching the pack out, this too you should be prepared to see in this instance, because it is something that often looks like there is no pack, or that they are 30 feet from the pack, when in fact they are still within the pack. An educated ref who is prepared for this situation will anticipate the move and apply penalties (or not) as appropriate.

This leap, from reaction to anticipation, is an easy one to make conceptually but a difficult one to make in practice. Make sure that you are constantly watching the behavior of skaters during practices or scrimmages, and never forget to keep watching for all the other penalties. As is always the case with reffing, it will take a long time, but with constant work, it will eventually come naturally.

A Discussion - Assigning a Penalty for Failure to Reform

At a recent interleague scrimmage a skater asked me about the penalty I'd given her for failure to reform the pack, and why she'd gotten the penalty rather than anyone else. This turned out to be a lot longer than I'd expected, but thus is the price for clarity and thoroughness.

Before we discuss who one would assign a penalty to and what that penalty might be for failure to reform the pack, we must first discuss when we would assign a penalty for failure to reform the pack. This is really the problem with enforcing this rule consistently amongst referees, more than is deciding who deserves what degree of penalty. As has been pointed out in other places by other fine referees, the problem here is that this penalty is unique in penalizing inaction, where every single other penalty penalizes action. I have in the past explained myself in making this call by pointing out that the players penalized made eye-contact with me during my calling of no-pack*, and then still did not skate. This however cannot be a necessary road sign on the path to calling this penalty every time, not if we're to call it correctly. Because, just as a skater cannot be guaranteed a warning at twenty feet before being penalized, neither can a skater require a warning of no-pack (or be required to see that warning) before being penalized. It is ultimately always the skater's job to know where they are in relation to the pack. So, what do we need to make this call?

Simply, we need inaction. That is, we need someone to have the opportunity to do something and then fail to try and do it**. So that need for inaction means we need an opportunity for action, which means that the penalty cannot come at the moment the pack splits. A good guide is thus - notice that the pack is split, now check to see if either group is already working to reform it, at the same time, check to see if it is still split. If you've taken the time to check these things, then enough time has passed and, if the pack is still split, you should feel comfortable assigning a penalty.

So now, what penalty? You should, as stated in the rules, default to a minor. There are certain circumstances though that will justify a major immediately. One prime example that comes up often is a team intentionally destroying the pack in order to free their Jammer. But how do you judge intent? The rules tell us that if we have to infer intent, we're to infer legal intent, so it must be totally clear to us. First, where is the skater's attention? Is everyone looking either at the other group of skaters and their Jammer or at the referee calling "no-pack", or are they focused on opponents and actively blocking? It should be clear which of these would indicate intentionally refusing to reform the pack. Secondly and related to the first, what are they doing? Again, are they actively blocking, or are they snow-plowing, holding each other back or taking a knee? Again, the two options seem to clearly indicate two different intents. And of course, even if you were to start with a minor, one should always be willing to upgrade that to a major in response to continued or repeated failure to reform.

The last part of this equation then is who should get the penalty. Sometimes it will be obvious who is "most responsible". A Pivot snow-plowing and spreading her arms to hold her teammates back, a skater up front ignoring the referees and yelling at her teammates to "Come on! Speed up!" or a skater in back grabbing her teammates' uniforms and keeping them from skating forward are all pretty reasonably the "most responsible". However, there are other times when everyone seems to be acting the same independently, who should we penalize then? The rules say that if no individual player can be singled out, then the Pivot or Captain gets the penalty. While that could be an easy out, wouldn't we like, shouldn't there be, a better solution? What if the Pivot's in the box and the Captain's on the bench, who then would we penalize? My solution has been to never resort to the Pivot or Captain in this case, but instead to assign the penalty to the player closest to the "other pack", as they are, in some way, most responsible. This is because they, more than anyone else, could reform the pack quickly. Anyone else would have to do the work of passing them, so if everyone acted the same, the closest player would reform a pack first, and so they must engage in the most inaction for the pack to not reform. Going back to our original discussion of why this penalty is unique, we see then how this player is most responsible.

As I started out saying though, this is a tough call to make, especially if a referee has not made it before. Indeed, it might be the toughest call to make in the current ruleset, if not all of derby. But like any call, practice, and more importantly, a thorough understanding of the rule and it's enforcement make every call both easier and more correct than the previous.

---

*note that during this discussion, I will consistently refer to no-pack, but the same general rules would apply in a split-pack situation, and indeed, there are even examples I'll use that must be a split pack situation and not a no pack.

** It is important to note here that it can sometimes be the person physically working the hardest that is doing nothing. For instance, if the pack is split, it might be the skater in the front racing away doing the least to reform, do not make the mistake of mistaking physical activity for working to reform or of assuming it is always the rear-most portion responsible for reforming a pack.

A Discussion on Thresholds

It is not uncommon at practices for a referee to see an action and make no call, only to have a captain, coach or other skater yell at the offending player for that action. It is important as a referee that you understand that that does not necessarily mean that you have missed a call. What it is likely an indication of is the different thresholds that referees and coaches employ, and it's important to understand also that this is entirely appropriate, and that it would be incorrect to tighten up your calling to the level that these coaches or captains are employing.

Referees have one standard, the standard they use to determine if an action is a penalty or not. It is important for the referee to constantly refine and re-enforce that standard in their reffing as often as possible. As such, it's clear that they should use the same standard during practices as they do during bouts, to grade things using the same standard or threshold all the time. Ideally coaches will understand and agree with this standard, but that does not mean that it is the standard that they will use.

It is in the coach's best interest that their skaters never get penalties, are never even in danger of getting penalties. So, for instance, a forearm to the back that has no effect on the other skater will not meet the standard of the referees, they will not call anything. However, the standard held by the coach of what is an objectionable action may well have just been met, because this action puts their skater in a position to possibly draw a penalty, depending on the offended skater's reaction and depending on how strict the given referee is calling the game or how they see the action (all things out of the coach's control). So the coach will look to control what they can, and what they can control is their skaters, and they will want them to avoid being in that vulnerable position by never putting their forearm on a player's back at all, to avoid the possibility of a penalty by avoiding the action altogether.

It should be clear then that there are these different standards, it should be clear how they sync up, and the ways in which they can be out of sync. The point of this discussion then is not that every disagreement between coaches and referees, at practices or at bouts, is going to be the result of differing thresholds. It is not to insulate the referees from criticism in these situations, for to insulate referees from criticism is to protect them from improving, something we cannot do. I discuss this though because I have seen referees in many situations, where in drills or scrimmages, convince themselves that they must be missing calls because the coaches continue to yell at their skaters about their forearms or hands, and it is this concern that referees must insulate themselves from through a better understanding of these different thresholds.

Why Discretion is Necessary in Derby

In broad, general terms, most other competitive sports, specifically those with contact, maintain a base-line equality at all times by calling for a stop to play immediately when a penalty occurs. As we know though, in roller derby, play continues until two minutes have expired or something else has caused the jam to end, but only in extreme cases is that something else a penalty. By stopping play, penalizing a team or player and then re-starting play, the referees and the rules of the game maintain that base-line equality, so that rarely is a penalty by one player caused by another player's prior penalty. Why this is is clear, because following the initial penalty play is called off, allowing the offended player to recover however they want, without concern about also maintaining their position, motion or advantage, all of those concerns are put on hold as play stops. In roller derby however this very scenario, of one penalty causing a second illegal action, happens plenty. 

Consider the following scenario:

Player A back-blocking Player B hard enough to cause B to fall forward should result in a major to Player A. It can also easily result in Player B back-blocking Player C. 

In most other contact sports, the original penalty would've stopped play. Play being stopped Player B can stop worrying about penalties, position or advantage and can safely take a knee or make a controlled fall, perhaps even use her hands to steady both herself and Player C together. In derby though, play continues. Now there are two possibilities. One, a referee without discretion must disregard any circumstances and call things exactly as the rules state, which means player B could get a back-blocking penalty, possibly a major. Option two is a referee who considers the circumstances, sees that it was C's teammate A who caused B to back-block her and makes the call on A, the initial penalty, only, since it was not B's intent or fault that she back-blocked C, it was A's fault. It is these sort of dynamic and shifting situations and circumstances that demand the presence of, and proper application of, discretion in roller derby refereeing. Any referee who argues that they need not ever apply discretion, any skater that shudders at the idea of discretion, anybody who thinks that a memorization of the rules is enough for a referee  should consider this point.