WHO HURT HIM

This episode was recorded shortly after his wife died.

This man had an answer to everything.

Bob Ross was a fucking treasure

Space inspired collections - Valentino Pre-Fall 2015 vs Zuhair Murad Fall 2015 Couture.

*Becomes a model so I can find designers who are influenced by space to model for*

Helmet Covers vis-a-vis Call-offs

Wanted to discuss an OR that happened today in 2015 Champs.

What happened:

OR Challenge: The lead jammer did not have their helmet cover on when the call-off happened. Therefore it should be an illegal call-off and that jammer should get a penalty pursuant to 5.13.14.

OR Result: The lead jammer lost her helmet cover due to gameplay and not an intentional removal of the helmet cover. The no-call stands. OR lost.

Givens:

Discussion:

Rule 2.4.7 (s2): “If the helmet cover is removed by an opponent’s action or in the course of natural game play, the Jammer may replace the helmet cover and regain Lead Jammer status.”

The verbiage “regain” Lead Jammer status can be construed as the Lead Jammer status is no longer active on the Jammer whose helmet cover is removed for the aforementioned reasons (opponent’s action, gameplay). One could interpret this ruling that while you could “regain” Lead Jammer status (and, as such, the Lead Jammer abilities in 2.4.1, namely call-offs) after the helmet cover is back on the helmet, but the status is no longer “gained” while it is off.

HOWEVER

In Rule 2.4.8 (s1): “Once a Jammer has been declared Lead Jammer, Lead Jammer status is retained for the duration of the jam unless the status is forfeited.” It goes on to state the opposite sorts of things from 2.4.7 would render a Lead Jammer status declaration forfeit (2.4.8.1-2.4.8.3).

So. One can be declared Lead Jammer, and that status stays “retained,” so… Is the verbiage in 2.4.7 rendered null? Or is the specificity of “regain”ing the status of Lead Jammer intentional and that no matter what the reason, a jammer may not call off the jam while the helmet cover is off their head for any reason? There is no statement about “inactive Lead Jammer status,” just “inactive jammer position.” So there’s a slight contradiction due to verbiage and explicit word usage between the rules.

I’d defer to the HR of that game due to the givens stated above and the fact that I generally try to look for reasons NOT to give a penalty if all things are equal, but I’d love to see a clarification on this one.

Oh, now this is interesting.

A literal reading of the rules looks to me like the jammer should not be allowed to call off the jam until she replaces the helmet cover, regardless of how it came off. Particularly this sentence (emphasis added): “2.4.7 - The Lead Jammer may call off the jam at any time after their position has been established unless the Jammer has been removed from the jam due to a penalty or their helmet cover has been removed.“ As you pointed out, the next sentence says they can put it back on and “regain” lead status. However, I would argue that it also shouldn’t be a penalty under 5.13.14 unless the jammer was aware the cover was off. It is easy for a helmet cover to fall off or be removed without the jammer noticing. Skaters are not automatically penalized for other equipment or uniform violations that occur unintentionally in the course of normal game play unless they fail to correct the violation when notified by a ref. So, the no-call on 5.13.14 could easily be legit, depending on what the ref saw. But, it appears to me that the ref made an error that impacted the game in calling off the jam for a non-helmet-cover-wearing jammer. Unfortunately, since time travel is not yet possible, there’s nothing they could do to fix that error.

Yeah, I find 5.13.14 to be one of those “aw shit we got an advantage we shouldn’t’ve gotten” penalties–not necessarily a “you’re playing the game wrong” or “you’re being against safety” penalty.

Though I couldn’t really compare the 5.13.14 penalty with others that one can rectify, for two reasons: (1) we penalize cutting as soon as it happens, at the point of establishment of position on the track (unless that gets rethought at some point in the future), so it’s not the only one, and (2) the difference being that the jam ends because of this, so nobody can score, so it has a LOT of impact if happening when it’s not supposed to. There’s no precedent in rules about a jam ending and restarting from the “called off in error” point.

I think it would be easy to fix the situation–just add more information about 2.4.7 clarifying what the explicit verbiage means. Or chop out that “regain” verbiage and explain what actions do not make a Lead Jammer status forfeit in the 2.4.8-realm.

I would have to go back and rewatch the footage, but I’m pretty sure she put the cover back on before calling it off. I could be wrong, and I’m not bored enough/desperate enough to be right to go back and watch a game that I already watched today.

All tests should be open book. It’s not like your future boss is going to say, “I need those tax returns finished by noon, but don’t look at any of the financial statements. Do it all from memory.”

Bar Exam.

mentally crafting incredibly angry speeches that i will never say to all the people i hate is my favorite hobby

Sweet shirt I got this weekend.

@dontquestionit

Ummmm. I think this might be something you need.