Comments for Officials Training & Education Blog

Comment on Question: Coach is given wrong information regarding next server by Kennon

Kennon — Fri, 04 May 2012 21:03:38 +0000

23.2.1 During the match the first referee’s decisions are final. He/she is authorized to overrule the decisions of other members of the refereeing corps, if it is noticed that they are mistaken.

Cancel the rally(s), Give the coach the correct information. Award a re-play.

Comment on Question: Interference during pursuit by George Kuroki

George Kuroki — Wed, 02 May 2012 21:25:26 +0000

This is a very hard call, and in my opinion, it depends on the play context and what actions each person involved took.

Example A and C1:
I think that the best call is ball out. Player A isn’t supposed to know what action Player B was planning to do, so staying on his spot wasn’t a clear “interference” action;

Example B and C2:
These are very hard. If they stand still and the ball touches them, I still think we should call ball out. It’s a clear case of lack of sportsmanlike conduct, but I don’t think that “preventing” means “making way for” specially when we are talking about professional volleyball.
On the other hand, if player or coach clearly made an action to get the ball away from player B reach zone is the main concern. Neither rules of the game nor case book has a solution for this play, leaving it for referee decision. I know that calling for rally replay is not a good decision, but in this case, I think that it would be the best call. Further more, coach/player should be warned for minor misconduct.

Comment on Question: Block or attack? by illinoisvbguy

illinoisvbguy — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:45:54 +0000

This block/attack concept is definitely a gray area. The DCR defines an attack hit as follows: “All actions which direct the ball toward the opponents, with the exception of service and block, are
considered as attack hits.” That gives some guidance, but by excepting blocks, it still doesn’t give you something black and white to say when a potential contact changes from being a block to an attack.

I don’t think we can base it on whether a player reacted or not. We’ve all seen looping balls falling towards the net where the opposition clearly had time to react and block the ball.

A tendency would be to lean towards a block being more of a defensive play and an attack being an offensive play. However, a directional block (where the player flicks his/her wrists to intentionally direct the ball away from the opponents) starts to blur that line.

Neither do we want to use one-handed vs. two-handed plays as attack vs. block rationale as is sometimes given. A block could easily be one-handed, and an attack could use both.

At some point, it no longer becomes a true “interception” of a ball from an opponent and just an attack on a ball that rather than coming from the player’s own team just happened to come from the opposition. It’s gray and a judgment call, and there is no way around it. I think officials generally give the benefit of the doubt to it being a block. However, when the action is clearly an attacking motion — like this case — you have to consider it to be the team’s first hit and not a block.

This play, as described, was called correctly.

Comment on Illegal Libero Replacement Scenario by illinoisvbguy

illinoisvbguy — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:40:08 +0000

Since #12 replaced the libero illegally (#11 should have been the one to come in), Team B has been playing with an illegal player on the court. Even though there have been several rotations during which Team B has scored 8 points, we cannot remove all of them. Once Team A serves, any points scored by Team B during the previous rotation stand. In this case, Team B just earned a loss of rally (sideout) while playing with an illegal player. We can correct that. So, do the following:
* Reverse the result of the last play. Instead of Team B winning the rally, Team A wins the rally because of the position fault (for an illegal player) on Team B. On the scoreboard, remove that point from Team B and give it to Team A instead. The last Team A server continues to serve.
* #12 is removed from the game and #11 is placed into the game (where s/he should have been all along). There is no substitution charged as #12 was never in the game legally. #11 will be in RF as Team B did not win that rally and rotate.
* Remind the assistant scorekeeper that during a replacement, the number on the left of the L (or R) must be the same as that on the right (i.e., the non-libero player whom the libero replaced must be the same non-libero player to replace the libero).

Comment on Illegal Libero Replacement Scenario by AntonioK

AntonioK — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 00:59:00 +0000

Position fault committed by Team B and point and serve goes to Team A. The line up should then be corrected by #11 replacing #12 in the right front without being charged a substitution.

Nothing can be done about the points scored with the illegal player on the court because the opposing team had already served prior to the discovery. If any time-outs were taken by Team A from 8 points up until the rotation fault was discovered, I believe they are canceled.

So the steps should look like this if I interpreted this correctly:

- Signal Position Fault on Team B
- Explain to Team B’s coach the illegal replacement
- Correct the line-up, replace the current RF (#12) for the actual RF (#11) w/out charge of a substitution
- Point and service goes to Team A
- Should Team A’s coach question the situation, explain briefly
- Resume play with Team A serving the next ball

Comment on Ball Blocked Back Into Attacker: Block or First Hit? by AntonioK

AntonioK — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 00:14:58 +0000

That’d be the teams first hit.

The DCR defines a block as someone who is “reaching higher than the top of the net, regardless of the height of the ball contact.”

Since the attacker in most situations isn’t “reaching” higher than the top of the net, a block (or blocking attempt), doesn’t accurately describe their actions.

Besides, usually most attackers are on their way down after attacking the ball, so for the rebounded ball to contact them and be ruled as a block is digging your own grave as the referee!

My two cents!

Comment on Question: Block or attack? by Alex

Alex — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:06:05 +0000

14.1.1 includes “reaching higher than the top of the net” in the definition of a block. If the arm is swinging forward before contact, is that the same thing as “reaching”?

Comment on Question: Block or attack? by Larry Ruane

Larry Ruane — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 04:57:25 +0000

The key word is “intercept.” There seems to be two working definitions. Some take it to mean simply contacting the ball that was most recently touched by the opponent. Others (myself included) consider the ball to be intercepted only if the “ball hit the player” rather than the “player hit the ball.” In the first case (ball hit the player), the blocker positions her hands before the final hit by the opponent, and does not have any opportunity to react to that final hit. If, in contrast, the player does react to the path of the ball after the opponent’s attack hit, then the player is playing the ball, hence, not a block. Whether the player reacted (attack) or not (block) is a judgement call.

In the situation as stated, I would say it’s clearly not a block; double contact is the correct call.

Comment on Referee’s worst nightmare by Nasser Balinda

Nasser Balinda — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 01:19:45 +0000

Wow! The referee declared the match to have ended and so it had ended. The loosing team should have protested but I guess they also did not know that the match had not ended. The referee’s desire to get the teams back in play was not valid. Without a protest,the game ended as called by the referee.

Comment on Question: Player twice on lineup (Libero AND starter) by Nasser Balinda

Nasser Balinda — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 01:09:48 +0000

I agree with the handling of the situation!