I agree. But I now believe it is more than that. There’s a sizable “job security” or incompetence part. Likely both. When I say incompetence, I don’t mean in officiating. I have no doubt that all are excellent referees. However, being good at applying rules does not make one good at writing them.
The “job security” part is stamped on pretty much anything they do.
Consider the R2 mechanics at the end of a rally (when R1 whistled it):
In FIVB - R2 moves to the side at fault. That’s all. Been like that for years now.
During this time, in PAVO:
- First, we didn’t have to move and we repeated the point and the fault
- Then it was “suggested” (or whatever the verbiage was) that we move, still repeating the point and fault signals.
- Forward to this year - move, don’t repeat the fault signal, but do repeat the point signal.
What do you think is coming in a year or two? I’ll tell ya - we’ll drop the point signal too. Job security.
Come to think of it of it - it actually illustrates the incompetence part quite well too…
Goes like this - if you
had to drop only one of the signals (so you have something else to drop later), you’d think it makes sense to be the point signal. It is redundant. Moving to the side at fault already shows where the point is going.