[mbyron]

I just finished my first season of volleyball. I worked 39 matches, all but 7 of them JV/V.

In that span, I had some partners who were more like Jan and Felix. They knew the rules and applied them, gently but firmly. Their philosophy seems to be to teach the players about the game by requiring them to adhere to the rules that define the game.

I had partners who were more like jkumpire, in that they had a philosophy of officiating that treats the rules more flexibly, depending on the level, the attitudes of the coaches and players, and the game situation. Their philosophy seems to be that there's more to the game than rigid adherence to the rules.

I've tried to put these points as sympathetically as possible. I don't think the philosophies are compatible -- I don't think that one official can coherently aim for both.

I have also found that the officials who make their way up the officiating food chain tend more toward the former view than the latter. I notice, for example, that jkumpire is arguing about a MS match, and that Jan and Felix both do NCAA. (I should say that I have no idea whether jkumpire works NCAA or wants to -- I'm noting only the case in this thread and my own observations around here.)

The problem with leniency in the long run, as has been pointed out, is that one has no justification for it when confronted with an opposing coach who knows the rules.