View Single Post
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 23, 2014, 04:48pm
Antonio.King Antonio.King is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by john5396 View Post
Note, I dont work USAV, so I'm not familiar with the rule particulars, but in the Interp referenced it has:

NOTE: Attention must be paid to the difference between a player whose name is not listed on the roster
and a player who is listed on the roster but with the wrong number. This case specifically deals with a
player whose name is not listed on the roster, and is the only time the referees may go back to previous
sets to remove points. In addition, tournament eligibility rules, such as region guidelines or the USAV
Qualifier Manual, may supersede the roster (eligibility) rules.


So with this qualifier, was it correct to cancel the points in Set 1?
I remember talking about this in Atlanta a couple of weeks ago. Technically, by rule, we would be allowed to go back into the previous set if it was impacted. However, that's not something that's being encouraged to do as an "industry standard" because of how dicey it can get.


Quote:
Oldsetter So, not that it was not important, but now the most important part of the match is to check the lineup and make sure the libero numbers are correct because this can have an enormous impact on the match, way more than any call you make......
.

Agreed. My first encounter with this rule this year was in Omaha where the coach wrote #13 in position 6 instead of #3 (didn't have a 13). 13 was the middle and was going in and out for the Libero. At 16-16 in the first set, the libero tracker finally spoke up about it. 16-16 turned to 17-0.

Coach was not pleased (as he shouldn't be, despite it being his error first) more so because it was an error that could've been caught early on instead of at 16-16. The coach R2 didn't catch it, and neither did the table until 16-16.

When I went down to see what the problem was, I asked the AS how she just now noticed it. She said she thought it was wrong from the beginning but didn't say anything. She finally said that something was wrong after telling the SK, who also had the same incorrect number down.

*facepalm*
Reply With Quote