Substitution procedure

[Tony.oe4]

NFHS ruling.

Situation: Two players are in the substitution zone (8 coming in and 2 going out). R2 recognizes the substitutes and wave them to exchange. Player 8 going in does not step into the court in the substitution zone but steps over the attack line and enters on the libero exchange zone side of the attack line. R1 blows his whistle and assesses unnecessary delay. This happened again later in the set and the R1 assessed and unnecessary delay red card.

My question is where in the rule book or case book does it say that when making the substitution exchange, it says the player coming in can only enter between the attack line and center line? I have looked over both books thoroughly and cannot find anything. The only thing I could find is rule 10.2.7.2 which states "enter the court when indicated by the second referee." There is no other reference that I can find about "where" a substitute must enter the court.

Was this R1 just being overly officious?

["Lurker"77]

Originally Posted by Tony.oe4

NFHS ruling.
My question is where in the rule book or case book does it say that when making the substitution exchange, it says the player coming in can only enter between the attack line and center line?

Working with an outdated book (and not an official, but the forum seems dead), but the language in the substitution zone definition is far less specific than I recalled. Still, the intent is presumably clear: everyone should be able to clearly distinguish among subs entering court, potential subs, libero exchanges etc. based on where and how they pass through the sideline.

If #8 clearly caused actual confusion and delay by improper positioning in the first occurrence (even though the R2 had recognized the substitution successfully and reported it), then the first delay call is clearly justified. And, if #8 does something similar again, that's hardly looking for trouble.

If, in the first occurrence, #8, after clearly coming in front of the line and being recognized, was just wandering a little too far for the R1's taste to get to into the back row but everyone still knew it was a recognized substitution [unless there is a clearer standard I'm missing in the rule or case books], it's hard to call that a delay (or improper substitution at most levels) the first time it happens. However, for future occurrences, even if it's a petty procedure that is a bit vague, if an R1 or R2 tells a player how they (and most everyone else) interpret the rules explicitly and they still -- literally -- step over that line a second time, a delay card when they have to be told again does not seem to be overly officious.

Given that it happened again after the first delay card, it makes me think there may have been a pattern this R1 spotted rather than just jumping on an innocent misstep.

[Tony.oe4]

I can only share what my friend, the R2 told me. Both subs were in correct position (substitution zone) when he recognized them and reported the substitution to the table. When he beckoned the player onto the court, she was a back row player to stepped onto the court across the attack line to get to the back row instead of taking a step forward on the the court and then turning toward the back row. The R2 told me he was fine with this and the R1 stepped in and made the delay call from the stand. The player entering did not run up the sideline or anything like that. She literally stepped diagonally form the substitution zone onto the court instead of straight and then to the back court. With all this being said, I still cannot find anything written that says a substitute must enter the court between the attack line and center line.

I also agree with you in that this forum seems to be very slow. That is why I have posted several things the last few weeks.

["Lurker"77]

Originally Posted by Tony.oe4

I can only share what my friend, the R2 told me. With all this being said, I still cannot find anything written that says a substitute must enter the court between the attack line and center line.

I think its supposed to be understood from the substitution zone definition, but I agree it's technically vague (again, in the outdated versions I had at hand). I would be fine as a participant with that being sufficient rules basis for an R1 or R2 to expect entry between the lines. And, as a coach, you want the typical habit to be in the center of the zone and cross the line there -- it may not be a requirement, but what's the downside or harm? Then, you are covered when you meet this particular breed of official.

The R2 told me he was fine with this . . .

This seems like the bigger issue, if the R1 and R2 are interpreting the rules differently and working at cross purposes.

The R1's behavior does sound strange from the telling, but the team's inability to correct the behavior before a second (or more!) incident happened still makes me think there is something more to the story. After you see the delay card (fair or not), how hard an adjustment is that for a team to make?

[bob jenkins]

Even if R1 thinks this is a rules violation, shouldn't he wait for R2 to request the yellow and then red cards?

[Tony.oe4]

My state association said that a substitute stepping into the back court during a substitution exchange does constitute a delay of game.

[chapmaja]

I know personally, I am not calling that, provided all other aspects of the substitution were legal. If the sub legally entered the sub zone, was waived onto the court by the R2, then crossed over the line outside the zone, I am not calling that. To me calling that a delay causes more problems than it solves.

My thinking is simple.

1) Did the action in any way delay the game? In this case no.
2) Was the action something that presented a safety concern ( i.e. jewelry)? No.


I would even go so far as to say the issuing of the delay sanctions in fact was the delay to the match, rather than the actions of the substitute.

I would however do some educating of the players involved, even at the varsity level.

Also, I would have to question the actual view the R1 has to make a call like this. For me to call anything with the 10 foot line intersection of the R2's sideline it better be very clear to be an issue occurred. If not I am reserving judgment to the R2.


I personally think any officials who are making that call are to stuck in the rulebook and are out of touch with reality. The rulebook defines the rules, but the officials are the ones who put them into practice. A good official knows how to blend the two.

I've known too many officials who are one of these extremes. Some know every single word in the rulebook, but couldn't put it into practice to save their lives. I've also know too many that are good with the people skills of officiating, but lack the rules knowledge. I have known much fewer who have the knowledge of the rules and have the ability to put them into practice.