Another substitution one
 

Had this tonight.

Varsity Quad.

Team A has the following players get up off the bench to substitute: #8, #7, #1. #8 is the first to arrive at the substitution zone, but her substitution partner is still on the other side of the court, so #7, moves into the zone and #8 moves out. I authorize this substitution and send #7 in. #1 then goes in and I authorize her substitution. The coach then pulls #8 back and withdraws the substitution request. I, as the R2 have no problem with this, but my R1 issues a YUD and requires #1 and #7 to be removed from the match and their subsequent substitution partners returned to the floor. His rationale is that the player who was first to enter the zone and as a result be the substitution request was withdrawn, therefore no substitutions can take place. Coach does not agree, but given the situation doesn't make a big deal about it.

I can find in the casebook a circumstance in which the 2nd player comes up and is pulled back without penalty if it doesn't delay the set, but nothing about the first player in being withdrawn from a multiple substitution situation.

Certainly from a "game management" standpoint, I think you were right. And, I think you were also right from a rules standpoint.

If your partner wanted to give a YUD, he should have done so as soon as #8's partner was slow in getting across the court -- and then he'd be right (by rule) in dis-allowing the other substitutions.

My take
 

I agree with Bob, and disagree with your partner. However, I wouldn't make an issue of it right then. That's what a post-game is for.

The players self-regulated themselves in an effort to speed up the sub process, and now we're going to penalize them for it. Not in my book! Game management.

Rule 10-2 Penalty 2 says "After a team is charged with UD, no further substitutions may be requested by that team until the next completed rally.".

I have asked both my association president and the administrator for the state association about this and have received two slightly different responses.

officials association president: The UD should be issued for #8 being withdrawn, but the other two were legally entries therefore they should have been allowed to remain in the match at that point. The UD was not issued until after the other two legally entered, therefore it was not a subsequent request.


State association. No penalty should have been issued since all players had approached the zone at the same time. Since #7 and #1 went in and then #8 was withdrawn, the casebook situation 10-2-7-A was the basis for her ruling. Since there was no actual delay in the substitution procedure, the substitute can be withdrawn in a multiple substitution procedure.

The player who was coming off the floor did not delay in come over. IIRC not only was she on the opposite side of the floor, she had gone to get the ball from the other side of the gym. I am not penalizing the act of helping the game move along with an UD.

One thing about the new rule is the terminology. The rule says no subsequent substitution requests shall be granted. The act of multiple players approaching the substitution request isn't a subsequent request, it is a single request for multiple substitutions.

Had there been a delay between when #8 left the bench and triggered the substitution request and when #7 and #1 left the bench to substitute and #8 were withdrawn, then we would have had a subsequent request which we shouldn't have allowed anyway due to the fact they all did not report at the same time.