Never seen before

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by FMadera

You can continue to disagree, and that's fine. You asked, I'm giving you an answer based on experience. Up to you what to do with it.

Felix, I'm not disagreeing with your answer. As I said in my very first post, I was 99% sure that's what the answer would be. What I am saying is that I feel like there should be some mechanism to get critical, non-judgment information to a referee to avoid a similar situation.

There's SO much responsibility on the R1 to call so much of the court. It just feels like we're limiting ourselves unnecessarily by not providing a way for the R1 to get information.

I just thought of this analogy. (So it might not be a very good one, but here goes.) In the Saints/Rams NFC Conference Championship game, near the end of regulation, when an OBVIOUS defensive pass interference foul was not called on the field. But there was nothing to do about it because PI is not reviewable by rule. There was an obvious call to be made, but there was no mechanism that allowed the officials to access the information to correct the call.

My play is exactly the same. There's an obvious call to be made, somebody HAS the necessary information, but the system doesn't allow the official to access the information.

Almost everybody realized almost right away that the NFL situation was ridiculous. Yet, we're fine with it in my situation. It just seems like there could be some fine-tuning.

I don't even know what the fine-tuning would be. I just hate the idea of getting to the locker room and realizing I missed a call when somebody on my crew could've saved me.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Felix, I'm not disagreeing with your answer. As I said in my very first post, I was 99% sure that's what the answer would be. What I am saying is that I feel like there should be some mechanism to get critical, non-judgment information to a referee to avoid a similar situation.

There's SO much responsibility on the R1 to call so much of the court. It just feels like we're limiting ourselves unnecessarily by not providing a way for the R1 to get information.

I just thought of this analogy. (So it might not be a very good one, but here goes.) In the Saints/Rams NFC Conference Championship game, near the end of regulation, when an OBVIOUS defensive pass interference foul was not called on the field. But there was nothing to do about it because PI is not reviewable by rule. There was an obvious call to be made, but there was no mechanism that allowed the officials to access the information to correct the call.

My play is exactly the same. There's an obvious call to be made, somebody HAS the necessary information, but the system doesn't allow the official to access the information.

Almost everybody realized almost right away that the NFL situation was ridiculous. Yet, we're fine with it in my situation. It just seems like there could be some fine-tuning.

I don't even know what the fine-tuning would be. I just hate the idea of getting to the locker room and realizing I missed a call when somebody on my crew could've saved me.

Perhaps the best takeaway here is include that in your prematch discussion, how to convey information in an unorthodox situation. I include, for example, as R2, how to tell my R1, "Look, I'm pretty sure there was a touch, but I'm not wanting to go alone on this, so if you have the same feeling, call touch, and I'll deal with the coaches."

Maybe if you can include these questions/answers in your prematch, it might help to lower the probability of something like this happening in your match in the future. Good lesson for everyone.

[john5396]

Scrapper,

At the top levels of our game, instant replay challenge would have allowed the officiating team to get your situation right, like the NFL is trying to do. At levels where I call, high school volleyball and baseball participants are just going to have to live with the hopefully rare bad call by an official.

your comparison to the Rams/Saints missed call, would be more like an assistant official, the chain gang in football, with specific and limited responsibilities to support the on field officiating team offering an opinion to the back judge that missed the PI call rather than a basketball official reaching outside of his area to get a call.

[PaREF]

I don't disagree with the idea of 'fine-tuning'. But just like everything else, the devil is in the details. Speaking specifically NFHS and NCAA, the R1 and R2 are assumed to be trained and paid officials. Line judges may or may not be trained and/or paid, so the level of expertise can vary widely and they are not held to the same standard as R1 and R2.

There are times when the line the line judge(s) is vastly more experienced than the R1 or R2 and there are times when the line judge has absolutely no training in volleyball whatsoever. My guess is that the rules-makers limit the line judge responsibilities due to the lack of expected or required training. If all line judges were required to have a certain level of certification then, perhaps their scope of responsibilities could be expanded.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by PaREF

I don't disagree with the idea of 'fine-tuning'. But just like everything else, the devil is in the details. Speaking specifically NFHS and NCAA, the R1 and R2 are assumed to be trained and paid officials. Line judges may or may not be trained and/or paid, so the level of expertise can vary widely and they are not held to the same standard as R1 and R2.

Another excellent point. Earlier in the thread, I said something like "you've got four very good officials out there. . ." and even at the time I typed it, I knew that was not always the case. (Is it always true in college matches? Probably not, I guess.) It happened to be true in the play that was originally talking about, but is an over-generalization for most of the time.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by FMadera

Perhaps the best takeaway here is include that in your prematch discussion, how to convey information in an unorthodox situation.

Great point, Felix. I've been LJ where I've had a really good pre-game, and when I've had a not-so-good pre-game. Adding "unorthodox situations" to the pre-game as an R1 is really good advice.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Great point, Felix. I've been LJ where I've had a really good pre-game, and when I've had a not-so-good pre-game. Adding "unorthodox situations" to the pre-game as an R1 is really good advice.

I guess we can make another thread about this if we wanted, but it's always good to know the importance of a good prematch.

If, as R1, your prematch with your R2 consists of "watch the net, watch the center line...," you could not have just had a worse prematch. Assume your professional partner knows the bare minimum about their job.

Your prematch should cover as many of the things that could get you in trouble as is reasonable to cover, and how to handle those things. As R2, ask questions your R2 didn't cover, talk about how you communicate certain things, go over, "If I do this, it means this, you should probably do this."

With your line judges, talk about how you want things communicated from them, how you will communicate with them, etc.

R2, talk to your scorers. They don't know what you want/need if you don't tell them, and you had better make sure you know what THEY need as well. Your job is to give them the info the way they need it, not for them to take it how you give it.

Et cetera.