R1

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by bbman

So, it is permissible for the head coach to request a time out, go over to the R1's stand to question a call (by the R1), as long as it is immediately after that specific call.

Yes, but not if it's about judgement. It has to be to discuss a misapplication of a playing rule, not about them not liking your judgement.

Example:
They cannot come over to complain about ball handling.
They *can* come over to discuss if you allowed a back row player to illegally attack in the front zone, if you said it was legal.

In other words...this should almost never happen.

[bbman]

Got it, Thank you

[genetoy71]

Originally Posted by FMadera

Example:
They cannot come over to complain about ball handling.
They *can* come over to discuss if you allowed a back row player to illegally attack in the front zone, if you said it was legal.

In other words...this should almost never happen.

So you're going to let a coach approach the stand and ask you about a back row attack AFTER you signaled legal? Not me. That's judgement.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by genetoy71

So you're going to let a coach approach the stand and ask you about a back row attack AFTER you signaled legal? Not me. That's judgement.

It might (would) depend on why you said it was legal. "The ball was below the height of the net" -- sure, don't let the coach come over.

"It wasn't a third hit and the player didn't mean to hit it over so it can't be an attack" -- sure, the coach gets to come over.

And, yes, it's a little convoluted given the specific example given. But, the point is accurate.

[genetoy71]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It might (would) depend on why you said it was legal. "The ball was below the height of the net" -- sure, don't let the coach come over.

"It wasn't a third hit and the player didn't mean to hit it over so it can't be an attack" -- sure, the coach gets to come over.

And, yes, it's a little convoluted given the specific example given. But, the point is accurate.

But intent of the back row player doesn't matter. Only ball position relative to the height of the net and player position relative to the attack line matter. If a back row player didn't mean to attack but she attacked according to the rules then it is still an attack.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by genetoy71

But intent of the back row player doesn't matter. Only ball position relative to the height of the net and player position relative to the attack line matter. If a back row player didn't mean to attack but she attacked according to the rules then it is still an attack.

I know the rule. You know the rule. Felix knows the rule.

The hypothetical referee or coach in this thread might NOT know the rule. One or the other might make that statement.

If it's the referee, the coach has the right to protest to get the rule right. If it's the coach, s/he's still protesting about a rule--and will lose the protest and lose the TO (and if s/he has already used the two TOs will get a delay sanction).

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by genetoy71

But intent of the back row player doesn't matter. Only ball position relative to the height of the net and player position relative to the attack line matter. If a back row player didn't mean to attack but she attacked according to the rules then it is still an attack.

If a coach wanted to protest that intent mattered, that would be a valid protest.

They'd lose, but since it's a question of correct/incorrect interpretation of the rule (and not judgement), it would be an allowable protest.

Judging ball height would absolutely not be grounds for a protest.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by genetoy71

So you're going to let a coach approach the stand and ask you about a back row attack AFTER you signaled legal? Not me. That's judgement.

No, I meant as in saying that something that is illegal to do was legal to do, when it is not.