PAVO RefSchool Questions
 

Starting my 2024 review (well, I had started, but was using the 2023 RefSchool software; now using the updated version). Expect multiple questions. ;)

Here's the first:

S-12 was replaced by exceptional substitution early in the first set. Later in the first set, S-12 has recovered and enters the substitution zone to return to play. The second referee should deny the substitution request and ask the first referee to assess a delay sanction since a player replaced by exceptional substitution may not return to play in that set. Correct or incorrect?

I had INCORRECT -- it's an improper request per 6.2.2.7. The software indicates the referee was CORRECT (delay sanction) with a reference of Rule 11.3.6.1.3 -- which only indicates that the injured player may not retrund and doesn't seem to specify the penalty.

Question 2:

R-5 jumps from behind the attack line to attack a served ball. R-5 contacts the ball while it is entirely above the top of the net and entirely behind the attack line. The ball hits the floor of Team S's court. The first referee indicates that Team R wins the rally. Is the first referee’s decision correct or incorrect?

I said INCORRECT. I's not a fault for attacking a serve (that needs to be in the front zone in college), but R-5 is a back row player (per the key at the beginning of the case book section).

The software says the decision is CORRECT.

Question 3:

When opposing teams each request a substitution during the same dead-ball period, the second referee always blows a separate whistle for each team's request. Is the referee’s decision correct or incorrect?

I had been taught that this is CORRECT for NCAAW (incorrect for HS). Did I learn this incorrectly?

USAV requires separate whistles for each team's sub requests. NCAA does not. I think NFHS does not, but I guess I'm not sure about that.

It sounds like a back row player jumped from behind the attack line and contacted the ball when it was behind the attack line. That all seems perfectly legal to me.

I would also have assessed an IR instead of a DW. Interested to hear Felix's take on why the card is assessed.

NFHS does not -- at least here. And, I found out today that either I was told incorrectly or I heard incorrectly. One double-whistle only. in NCAA.

doh!. Rif.

It kind of implies the second referee acknowledges the request, though it would help if it stated that. If an illegal substitution is acknowledged, a delay sanction is appropriate.

See 14.5.2. The decision is correct. It's the ball position, not the player's rotation position.

You learned incorrectly. USAV/FIVB is the only rule umbrella that requires the requests to be separate.

If there's a quite a delay (not delay sanction level) between one team's sub and the other, you might want to whistle the second side, just to make sure the first referee doesn't assume you're done and try to whistle for service before the second team subs.

It does...until you read 14.5.2.

14.5.2 Attacking the Serve
It is illegal for a player to complete an attack-hit on the opponent’s service while the ball is in the front zone and entirely above the top of the net.
(Bold/underline emphasis mine)

Thanks for all the help so far.

Question 4:

A substitute for Team S enters the substitution zone, and the second referee whistles to acknowledge a substitution request. The second referee then notices that the substitute has a tongue piercing. The second referee denies the substitution request and indicates to the first referee that Team S should be sanctioned with a delay. Is the second referee's action correct or incorrect?

I said "incorrect" -- studs (an assumption on the tongue piercing) are allowed above the chin (also an assumption). The school has "correct." Wrong assumptions, or am I misunderstanding the rule?

Edit:

The next test I took had this question:

After a substitute for Team S enters the substitution zone, the second referee notices that the substitute has a piercing post in her tongue. The second referee denies the substitution request and signals the first referee to assess a delay warning to Team S. No other team sanctions have been assessed to Team S in this set. Is the second referee's decision correct or incorrect?

Here, the answer is "Incorrect" with a note that "A piercing post or stud worn above the chin is permitted. " So, unless I am mis-reading (entirely possible), the first question seems to be wrong.

Right, but part of the question stipulates that the ball is behind the attack line. So the player jumped from behind the line, and the ball is behind the line. Which is why I indicated that it was legal.

I agree that the first answer was a mistake. The tongue stud is legal in my match.