New NCAA Center Line Rule

[timasdf]

NCAA Exam Question: R-15 makes a save in the front zone. After the play, she slides and her upper body crosses the center line and touches the Team S court. R-15 does not contact any Team S player, but S-9 must step around R-15 to play the ball.

Answer Options:
IWP = Individual Warning or Penalty
PtR = Team R wins a point & the serve
DQ = Disqualification
RP = Replay
IR = Denial, Improper Request
L = Legal Play, Request or Action
DW = Delay Warning
DP = Delay Penalty
TO = Timeout
PtS = Team S wins a point & the serve
AS = Administrative Sanction

I would have answered answered PtS, if not for the very explicit definition of interference in Rule 15.2.3.

Rule 15.2.3 Interference
It is a fault to interfere with an opponent. Interference is defined as contact that hinders an opponent’s opportunity to play the ball. Inadvertent contact that does not affect an opponent’s ability to make a play shall not be considered interference. (bold and underlined emphasis mine)


I answered "Legal Play, Request or Action," based on the explicit definition of interference in Rule 15.2.3, that requires contact that hinders an opponent. The question specifically mentions that there is no contact. If the rules overlords want a whistle when interfering based on the traditional definition of the word, they should not specifically define it otherwise in Rule 15.2.3.

[bob jenkins]

From a coordinator's memo on 8/24 (the memo is 3 pages; this is just an excerpt):

Understanding “Contact” and “Imminent Contact”
When applying the current interference rule, “contact” should be understood to include “imminent contact” when avoiding that contact hinders a player's legitimate attempt to play the ball. Simply being near an opposing player does not constitute interference. However, if a player’s position or movement
causes an opposing player who has a legitimate opportunity to play the ball to stop, change direction, orotherwise alter their movement to avoid an imminent collision, the criteria for interference may be met.

[IK13]

This particular interpretation has been beaten to death.

The fact however that this year is “new rulebook” year, yet the older memos are not in it, does speak to the point of the original poster.

IMO, all relevant past rules clarifications etc. must make it to the new rulebook. Then the only “memos” you should have to consult with will be the ones pertaining to the new rulebook.

[bob jenkins]

Not that it will make anyone feel any better, but it’s the same issue in two other spots I work(ed), and I suspect it’s the same in all sports and levels. Imo, VB is not close to the worst in this regard.

[timasdf]

Originally Posted by IK13

The fact however that this year is “new rulebook” year, yet the older memos are not in it, does speak to the point of the original poster.

IMO, all relevant past rules clarifications etc. must make it to the new rulebook. Then the only “memos” you should have to consult with will be the ones pertaining to the new rulebook.

I agree completely. The rules interpretations should be to clarify those written rules, since something was missed or not sufficiently detailed in the publication of the biennial rule book.

The next rule book should either include the recent clarification or specifically disregard it. In no circumstance should any rules interpretation be valid beyond the publication of the next rule book.