Non-Discreet Awareness Notification?

[timasdf]

The only one of the NCAA/PAVO Officiating Techniques Quiz questions I missed was referring to the "Non-Discreet Awareness Notification."

What is the Non-Discreet Awareness Notification?

[FMadera]

Could you post the question?

Normally it would refer to something not overly subtle, like stepping out and signaling ball down on a pancake attempt.

[timasdf]

When a team is warned about a potential screen prior to the authorization for service, the first referee should use “Non-Discreet Awareness Notification” by speaking with the captain at the stand while showing the screening signal.
__ Correct
__ Incorrect


Note that neither the NCAA Rule Book, nor the PAVO Women's Volleyball Officiating Manual use the term "Non-Discreet Awareness Notification."

[bob jenkins]

From the national coordinator's postings on 7/23: (the formatting doesn't copy well; apologies for any errors as I tried to fix it)

SCREENING
• All original screening rules are still in effect. However, the addition to the rule states:

o No player on the serving team may have their hands above their head until the served ball crosses
the net. This includes all front row and back row players.
o There is no mention of path or trajectory of the serve.
o Early in the season, give plenty of verbal warnings:

§ Use “Non-Discreet Awareness Notification” when giving verbal warnings.

• Call the captain to the stand to give the warning while physically showing them
what are illegal and legal hand positions.
• The R2 should provide the same demonstration to the coach.

• If the team fails to heed your warnings, call the screen.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by timasdf

When a team is warned about a potential screen prior to the authorization for service, the first referee should use “Non-Discreet Awareness Notification” by speaking with the captain at the stand while showing the screening signal.
__ Correct
__ Incorrect


Note that neither the NCAA Rule Book, nor the PAVO Women's Volleyball Officiating Manual use the term "Non-Discreet Awareness Notification."

It just means that you overtly demonstrate the infraction that you're discussing with the captain so that the coaches of both teams see you and know what you're talking about.

And the answer to the question is "Correct". That's what they want us to do.

[timasdf]

Thank for the reference!

It's frustrating when there are official documents all over the internet that change the meaning of very clearly written rules and definitions in the 2026 NCAA VB Rule Book.

Is there any single resource that places all of these various documents in one place?

[IK13]

Originally Posted by timasdf

Thank for the reference!
It's frustrating when there are official documents all over the internet that change the meaning of very clearly written rules and definitions in the 2026 NCAA VB Rule Book.

Is there any single resource that places all of these various documents in one place?

Not to my knowledge.
One can argue that the NCAA central hub is close. You can get the current rules, interpretations, national coordinator's and other messages from there. But not the PAVO officiating manual AFAIK. Neither perhaps the PAVO line judges manual.

Published rules cannot be perfect. Needing some clarifications and interpretations is understandable and necessary.
But the level of nonsense coming with the current rules is a bit too much IMO and screams "job security" ...or incompetence.

[timasdf]

Originally Posted by IK13

But the level of nonsense coming with the current rules is a bit too much IMO and screams "job security" ...or incompetence.

I believe the problem can largely be attributed to the fact that the only people on the PAVO board are officiating elites. They are so busy with their very lucrative officiating duties, they don't have time to consider these finer details.

The coaches/administrators on the NCAA rules committee aren't typically rules verbiage experts. They are interested in making positive changes, but don't consider how vaguely-written rules can cause many problems. They also have duties they (quite reasonably) see as much more pressing.

Neither group seems to have the time or inclination to listen to the hoi polloi.

[IK13]

I agree. But I now believe it is more than that. There’s a sizable “job security” or incompetence part. Likely both. When I say incompetence, I don’t mean in officiating. I have no doubt that all are excellent referees. However, being good at applying rules does not make one good at writing them.

The “job security” part is stamped on pretty much anything they do.
Consider the R2 mechanics at the end of a rally (when R1 whistled it):

In FIVB - R2 moves to the side at fault. That’s all. Been like that for years now.

During this time, in PAVO:

• First, we didn’t have to move and we repeated the point and the fault
• Then it was “suggested” (or whatever the verbiage was) that we move, still repeating the point and fault signals.
• Forward to this year - move, don’t repeat the fault signal, but do repeat the point signal.

What do you think is coming in a year or two? I’ll tell ya - we’ll drop the point signal too. Job security.

Come to think of it of it - it actually illustrates the incompetence part quite well too…
Goes like this - if you had to drop only one of the signals (so you have something else to drop later), you’d think it makes sense to be the point signal. It is redundant. Moving to the side at fault already shows where the point is going.