Libero replacement and yellow cards.
 

Had a F/V Double last night. During Frosh match had visitor tryo pull the libero from LB to CB during the same dead ball. Home coach objects so I tell her I saw it and instructed V coach that to do that libero must sit out for one serve (rally). She does as I instruct, however I failed to penalize her with the unnecessary delay. Then home V coach complains saying that she must replace the same 2 players. I explain this is common practice but not necessitated by rule that she may replace any back row player. She proceeds to bring out her rule book then I show her under 10-4-1a. Frosh match end then I go to other gym where my partner was finishing the JV match to join him and both do the varsity.

During the Varsity match Libero replaces #3 goes to serve then when it comes time to rotate to LF libero comes out #3 goes to Substitution zone where #12 comes in. Home V coach goes nuts "she can't do that" because now #12 is really replacing the libero. #12 rotates back serves then libero comes in for #12. Coach argues that she can only come in for #3 at that positionbecause that exchange had already been made so I read 10-4-1b to her and explain that she may only come out when the player she went in goes back in but she may go back in for anybody. The frosh coach and I argue about it (she was the scorekeeper). V Coach tells the table to stop arguing with me I'm wrong and won't give in. We go back to game and I remember ex on page 59 show it to frosh coach who gets real doubtful because she was they were wrong!! I show Varsity coach who changes subject and says while your "playing" with the card on your wrist your missing girls in the net. Then I yellow card her. But I had forgotten my cards so I verbalized it to her and to the table that I forgot them and was giving her one.

Would it be wrong to tell coaches up front that if they question my rule knowledge they welcome to bring out the book but if they do they will be carded when the rule is found and they are wrong? Flip side If I were wrong I would correct the call.

I'll take a stab at this.

I'm not sure that I completely understand what you are saying here. If during a dead ball the libero is replaced in the LB position by the player she replaced that's okay. If the libero then just slides over to the CB position and that player leaves the court, you now have a problem, which you caught. So bring back the CB, direct the libero to the bench, assess the UD penalty (if you choose to do so) and play on. The next dead ball the libero can then come in for the CB.

Was the coach trying to say that the libero is limited to only replacing two specific players?

Legal replacement and substitution. #3 should make sure and enter the court in the replacement zone before reporting to the substitution zone.

Correct procedure. The coach may be under the impression that since the libero had already served for #3 she could only serve for the remainder of the game if she replaces #3 in the RB position. I have run into this misconception also when a coach thinks that the libero must replace a particular player in the serving order, when in actuality she can replace any player to serve in a particular position in the serving order.


Don't argue, you were right.

Yellow card.

Red card (because you should have already issued the yellow card). However, forgetting your cards doesn't help with building credibility with the coaches, not that they apparently are taking you very seriously anyway (that sounds mean, but it's not intended that way).

This discussion is unnecessary, the rule book covers how and under what circumstances a coach can challenge an official/rule and the penalty for doing so if the coach is wrong. See 11-3-1.

I did everything that you said except of course asses the UD (probabaly where my problems with not being taken seriously by her began). But are you calling this an option? Because as I understood it it was required and hence my mistake. I also explained the procedure to the visiting coach

Yes!


Done correctly



The way I understood it she was arguing that without even including the server in the discussion, saying that a substition would be necessary to have #3 come in for #12 then go to the libero, which we know is not necessary.



I took some extra crap because I forgot the cards (actually left them in the car my wife had).

Also after a discussion with the leagues assignor he told me he had two or three score sheets and libero tracking sheets in front of him where the visiting varsity coach had sent the libero in to serve then the girl she replaces goes to the LF position while that girls leaves. In essence that means that she got away with putting the libero in for a front row person and fliping the server and that front row person. I suspect that the home coach caught wind that she was doing something illegal (and getting away with it) with the libero and questioned anything not commonly practiced with the libero.

I also caught the visitor out of rotation three times and had the coach tell me they had been lining up all year like that and had never had a problem with it. Pretty bad when I have to explain rule 6-3-2b to a V coach. One was the setter so I don't know how it was missed even by guys who just keep in mind the setter and her opposite. I on the other hand prefer to go through the whole line-up with the way that is easiest to remember usaully making the line-up into a date or phone No. I practice this up top with out a card and have caught several alignments on the serving team this way.


Thanks for the reference on this one. But lets throw some curve balls here. What do I do if she had already used both timeouts? Do I give her the UD then go right back to the game or do I give her the UD after the giving her the TO and reviewing the decision. In this case I think she used one and questioned two of my decisions.

As a side note during a TO I want out to the stand and talked to the R and he asked "she don't like you does she?" I think she was still upset about some of my calls two weeks earlier including blowing an illegal attack for calling a FR player for putting the ball down that had not began to clear the net when no one was under her (I screwed that last part up and called it).

Note: In my state the coaches submit ratings on us and this comes into play deciding who gets state tournaments. When you have the nations winningest VB coach in your area and I've never gone toe to toe with him (I think that's how he wins is he coaches his team and not me), this woman wasn't even in the league below him.

I love working small schools! lol

I will give this one a try. If there is a UD called and the coach has no time out left, a point/loss of rally is issued and play begins immediately. Since there is no time out, you just show the signals, get the point on the board and get the next person to serve.

I might be totally off base on this one, but if the coach has no time outs left, the coach cannot use a time out to challenge a call made.

Yeah, you're right, you blew it :) , by rule UD would not be an optional (and usually I think in a very linear manner and I'm all about the rules), but in this case, in a freshman match, at this point in the season, and being lectured by a coach who doesn't have a comprehensive understanding of the rules, I wouldn't feel too bad about not assessing the UD if this was the first time it occurred and the offending team hadn't had other violations.

The coach is confusing "position" and "player"

I don't understand what the coach is purported to have done wrong. The libero does not replace a "person" per se, she replaces any player in specified positions on the court, such as the back row; or when serving, a specific location in the serving order (as determined by when she first serves).

I'm in my third season and I am still struggling to recognize alignment errors. The phone number method sounds like it might help, I think I will try that next week. Thanks for the assist.

The coach is allowed by rule to challenge the referee's application of a rule (but not judgment). There is nothing in the rule book that requires the coach to have a time out remaining to challenge an official's application of a rule. So, if the team is out of time-outs and the coach challenges and the referee reverses, everything is made right in the book and play continues. If the referee does not reverse then a LOR/point is awarded to the opponent and play continues.

Now I'm not sure how to handle a coach who repeatedly wants to review rule application. If the referee doesn't reverse, the coach is penalized by LOR/point to the opponent; should there be an additional punishment, such as UD, a card for the continual interruption of the game? I don't know. Maybe a couple of the experienced officials will comment.

The penalty if the coach is wrong is UD. If 8 incorrect reviews result in 8 UD's, then you impose 8 UD's (and the corresponding penalty for the UD), and nothing else.

You have penalized the delay. They are allowed to review incorrect decisions. If they are wrong, they are penalized. No need to interject additional (and incorrect) sanctions.

I'm not feeling well tonight so I may be a bit hypersensitive, but that sounds a little snotty.

The rule book identifies the penalty for the coach being wrong as the assessment of a time out, and if the coach doesn't have a time out than LOR/point; UD isn't even mentioned. UD is something else entirely.

So, in your example, 8 incorrect reviews does not result in 8 UD's and it's corresponding penalty; 8 incorrect reviews results in either the coach having to burn his remain time outs and when he no longer has a time out left, then LOR/point.

It seems unreasonable and flies int the face of common sense that the rules permit a coach to make repeated challenges of the officials'' rulings. So, when I commented on what to do with a coach who continually requests reviews and he consistently does not prevail, there is, by rule, a mechanism to deal with that type of situation:
1. An assessment of UD (in addition to LOR/point for the unsuccessful challenge). UD does not only apply to the listed violations ("Unnecessary delay includes, but is not limited to when:") or (and probably more appropriate)

2. The administration of a yellow or red card to the coach (in addition to the LOR/point for the unsuccessful challenge). 12-2-8l specifically addresses this situation and permits this penalty.

I think that 8 unsuccessful challenges goes beyond simply assessing the LOR/point; there is more to be addressed. A coach who does something like that is making a mockery of the game, and of the officials who permit it to continue.

Of course this is all just .02 from a newer official.

I think that you're misunderstanding Felix. I believe that his point is that the procedure for dealing with coaches' challenges provides them with no fixed number of challenges (as, for example, the NFL has).

When a coach loses a challenge, it's UD whether or not he has time outs remaining: the only difference is the penalty.

You might be right about 8 being excessive and unsporting; I suspect that Felix is not attached to that number.

It is a de factor UD, since the penalty is a timeout, and in the absence of a remainint timeout, yes, a loss of rally. Just like a UD. Perhaps the terminology wasn't perfect, but the penalty is the same.

Then please cite a rule that limits the number of times a coach may use this ability to challenge? Other than taking the time to review, the coach isn't gaining an advantage (the coach would be reviewing the decision with the officials, not coaching his team like a regular timeout). If a coach is willing to go that length and risk a point each time (thereby making it more difficult for his team to win), then it is entirely within their right to do so, whether an official likes it or not.

I threw the number 8 out here just as a random number. But to the point...you're actually going to assess an additional penalty for something that (a) the NFHS has not limited usage of whatsoever, and (b) there is already a penalty listed?

If a coach is wrong the first 3 times, and challenges a 4th time, are you going to deny the opportunity to challenge if he's right? Or are you going to card him only if he's wrong, thereby assessing a penalty that is above and beyond the specific penalty listed for the legal (albeit annoying) challenge.

And seriously, has anyone had more than one review in a match anyway? In over 3000 matches I've worked, I've had exactly two protests, none of them in NFHS. I really don't see this as being an issue, but the fact is, there is no limit in the rules to how many times a review can be requested.

The point is, no matter how annoying you find the reviews to be, no matter how often it's requested, so long as it's a review of an incorrect rule application (not a review of judgment), it's allowable, with the applicable penalty (and *only* that penalty) to be assessed if the coach is wrong. Anything assessed beyond that is incorrect (and technically, grounds for review in and of itself).

Annoying and inconvenient is not necessarily grounds for penalty.

It seems to me that the NF, after all these years, would have written UD in the penalty section on 11-2, if that is what they intended, so that officials don't have to say, "Yes, the rule says this, but what it really means is ..."

I think that a close review of the rule book makes it clear that UD is not associated with 11-3, and can be applied in addition to which ever penalty applies when a coach challenges and loses. Actually the case book describes this very situation in which a coach burns his last time out to challenge. During the challenge the coach argues his case beyond the allowable 60 seconds. The referee then charges him with UD and a point is assessed. So in this case the coach was assessed two penalties, the loss of the timeout for the unsuccessful challenge and a point to the opponent for the separate UD penalty.


I've never said that there is a rule that limits the number or times a coach can challenge, each challenge must be recognized and addressed. My point is that the rules provide for penalizing a coach who make repeated challenges intended to disrupt the game.

Similarly, there is no rule that limits the number of times a coach/player can take advantage of the re-serve rule, yet abusing (judgment) the re-serve rule is an unsporting act (12-2-8m & 12-2-9j); there is no rule that limits the number of times a coach/captain can request the serving order, yet excessive (judgment) requests constitute UD (9-9-1c).

The additional penalty, whether UD or a card, is assessed for the behavior exhibited by the coach when making repeated challenges (probably more so repeated unsuccessful challenges) that unnecessarily delays the game (UD), or is done so in an effort to disrupt the game (an unsporting act, 12-2-8l).

I'm never going to deny the coach the opportunity to challenge; but by the time this happens for 4th, 5th, 6th, or whatever time, whether the coach is successful in his challenge or not, I am going to judge whether or not the coach is doing so for the purpose of unnecessarily delaying the game and/or in an effort to disrupt the game. And if, in my judgment, I believe one of those to be true, the rules allow (require?) me to penalize the coach for that conduct, whether that penalty be UD, or a card for an unsporting act.

It's my opinion that any discussion that puts our heads into a rule book and promotes discussion and analysis of the rules has value regardless of how often the situation may come up.

I believe that the rules allow an official to judge the coach's purpose/conduct behind making repeated requests and also allows for additional penalties based upon the official's judgement of that conduct.

But unnecessarily delaying and/or disrupting could be.

Well, you're free to do what you want. I disagree with your statement, but you are free to work a match as you please.

I am curious, however, what rule you would use to justify to an evaluator your decision to sanction a *legal* request by a coach, and what rule allows you to "judge the coach's purpose/conduct behind making repeated requests."

The *legal*ity of the request isn't the issue. Within the framework of this discussion you can't ignore the fact that the rule book allows a coach/player to be penalized for *legal* requests if, in the judgment of the official, those *legal* requests constitute UD or are an unsporting act.

As I mentioned in my last post, re-serves are *legal* and there is no defined numerical limit on the number of times a coach/player can take advantage of the re-serve rule, yet abusing the re-serve rule is an unsporting act (12-2-8m & 12-2-9j). Along the same lines, requesting the serving order is *legal* and there is no defined numerical limit on the number of times a coach/captain can request the serving order, yet excessive requests constitute UD (9-9-1c).

In both of the above situations the official must "judge the coach's purpose/conduct behind making repeated requests"; is the coach abusing the re-serve rule .. is the coach making excessive serving order requests.

So, I would justify my decision to penalize repeated unsuccessful challenges in the same manner as I would justify my decision to penalize any other *legal*, yet abusive or excessive request. I would tell the evaluator that based upon the repeated unsuccessful requests to continually review rules, I felt that the coach's conduct/purpose in making those requests was in violation of one or both of the following rules:

1. That the coach's purpose was to unnecessarily delayed the game in violation of 9-9-1: "Unnecessary delay includes, but is not limited to when:".

2. The coach's conduct disrupted the game in violation of rule 12-2-8-L, "Making any excessive requests designed to disrupt the game;".