Another R2 quandry

[Andy]

This is a related question to the other R2 thread, but I didn't want to hijack that one.

I was working a HS tournament last weekend, six matches in a row, best 2 of 3, first two sets to 25, third set to 15. I worked with the same partner for all six matches, we just alternated between R1 and R2. Decent level of ball, the better teams in the tournament were evenly matched.

For the three matches that I ws R2 my partner called several 4 contact violations where the ball was hit into the top of the tape and rebounded back into the attacking teams court. On most of these calls, I saw blockers up and a contact of the ball which would have nullified the 4 contact violations. As R2, I just went with his call.

Let me say that during a match, I will always support my partner to the coaches and players, but we will discuss things after the match. I did try to talk with him after the first match, but he didn't want to hear it. I (as R1) have always tried to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense on this particular play and allow the rally to continue.

Should I have handled this differently? If so, how? On the calls I am referring to, I was 100% sure that there was a contact of the ball by the defensive team.

[Scrapper1]

This actually happened to me yesterday. The ball hit the tape and I couldn't tell if the blocker got a piece of it. I let play continue and stared at my R2 as hard as I could, but he didn't offer any help. So I allowed the play to continue. The team with the potential 4 hits ended up winning the rally. I still don't know if I was right or not.

[Antonio.King]

Your reactions were correct. Another instance where a good prematch discussion helps.

When I'm the R1, I make sure to cover this topic. My usual discussion goes as follows: "For 4 contacts, we'll obvious work together. If it's closest to me I'll usually defer to my judgement. If it's on your side, I'll look to you if its in question. If you give me something, I'll go with it. If not, I'll most likely play on."

I prefer this method as the R1, especially since it caters to who's side the potential fault is closer to. It gives you both equal viewing opportunity and an equal amount of judgement.

As the R2, in the situation you mentioned, I would do the same: just bite the call and prepare to cover. Like I mentioned in the last thread, there are certain verbiages you can defer to to keep yourself out of the call. I've had to deal with this situation before.

The R1 called "4 hits" against the team on my right. The "fault" was on my side, so I had the better view. I saw it clearly touch the block, the team it was against clearly saw it hit the block, and even the team it was for knew it hit them. The coach approached me for an explanation, and in less than 10 words, my exchange was "My partner had it off the net."

If it were some extreme game changer, I'd ask to be invited across via whatever signal was discussed in the prematch and confidently say, "I'm 100% positive the block contacted that hit." Then it just lays with the R1. If he chooses to accept it, replay. If he chooses to reject it, go back and resume play.

Sometimes, coaches will approach you and ask what the result of the discussion was, and you can reply something along the lines of, "I thought there might've been a touch, but my partner clearly saw it off the net." As I was taught, it's not always about being right. It's more so about arriving at a mutual decision and continuing, and saving discussion for errors for the debrief.

[BigToe]

This is a bit off topic but I do think it relates. I have worked with many very good officials and most if not all of them tell me to call what I see, not what I think. The oddity to me is on 4 contacts specifically when we are talking about the ball hitting the top of the net. Several officials have said if they are not sure, they let play continue. I see this as a contradiction. Call what you see except when it comes to ball hitting top of the net. If that happens and you didn't see a touch but you are not sure, let play continue. I am not trying to start an argument or flame anyone. I just have a hard time wrapping my head around this.

As for ball hitting top of the next, I always call 4 contacts if I am not 100% sure there was no touch. I have worked with people that have let play continue unless they were 100% sure there was no touch. To each their own I guess.

[Antonio.King]

Originally Posted by BigToe

This is a bit off topic but I do think it relates. I have worked with many very good officials and most if not all of them tell me to call what I see, not what I think. The oddity to me is on 4 contacts specifically when we are talking about the ball hitting the top of the net. Several officials have said if they are not sure, they let play continue. I see this as a contradiction. Call what you see except when it comes to ball hitting top of the net. If that happens and you didn't see a touch but you are not sure, let play continue. I am not trying to start an argument or flame anyone. I just have a hard time wrapping my head around this.

As for ball hitting top of the next, I always call 4 contacts if I am not 100% sure there was no touch. I have worked with people that have let play continue unless they were 100% sure there was no touch. To each their own I guess.

Well let me ask you this: would you apply the same when judging other faults? If there's a back row attack and you're not 100% sure it was legal would you call it? Or you're not positive if the server stepped on the end line while serving, you'd call that one too? By that logic, you will get yourself in a world of trouble if you answered "yes" to any of these.

You have to give the players the benefit of the doubt unless what you see tells you otherwise. This is why it's nice to have a partner who can give you information for situations where you aren't 100% positive. I probably wouldn't say to adopt that practice for obvious reasons.

An official shall not whistle a fault if they are not positive a fault has occurred.

[BigToe]

King, I agree with you for the most part. I guess it is a matter of perspective concerning touches. S1 attacks a ball. R5 goes up to block. The ball lands out of bounds. S1 claims a touch occurred but you didn't see R5 touch the ball. I am assuming most officials would call that out since we didn't see the touch and for the sake of this argument, neither did your partner. Even though S1 is claiming there is a touch, I assume most of us would call that out of bounds on S1. I am having a hard time figuring out why officials use a different standard on balls hitting top of the net. S1 attacks a ball. R5 goes up to block. The ball hits the top of the net. You nor your partner see a touch. Ball either lands out of bounds on side S (and S1 is claiming there was a touch) or S1 plays the ball again. Most of the balls in this situation are close calls. Why in the first scenario do most of us call it out but in the second scenario some officials use the if I am not sure if there was a touch, I let play go on?

[Antonio.King]

Originally Posted by BigToe

King, I agree with you for the most part. I guess it is a matter of perspective concerning touches. S1 attacks a ball. R5 goes up to block. The ball lands out of bounds. S1 claims a touch occurred but you didn't see R5 touch the ball. I am assuming most officials would call that out since we didn't see the touch and for the sake of this argument, neither did your partner. Even though S1 is claiming there is a touch, I assume most of us would call that out of bounds on S1. I am having a hard time figuring out why officials use a different standard on balls hitting top of the net. S1 attacks a ball. R5 goes up to block. The ball hits the top of the net. You nor your partner see a touch. Ball either lands out of bounds on side S (and S1 is claiming there was a touch) or S1 plays the ball again. Most of the balls in this situation are close calls. Why in the first scenario do most of us call it out but in the second scenario some officials use the if I am not sure if there was a touch, I let play go on?

I hate encountering these situations, especially if there's no clear view of who contacted the ball.

Each of these is a little different in scenario. I'll paint out why, and if I miscue any of the scenarios that you mention, just let me know.
---------------------

S3 goes to attack the ball and R4 comes up to block. The ball lands out of bounds on team R's side (which side is also pretty important), though neither referee's are positive that a touch caused the ball to go out of bounds.

-- This falls in line with what I mentioned above. Giving the potential fault team the benefit of the doubt. There are situations where it'll go out off of a touch, or just off the net. If you see it go off the touch, then fault on team R, point team S. If you don't, you have to assume there was no fault committed by team R, and the actual error was with team S due to it going out of bounds. Fault on team S, point team R.

What's important in this situation as the referee is to be quick and decisive with your result, whether it's incorrect, or correct. If you blow your whistle to signal "dead ball", then you look to your partner for help, that shows a sign of uncertainty. There are scenarios where your partner is just as clueless as you are, so you don't have any help. You go by what you see. With these situations, I like to signal the player at fault since these are close. I saw it go out because of the Team S hitter, so I signal "Out", point at the team S hitter with an open hand, and then award the point to team R. If you're quick in making your signal, you'll rarely have any disagreement. The quicker you are, the more you demonstrate your confidence in the call, and that is something everyone can see. Don't ever let anyone but your partner influence your decisions on calls. This is why it helps if you make your decision quickly - no time for disagreements. You go by only what you and your partner sees, and if by chance that's nothing, you go with the obvious.

Now, taking into account your question, simple answer is because the ball isn't dead yet. In the situation where the team continues to play the ball, the ball is still live since there was no fault whistled. In the situation where the ball lands out of bounds, a fault has now been committed since it hit the floor, so the play HAS to be stopped. Now it's up to you to determine the cause of that fault. With the opposite situation, you have not positively and clearly identified a fault as you did with the ball contacting the floor. Since you're giving the team the benefit of the doubt, there's no reason to blow your whistle, so play continues until the next identified fault occurs (double, lift, ball in, etc).

When I'm the R1, what I usually do to help minimize dispute on the tough "4 calls" is this. If it obviously rebounds off the block and the team continues to play it, then I won't signal anything. Same situation, and all the players on the blocking team are now yelling "NO TOUCH" in the middle of the rally; if I'm letting play continue because of what I've seen to be a rebounded ball off of the block, while watching the rally continue, signal "touch" and pointing to the player that touched the ball, allowing the rally to continue without whistling "4 contacts." This also helps minimize confusion and dispute, especially on those that no one can see but you as the referee. If it's one of those (one's you can't really see; general audience), I'll usually signal "touch" right away, indicating the player on the blocking team and continuing to watch the rally for the next fault that occurs.

Hopefully that makes sense!

[BigToe]

Your response makes sense. I see your logic. I don't agree with how to handle 4 contacts as it relates to no block and ball hitting top of the net but I am happy to agree to disagree and say that I believe that both sets of logic work. In general, an official needs to take one stance and stick with it throughout the match to keep consistent.