Strange situation

[BigToe]

King, by rule, I think you are correct. Of course, I have a problem with that rule since the coach actually gets the time out and because it is a time out, she can then make the correction. If we were able to ignore her time out, then her team would have been penalized for either 5 second count or illegal Libero replacement.

If I thought her time out request was made knowing she heard my whistle, I would have yellow carded her for unsportsmanlike.

[Antonio.King]

Originally Posted by BigToe

King, by rule, I think you are correct. Of course, I have a problem with that rule since the coach actually gets the time out and because it is a time out, she can then make the correction. If we were able to ignore her time out, then her team would have been penalized for either 5 second count or illegal Libero replacement.

If I thought her time out request was made knowing she heard my whistle, I would have yellow carded her for unsportsmanlike.

True, however, she didn't even need the timeout to make the correct exchange since your R2 acknowledged her request. So essentially, she got away with a delay. If I were the R1, I would've let the rally progress after they initiate the re-serve, then issue a time out at the next dead ball as well as sanction with a yellow card for unsportsmanlike conduct.

In this order:

- Motion everyone back onto the court
- Call captain over to the stand and your R2
- Explain why you're issuing a yellow card and that the next dead ball will result into the unnecessary delay's forced timeout. "Your coach's actions are unsportsmanlike, thus you are receiving a yellow card. The time out will be forced subsequent to the next dead ball."
- Hold up yellow card (and verbalize? I think you verbalize in HS)
- Beckon for serve
- Award the point as appropriate
- Forced time out against that team

It wouldn't be a big deal if your R2 didn't acknowledge it. Since they did, that makes it worse, so I think a YC AND the forced timeout is adequate punishment, especially since your initial beckon for serve whistle was well before she called for the TO.

[MCBear]

Sorry, Antonio, but in this instance you are totally incorrect. We can not double penalize a team for a single infraction. The R2 screwed up by blowing the whistle for a Time-Out after the beckon for serve...BIG TIME! However, once the error was discovered, the teams return to the court immediately...by Rule 9-9-1, no unnecessary delay has occurred, so that is not an option. In addition, since we don't know what the coach was thinking, a yellow card is unwarranted...no unsporting act has taken place...the R2 simply made a major error!

Originally posted by BigToe: After all the players get back on the court, coach makes correct Libero replacement with the two middles. We let the exchange happen because of inadvertent whistle and replay.

Even though you know that the team had wrong players on the court when you beckoned for the Libero to serve, once your R2 blew the whistle for the Time-Out request, they were allowed to correct their mistake legally. Normally, nothing can take place after the beckon for serve, except that your R2's error totally killed that. You are correct that the result is considered to be a replay and the exchanges are legal.

[Antonio.King]

Originally Posted by MCBear

Sorry, Antonio, but in this instance you are totally incorrect. We can not double penalize a team for a single infraction. The R2 screwed up by blowing the whistle for a Time-Out after the beckon for serve...BIG TIME! However, once the error was discovered, the teams return to the court immediately...by Rule 9-9-1, no unnecessary delay has occurred, so that is not an option. In addition, since we don't know what the coach was thinking, a yellow card is unwarranted...no unsporting act has taken place...the R2 simply made a major error!


Even though you know that the team had wrong players on the court when you beckoned for the Libero to serve, once your R2 blew the whistle for the Time-Out request, they were allowed to correct their mistake legally. Normally, nothing can take place after the beckon for serve, except that your R2's error totally killed that. You are correct that the result is considered to be a replay and the exchanges are legal.

Thanks for clarifying!

[BigToe]

Jan, I don't have the rule book in front of me but was looking at it yesterday regarding this situation. Since I blew the whistle for serve and then all these shenanigans took place before the ball was ever served, wouldn't this we a reserve as opposed to a re-play? On a reserve, no exchanges, time outs, libero replacements can take place. If this is the case, I should have not allowed the replacement after everyone came back on the court and then beckoned for serve and then issued a illegal alignment penalty.

If I remember correctly, the re-serve information is the the Serve section of the rule book.

[TimTaylor]

I believe Jan is correct - will take a look at it tonight. FWIW the R2 really screwed the pooch on this one - I hope you had a serious heart-to-heart with them.......

[illini]

rule 5.3.3, case book page 17, situation C after the first referee whistles and signals for the serve, the second referee sounds the whistle for a substitution.
Ruling: incorrect procedure, the ball is dead, substitution is denied, and a new whistle and signal for serve is given.

In my defense on this rule, I am substituting the word sub for time out, in either case the 2nd referee blew a whistle. By rule, you recognize the whistle, replay, sub and or time out is denied!

I do agree with MCbear, that no card is warranted in this situation. However, disagree with the fact the statement it is a free pass of allowing the subs. It is an inadverant whistle by R2, replay any corrective actions/timeouts are denied, by rule.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by MCBear

by Rule 9-9-1, no unnecessary delay has occurred, so that is not an option.

To play devil's advocate, 9-9-1 lists instances in which unnecessary delay can be charged, but also says "but is not limited to..."

There was a delay. And it certainly was unnecessary. So one could easily make a case for this being an unnecessary delay.

Just saying.